Celtic Evangelism

Okay, I SO do not want to be the only contributor to this blog...I already have a blog of my own...


That being said, I also don't want to wait months and months in between posts. I know you guys have amazing things going on in your heads. Let's see what you make of this:

In preparation for my upcoming trip to Ireland, I've been reading George C. Hunter's "The Celtic Way of Evangelism," and I'm about halfway through it now.

I am loving it.

I've heard a little about St. Patrick, and his productive efforts to evangelize the Celtic tribes of Ireland, but I'd never really heard what his methods were. So get this: he took a group of people with him to Ireland, and they would set up camp near a village or tribe, and then set about engaging the people. They used the arts, offered assistance where needed, and generally began building relationships. When they began to accumulate converts, they would welcome them into their camp. When they had enough, they'd build a church. Then they would leave a few of their number behind, to pastor the church, and take some of the new converts with them to the next location. They did this for 28 years.

The generations after Patrick decided to follow his example, and take the gospel to the Picts, Britons, and Anglo-Saxons. They used a similar model, in that they would build communities in accessible places near towns and tribes. Though these were called "monasteries," Hunter is quick to point out that they were radically different from the Eastern, Roman version of monasteries. He calls them "monastic communities," because instead of being places of solitude and escape from the world, they were idealistic, diverse communities who welcomed guests and seekers. They contained a few monks and or nuns, but whole families often resided within.

These people lived out their lives in close community, and worked out their faith together. Their "monasteries" were examples of an "alternative" lifestyle, and pointed expectantly to Eternity. Their days were spent in work, worship, fellowship, and study. Perhaps most importantly, they continued to engage outsiders and draw them in. The Celtic model of evangelism started with relationship, and worked its way down through questions and conversation, to finally offering them a chance to make a decision about salvation. They were not exclusive; unlike much of today's Christianity, they didn't wait for people to join them before including them in the community.

Thus Christianity spread throughout Ireland, Scotland, Britain, and onto other parts of Europe. People who were once thought of as too "pagan" and "uncivilized" to receive the gospel would build predominantly Christian nations. So what happened?

After a few hundred years of this kind of evangelism, Rome put the kibosh on it. Why? Because they weren't doing it the "Roman way." They pressured these monasteries to adhere to the Roman standards, and eventually rendered them ineffective (at least in evangelistic terms).

As I read that, I got really mad. To me, those communities sounded just fantastic. People living, working, praying, and learning together, and engaging the communities to draw people into the truth--it sounds a lot like the early church to me! And then forcing everyone to do things the "Roman" way just disgusted me. Maybe I'm a little touchy about it, because I've been undergoing a similar assimilation, but that just seems wrong to me. I mean, it's not like Christianity even started in Rome! To me the Celtic way makes more sense--they lived in the land and got to know the people, and adapted to them, instead of making them do things that were culturally irrelevant to them. It's like the missionaries who make converts in Africa use the organ in their worship, instead of their native drums.

Obviously I can't sum up the whole book in one post, but I'm finding it fascinating, and I have a feeling you guys would, too. Hunter's whole theory is that this kind of evangelism could be effective again, now, to this post-modern generation. I keep hearing people talk about trying to make post-moderns more rational, and I feel like they're missing the point. Instead of trying to make them something they're not, in order for them to understand the gospel, why not find more relevant ways to engage this culture?

I don't believe this means watering down our faith; instead, I think it require this kind of "living it out." I keep hearing from younger generations how disillusioned they are with the church and religion and everything else. They need to see people actually practicing what they preach, and not chasing down material pleasures.

I don't know. I love, love, LOVE the idea of this kind of evangelism, as opposed to how the church normally does it. And by "love," I mean "am considering doing it."

What do you guys think?