Abstract

The Luis Palau Mission to Auckland in 1987 attracted major criticism from four Anglican bishops. This centred on the question of the ability of a foreign evangelist to address the Gospel with prophetic relevance to the social situation in New Zealand. The actual response to the mission indicated that the problem of an America-oriented, male, foreign evangelist was not insuperable. The debate illustrated the age-old tension between the established Christianity of the system and the critique of the itinerant evangelist. But the debate missed the important issues of the inclusion of Roman Catholic participation; the possibility of dissociating mass evangelism from North American evangelicalism; the Arminian insistence on human decision; how to preach an immanentist theology in an evangelistic style; the extent to which a guest evangelist can be a prophet in a host country; and the actual function of such crusades in encouraging the faithful rather than converting the unfaithful.