The missionaries were certainly aware of the conflict between the proclamation of the gospel and the Melanesian religion. When in 1941 the German missionaries were detained at the internment camp at Tatura, Australia, they used the time to discuss the goals and methods of the mission.110 The missionaries agreed that the reason Papuans accepted Christianity was not because they were intellectually convinced of its truth. They accepted it rather in order to access the superior European material goods. In their magical worldview the creator God exists but is removed and distant from everyday life. This life is determined by the spirits, who distribute all kinds of material blessings. These spirits are to be feared, but they can also be manipulated because they live in a reciprocal relationship to humans. If you know the right way to access them, the right ritual which must be meticulously performed, the blessings will certainly come. Religion in this sense is similar to business.
When the Europeans arrived with superior material goods, the explanation could only be that their spirits were stronger than the Papuan spirits. There must have been guilt on the side of the Papuans which caused the life-giving spirits to side with the Europeans rather than with the Papuans, and the time had come to shift allegiance to the European gods in order to participate in the same material blessings. When the first missionaries used the name of the highest creator spirit—Anutu (in Jabem language) or Malengfung (in Kate language)—the Papuans tried to relate to him in the same manner as to the spirits. For instance, they tried to trick him, hiding their wrongdoings in their prayers and presenting mock offerings or deceptive piety to the missionaries.
How far should the mission pick up the thread of the search for material wealth? This became an urgent question, since under the Australian colonial government the Papuans began to realize that you could have those goods even if you did not follow the Christian religion. One party in Tatura—including W. Flierl, G. Pilhofer, W. Bergmann, and H. Strauss—proposed to carry on where the Papuan worldview is. For Papuans, material goods originate from the spirits or gods. Material goods have a fundamental function for the community. Success strengthens the community. Labor, social order, and religion are inseparable. Likewise in the Christian community, labor and the material goods are part of the miti, the Christian way of life.
This approach following Keysser was supported by experiences at plantations under the supervision of the mission. The mission had to ward off individualism and secularization. Economy must be part of religion, otherwise the Papuan will ask: “When the miti does not provide me with the material goods, why should I need it?” As a result he will return to his ancestor cults. The magical way of thinking is the fundamental basis of their worldview and must be accepted at this stage of the mission to be refocused on the Creator. Opposing the success-oriented thinking would result in putting God at a distance from their everyday life.
The means to emphasize God as origin of all goods are the rituals and feasts which celebrate God as the creator. The mission must proclaim the creator by linking to the pragmatic success-oriented worldview. Otherwise the community-oriented mission will never win the whole group. Christian customs should therefore relate to pre-Christian ones, for example, rituals at the time of harvesting and house and canoe building. Some missionaries went so far to claim that there was no alternative to an adaptation to the Papuan worldview, because it is unchangeable.
This position was opposed by another group of missionaries, who claimed that God did not promise a better material life, and that such an expectation puts a burden on the church. The mission changes souls and aims at conversion, but does not make material promises. The gospel is opposed to worldly success-oriented thinking. Otherwise the Papuans will leave the miti as soon as their material expectations are not met. The gospel must be proclaimed as something new and very different. The question of profit has no place in the church, since God gives freely and the sinner cannot demand reciprocity. Newly created rituals will be misused in terms of magic.
Evaluating this discussion, we recognize the two different concepts of mission that informed the parties. Both acknowledged the contextual confusion of Christianity with the Melanesian quest for material well-being and reciprocity, however they came to different conclusions. The first party claimed that material progress and well-being must be part of the Christian miti as much as the preaching of the gospel. If the magical and reciprocal way of thinking is rejected, the gospel will be rejected. This leads to the establishment of a theocratic society under the Christian law.
The other party followed the traditional model of discerning conversion from the well-being of the body. The task of the mission is defined by the preaching of the gospel, which may not be compromised with worldly promises. Though this position lacked attraction for those with a Melanesian worldview, it realized the dangers of the first position: if material promises fail, or if they can be fulfilled outside the church, the proclamation of salvation will be regarded as futile. The weakness of the position which argues for the separation of material promises and salvation is that it may fail to attract Melanesians altogether.
The question remains whether a third position may have been viable. This third position could have tried to form the “new person in Christ” (2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 4:22–24) by educating this new person that even though the conversion will have beneficial effects on social and economic relations (e.g., peace from tribal fighting, extension of trade beyond former borders, the creation as a gift to work with, and education in new sciences), the gospel itself does not promise material well-being and does not reward certain behavior. The gospel breaks through the reciprocal and magical thinking, liberating the Christian person from its domination. This is the freedom of the gospel against the law. The practical difficulties of such a proclamation should not be underestimated, what matters here is only the discussion of the goal and method of mission.
Already in the mission to the Central Highlands beginning in the 1930s and continuing after World War II, the successful method of the coastal areas was modified. Initially, the mission followed the same direction carried by the local evangelists from the coastal areas. However, soon it had to be adapted to new challenges. Hermann Strauss, missionary to the Mount Hagen people, described in a report from 1958 that the readiness of some tribal chiefs to convert did not result in the conversion of the whole tribe, as expected in the community-based method.111
Following the Keysser method by exposing the evil of the tribe and stirring up the conscience to adopt a new way of life was not possible. The reason was that the people had already learned to know different forms of life. “Change of heart really did no longer seem to be required since the old ways and practices of so many bossboys and big men were evidently accepted by the powerful white men (Australians), who had given them influential positions.”112
Strauss concluded that the mission therefore had to focus on giving personal witness to smaller family units, rather than aiming to convert the whole tribe at once. The new Christian ethos could not be instilled through a Christian tribal order, but only when a person realizes how the gospel affects his or her life. The missionary addresses people in their situation of life about human relationships, education, and discipline. This requires the training of local pastors with a sound theology.
The strength of the former mission was the untrained but enthusiastic evangelist who was sent to a distant tribe, shared their life, and opened the door to the gospel. In the Highlands, with their competing missions and the opportunities to obtain material goods in secular ways, the quest for trained pastors became an urgent one. The result was the establishment of theological seminaries in Oglbeng (Mount Hagen) and the English language Martin Luther Seminary in Lae in 1966.
The mission work in the Southern Highlands in the 1950s and 1960s could only be started after the Australian government had been there for a number of years.113 The break with the former life was marked by peace between former enemies. The new Christian life was confirmed at school and had its imminent repercussions on everyday life. An