“To Set at Liberty Them That Are Bruised”: Evaluating the
Activist Missiology of Samuel G. Pinnock in Nigeria, 1889-1924
Melody Maxwell, East Texas Baptist University
How should Christians relate to the secular order in societies where Christianity is not the
prevalent faith? This question is a relatively new one for believers in the West, where various
expressions of Christianity have dominated the religious landscape for centuries. Especially
in the United States, until recently a “Christian culture” has been assumed in everything from
literary allusions to store hours. Even Baptists, with their origins as dissenters, gradually
became an entrenched part of the unofficial religious establishment in the nation, especially
in the Southern states. Southern Baptists, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, in
1978 were called the “Catholic church of the South,” 1—the predominant religious body that
helped determine the way of life for the region’s inhabitants. In the course of just a few
decades, however, this situation has changed significantly.
While some vestiges of so-called “Christian culture” remain, especially in the South, the
American church (whether Catholic or Baptist) no longer provides what Joseph Ratzinger
referred to as “the form of life for the whole society.”2 In fact, recent polls indicate that only
40 percent of Americans consider religion and regular attendance at religious services to be
an important part of their lives.3 No longer are religious values assumed of American civic
1
Martin E. Marty, “The Protestant Experience and Perspective,” in American Religious Values and the
Future of America, ed. Rodger van Allen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 46.
2
Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium (San Francisco: Ignatius,
1997), 164.
3
Gallup poll, March 27, 2012.
leaders and organizations, despite the fervent efforts of leaders of the Religious Right during
the final decades of the twentieth century to “take back what is rightfully ours,” as Jerry
Falwell put it.4 Indeed, these leaders’ idea of “Christian America” is considered quaint or
ridiculous by many twenty-first-century Americans, who increasingly accept and celebrate
religious pluralism, agnosticism, and atheism. The Christian faith has lost its pervasive
influence within American society.
In response to these changes, Christian leaders might understandably lament the numbers
of Americans without a biblical faith commitment. But instead of arguing vociferously to
bring back an earlier era of American life, as the Religious Right has done with limited
success, Baptists and other Christians must more wisely seek to be the “salt of the earth” in
the contemporary culture in which they find themselves. These “small, vital circles of really
convinced believers”5 must seek to faithfully incarnate the gospel while living in a society
with values and beliefs that are increasingly different from their own. In so doing, they will
not only live out their obedience to God, but they will also demonstrate genuine Christian
commitment to many who have never seen it—in the hopes that others might “see [their]
good deeds and glorify [their] Father in heaven.”6
Many of today’s American Christians, accustomed to a position of cultural influence,
may at first find this situation uncomfortable and struggle to find models of effective
minority witness. However, such a situation is anything but new to Christians in much of the
world, where believers have long grappled with issues related to living in predominantly non4
5
6
Jerry Falwell, “Sermon,” March 1993.
Ratzinger, 164.
Matthew 5:16.
Christian cultures. Multiple questions of contextualization emerged as Western missions
pioneers first proclaimed the gospel in new regions around the world, from Brazil to Burma
and beyond. For example, how should Christians live as “the salt of the earth” in cultures that
incorporate practices they consider morally wrong, such as infanticide or foot binding?
Should missionaries seek to right injustice through local political channels, or are their
activities better limited to the spiritual realm? How is the Christian witness best incarnated in
societies where concepts such as sin and redemption are foreign? Such questions of
Christianity and culture have concerned missions leaders for more than 200 years.
Twenty-first-century American Christians, then, would do well to explore various
historical and contemporary missiological approaches to contextualization—the process of
incarnating the gospel appropriately in a culture other than one’s own. Baptists, with their
strong emphasis on mission work, should be especially familiar with such strategies. One
historian has called the SBC “the most intensely missionary denomination”;7 to date, few
scholars dispute this analysis. Thus an examination of Baptist missiology will prove useful to
Christians seeking to live as the “salt of the earth” in diverse contexts. Accordingly, this
paper will explore various models of contextualization and will then analyze the missiology
of Samuel G. Pinnock—a colorful and controversial missionary to Nigeria from 1888 to
1924—with consideration of these models. Finally, the paper will draw conclusions from
Pinnock’s legacy that will be relevant for individuals seeking to faithfully follow Christ in
today’s post-Constantinian age.
7
Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 666.
Models of Contextualization
From the beginning of the modern missionary movement in 1792 through today’s era of
globalization, various missionaries have adopted strikingly different approaches toward the
non-Christian societies in which they have served. Some missionaries have fully adopted the
dress, food, and customs of the people around them, while others have preferred to model
Western Christianity to the indigenous peoples from within their walled missionary
compounds. Even today, missiologists debate the most appropriate methods of church
planting in non-Christian contexts, with especially heated discussions about to what extent
individuals can remain within a Muslim cultural context and follow Jesus.8 Can a Christfollower continue to go to a mosque, while secretly praying to Jesus? Or should converts turn
away from all their former cultural and religious traditions in order to truly follow Jesus?
While such conversations are not new, they have become more plentiful over the past
several decades, as missiologists have begun to incorporate insights from disciplines such as
anthropology into their work. Beginning in the 1970s, scholars of mission began using the
term contextualization to describe attempts to situate the gospel message within a particular
cultural context. According to the Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions,
contextualization is a tool “to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of
what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every
human situation.”9 Missionaries contextualize the timeless gospel message as they attempt to
8
See John Travis, “The C1 to C6 Spectrum: A Practical Tool for Defining Six Types of ‘Christ-Centered
Communities’ Found in the Muslim Context,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34, no. 4 (October 1998): 407-408;
and subsequent debates in missions journals, books, and blogs. Christianity Today even featured this topic as its
cover story in January 2013.
9
Dean Gilliland, “Contextualization,” Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, ed. Scott Moreau (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 225.
spread this truth in ways that are appropriate and understandable to the contemporary
cultures in which it is introduced.
While missiologists have proposed a variety of models of contextualization,10
Paul Hiebert, one of the foremost scholars of the topic, utilizes in his writings a schema that
simply and usefully describes three primary approaches toward contextualization. Hiebert’s
seminal essay “Critical Contextualization” outlines and traces the development of the
approaches he titles noncontextualization, uncritical contextualization, and critical
contextualization.11 Historically, at least a few Baptist missionaries have taken each
approach.
Hiebert correctly identifies noncontextualization as the primary missions strategy from
around 1800 to 1950—a lengthy period that, not coincidentally, occurred with the era of
Western colonization. Contextualization in the modern sense was not a primary concern of
early missionaries, whether they were affiliated with Baptists or another group. These
missionaries instead took a negative view of the cultures in which they served, often
requiring converts to abandon all of their traditional practices and adopt Western dress,
customs, and liturgy. These requirements stemmed from the missionaries’ earnest desire to
rid Christianity of any associations with practices they considered pagan, including music,
celebrations, ancestor worship, and other customs. For example, Asa Cabaniss, a Southern
Baptist missionary to China, expressed such a view in 1854 when he asserted that “there is
need of a general upheaving and overturning of society—a breaking up of old customs,
10
See A. Scott Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012).
11
Paul G. Hiebert, “Critical Contextualization,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 11, no. 3
(July 1987): 104-112. See also Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
1985), and many of Hiebert’s subsequent writings as well.
12
modes of thinking, &c., to pave the way for something new in the Chinese mind.” Most
Baptist missionaries during this period had similar beliefs about the people among whom
they served. Like many other missionaries at the time, most Baptists established compounds
with Western-style houses and churches from which they felt they could advance both
Christianity and “civilization.”
As misguided as such efforts may appear to many twenty-first-century interpreters, it is
important to understand them within their own historical context. Views of Western
superiority were widely promulgated by missions leaders and others throughout the
nineteenth century; contemporary understandings of culture guided missionaries to believe
that all people were progressing toward the “civilized” ways that came along with Western
culture.13 In addition, missions leaders were sincerely concerned that converts leave behind
their non-Christian ways and fully embrace the life-changing message of the gospel. This
meant adopting an entirely new way of life. A few missionaries who instead adopted native
dress themselves stirred controversy as others worried that they were becoming ineffective
and setting themselves up as the objects of ridicule. While noncontextualization is less
common today, some fundamentalist missionaries oppose indigenous practices that others
accept, such as the use of wine in Communion or the wearing of clothing or hairstyles that do
not meet their strict standards of modesty. Within the American context, a strategy of
noncontextualization leads Christians to reject all elements of what they consider to be
secular culture, from clothing to music, movies, and other entertainment. This approach
12
Asa Cabaniss, quoted in “Proceedings of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Southern Baptist
Convention, Held at Washington, Georgia, April 22, 1854,” Solomon Databases, International Mission Board
Archives and Record Services, http://archives.imb.org/solomon.asp.
13
Hiebert, “Critical Contextualization”: 105.
resembles what H. Richard Niebuhr characterized as “Christ against culture” in his classic
work Christ and Culture.14
A second missiological approach to culture is designated by Hiebert as uncritical
contextualization. Uncritical contextualization is in many ways the opposite of
noncontextualization. In this approach, a missionary accepts uncritically the traditional
practices and values of the people among whom he or she serves. Because of a concern to
respect the culture, the missionary does not require significant life change of new converts.
For example, converts may be allowed to continue to wear amulets, to visit traditional
healers, and to participate in ancestor veneration. In some instances, missionaries may feel
more comfortable with development work than with gospel proclamation, allowing
individuals to simply add Jesus to the pantheon of gods they already worship. A significant
danger of this approach is syncretism—the mixing of Christianity with other faith traditions.
Uncritical contextualization has been more common in recent decades than in earlier years,
and is more likely to be found among mainline groups than among conservatives. However,
Baptists and other evangelicals who allow secret converts to maintain a full Muslim identity
are arguably guilty of uncritical contextualization as well.15 Within the American context,
this approach is common among individuals who call themselves Christians, but exhibit no
behaviors or beliefs that distinguish them from the non-Christians around them. To use other
terminology, uncritical contextualization is similar to Niebuhr’s “Christ of culture.”
Hiebert’s third approach is known as critical contextualization. In this mediating position,
14
Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1951). See also Craig A. Carter, Rethinking
Christ and Culture: A Post-Christendom Perspective (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2007).
15
See the SBC International Mission Board’s guidelines on contextualization at
http://imb.org/main/news/details.asp?StoryID=6197.
missionaries and indigenous Christian leaders examine the traditional culture in light of the
gospel, prayerfully deciding which elements can be incorporated into Christian practice and
which should be modified for believers. For example, critical contextualization may
encourage the use of indigenous music in worship services while discouraging Christians
from participating in traditional rituals to ward off evil spirits. Proponents of critical
contextualization often speak out about elements of the traditional culture they believe are
unbiblical or harmful. Historic Baptist missionary William Carey, for example, worked to rid
Indian society of the practices of caste, child sacrifice, and widow burning, while at the same
time embracing the traditional Indian style of ballads, which he used to create songs about
Christ. Critical contextualization has been the goal of the majority of missionaries who have
served since the mid-twentieth century, when contextualization first emerged as an important
missiological concept. Within American culture, critical contextualization might include
using selected movie clips as illustrations in worship services, while urging Christians to
marital fidelity instead of the sexual immorality prominent in broader culture. This view best
aligns with Niebuhr’s strategy of “Christ transforming culture.”
While the categories of noncontextualization, uncritical contextualization, and critical
contextualization aid in the analysis of historical and contemporary missions efforts, students
of missions history must proceed with charity, mindful that such ideas were not prevalent in
earlier years. Historic missionaries cannot be held to contemporary standards. However, the
examination of past missionary efforts is both possible and helpful for Christians seeking to
contextualize the gospel message as a minority group within their own culture. As the
following pages will demonstrate, analysis of the missiology of Samuel G. Pinnock, historic
Southern Baptist missionary to Nigeria, provides insights into both helpful and unhelpful
contextualization strategies that can inform Christians seeking to be the “salt of the earth”
today.
The Missiology of Samuel G. Pinnock
Englishman S. G. Pinnock first traveled to Nigeria, West Africa, in 1888 as a missionary
of the Wesleyan Missionary Society of England. 16 Within three years, however, he grew
convinced of believer’s baptism, became a Baptist, and joined the missionary force of the
SBC’s Foreign Mission Board, to whom he was “highly commended.”17 Southern Baptists
had been active among the Yoruba people of Nigeria since 1850. Through this people group,
they believed “the gateway to the great unevangelized heart of the Dark Continent swings
open.”18 Pinnock and his wife, the former Madora Corstin,19 joined the growing number of
Southern Baptist missionaries seeking to convert the men and women of Africa, beginning
with the Yoruba.
From the beginning of his service with IMB, Pinnock was known for his close
identification with the Yoruba people. According to mission historian Cecil Roberson,
Pinnock “had their confidence and understood their language and customs to a degree seldom
16
Basic facts about Pinnock’s life are taken from his book The Romance of Missions in Nigeria
(Richmond: Foreign Mission Board, 1917).
17
“A Few Facts,” Foreign Mission Journal, October 1891, 68.
18
T. B. Ray, “Forward,” in Pinnock, Romance of Missions.
19
Cecil Roberson, A History of Baptists in Nigeria, West Africa, 1849-1935 (unpublished), 150. This book
and the letters and minutes cited below are available at the Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives in
Nashville, Tennessee. The Pinnocks’ two sons, Harold and Carey, lived in Nigeria briefly but spent much of their
childhood in England with family friends.
20
acquired by outsiders.” Multiple observers commented on Pinnock’s mastery of the Yoruba
language, and “native workers” among the Yoruba regarded his friendship highly even while
complaining about other missionaries.21 Though he lived in mission compounds set apart
from the indigenous people, as did other missionaries of the time, Pinnock cultivated close
relationships with the Yoruba that diverged from his contemporaries’ mission strategy of
noncontextualization.
Like William Carey, Pinnock demonstrated an active concern for justice for the people
among whom he served. On multiple occasions, he reported taking actions beyond the scope
of evangelism and church planting in order to save individuals from difficult situations that
were considered acceptable in their non-Christian culture. Polygamy provided the context for
some of these events. In 1892, for example, Pinnock learned that a Yoruba king planned to
strangle eight of his wives and leave their bodies “for the vultures to feed upon”22 because he
believed one of them had been unfaithful. Instead of ignoring this deed or condemning it
privately, Pinnock took action. He quickly traveled to the palace and reasoned with the king,
ultimately convincing him to end the senseless killing of his wives. In this way, Pinnock
worked to save not only the souls of his converts, but also the bodies of these women who
would have otherwise been murdered. He interpreted the message of the gospel as calling
him to bring not only spiritual but also physical deliverance to those in need in a nonChristian land.
Three years later, fighting broke out between local Yoruba rulers and their British
20
21
22
Roberson, History of Baptists in Nigeria, 146.
See, for example, L. O. Fadipe to Pinnock, December 23, 1904.
Pinnock, Romance of Missions, 63.
colonizers. The people of Oyo, where the Pinnocks served, were caught in the midst of the
conflict. Instead of trying to escape, as other missionaries might have done, Pinnock reported
“attending the wounded, comforting the hearts of the people and trying to restore quiet and
order.”23 In his memoir, he later recounted seeing twenty-five “shackled slaves” hobbling
down the road the day after the conflict erupted.24 Pinnock again acted swiftly and decisively.
He asked the government’s permission to free the slaves, and then went to work chiseling
away at their chains himself. When the task proved too difficult, Pinnock called in all the
blacksmiths he could find to assist him. That night, he reported, “a pile of shackles lay on the
verandah of the Mission House and our hearts and hopes revived.”25 Not only spiritual but
also literal freedom were Pinnock’s concerns; he apparently believed that the gospel brought
liberation in this life as well as the next. Pinnock critically contextualized the Christian faith
among the Yoruba by fighting for justice for those whom society abused.
This was not the only occasion on which Pinnock worked to free slaves from among the
Yoruba people. According to Roberson, “the lot of household slaves appealed to Pinnock,”
and he made possible their release on several occasions.26 In one letter Pinnock spoke of a
“slave woman . . . indebted to me for her manumission.”27 This woman apparently had been
sexually abused by her master, who had threatened to shoot her before Pinnock intervened.
23
Pinnock to R. J. Willingham, November 18, 1895.
24
Pinnock, Romance of Missions, 75. In his 1895 letter, Pinnock recalled the number of slaves as
“hundreds.”
25
26
27
Pinnock, Romance of Missions, 76.
Roberson, History of Baptists in Nigeria, 144.
Pinnock, “A Morning’s Work,” May 21, 1902.
Mission policy probably did not recommend getting into a dispute with an armed man, but
the discovery of injustice stirred Pinnock to action with little regard for the consequences. As
he later asserted, he believed that “God is on the side of right and justice.”28
In 1902 Pinnock similarly intervened in the case of a man whom he believed had been
wrongly accused of theft, which had resulted in the “practical and hopeless slavery” of three
members of the man’s family.29 Pinnock worked for several months to pay their debt and
redeem all three individuals from bondage. He reported that once released, the accused man
“stood up in the church to thank God for his deliverance.”30 In this instance, the truth of
God’s freeing of individuals from sin was manifested among the Yoruba through the physical
deliverance of a family from slavery. Clearly, Pinnock was not afraid to challenge the unjust
conventions of the non-Christian culture in which he lived in order to demonstrate the good
news of the gospel in tangible ways. Indeed, his acts of justice doubtless brought to faith
some who would not have otherwise listened to his preaching.
When Pinnock saw what he perceived to be injustice in Yoruba society, then, he did not
hesitate to take action. His colleagues were not always so quick to act. Roberson spoke of the
“inordinate, unrestrained manner in which Pinnock had identified with the Nigerians”;31 he
and other missionaries were more hesitant to get involved in local affairs. They urged
moderation and restraint, while Pinnock plunged in headfirst. FMB policy at the time
actually forbid missionaries from involvement in political issues, but this did not stop
28
29
30
31
Pinnock to Willingham, October 18, 1909.
Pinnock to Willingham, June 30, 1902.
Ibid.
Roberson, History of Baptists in Nigeria, 147.
Pinnock from opposing a new king who came to power in Oyo in 1905. Indeed, in a later
letter Pinnock articulated his policy “to be just to all . . . and if a Mission Rule conflicts with
these [sic] principle the rule must be ignored.”32 Thus Pinnock had no hesitation about
working to liberate what he believed was the “whole country groaning under the iron rule of
the new King.”33
According to Pinnock, King Lawani oppressed the poor, fined the innocent, sanctioned
arson, and governed harshly in numerous other ways. Not content to maintain a low profile
as the other missionaries did, Pinnock went to work writing magazine and newspaper articles
denouncing the king’s injustice and calling for reform. Soon, as Roberson put it, Pinnock
emerged as a “champion of human rights”34 among the Yoruba, while King Lawani’s
reputation deteriorated further. When the king complained about Pinnock’s aid to one of his
victims, the missionary responded that his work was “to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to
heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives . . . . to set at liberty them that
are bruised.”35 Such a statement made explicit the biblical basis upon which Pinnock
believed his efforts rested. To Pinnock, the gospel could not be effectively communicated in
a culture without boldly confronting the injustices he found there—no matter the cost.
Indeed, Pinnock discovered the cost of his campaign against King Lawani in June 1909,
when the ruler forcibly expelled Pinnock’s family and their belongings from the mission
house at Oyo and forbid them from returning. On June 13, Pinnock sent a telegraph to R. J.
32
33
34
35
Pinnock, “Re: S. G. Pinnock Mission Policies,” 1921.
Pinnock, Romance of Missions, 82.
Roberson, History of Baptists in Nigeria, 145.
Ibid. See Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18.
Willingham, corresponding secretary of the FMB, which read simply but urgently, “Ejected
urge investigation Washington.”36 Over the course of the next several months, Pinnock
repeatedly insisted that he receive a fair trial and be restored to his former position in order to
bring, as he put it, “freedom from oppression to the people of Oyo; liberty to the subject;
security of property; and a great advance of the cause of God.”37 Again Pinnock appealed to
the Bible’s call for justice to justify his actions—ones that other missionaries found extreme.
In his characteristically brash manner, Pinnock avowed, “We must win this battle for
freedom and justice or close down the African mission.”38 However, rather than triumphing
in this fight for justice, Pinnock found himself required by both the FMB and the government
to pledge that he would not live in or visit “any part of the country [governed by] the Alafin
[King] of Oyo.”39 The actions that Pinnock had considered heroic were apparently regarded
quite differently by others. His efforts at identifying with the Yoruba people had arguably
crossed the line from critical into uncritical contextualization.
Though prohibited from entering Oyo, Pinnock continued his missionary service in other
areas of Nigeria for several years, winning many converts while occasionally clashing with
other missionaries. In the early 1920s, however, his close identification with the Yoruba
people led to several significant conflicts within the mission—and charges against him.
Among other allegations against Pinnock, “some of his [Yoruba] workers are receiving more
36
37
38
39
Pinnock to Willingham, telegraph, June 13, 1909.
Pinnock to Willingham, July 30, 1909.
Pinnock to Willingham, October 28, 1909.
Pinnock to Willingham, June 7, 1912; Henry Lambert to Pinnock, August 3, 1912.
40
[payment] than is authorized by the Mission.” Pinnock, the other missionaries alleged, paid
his “native workers” an amount larger than the budgeted salary, despite reprimands from the
Mission. Pinnock argued that the cost of living in his area of Nigeria was higher than
elsewhere, requiring him to pay higher salaries to workers who “cannot well live on less.”41
“I have before explained,” he reminded his accusers, that “to be just to our faithful helpers I
have had to break a rule.”42 In Pinnock’s thinking, justice for the Yoruba again triumphed
over all other considerations, negating even mission rules when necessary. Pinnock’s
approach to ministry in Nigeria was becoming increasingly different from that of the
organization with which he served.
Around the same time, Pinnock was charged with supporting the ordination of a Yoruba
church leader that the Ordaining Council of the mission had not approved. The council
claimed that the candidate for ordination “did not have moral courage to stand up against
43
[polygamy] and other immoralities in the church.” Pinnock, however, argued that the
candidate had been an outstanding leader for thirteen years in a church that then had no
pastor. “The need is urgent,” he claimed; “the man approved by God and the churches.”44
Under Pinnock’s guidance, the church proceeded with the ordination. In the ensuing conflict,
several Yoruba church leaders passed a resolution declaring their “every confidence in him
[Pinnock] and his method of work, especially his sympathetic attitude toward the
40
41
42
43
44
Louis Duval to Foreign Mission Board, January 14, 1921.
Pinnock, “Re: S. G. Pinnock Mission Policies,” 1921.
Ibid.
Minutes, Called Meeting at Ogbomosho, January 14, 1921, Afternoon Session.
Pinnock, “The Ago Owu Question,” 1921.
Independent Churches.”
45
But many missionaries likely agreed with Roberson, who fumed
that “no matter what the elements in the situation, he [Pinnock] took the side of the African
against the Mission or one of its missionaries.”46 Differences in mission strategy over the
years had festered into personal conflicts between missionaries that could not easily be
resolved.
Most significantly in the mission’s eyes, Pinnock was criticized for having “never taken a
47
decided stand against polygamy in churches under his control.” Indeed, he was accused of
administering the Lord’s Supper on one occasion to individuals whom he knew were
polygamists. This allegation was serious; the mission had taken a strong stand against
polygamy throughout its history. Its 1903 resolution on the topic read:
Whereas polygamy is a great evil in this country, and whereas we believe it to be
contrary to the spirit of the teachings of the New Testament, and whereas if allowed by
the churches, we believe it will be their spiritual ruin, therefore be it resolved that, we
advise against receiving polygamous persons into church membership, and further
resolve that, we advise that the hand of fellowship be withdrawn from persons who go
into polygamy.48
That polygamy was mentioned so frequently in the missionaries’ writings demonstrates that
it was a recurring problem among their converts, and one which missionaries struggled to
address. Pinnock himself noted that there was “no limit” to the number of wives Yoruba men
45
“Resolution,” Nigerian Baptist Convention, February 4, 1921. An earlier split in the mission had led
some churches to assert their independence from the missionaries’ control.
46
47
48
Roberson, History of Baptists in Nigeria, 185.
Minutes, Called Meeting at Ogbomosho, January 14, 1921, Evening Session.
Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the African Mission, 1903.
49
might have, although most had “fifteen wives each.” However, the missionaries believed
that polygamists who became Christians should give up all but one wife. They adopted a
strategy of noncontextualization, declaring that polygamy was an unbiblical aspect of Yoruba
culture that should be eliminated from Christian practice.
Because of the many polygamists who attended worship services at Yoruba Baptist
churches, in 1918 the mission declared that polygamists could become “friends” of the
church, a new category created for “those who do not meet the requirements of church
membership but who believe in Christ.”50 However, polygamists were not allowed to
participate in baptism or the Lord’s Supper, ordinances which were reserved for church
members only. Thus when Pinnock apparently allowed polygamists to partake in the Lord’s
Supper “without even a protest,”51 he encountered serious opposition from other
missionaries. In response to these accusations, Pinnock countered that he disapproved of
polygamy, and had not known that the polygamists had planned to participate in the Supper.
However, he also contrasted his method of “moral suasion” toward polygamists with the
mission’s “big stick” method, as he put it.52 In Pinnock’s opinion, a “quiet, earnest talk with a
brother who has more than one wife”53 was more effective and appropriate than threats and
withholding of church funding. Pinnock rejected the strict methods of the other missionaries
in favor of a gentler approach to contextualizing the gospel.
49
50
51
52
53
Pinnock, The Yoruba Country (London: Joyful Noise Book Depot, c. 1892), 23, 24.
Minutes of Called Meeting, Oyo, January 16, 1918.
Minutes of the Mission Meeting Held at Ogbomosho, July 10, 1922.
Pinnock, “Re: S. G. Pinnock Mission Policies,” 1921.
Ibid.
The mission, however, was not satisfied with what Pinnock called his “human treatment
of all classes of our native people.”54 They were also not persuaded by the Yoruba leaders at
one mission meeting, who according to Pinnock explained that “they did not need to be told
what kind of man Mr. P. was—they had known him for thirty years and loved and trusted
him.”55 Instead, mission leaders informed Pinnock that “unless he can make unmistakable his
disapproval of polygamy in the churches and cooperate harmoniously with his fellow
missionaries in accordance with the policies observed by the majority of them, it is best for
the Cause that he retire from the field.”56 The conflict between Pinnock and the other
missionaries over appropriate strategies in relating to the Yoruba people had come to a
climax, with neither side willing to reconcile. Though Yoruba leaders approved of Pinnock’s
methods of contextualization, his coworkers found his efforts and his disregard of mission
policies appalling. Thus in May 1925, Pinnock submitted a letter of resignation to the FMB,
adding that “we have our reward in the loving gratitude of our African churches and native
workers.”57 Although his fellow workers disapproved of his strategies, Pinnock implied, the
Yoruba people’s devotion to him proved his methods to be ultimately correct.
Thus ended the missionary career of a remarkable individual who spent thirty-seven years
serving in Nigeria. Because of his affinity with the Yoruba people, Pinnock advocated for
justice for the mistreated, including slaves and victims of physical and sexual abuse. While
his missionary colleagues focused their efforts on spiritual transformation and avoided
54
55
56
57
Pinnock, “Remarks on Certain Resolutions Passed at the Awo Mission Meeting in July 1922.”
Pinnock to T. B. Ray, April 16, 1921.
Minutes of the Mission Meeting Held at Ogbomosho, July 10, 1922.
Pinnock to Foreign Mission Board, May 2, 1925.
entanglement with controversies in local culture, Pinnock did not hesitate to campaign
against what he considered to be an oppressive regime. In addition, Pinnock disregarded
mission policy—but appealed to what he believed to be a higher standard of justice—by
overpaying Yoruba workers, ordaining a Yoruba believer that the mission had rejected, and
allowing polygamists to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Despite repeated rebukes by other
missionaries, Pinnock refused to change his methods. As one of his colleagues noted, “It is
hard work trying to put a giant in a little two by four straight jacket.”58
Was Pinnock’s identification with the Yoruba people a helpful corrective by a “giant” of
the faith to other missionaries’ inaction and rejection of indigenous culture? Or were his
efforts more aptly characterized as rash and rebellious? In a sense, accurate analysis of the
situation is more difficult for twenty-first-century interpreters than for Pinnock’s
contemporaries, since many details of his story have been lost to history. However, it is also
true that the passage of time grants new perspective to Christians attempting to find
appropriate models for contextualizing the gospel. Pinnock’s ministry comprised an
intriguing mixture of heroism and impetuousness that provides insight into missions
strategies both past and present.
The events surrounding Pinnock’s missionary service exemplify the struggles of a
growing mission among a largely non-Christian people. Unfortunately, conflicts among
missionaries (and indigenous workers) are common in such settings, with the stress and
isolation they often involve. Christians seeking to be the “salt of the earth” in predominantly
unbelieving contexts must beware internecine fighting that can damage their witness and
58
Unknown author, “Notes on Minutes of [1923] Mission Meeting.” The author added that “this latter is a
personal and not an official comment.”
distract from their purpose. In Pinnock’s case, a repeated disregard for mission policies often
unhelpfully pitted believers of different cultural backgrounds against each other. Pinnock’s
habitual defiance of his community’s guidelines was not a strategy worthy of emulation, past
or present. In fact, it is difficult to blame the FMB for requesting his resignation.
Other elements of Pinnock’s mission strategy were not exemplary. In his affinity for the
Yoruba, Pinnock occasionally tended toward uncritical contextualization. Pinnock’s efforts
to publicly discredit the unjust king—to the point of his own expulsion—demonstrated his
extreme and arguably excessive identification with the Yoruba people. Pinnock’s colleagues
reported that he seemed unable to disagree with the Yoruba on any significant matter, instead
advocating the people’s perspective until he jeopardized his own missionary career. This was
also the case with Pinnock’s alleged condoning of polygamy, which did end his missionary
service—although Pinnock’s description of his views on this issue seems less harsh than the
apparent attitudes of his colleagues. While all the details of this situation are unclear, it is
obvious that Pinnock consistently and unashamedly adopted the perspectives of the Yoruba
people as his own, sometimes to the detriment of his well-being. His actions alert Christians
today to the potential dangers of identifying too closely with the non-Christian culture in
which we find ourselves.
However, many of Pinnock’s bold efforts are worthy of both commendation and
emulation. His repeated attempts to bring about justice in Yoruba society exemplified what it
means for Christians to be the “salt of the earth” amidst the compromises of the surrounding
culture. By advocating for fair treatment of the oppressed, Pinnock demonstrated a biblical
concern for those whom others overlook and undervalue. The Yoruba people’s warm
relationships with Pinnock demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach, even if other
missionaries’ opinions of him were not always so favorable. Like William Carey, Pinnock
understood that the gospel has the power to transform both individuals and societies—not
into copies of Western models, but into appropriate Christian expressions within their own
contexts. Pinnock’s unwavering commitment to justice provided an effective model of
critical contextualization for his contemporaries as well as for Christians today.
Living as the “Salt of the Earth”
Today’s Baptists, increasingly a minority in our own societies, would do well to follow
Pinnock’s example of transformative justice. We must avoid the extremes of uncritical
contextualization—accepting every cultural value, and of noncontextualization—rejecting
every cultural value, instead examining the culture and transforming it in the light of the
gospel. Although we may not speak from a position of power, we can work diligently and
boldly to contextualize the gospel message through our actions as well as our words. Living
amidst cultures whose values increasingly diverge from our own, we must not fail to obey the
Bible’s commands “to preach the gospel to the poor . . . to heal the broken hearted, to preach
deliverance to the captives . . . . to set at liberty them that are bruised.”
While we may not see men walking down the streets of our town in chains, as Pinnock
did, the tragic reality of slavery continues in our world today. In fact, multiple sources
estimate that 27 million people are enslaved today—more than at any previous point in
history.59 These victims of human trafficking, as modern-day slavery is often called, may not
be as obvious as the Yoruba slaves that Pinnock encountered. Some of these individuals are
59
See, for example, Kevin Bales, Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2012), 8.
caught in labor trafficking, forced to work with little or no pay and usually against their will.
For example, some children in West Africa are either kidnapped or lured into working in
extremely difficult conditions on cocoa plantations, where they are not educated or
appropriately nourished, and often are physically punished if they try to escape. Many other
individuals are caught in sex trafficking, a form of modern-day slavery in which traffickers
sexually exploit their victims (generally females) by force, fraud, or coercion. A girl from a
rural village in India, for example, may be promised a good job in the city, but forced into
prostitution in New Delhi instead.
As Christians, we cannot remain silent about such practices, whether they are sanctioned
by our culture or not, because as people of faith we know them to be morally wrong. Instead,
we must follow Pinnock’s example of bold activism in Christ’s name. We may not cut literal
shackles off slaves’ feet, but we can advocate for an end to slavery through organizations
such as the International Justice Mission and Polaris Project, among many others. Possible
actions Christians can take to combat trafficking are numerous, including educating others,
giving, rescuing victims, boycotting companies that use slave labor, praying, establishing
safe houses, and working to change legislation. In these and other ways, Christians living in a
largely secular society might become known not as hateful people, as we are sadly far too
often stereotyped, but instead as people whose Christ-like love renews the culture—the “salt
of the earth.”
Not only slavery but also poverty and its many signs and symptoms continue to plague
our world today. Approximately 15 percent of individuals in the United States live below the
poverty line, and more than one billion people around the world live in extreme poverty,
60
earning less than $1 a day. A variety of related problems—hunger, lack of clean water,
illiteracy, sickness, and more—are prevalent among poverty-stricken individuals. Pinnock
clearly cared about the plight of the poor, whom he sought to rescue from King Lawani’s
injustices and from what he considered to be the mission’s unfair salaries. His motivation
likely stemmed in part from the hundreds of Bible verses urging Christians to help those
living in poverty. These same verses should motivate us today, whether we live in a society
with many Christians or one with very few. We might demonstrate our concern for people in
poverty through actions as simple as sponsoring a child, volunteering at a local non-profit,
praying for the poor, or making a micro-loan to an entrepreneur living in poverty. Just as
Pinnock published articles in local newspapers, we might use media campaigns to raise
awareness of poverty and raise funds to help eliminate it. On a larger scale, Christians can
help improve the plight of the poor in a variety of ways, including starting ministries that
provide food, shelter, and life skills; “adopting” local schools or neighborhoods; and
advocating for more just policies toward the poor. Through actions like these, we can
demonstrate to the world around us the power of Christ’s love for all people.
Sadly, many other social injustices could be mentioned here, but the basic principle
remains the same no matter the issue. As we attempt to live missionally in a post-Christian
culture, Christians must seek to contextualize our message without compromising core
biblical principles, including a Christ-like concern for the “least of these.” We can learn from
the bold though imperfect example of S. G. Pinnock the importance of not only sharing the
gospel but also working incarnationally for justice for the people among whom God has
placed us—whether that be enslaved Yorubas or homeless New Yorkers. Through our
60
2011 Current Population Survey, US Census Bureau; “Dollar Benchmark,” BBC News, March 9, 2012.
actions, we may gain the trust of individuals who would not otherwise have understood the
good news. Moreover, in our efforts for justice we can serve as the “salt of the earth” for a
world that is desperately in need of the flavor of Christ. Just as Pinnock did one hundred
years ago, we must work to demonstrate a Christian response to the injustices of our own
culture through advocacy and compassionate action in Christ’s name. In this way, we can
allow lessons from a missionary in our past to help guide our future.