In prayer and pains, through faith in Christ: The life and ministry of John Eliot

Abstract

While William Carey (1761–1834) is often hailed as the “Father of Modern Missions” for his innovative work in India and for advancing the modern theology of missions—particularly in his commitment to respect the indigenous culture—he nevertheless drew heavily on the work of those who had preceded him in the work of missions. Among his predecessors was the “Apostle to the (American) Indians,” John Eliot (1604–1690). For his part, Eliot was also the product of his predecessors, especially in his adoption of the then-popular notion of civility before conversion. However, Eliot was also an innovator to whom the world of missions owes a great debt. His commitment to learning the indigenous language (Algonquin), creating a written language and a grammar of it, and translating the Bible into it are worthy of special note, as is his commitment to training indigenous pastors and teachers. The ministry of Eliot informs the foundational tenets of contemporary missiology.

Missiological Missteps and the Need for Theological Education in Myanmar

“…Of course, there are times when the desire to extricate a new convert from his or her culture is merely a reflection of the missionary's own ethnocentrism, such as in the case of New England missionary John Eliot, who believed that the Indians must adapt to English culture before they could be saved, even when their own cultural practices were not inherently sinful, but merely un-English. 13 Missions history in Myanmar reflects elements of a similar ethnocentric emphasis. 14 This conclusion is supported by the presence of churches in the distant hills, where there is no electricity, no running water, and no cars, but on any given Sunday morning the worshippers can be heard singing Fanny Crosby-penned hymns.…”

John Eliot, John Veniaminov, and engagement with the indigenous peoples of North America: A comparative missiology, part I

“… 4. For example, Steve Curtis provides a creditable overview of Eliot’s life and ministry, but one cannot escape the suspicion that all the evidence is being filtered through the unspoken agenda of finding resonances in Eliot with contemporary missiological emphases and practice (Curtis, 2015). An earlier example of this sort of “edifying” use of history is Calhoun, 1989: 35–38.…”