This is the third post processing the recent articles from Andy McCullough on changes he believes are necessary for Newfrontiers to decolonise apostolic ministry (please read the previous articles: part one; part two).

---

Bias can be a loaded term. Generally used as a negative and only one step away from an ‘ism’ (racism, sexism, tribalism etc..) we must when we use the word, use it pretty carefully. Bias could be, as Andy suggests, our subconscious working to comfortable default patterns but if the bias moves into objective conscious thought then an ‘ism’ is close at hand. I’m working on the assumption that the bias Andy sees happening is a challenge to our ‘comfortable defaults’ and not as a result of anything more pernicious.

Andy sees bias in two different ways, firstly recognition bias.

But why does our “global” movement have a disproportionately high number of global north people recognised as apostles? And why are so few recognised apostles from the global south? Why does a white person who plants 1 church get called apostolic, whilst an African sister or brother planting and serving dozens of churches across several nations does not?

Perhaps it is because our definitions and expectations render it easier to recognise this gift in global north men. There are certainly English people who think they are apostolic who probably are not, and majority world brothers who are definitely apostolic but unrecognised, within our family. Just as the death of one white person will make the BBC news, while the deaths of thousands in Yemen or Bangladesh rarely does, there is an injustice at work here.

Now I don’t know about his claim that someone white who plants one church is called apostolic, maybe Andy is overstating it, but if he has heard that then well, back to school for us because that would be silly. This sort of affinity or recognition bias is usually quite hard to see, defaults are embedded and hard to self-evaluate. I suspect there is also a proximity bias at work in that geographical closeness allows mutual support and understanding and those that are far away are not seen nearly often enough, so therefore they need to do more to catch our attention. Then there is the western habit of leaders making short trips because of our busy schedules. We’re supporting a Sudanese leader here in Sweden and he’s just heading back to Sudan for 3 months. And yes that means he’s leaving his wife and family behind because just as ministry shouldn’t be an idol nor should home and family. The truth is you can’t really know anything in many parts of the world based on a week long trip once a year. It needs to be well, longer by weeks and not days! Interestingly those sort of longer trips of months and years have been actually been key to the growth of Newfrontiers internationally. Many of our leaders have done this but I haven’t heard of it for a while.

As an aside I don’t actually agree with Andy’s analogy and example comment about the BBC because news is always first and foremost local before it is global and is not a comment or reflection on the value of the people elsewhere to whom something invariably bad is happening.

Andy then asks these probing questions:

Is it possible that this bias is at work in both including those who do not merit it, and excluding those who do, in our perception of who is apostolic? Could this bias even be colouring how we read and teach about Paul, and therefore our definitions and expectations of authentic apostolic ministry?

The only honest answer has to be, ‘yes it is possible’. If so then the only remedy is a continual reading, re-reading and reevaluation of what we mean by ‘apostolic’. I think it would be great to see the humility to not lay claim to this as a title or a status which I’ve definitely witnessed, but let the fruit of our ministries do all the talking.

The second form of bias that Andy sees at work is organisational bias.

There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that apostles lead organisations. In the European brain, “apostle” is a kind of “leader” and “leaders” have organisations, but this is a Western, not necessarily a Biblical set of connections. In the European brain, if a “sphere” is an area of activity or influence (II Cor 10:13), then it must necessarily be a bounded set (you are either in our sphere or not) with exclusive membership (you cannot be “in” two different spheres). 

This is a good illustration of where we might need to learn some cultural flexibility but also be aware of the legal contexts in which we’re in. We haven’t yet found or seen a model of co-operation in Western contexts that can be done without an organisation. Policies, tax advantages (gift aid in the UK), legal requirements, safeguarding, accountability, insurance considerations of which are hardly at the top of the apostolic agenda are nonetheless part and parcel of organisational life in highly regulated, bureaucratic, and well resourced societies. I think it would require a fundamental rethink, which in itself might not be a bad idea, of what our conception of what apostolic ministry does. My hunch is that it is our thinking around the resourcing, and envisioning of whatever that is, is what inevitably leads to the creation of an organisation because we do not know how to do that without one. Different questions might get us different answers.

And then Andy makes the insightful comment that this way of thinking does not always translate.

Many brothers I know are much happier with a view of the world wherein one does not always have to choose between influences, and where keeping one’s options broad is wisdom. So, rather than being told to choose between “fathers” (I Cor 4:15), some friends have told me that if we want to pursue the family metaphor, family is less nuclear and more extended in many parts of the world. And it is perfectly acceptable to love, respect and receive from many uncles. Hence the discomfort arising from being asked to choose one “father” or “belong” to one “sphere.”

I personally was pushed to choose a sphere 11 years ago and it was a distinctly uncomfortable experience and that had a negative impact on ministry in Sweden. We were forced to choose between Apollos, Cephas and Paul!!

Lastly on this theme Andy says it all smells colonial with people in Britain drawing straight lines and carving up territories with no regard to local realities or sensibilities. Well, maybe, maybe not but perception is reality and all that, so no matter how hard someone might protest that was not the motive, that is what it might look like.

I suspect a cascading set of unintended consequences is at work. The early failure or slowness to recognise non-western apostles meant that in terms of relationship people & churches had no choice but to connect to an organisation that was centred geographically, relationally & theologically in the UK or West. Over a decade that will then create further pains in the body. Some stretching is required to sort those kinks out.

Andy says, “However, I do believe that some of the colonial mindset, as discussed in the two areas of bias above, has caused pain and, unless addressed, will continue to cause pain into the future.” If this is so, I hope Andy is giving examples and telling people involved and helping be a voice and advocate for those whose stories he has heard. We cannot simply say something is so, we must if we are to understand and therefore change, see it to be so. Only when confronted by the unintended hurt from the unintended consequences of operating from a comfortable default way of thinking will we collectively see the what, the where and the why of the problem. That’s an uncomfortable process but it is almost always the path towards greater health and maturity. I’m hopeful that we will choose that path.