In modern times, an "indigenous" Church is commonly thought to be one that meets the "three selfs" ideals - namely, "self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating". Smalley (1992, p. C-149) states that in the thinking of many people, such an indigenous Church is perceived to be the goal of modern missions.

Yet, these three characteristics are not diagnostic of such a Church; and not only this, such elements are in reality independent variables. They may well, and perhaps should, be present in an indigenous Church, but it is wrong to define an indigenous Church solely as one that meets these criteria – certainly, this definition makes no mention of culture.

Rather, an indigenous Church is defined by Smalley (1992, p. C-152) as "a group of believers who live out their life, including their socialized Christian activity, in the patterns of the local society, and for whom any transformation of that society comes out of their felt needs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures".

It is important to explore the meaning and ramifications of this definition, which will explain why a missionary is not able to establish such a Church.

A BIBLICAL INDIGENOUS CHURCH

A clear example of an indigenous Church is easily found in the New Testament – namely, the Church in Jerusalem. In fact, this Church was so strongly Jewish, that the members resented the conversion of Gentiles unless they joined the ritual adherence to, and performance of, the law, required by Judaism.

Yet, Paul taught in his Gospel – from revelation - that Gentile converts need not be circumcised as the law of Moses required for Jewish people. Further, the Christians need not meet in the Synagogue but could form their own associations and use their own buildings. Paul emphasised that the moral content of the law was what was important – not the actual framework of the accompanying ceremony.

This was significant, because the apostles had previously grappled with the issue of making Gentile converts conform to the standards required for Jewish people. Hence, the indigenous Church continued with an important message, but saw its expression in ways relevant to its membership.

The New Testament, thus, repudiates the views of the Judaizers, and proceeds to set up the Church as a group of believers within its own society.

THE THREE-SELF VIEW

The "three-self" view as explained earlier was brought about in the middle of the last century, and early in this century by Henry Venn, Rufus Anderson and Roland Allen (The Lausanne Committee, 1992, p. C-181).

This view was in response to prior thinking that generally assumed a missions-produced Church would reflect the Churches in the home nation. Indeed, such Churches were very often strict replicas, including the forms and manners of ceremony and worship.

The underlying assumption that produced this was that the Bible was specific about all such matters – and that the home Church was exemplary in keeping such instructions - and so a monocultural system existed. Yet, the Bible does not give instruction as to the order of a ceremony or the implements to be used. Further, the thinkers mentioned above argued that the apostle Paul planted Churches, and did not simply establish mission stations. They also argued that indigeneity was indispensable to the growth of the Church in maturity and in mission.

The "three-self" view gained wide acceptance as time progressed. Yet, in modern times this view is being criticised and re-considered. It is important to note that the ideal itself is upheld – a Church and Christward movement that has grown so much that it is entirely self-sustaining, and producing its own mature leadership is a positive and desirable thing. However, the way it has been applied has not always been good or constant. Indeed, the Lausanne Committee (1992, p. C-181) refer to some missions that have accepted the need for indigenous leadership, but have then trained local leaders in Western ways of thought, and of practice. Hence, a Western-looking Church has still been produced, despite the label that is given.

Smalley (1992, p. C-150) outlines problems whereby a distinctly non-indigenous Church arises, but yet still well meets the "three-self" requirements. A Church movement may be "governed" by foreigners.

Hence, a new concept of indigenous Church life was required – one that permitted each Church to discover and express itself as the Body of Christ, within its own culture. The fundamentals of the Gospel remain constant, but cultural distinctives are preserved, and adapted, to the Gospel message.

THE DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE MODEL

Every communication has a meaning – that which is actually being uttered, and also a form – how the meaning is actually expressed. The field of Bible translation has produced terms such as "formal correspondence" and "dynamic equivalence". The former refers to a very literal translation, that may not be understood by contemporary readers but is faithful to the text, whereas the latter refers to a translation that expresses the meaning of the original text in contemporary forms.

These terms have been applied to missionary Church planting such that a "dynamic equivalence" Church is one that adheres to the essential meanings and functions of the Church, as given in the New Testament, but yet expresses these in culturally-relevant forms.

The Lausanne Committee (1992, pp. C-182–183) identify several strengths and weaknesses of this model.

Firstly, this model rejects rigid structures and artificially-imposed foreign imports of such. It looks towards the New Testament for the principles of Church formation, but yet looks to the local culture for the expression of such.

However, it is not certain that this model by itself is large enough or dynamic enough to provide all the guidance for indigenous Church formation that is needed - especially so because a Bible translator has a clear source, and relatively clear target. Yet, the Church planter has merely scanty sketches of the operation of the New Testament Church, and the target culture is not entirely objective.

Yet, this model still enables God’s people to express their faith in culturally-relevant forms, without diluting or compromising the authentic Gospel message. Hence, this model is helpful and suggestive.

THE NATURE OF AN INDIGENOUS CHURCH

Again, Smalley’s (1992, p. C-152) formulation of an indigenous Church is "a group of believers who live out their life, including their socialized Christian activity, in the patterns of the local society, and for whom any transformation of that society comes out of their felt needs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures".

One notices the emphasis on society, and Smalley continues, to make the progression that a society has patterns of interaction among people. If the society (and Church) is indigenous, then those patterns will be based upon such patterns that exist in the local society. This can only be true, because people develop habits and mannerisms and absorb culture during their development. These are naturally carried into Church life (and most all areas of life). If different behavioural patterns are forced upon a Church – whether consciously or otherwise – then the Church simply cannot be indigenous.

A further implication of this definition is that the Holy Spirit will be the agent of a change, as the Christian community matures and become disciples. He will help the people adapt their culture to appropriate forms of Christian expression, and He will also convict the people of expressions that are not appropriate, and must be relinquished. The Holy Spirit meets the needs and fulfils meanings of a society.

CHURCH PLANTING

An important implication of Smalley’s definition is that a missionary cannot "establish" such a Church. Such a Church can only be planted. The missionary just is not competent nor qualified enough to make decisions of form, having little or no real knowledge of the cultural background of the people, or individuals.

Further, Smalley (1992, p. C-156) argues that such a Church starts apart from missions. Smalley provides several examples of people movements begun by non-missionary Christian workers. It is not so clear that these examples are conclusive, because a Church cannot always start independent of mission, for the hearers may have no significant Gospel message before the arrival and work of a missionary in their midst.

However, it must be understood that missionaries are not merely non-cultural evangelists devoid of value judgments. Rather, Kietzman and Smalley (1992, p. C-161) emphasise that the missionary actually has an extremely important position, knowing alternate forms of cultural behaviour to the Christians in a society. The missionary has a responsibility to provide the material upon which the native Church can grow, to the point where they are capable of making their own wise and Spirit-led decisions. Hence, the missionary has a role of catalyst and as a source of new ideas.

CONCLUSION

Smalley (1992, p. C-157) implies that to define an indigenous Church by the "three-self" model is to demonstrate paternalism, and even to refuse to allow Churches to grow, and to distrust the Holy Spirit with society.

It is true that the "three-self" model is insufficient, and an indigenous Church is not fully defined by such relatively generic terms. However, it is a useful model that does encourage high ideals. It was a positive reaction from an archaic mission-station approach that failed to recognise people and Christward movements.

The greatest problem with the "three-self" model was in reality the way movements might loosely adhere to it, or unwittingly continue to produce Westernised Churches, though technically producing a "three-self" compliant Church.

The definition given by Smalley earlier goes much further in defining an indigenous Church and identifies the valid roles of the individual believers and the Holy Spirit in producing an authentic Biblical Church that uses culturally-relevant forms of worship and expression.

Ultimately such a Church can never be produced by the missionary – because it is culturally-relevant. Unless a missionary can become fully bicultural they will always remain an outsider. They cannot determine or dictate the forms that the people will use. Instead, the Holy Spirit will guide them in living out their Christian faith according to the simple and traditional ways that the people act and live already. Indigenisation and contextualisation will occur instead of Westernisation.

WORKS CITED

davidmwilliams@oocities.com