Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Dr. Jay Gary of Regent University’s School of Global Leadership and Strategic Foresight gave tonight’s lecture on “Mapping the Future of Christianity.” He outlined a model for thinking about and planning for the future. His suggestion was to envision three possible types of future: 1) The expected future that one can forecast, 2) The alternative future which one thinks about by suggesting different scenarios of what might happen, and 3) the surprise future, the ensemble of unexpected futures that would represent a radical break from our assumptions about how things will play out. The surprise futures are the least expected and have the lowest probability of happening but would have the most impact, represent the greatest opportunity for change, of the three.
Once again our group discussion included people from around the world. We used Dr. Gary’s list of “15 Provocations from the Future” to orient our conversation. These 15 provocations were statements of dichotomies that might impact organized religion in the next 10 years. The first one we addressed was Dilemmas of Difference –Will clergy and laity engage others outside their own religious tradition, or just listen more exclusively to those with whom they agree? We all agreed that engaging with those of other religious traditions is important and that clergy should model such engagement, but we differed on how likely it is that that will happen in the future. A kind of “market” model of church means that often parishioners are consumers, selecting a church because they “fit in”, have the same values as their fellow parishioners. This creates homogeneous communities of faith and does not encourage conversations with those who disagree with us. Will congregations be focusing their conversations inward or outward?
We also addressed the issue of Extreme Climate: Will the adverse impacts on society from climate change and its proposed solutions unite nations or re-ignite culture wars? We heard from one of our members that South Korea has been forced to start dealing with this issue. There the climate has changed significantly; it’s getting warmer and there has been a shift from 4 seasons to 2. This has reduced the capacity to grow food, a factor which further aggravates the problem of the limited amount of arable land. How should the church plan for the repercussions of such change? Suggest gardening? What about the impact on North Korea? Perhaps the church in South Korea should be prepared for an influx of hungry (or starving?) people from North Korea? How would the global church engage in this situation?
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Uncertain future of Christianity
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On December 8th, we gathered for our final class. Appropriately, we switched from discussing the past 100 years of Christian history to imagining the future. Dr. Jay Gary introduced us to the art of strategic foresight, and encouraged us to create our own futures.
As we gathered as a small group, one student began the conversation expressing his unease. In Dr. Gary’s presentation, he had talked about possible scenarios for Christianity in the United States over the next 20 years. He ended that section by asking, “Is your church ready for these changes? Will it be able to respond to the various possibilities that may occur?” These questions, the student explained, made it sound like it was the responsibility of the church to perpetuate itself in the face of change. Somehow it is our responsibility to help the church survive. “But,” he added, “that seems to fly in the face of Jesus’ own words: ‘I will build my Church…’” If imagining the future is about engineering the present, then it seems out of sync with the gospel that is not worried about tomorrow.
Other students disagreed, or at least felt strategic foresight did not have to be reduced to such crass manipulation. Their positions were different. One student simply stated that forecasting the future was ridiculous, because chaos – not constancy – seems to reign. Another student countered that even the forces of chaos were under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and so the destiny of the world was secure, even if the path travelled is unpredictable. A third student added that she felt speaking about the future was important, because the stories we tell ourselves now, will be self-fulfilling. If we imagine a world of war, then we will prepare for war, and ultimately engage in battle. If, on the other hand, we imagine a world of peace, we will make entirely different choices. Stories of the future are important for influencing our lives right now.
As a group, we selected one issue from the news this week that may significantly impact the future: North Korea. As a country it is, what Jay Gary described, a “wild card.” It is difficult to predict what North Korea will do. One student saw in North Korea evidence of the rise of neo-nationalism and jingoism, a force that will mark the face of the future. He also commented that the politics around North Korea are unpredictable. Although the state actors want more stability in the region, China, Japan, and the United States are not particularly eager about reunification. This, he contended, complicates the very volatile situation.
With our time gone, it was a reminder that the future is uncertain, but its unpredictability endlessly fascinates our imagination, and draws our attention.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
On December 8th, we gathered for our final class. Appropriately, we switched from discussing the past 100 years of Christian history to imagining the future. Dr. Jay Gary introduced us to the art of strategic foresight, and encouraged us to create our own futures.
As we gathered as a small group, one student began the conversation expressing his unease. In Dr. Gary’s presentation, he had talked about possible scenarios for Christianity in the United States over the next 20 years. He ended that section by asking, “Is your church ready for these changes? Will it be able to respond to the various possibilities that may occur?” These questions, the student explained, made it sound like it was the responsibility of the church to perpetuate itself in the face of change. Somehow it is our responsibility to help the church survive. “But,” he added, “that seems to fly in the face of Jesus’ own words: ‘I will build my Church…’” If imagining the future is about engineering the present, then it seems out of sync with the gospel that is not worried about tomorrow.
Other students disagreed, or at least felt strategic foresight did not have to be reduced to such crass manipulation. Their positions were different. One student simply stated that forecasting the future was ridiculous, because chaos – not constancy – seems to reign. Another student countered that even the forces of chaos were under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and so the destiny of the world was secure, even if the path travelled is unpredictable. A third student added that she felt speaking about the future was important, because the stories we tell ourselves now, will be self-fulfilling. If we imagine a world of war, then we will prepare for war, and ultimately engage in battle. If, on the other hand, we imagine a world of peace, we will make entirely different choices. Stories of the future are important for influencing our lives right now.
As a group, we selected one issue from the news this week that may significantly impact the future: North Korea. As a country it is, what Jay Gary described, a “wild card.” It is difficult to predict what North Korea will do. One student saw in North Korea evidence of the rise of neo-nationalism and jingoism, a force that will mark the face of the future. He also commented that the politics around North Korea are unpredictable. Although the state actors want more stability in the region, China, Japan, and the United States are not particularly eager about reunification. This, he contended, complicates the very volatile situation.
With our time gone, it was a reminder that the future is uncertain, but its unpredictability endlessly fascinates our imagination, and draws our attention.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Translatability and future of Christianity
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
It was fitting that our last guest lecturer for Global Christianity, Dr. Jay Gary of Regent University, tried to encourage the class to think about the ‘future scenarios’ for Christianity in the next century. Dr. Gary looked at 15 scenarios that are projected into the next century, such as the rich-poor gap, ecological crisis, technology, many of them dilemmas of difference, and encouraged us to think about which might be more relevant to the future of Christianity.
Dr. Gary encouraged us to use our intuition to envision the factor we thought would be determinants of Christianity growth and transformation. A few of us thought that technology was important for Christianity. Hee Jin discussed how churches in Korea were already trying to close the technological generation gap by engaging in smart networking and creating applications about church activities and spirituality for smart-phones. We discussed, however, the fine line churches must walk between becoming too commercialized and thus loosing the mystery and tradition that goes beyond refashioning spirituality to the mundane and popular vernaculars of the day.
Many of the future scenarios that emerged predict a much darker future of conflict and competition for Christianity, yet with fragmentation possibilities for renewal. Many settings envisioned were resonant with worldwide clashes of differences and how Christian communities might deal with conflict and rise above it. One of many concerns was for an East Asia in conflict with the West, but such generalizations are hard to pin down. Some of the situations projected intra-religiously cultural conflict – through Christianity of the North clashing with the rising Christianity of the South (Phillip Jenkins, The Next Christendom). Perhaps this would play out less in terms of North-South, but more along the lines of a more Charismatic, personal faith in contrast to a more traditional-historical and corporate faith. To some, the common prediction of an inter-religious clash between Islam and Christianity resounds as more likely. As The Atlas of Global Christianity aptly states, the history of Christianity indicates that growth is fragmentary and punctuated. Christianity has risen to prominence and fallen from many regions, only to rise in others (decline and North Africa, and the fast growth in sub-Saharan Africa are just one set of example). By contrast, Islamic growth tends to be steady and territorial. As Brad pointed out, scholars like Lamin Sanneh and Andrew Walls argue that the translatability of Christianity is part of the reason for this fragmentation and punctuated growth.
Perhaps it is migration patterns that will be most likely to decide the future of Christianity. Christianity has defied prediction of decline due to secularization and privatization of religion. The translatability of Christianity could very well create more fragmentation, yet with it seeds of renewal to forge future adaptations.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
It was fitting that our last guest lecturer for Global Christianity, Dr. Jay Gary of Regent University, tried to encourage the class to think about the ‘future scenarios’ for Christianity in the next century. Dr. Gary looked at 15 scenarios that are projected into the next century, such as the rich-poor gap, ecological crisis, technology, many of them dilemmas of difference, and encouraged us to think about which might be more relevant to the future of Christianity.
Dr. Gary encouraged us to use our intuition to envision the factor we thought would be determinants of Christianity growth and transformation. A few of us thought that technology was important for Christianity. Hee Jin discussed how churches in Korea were already trying to close the technological generation gap by engaging in smart networking and creating applications about church activities and spirituality for smart-phones. We discussed, however, the fine line churches must walk between becoming too commercialized and thus loosing the mystery and tradition that goes beyond refashioning spirituality to the mundane and popular vernaculars of the day.
Many of the future scenarios that emerged predict a much darker future of conflict and competition for Christianity, yet with fragmentation possibilities for renewal. Many settings envisioned were resonant with worldwide clashes of differences and how Christian communities might deal with conflict and rise above it. One of many concerns was for an East Asia in conflict with the West, but such generalizations are hard to pin down. Some of the situations projected intra-religiously cultural conflict – through Christianity of the North clashing with the rising Christianity of the South (Phillip Jenkins, The Next Christendom). Perhaps this would play out less in terms of North-South, but more along the lines of a more Charismatic, personal faith in contrast to a more traditional-historical and corporate faith. To some, the common prediction of an inter-religious clash between Islam and Christianity resounds as more likely. As The Atlas of Global Christianity aptly states, the history of Christianity indicates that growth is fragmentary and punctuated. Christianity has risen to prominence and fallen from many regions, only to rise in others (decline and North Africa, and the fast growth in sub-Saharan Africa are just one set of example). By contrast, Islamic growth tends to be steady and territorial. As Brad pointed out, scholars like Lamin Sanneh and Andrew Walls argue that the translatability of Christianity is part of the reason for this fragmentation and punctuated growth.
Perhaps it is migration patterns that will be most likely to decide the future of Christianity. Christianity has defied prediction of decline due to secularization and privatization of religion. The translatability of Christianity could very well create more fragmentation, yet with it seeds of renewal to forge future adaptations.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"Boundaries" for mission today
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Boston University historian Dr. Dana L. Robert was the most recent guest lecturer for our Global Christianity course. Dr. Robert’s fascinating talk traced the shifting use over the last century of the concept of the mission field as ‘frontier.’ Earlier uses of the term, influenced by American Western expansion, saw mission as a territorial frontier. But the strictly territorial use of the idea of mission as frontier shifted to accommodate political and social realities. Drawing ‘Social Gospel’ movement, some missionaries envisioned mission frontiers in terms of social justice. Others likened mission frontier to that of crossing the boundary between ‘belief’ and ‘unbelief.’ A more recent transformation of the idea of frontier comes from work of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, who made popular the idea that “Unreached People” who do not have access to the Gospel are the primary frontier for modern missions. Dr. Robert suggested this view a is narrowing of the meaning of frontier. Mission is commonly understood as a crossing over some kind of boundary, and ‘frontier’ language has proved resilient, and may see another transformation in the coming years.
As our group discussed the lecture, we could agree that mission is most recognizable as a crossing of a boundary. Yet given the thorny history of Christian expansion which is sometimes linked with imperialism, several important questions emerged in discussion. Is the term ‘frontier’ for mission useful today? And if so, what is the most helpful way to understand the main ‘frontier’ for contemporary mission? If one abandons the specific use of the word ‘frontier’, what is the boundary that is most important to cross in order to engage responsibly in mission?
One suggestion in the discussion was to see the incarnation event itself as crossing a frontier, and an incarnational model of mission, being Christ in a holistic sense to our neighbors and seeing Christ in them, might be helpful. In this sense each person, each heart, could be considered a mission frontier. Although it has some evangelical overtones (‘every person is a missionary, every heart is a mission field’), it might be more helpful a word than the word ‘frontier’ that to some smacks of territorial takeover. But would this be saying that everyone can or should be a missionary, thereby diluting the meaning of mission? Perhaps there is a distinction between saying everyone is a missionary and saying Christian should strive to be missional. There is a movement in the West identifying itself as “missional church” that engages in theology and local outreach which is intentionally incarnational. Through the discussion many of us still sought to grapple with mission as a boundary crossing. We further asked ourselves what were the main ‘boundaries’ for mission today?
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Boston University historian Dr. Dana L. Robert was the most recent guest lecturer for our Global Christianity course. Dr. Robert’s fascinating talk traced the shifting use over the last century of the concept of the mission field as ‘frontier.’ Earlier uses of the term, influenced by American Western expansion, saw mission as a territorial frontier. But the strictly territorial use of the idea of mission as frontier shifted to accommodate political and social realities. Drawing ‘Social Gospel’ movement, some missionaries envisioned mission frontiers in terms of social justice. Others likened mission frontier to that of crossing the boundary between ‘belief’ and ‘unbelief.’ A more recent transformation of the idea of frontier comes from work of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, who made popular the idea that “Unreached People” who do not have access to the Gospel are the primary frontier for modern missions. Dr. Robert suggested this view a is narrowing of the meaning of frontier. Mission is commonly understood as a crossing over some kind of boundary, and ‘frontier’ language has proved resilient, and may see another transformation in the coming years.
As our group discussed the lecture, we could agree that mission is most recognizable as a crossing of a boundary. Yet given the thorny history of Christian expansion which is sometimes linked with imperialism, several important questions emerged in discussion. Is the term ‘frontier’ for mission useful today? And if so, what is the most helpful way to understand the main ‘frontier’ for contemporary mission? If one abandons the specific use of the word ‘frontier’, what is the boundary that is most important to cross in order to engage responsibly in mission?
One suggestion in the discussion was to see the incarnation event itself as crossing a frontier, and an incarnational model of mission, being Christ in a holistic sense to our neighbors and seeing Christ in them, might be helpful. In this sense each person, each heart, could be considered a mission frontier. Although it has some evangelical overtones (‘every person is a missionary, every heart is a mission field’), it might be more helpful a word than the word ‘frontier’ that to some smacks of territorial takeover. But would this be saying that everyone can or should be a missionary, thereby diluting the meaning of mission? Perhaps there is a distinction between saying everyone is a missionary and saying Christian should strive to be missional. There is a movement in the West identifying itself as “missional church” that engages in theology and local outreach which is intentionally incarnational. Through the discussion many of us still sought to grapple with mission as a boundary crossing. We further asked ourselves what were the main ‘boundaries’ for mission today?
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Monday, December 6, 2010
Gospel and culture
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
This week our guest lecturer was Dr. Dana L. Robert who wrote the article “Missionaries Sent and Received, Worldwide, 1910-2010” in our text Atlas of Global Christianity 1910-2010. With an analysis of how mission practitioners have used the term “frontier,” she gave an engaging lecture about how missionary conceptions of the “mission field” have changed over the last 100 years. Early on, the mission frontier was conceived in terms of territorial expansion, while later missionaries envisioned engagement with movements that addressed political, labor and race relations as new frontiers. In the post-colonial context the student movement used the metaphor of crossing boundaries, such as that between belief and unbelief, and there were arguments between those who saw crossing geographical boundaries as integral to mission and those who understood frontiers metaphorically as those places where the church meets the world. Today it is the movement to evangelize unreached people groups that most appropriates the discourse of mission frontiers. Dr. Robert noted the work of humanitarian movements, the West as a new mission field that nonwestern migrant missionaries engage, and the English Pioneer Movement as mission frontiers in the 21st century.
Our group conversation focused on the missionary dilemma of how to navigate the interaction between culture and gospel, starting with the case of how western missionaries were successful or not in identifying and managing their own cultural roots as they shared the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once again we enjoyed an engaging discussion that grew out of our different experiences in North America, Africa, India and Korea. We noted a number of factors that help missionaries today keep from imposing unhelpful cultural particularities on the gospel they present. Large immigrant movements allow people to engage other cultures and expressions of the gospel and in the process lose many of their cultural biases. Post-colonial critiques of the missionary movement have helped correct bad methods. In addition, missionaries who take advantage of training that prepares them culturally as well as theologically know better how to engage people different from themselves. Perhaps most importantly, many of today’s missionaries are not foreigners in the regions in which they work but minister in their own culture.
Yet separating gospel and culture is not always easy. Western missionaries still sometimes expect Christians in other cultures to follow western theology or forms of worship for example. We heard from our Indian member about native missionaries who expect their converts to appropriate western dress. From our Korean participants we heard that Korean missionaries also find the issue to be a challenging one, sometimes exporting very westernized forms of educational and health institutions that were imported some generations ago to Korea by Westerners. Western education is often very attractive to people and provides for a way for Korean missionaries to “get their foot in the door”, teaching English for instance. If people want certain aspects of western culture it is perhaps difficult for missionaries to know how much to facilitate that.
On the other hand, we heard that many Korean missionaries have excellent training and are taught to take issues of culture very seriously. They work hard at getting to know the culture they work in and prepare themselves and their contributions in light of that. Inevitably though, missionaries use traditional structures and methods that they know from their own experience, Korean or otherwise. Korean methods, we heard, are often very much influenced by Confucianism, a particularity of that culture that might not be as helpful in other places.
It seems that the issue of the relationship of culture and gospel, especially as it relates to the missionary task, is not simple and must be worked out with careful training and much thought.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
This week our guest lecturer was Dr. Dana L. Robert who wrote the article “Missionaries Sent and Received, Worldwide, 1910-2010” in our text Atlas of Global Christianity 1910-2010. With an analysis of how mission practitioners have used the term “frontier,” she gave an engaging lecture about how missionary conceptions of the “mission field” have changed over the last 100 years. Early on, the mission frontier was conceived in terms of territorial expansion, while later missionaries envisioned engagement with movements that addressed political, labor and race relations as new frontiers. In the post-colonial context the student movement used the metaphor of crossing boundaries, such as that between belief and unbelief, and there were arguments between those who saw crossing geographical boundaries as integral to mission and those who understood frontiers metaphorically as those places where the church meets the world. Today it is the movement to evangelize unreached people groups that most appropriates the discourse of mission frontiers. Dr. Robert noted the work of humanitarian movements, the West as a new mission field that nonwestern migrant missionaries engage, and the English Pioneer Movement as mission frontiers in the 21st century.
Our group conversation focused on the missionary dilemma of how to navigate the interaction between culture and gospel, starting with the case of how western missionaries were successful or not in identifying and managing their own cultural roots as they shared the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once again we enjoyed an engaging discussion that grew out of our different experiences in North America, Africa, India and Korea. We noted a number of factors that help missionaries today keep from imposing unhelpful cultural particularities on the gospel they present. Large immigrant movements allow people to engage other cultures and expressions of the gospel and in the process lose many of their cultural biases. Post-colonial critiques of the missionary movement have helped correct bad methods. In addition, missionaries who take advantage of training that prepares them culturally as well as theologically know better how to engage people different from themselves. Perhaps most importantly, many of today’s missionaries are not foreigners in the regions in which they work but minister in their own culture.
Yet separating gospel and culture is not always easy. Western missionaries still sometimes expect Christians in other cultures to follow western theology or forms of worship for example. We heard from our Indian member about native missionaries who expect their converts to appropriate western dress. From our Korean participants we heard that Korean missionaries also find the issue to be a challenging one, sometimes exporting very westernized forms of educational and health institutions that were imported some generations ago to Korea by Westerners. Western education is often very attractive to people and provides for a way for Korean missionaries to “get their foot in the door”, teaching English for instance. If people want certain aspects of western culture it is perhaps difficult for missionaries to know how much to facilitate that.
On the other hand, we heard that many Korean missionaries have excellent training and are taught to take issues of culture very seriously. They work hard at getting to know the culture they work in and prepare themselves and their contributions in light of that. Inevitably though, missionaries use traditional structures and methods that they know from their own experience, Korean or otherwise. Korean methods, we heard, are often very much influenced by Confucianism, a particularity of that culture that might not be as helpful in other places.
It seems that the issue of the relationship of culture and gospel, especially as it relates to the missionary task, is not simple and must be worked out with careful training and much thought.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Historical developments of mission frontiers
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the evening of Dec. 1, Dr. Dana Robert gave us the lecture on Christian Mission during one hundred years since Edinburgh 1910. Her lecture was especially focused on Mission Frontiers which have been shifted by years. According to Dr. Robert, frontier was a geographical term when it coined to Christian Mission. In the early twentieth century, mission frontier was recognized as “Unoccupied Regions,” and in accordance with that, missionaries were pioneers who rush out to the frontier. By the influence of the “Social Gospel Movement,” however, the concept of frontier began to shift from geography to justice. It was radical shift of frontier regarded as industrialization, political movement, and social justice. In post-colonial context of 1960s, the frontier was understood as “boundary crossing” by the non-professional missionary and student movement; the boundary between belief and unbelief. Then, the mission frontier became multi-directional, that is, it includes not only the East and global south, but also the West and global north. Since the mid 1970s, by virtue of the contribution of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, mission frontiers refer to “Unreached People” who never heard about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the most well known concept because it is recent one and the impact of McGavran’s Church Growth Movement was so huge in evangelical churches. Dr. Roberts evaluates, however, it reduced the meaning of Mission Frontier by backing to geographical concept though it clarifies the target and urgency of Christian mission.
The lecture was so comprehensive and clear that discussion panels of my group were persuaded by the historical development of Mission Frontiers. Without exception, each of us experiences the frontiers in the ministry of our local congregation. As one pointed out, there are frontiers even within the local congregation. The generation gap between adult and youth, the secularism that prohibits college students to go to church, and even our neighbors who have the other faiths are the frontiers we face in our daily life and local congregation. Thus, to see mission frontiers as boundary crossings between belief and unbelief is quite relevant. Another insists that frontier must refer to something beyond humanity. Since he sees that debates on mission frontiers are anthropocentric so far, it must be extended to something considering whole creation beyond humanity by virtue of holism. The only tackle was from Dr. Robert’s notion of reductionism on the concept of “Unreached People.” The opinion was that it is comprehensible to see mission frontiers surround us in the postmodern world which is somewhat unfriendly to Christian faith. However, when it comes to mission, the broaden concept of frontier would weaken the importance of the foreign mission. Considering the fact that there are still a lot of people who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, the concept of “Unreached People” focuses on our task of mission rather reduce it. On the whole, the lecture was good enough to open our eyes to see the Mission Frontiers in terms of historical development.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
On the evening of Dec. 1, Dr. Dana Robert gave us the lecture on Christian Mission during one hundred years since Edinburgh 1910. Her lecture was especially focused on Mission Frontiers which have been shifted by years. According to Dr. Robert, frontier was a geographical term when it coined to Christian Mission. In the early twentieth century, mission frontier was recognized as “Unoccupied Regions,” and in accordance with that, missionaries were pioneers who rush out to the frontier. By the influence of the “Social Gospel Movement,” however, the concept of frontier began to shift from geography to justice. It was radical shift of frontier regarded as industrialization, political movement, and social justice. In post-colonial context of 1960s, the frontier was understood as “boundary crossing” by the non-professional missionary and student movement; the boundary between belief and unbelief. Then, the mission frontier became multi-directional, that is, it includes not only the East and global south, but also the West and global north. Since the mid 1970s, by virtue of the contribution of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, mission frontiers refer to “Unreached People” who never heard about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the most well known concept because it is recent one and the impact of McGavran’s Church Growth Movement was so huge in evangelical churches. Dr. Roberts evaluates, however, it reduced the meaning of Mission Frontier by backing to geographical concept though it clarifies the target and urgency of Christian mission.
The lecture was so comprehensive and clear that discussion panels of my group were persuaded by the historical development of Mission Frontiers. Without exception, each of us experiences the frontiers in the ministry of our local congregation. As one pointed out, there are frontiers even within the local congregation. The generation gap between adult and youth, the secularism that prohibits college students to go to church, and even our neighbors who have the other faiths are the frontiers we face in our daily life and local congregation. Thus, to see mission frontiers as boundary crossings between belief and unbelief is quite relevant. Another insists that frontier must refer to something beyond humanity. Since he sees that debates on mission frontiers are anthropocentric so far, it must be extended to something considering whole creation beyond humanity by virtue of holism. The only tackle was from Dr. Robert’s notion of reductionism on the concept of “Unreached People.” The opinion was that it is comprehensible to see mission frontiers surround us in the postmodern world which is somewhat unfriendly to Christian faith. However, when it comes to mission, the broaden concept of frontier would weaken the importance of the foreign mission. Considering the fact that there are still a lot of people who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, the concept of “Unreached People” focuses on our task of mission rather reduce it. On the whole, the lecture was good enough to open our eyes to see the Mission Frontiers in terms of historical development.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Voice of the marginalized
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On December 1, 2010, our class had the privilege of welcoming Dr. Dana Robert of BUSTH to lecture on Christian missions over the past 100 years. Dr. Robert focused on the concept of mission frontiers; not just in the sense of new places where missionaries have reached, but defined mission itself as a global frontier movement.
Our post-lecture small group was generally impressed by this approach to mission history in the 20th century as it was a new idea to most of us. We reflected on how useful the term “frontier” is; not simply in a mission context, but in anything that is in continual forward-motion. Dr. Robert highlighted how the usage of the term gradually morphed over the course of the 100 years; we found this ongoing redefinition of the term to be beneficial in understanding the dynamics and history of recent Christian mission.
As perhaps an extension of the frontiers discussion, one group member mentioned a recent article in Christianity Today that discussed dynamics of power and authority. Historically, it has been the power class—those in control—who had the privilege of writing history, often at the expense of the marginal voice. Now, however, the marginalized are increasingly obtaining more power and authority as their opinions are being called to stand out apart from the rest. This parallels Jesus Christ’s example of listening and reaching out to the poor and estranged. This caused us to ponder: Who knows what kind of reform today’s marginalized will bring? What voices are or will be the most prominent in the 21st century frontiers?
Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator
On December 1, 2010, our class had the privilege of welcoming Dr. Dana Robert of BUSTH to lecture on Christian missions over the past 100 years. Dr. Robert focused on the concept of mission frontiers; not just in the sense of new places where missionaries have reached, but defined mission itself as a global frontier movement.
Our post-lecture small group was generally impressed by this approach to mission history in the 20th century as it was a new idea to most of us. We reflected on how useful the term “frontier” is; not simply in a mission context, but in anything that is in continual forward-motion. Dr. Robert highlighted how the usage of the term gradually morphed over the course of the 100 years; we found this ongoing redefinition of the term to be beneficial in understanding the dynamics and history of recent Christian mission.
As perhaps an extension of the frontiers discussion, one group member mentioned a recent article in Christianity Today that discussed dynamics of power and authority. Historically, it has been the power class—those in control—who had the privilege of writing history, often at the expense of the marginal voice. Now, however, the marginalized are increasingly obtaining more power and authority as their opinions are being called to stand out apart from the rest. This parallels Jesus Christ’s example of listening and reaching out to the poor and estranged. This caused us to ponder: Who knows what kind of reform today’s marginalized will bring? What voices are or will be the most prominent in the 21st century frontiers?
Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Pioneer missions
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the evening of December 1st, Dr. Dana L. Robert treated us to one of the three lectures she recently delivered for the Henry Martyn lecture series in Cambridge. She traced the concept of “frontier” in mission theology from 1910-2010. In an incredible display of her command of mission literature, Dr. Robert laid before us a bountiful feast of “frontiers.” She explained how the term emerged in the United States, and then followed its various reconfigurations throughout the world up to the present. So much information came at us so fast that we had to take time to unpack what we heard.
A significant part of the time was spent filling in the gaps. We asked one another, “What did she say, again, about…” But, we also settled into some deeper reflections. One student made a great observation. “Dr. Robert mentioned that Ralph Winter’s idea of ‘frontier’ significantly shrunk the meaning of ‘frontier’ in mission discourse. He applied it in one way – to unreached people groups. I had the impression that she felt that was a loss, but I think that strict definitions can be more helpful than elastic and multi-layered ones.” He went on to point out that when a term like “frontier” or “mission” becomes too broad, it becomes either meaningless or a mockery. “How can helping my unbelieving neighbor carry in groceries,” one student asked, “be compared with moving to a different place, learning a different language, and proclaiming the gospel to a people who have never heard of Jesus?” Frontiers may be crossed in both cases, but can they truly be considered the same frontier?
Another student probed a subsidiary idea, in Dr. Robert’s lecture, regarding “pioneers.” The language of frontiers and pioneers are bound together. Yet, the student asked, “Has there been adequate theological reflection on that term?” Pioneers, the group conceded, popularly evokes images of individual heroics, conquest, and the subjugation of the earth. The pioneer may not be an adequate metaphor for this time.
The discussion ended around the discussion of missionary pioneers, and the attitude of superiority that sometimes accompanied them into a new culture. A student spoke gratefully for the work of pioneer missionaries in Korea, but regretted that some of their feeling of cultural superiority had seeped into their ministry and the church. “How,” he asked, “can we avoid sending missionaries with those kinds of attitudes today? What do they need to be taught?” One student suggested that the expansion of Christianity in the Global South, and its reduction in the North has convincingly demonstrated that Christianity is not a captive of Western culture. In fact, Western culture may be corrosive to the gospel. Therefore, she suggested, Western missionaries are less likely now to tie Christianity to their civilization. Another student added that history could be a great place to teach humility. Western missionaries should be familiar with the implosion of Western “Christian” culture during the World Wars, and remember the criticisms of the colonized peoples. Those historical lessons, he offered, could be a training ground for cultural humility. As our time ended, another student added that Christian humility may not be a matter of “information” taught in a classroom, but of “formation” acquired through discipleship. And with that, our time was over, leaving us to consider what practices might foster mission humility without subverting missionary boldness.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
On the evening of December 1st, Dr. Dana L. Robert treated us to one of the three lectures she recently delivered for the Henry Martyn lecture series in Cambridge. She traced the concept of “frontier” in mission theology from 1910-2010. In an incredible display of her command of mission literature, Dr. Robert laid before us a bountiful feast of “frontiers.” She explained how the term emerged in the United States, and then followed its various reconfigurations throughout the world up to the present. So much information came at us so fast that we had to take time to unpack what we heard.
A significant part of the time was spent filling in the gaps. We asked one another, “What did she say, again, about…” But, we also settled into some deeper reflections. One student made a great observation. “Dr. Robert mentioned that Ralph Winter’s idea of ‘frontier’ significantly shrunk the meaning of ‘frontier’ in mission discourse. He applied it in one way – to unreached people groups. I had the impression that she felt that was a loss, but I think that strict definitions can be more helpful than elastic and multi-layered ones.” He went on to point out that when a term like “frontier” or “mission” becomes too broad, it becomes either meaningless or a mockery. “How can helping my unbelieving neighbor carry in groceries,” one student asked, “be compared with moving to a different place, learning a different language, and proclaiming the gospel to a people who have never heard of Jesus?” Frontiers may be crossed in both cases, but can they truly be considered the same frontier?
Another student probed a subsidiary idea, in Dr. Robert’s lecture, regarding “pioneers.” The language of frontiers and pioneers are bound together. Yet, the student asked, “Has there been adequate theological reflection on that term?” Pioneers, the group conceded, popularly evokes images of individual heroics, conquest, and the subjugation of the earth. The pioneer may not be an adequate metaphor for this time.
The discussion ended around the discussion of missionary pioneers, and the attitude of superiority that sometimes accompanied them into a new culture. A student spoke gratefully for the work of pioneer missionaries in Korea, but regretted that some of their feeling of cultural superiority had seeped into their ministry and the church. “How,” he asked, “can we avoid sending missionaries with those kinds of attitudes today? What do they need to be taught?” One student suggested that the expansion of Christianity in the Global South, and its reduction in the North has convincingly demonstrated that Christianity is not a captive of Western culture. In fact, Western culture may be corrosive to the gospel. Therefore, she suggested, Western missionaries are less likely now to tie Christianity to their civilization. Another student added that history could be a great place to teach humility. Western missionaries should be familiar with the implosion of Western “Christian” culture during the World Wars, and remember the criticisms of the colonized peoples. Those historical lessons, he offered, could be a training ground for cultural humility. As our time ended, another student added that Christian humility may not be a matter of “information” taught in a classroom, but of “formation” acquired through discipleship. And with that, our time was over, leaving us to consider what practices might foster mission humility without subverting missionary boldness.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Monday, November 29, 2010
Different perspectives on mission and money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Last week, we had the privilege of having Dr. Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University. His lecture on the relationship between money and mission was fascinating. His claim that we do not need a lot of money to evangelize the world was well substantiated with various anecdotes. However, our members had very different ideas on the role of money while understanding his points.
One student pointed out that there has been a general tendency to downplay the role of money in world mission. He shared his experience while participating in the Boston Conference 2010: he was in a room where one student presented his paper regarding the role of NGO on mission. He said that he was surprised during the discussion time that how many people were angry, arguing that we should keep money separate from the proclamation of the gospel. Another student agreed with him. He said that we should recognize the fact that we need money in mission. Although the missionaries came in faith without money, but they still had to pray to God for their needs. So we can’t say that money isn’t necessary in doing mission. Faith-based mission (depending on God for our money and needs) has also something to do with money. They just seek for another source for the money. The other student defended Dr. Bonk’s position. She said that it seems that he just wanted to emphasize that we don’t need to assume that we need so much money in doing mission. But the first student maintained that we should accept that money is important tool in world mission.
Another student jumped in the discussion and turned our attention to broader issue of power. He talked that we should remember there are other types of power beyond the monetary. Intellectual capital, networks of powerful people, etc. If we are to be responsible with our money, let’s also think how to be righteously rich with our other blessings. We agreed with his point. One student added to his remark by saying that since the shift to the south, money has become so much associated with colonialism.
At the end of the discussion, we briefly shared our expectations toward pastor relating to money issue and found very interesting cultural differences between Koreans and African-American: Many Koreans said that they want their pastors poor, but we learned that in many African-American churches, the leaders wear gold since the way a pastor lives is a reflection of the generosity of the congregation. What an interesting cultural difference!
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Last week, we had the privilege of having Dr. Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University. His lecture on the relationship between money and mission was fascinating. His claim that we do not need a lot of money to evangelize the world was well substantiated with various anecdotes. However, our members had very different ideas on the role of money while understanding his points.
One student pointed out that there has been a general tendency to downplay the role of money in world mission. He shared his experience while participating in the Boston Conference 2010: he was in a room where one student presented his paper regarding the role of NGO on mission. He said that he was surprised during the discussion time that how many people were angry, arguing that we should keep money separate from the proclamation of the gospel. Another student agreed with him. He said that we should recognize the fact that we need money in mission. Although the missionaries came in faith without money, but they still had to pray to God for their needs. So we can’t say that money isn’t necessary in doing mission. Faith-based mission (depending on God for our money and needs) has also something to do with money. They just seek for another source for the money. The other student defended Dr. Bonk’s position. She said that it seems that he just wanted to emphasize that we don’t need to assume that we need so much money in doing mission. But the first student maintained that we should accept that money is important tool in world mission.
Another student jumped in the discussion and turned our attention to broader issue of power. He talked that we should remember there are other types of power beyond the monetary. Intellectual capital, networks of powerful people, etc. If we are to be responsible with our money, let’s also think how to be righteously rich with our other blessings. We agreed with his point. One student added to his remark by saying that since the shift to the south, money has become so much associated with colonialism.
At the end of the discussion, we briefly shared our expectations toward pastor relating to money issue and found very interesting cultural differences between Koreans and African-American: Many Koreans said that they want their pastors poor, but we learned that in many African-American churches, the leaders wear gold since the way a pastor lives is a reflection of the generosity of the congregation. What an interesting cultural difference!
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Mission and Money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In the session for finance, Dr. Jonathan Bonk, the president of OMSC gave us the special lecture on the relationship between mission and finance. The lecture was moved for my group because Dr. Bonk was very persuasive with several concrete stories. Especially, the story of Mizoram that was one of the poorest regions in Northern India and later became the second highest literacy village in India was amazing. Though they are poor, they are sending missionaries with supporting fund by 40% amount of their total budget because they see the task of proclaiming the gospel as their responsibility as a nation. With the stories, Dr. Bonk concluded that mission is not the byproduct of the money affair, but the precious fruit of the passion.
The responses of my group were varying from positive to the other side. Most of participants agreed with conclusion, “mission is the precious fruit of the passion.” Since the subject of mission is God and we are just agents for God’s mission, our obedience with passion to God’s mission is most important element in mission activities any other than circumstance, finance and cultural equipment. However, one of my group members pointed out in a succinct manner that money matters in all activities including mission. It could be used as a resource or asset and this is obvious when we are going to the ends of the earth. Another responded that the lecture has very familiar stories because he heard similar stories in Korea, that is, people would describe spiritual movements through people. Another member also stated that the lecture was little different from what he expected because he expected to hear the story related to how the financial problem can be solved in mission enterprises. Despite these responses, we agreed that we should have missionary zeal like Mizoram people who show us the miracle of God’s mission. Lastly, we finished our discussion by talking on the business mission stated by Dr. Johnson for a moment.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
In the session for finance, Dr. Jonathan Bonk, the president of OMSC gave us the special lecture on the relationship between mission and finance. The lecture was moved for my group because Dr. Bonk was very persuasive with several concrete stories. Especially, the story of Mizoram that was one of the poorest regions in Northern India and later became the second highest literacy village in India was amazing. Though they are poor, they are sending missionaries with supporting fund by 40% amount of their total budget because they see the task of proclaiming the gospel as their responsibility as a nation. With the stories, Dr. Bonk concluded that mission is not the byproduct of the money affair, but the precious fruit of the passion.
The responses of my group were varying from positive to the other side. Most of participants agreed with conclusion, “mission is the precious fruit of the passion.” Since the subject of mission is God and we are just agents for God’s mission, our obedience with passion to God’s mission is most important element in mission activities any other than circumstance, finance and cultural equipment. However, one of my group members pointed out in a succinct manner that money matters in all activities including mission. It could be used as a resource or asset and this is obvious when we are going to the ends of the earth. Another responded that the lecture has very familiar stories because he heard similar stories in Korea, that is, people would describe spiritual movements through people. Another member also stated that the lecture was little different from what he expected because he expected to hear the story related to how the financial problem can be solved in mission enterprises. Despite these responses, we agreed that we should have missionary zeal like Mizoram people who show us the miracle of God’s mission. Lastly, we finished our discussion by talking on the business mission stated by Dr. Johnson for a moment.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Dynamics of mission and money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
This past week in Global Christianity, Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University gave the lecture on Christian mission and finance. Instead of elaborating on his article from The Atlas of Global Christianity, which discusses the concentration of Christian wealth in the ‘global north’ despite the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global south,’ he took a narrative approach. Dr. Bonk started by looking at the large amounts of money pumped into mission in the global north, particularly mission approached from the impulse of economic and social development and contrasted this with extraordinary stories of successful evangelizing missions done by communities on limited economic resources, such as the Mizoram in northeast India, and the Kachin Baptist churches in Myanmar (Burma).
Through mission the good news of the gospel has an important impact on culture. However, as Dr. Bonk pointed out, the Christian message may necessitate a shift in culture but not necessarily a change towards western consumerism. This we thought was an important insight when considering finance and mission. We discussed the case of Korea, where during the post civil war era the country was in financial crisis. The infusion of money from missions allowed missionaries to build structures such as schools and hospitals. Two Korean students in our discussion suggested this may have forged a path for some to come to the church, as a first step of evangelism in the Korean church. At the same time, we discussed how accepting financial help has complex affects. It can create a one-sided influence from the providers, and perhaps create a dependency relationship. While educational and healthcare institutions might be a positive, the missionaries also westernized Korea and pushed aside many cultural practices considered unchristian. As a result there was some lose of cultural identity. Our discussion came to a consensus that relationship building is an important way of doing mission that is incarnational. Such a holistic, incarnational approach to mission ensures that missionaries retain a sensitivity to local culture and avoid, to some extent, the political pitfalls associated with social issues.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
This past week in Global Christianity, Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University gave the lecture on Christian mission and finance. Instead of elaborating on his article from The Atlas of Global Christianity, which discusses the concentration of Christian wealth in the ‘global north’ despite the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global south,’ he took a narrative approach. Dr. Bonk started by looking at the large amounts of money pumped into mission in the global north, particularly mission approached from the impulse of economic and social development and contrasted this with extraordinary stories of successful evangelizing missions done by communities on limited economic resources, such as the Mizoram in northeast India, and the Kachin Baptist churches in Myanmar (Burma).
Through mission the good news of the gospel has an important impact on culture. However, as Dr. Bonk pointed out, the Christian message may necessitate a shift in culture but not necessarily a change towards western consumerism. This we thought was an important insight when considering finance and mission. We discussed the case of Korea, where during the post civil war era the country was in financial crisis. The infusion of money from missions allowed missionaries to build structures such as schools and hospitals. Two Korean students in our discussion suggested this may have forged a path for some to come to the church, as a first step of evangelism in the Korean church. At the same time, we discussed how accepting financial help has complex affects. It can create a one-sided influence from the providers, and perhaps create a dependency relationship. While educational and healthcare institutions might be a positive, the missionaries also westernized Korea and pushed aside many cultural practices considered unchristian. As a result there was some lose of cultural identity. Our discussion came to a consensus that relationship building is an important way of doing mission that is incarnational. Such a holistic, incarnational approach to mission ensures that missionaries retain a sensitivity to local culture and avoid, to some extent, the political pitfalls associated with social issues.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Monday, November 22, 2010
"Money tells us very little about mission"
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
After reading Jonathan Bonk’s essay in the Atlas of Global of Christianity it was a delight to have him speak in class on November 17, 2010. It was a rare opportunity to hear and speak with one of the authors of the book. Without repeating what was written in the Atlas, Bonk exposed us to a variety of contemporary forms of mission that are accomplished with little or no money. His overarching point was to dissociate mission and money. Echoing the tenor of the lecture, one student in our group summarized the lesson: “Money tells us very little about mission.”
The way Bonk presented the material made an impression on the class. He narrated a variety of stories, interspersing them with a few observations or remarks. In this way he did not try to argue the class into seeing mission and money differently, he illustrated it. It was a delightful and subtle approach, and left a strong impression. One student noted appreciatively, “I picked up a lot of good preaching points and illustrations from tonight’s class.”
As our group settled into discussing the details of how money and mission overlap, current concerns surfaced. One student explained that she will move to Israel in two months in order to become a missionary working among Palestinians. She is currently pressed by her mission organization to complete the raising all of her funds. The money, she trusts, will come. However, there are deeper problems. Her church and mission organization both want to send out missionaries who have impressive credentials: university and seminary degrees, certificates of ordination. “How,” she asked, “do those status symbols help me live more closely to those among whom I want to minister?” The symbols of academic and clerical achievement she fears will only intensify her “outsider” status. Yet, ironically, the institutions that desperately want her to become an “insider” insist that she hold them. Mission really does struggle with issues of money, and the status symbols that can be purchased by it.
The theme of Bonk’s lecture, focusing on creative ways groups have engaged in mission, later called forth further examples from the group. In particular, the early Methodist movement was singled out. It did not raise money for expanding the church, someone reflected, but as Methodists moved about they started their own small groups. As those groups grew, they might eventually appeal for a clergyman. “Why,” it was asked, “have we inverted that process?” Why do we send the religious specialist first? It costs so much money to support the religious specialist, but none to support a migrant who has settled into a new community and found a new job. By sending the religious specialist first we have forced ourselves to create structures for sending money from outside a community, and grown a bureaucracy of mission. Nostalgia for a simpler time, or simpler way of doing mission seemed to affect the whole group. Nevertheless, parting remarks revealed an awareness that we cannot simply dismember the history and institutions of the modern missionary movement. We cannot naively return to a simpler time or way of doing mission. We can though learn from alternative models. And that, we concluded, was the gift of the evening. It was an opportunity to stretch our imaginations.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
After reading Jonathan Bonk’s essay in the Atlas of Global of Christianity it was a delight to have him speak in class on November 17, 2010. It was a rare opportunity to hear and speak with one of the authors of the book. Without repeating what was written in the Atlas, Bonk exposed us to a variety of contemporary forms of mission that are accomplished with little or no money. His overarching point was to dissociate mission and money. Echoing the tenor of the lecture, one student in our group summarized the lesson: “Money tells us very little about mission.”
The way Bonk presented the material made an impression on the class. He narrated a variety of stories, interspersing them with a few observations or remarks. In this way he did not try to argue the class into seeing mission and money differently, he illustrated it. It was a delightful and subtle approach, and left a strong impression. One student noted appreciatively, “I picked up a lot of good preaching points and illustrations from tonight’s class.”
As our group settled into discussing the details of how money and mission overlap, current concerns surfaced. One student explained that she will move to Israel in two months in order to become a missionary working among Palestinians. She is currently pressed by her mission organization to complete the raising all of her funds. The money, she trusts, will come. However, there are deeper problems. Her church and mission organization both want to send out missionaries who have impressive credentials: university and seminary degrees, certificates of ordination. “How,” she asked, “do those status symbols help me live more closely to those among whom I want to minister?” The symbols of academic and clerical achievement she fears will only intensify her “outsider” status. Yet, ironically, the institutions that desperately want her to become an “insider” insist that she hold them. Mission really does struggle with issues of money, and the status symbols that can be purchased by it.
The theme of Bonk’s lecture, focusing on creative ways groups have engaged in mission, later called forth further examples from the group. In particular, the early Methodist movement was singled out. It did not raise money for expanding the church, someone reflected, but as Methodists moved about they started their own small groups. As those groups grew, they might eventually appeal for a clergyman. “Why,” it was asked, “have we inverted that process?” Why do we send the religious specialist first? It costs so much money to support the religious specialist, but none to support a migrant who has settled into a new community and found a new job. By sending the religious specialist first we have forced ourselves to create structures for sending money from outside a community, and grown a bureaucracy of mission. Nostalgia for a simpler time, or simpler way of doing mission seemed to affect the whole group. Nevertheless, parting remarks revealed an awareness that we cannot simply dismember the history and institutions of the modern missionary movement. We cannot naively return to a simpler time or way of doing mission. We can though learn from alternative models. And that, we concluded, was the gift of the evening. It was an opportunity to stretch our imaginations.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Money and foreign missions
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center in New Haven, Connecticut gave the lecture on Christian/Mission Finance. He reminded us that missions does not require huge financial resources and large institutional structures but rather passion on the part of Christians who feel profoundly that they need to share what they have seen and heard. You don’t need a lot of money to evangelize the world. Bonk’s presentation included examples of this from around the world.
Once again we had a diverse group, men and women as well as Koreans, Indians and Americans, in which to reflect on our speaker’s contribution. As Dr. Bonk had referred to examples of mission in the church of Mizoram, one of our group shared about a visit he had made to that church. He noted the large percentage of the population that is Christian and how prevalent the church is in society, the Presbyterians being the largest Christian tradition in the region. It has invested significant time, energy and financial support in social programs. Government officials are active members and the state supports church activities in many ways.
As two of our number are from Korea, we reflected on the situation there. Dr. Bonk had noted that the number of Korean missionaries is increasing while the number of church members is actually decreasing. We were surprised since this seemed counter-intuitive to us. One of our group shared the perspective of his father who is a pastor in Korea. Since as a pastor he has seen that involvement in missions revitalizes his church, he encourages his congregation’s participation in the sending and financing of foreign mission initiatives. Hence mission is understood to be good for the sending church and is a measure of its vitality. That is certainly one of the principal themes in Robert Wuthnow’s book Boundless Faith that we have been reading for this class. Engagement in foreign mission activities then can, in some cases, be an attempt by Christian leaders to recapture forward momentum and energy in their churches.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center in New Haven, Connecticut gave the lecture on Christian/Mission Finance. He reminded us that missions does not require huge financial resources and large institutional structures but rather passion on the part of Christians who feel profoundly that they need to share what they have seen and heard. You don’t need a lot of money to evangelize the world. Bonk’s presentation included examples of this from around the world.
Once again we had a diverse group, men and women as well as Koreans, Indians and Americans, in which to reflect on our speaker’s contribution. As Dr. Bonk had referred to examples of mission in the church of Mizoram, one of our group shared about a visit he had made to that church. He noted the large percentage of the population that is Christian and how prevalent the church is in society, the Presbyterians being the largest Christian tradition in the region. It has invested significant time, energy and financial support in social programs. Government officials are active members and the state supports church activities in many ways.
As two of our number are from Korea, we reflected on the situation there. Dr. Bonk had noted that the number of Korean missionaries is increasing while the number of church members is actually decreasing. We were surprised since this seemed counter-intuitive to us. One of our group shared the perspective of his father who is a pastor in Korea. Since as a pastor he has seen that involvement in missions revitalizes his church, he encourages his congregation’s participation in the sending and financing of foreign mission initiatives. Hence mission is understood to be good for the sending church and is a measure of its vitality. That is certainly one of the principal themes in Robert Wuthnow’s book Boundless Faith that we have been reading for this class. Engagement in foreign mission activities then can, in some cases, be an attempt by Christian leaders to recapture forward momentum and energy in their churches.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Quality of Roman Catholic mission
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
This past week in our Global Christianity course we had the opportunity to hear from guest lecturer Father Vincent Machozi of Boston University on significant changes in Roman Catholicism over the last one hundred years. Father Machozi brought up some important points that stimulated our discussion. Among his points was expansion of the church in the global South, and with it a changing understanding of ‘catholicity’ as fullness of life. Father Machozi also brought attention to changes in the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council, particularly with the attention given to the church and social action.
We found Father Machozi’s point that catholicity understood as fullness of life has a profound impact on mission very interesting. Such an approach no longer sees mission as converting the whole world, and instead focuses on mission as quality of life. It shifts the evaluation of mission success away from quantitative convert head counts, to whether Christianity is qualitatively relevant and potent to deal with problems people face daily, such as poverty and injustice. We noted that the question of quantity vs. quality in Roman Catholic missions is very important in Latin America, where Catholics are a majority in most countries. If quality is not emphasized, then people might become Catholics in name or identity only, without Christianity having a significant influence on important activities and decisions.
The Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on social action was an aspect that we found very interesting, especially since all of us came from Protestant traditions we thought failed to take global action seriously as church bodies. We discussed whether the centralized hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church allows Catholics to speak with tremendous power with a unified voice on important issues and stand up to such things as the debt of developing nations, poverty, and nuclear proliferation. We were left engaging with ideas on how Protestant churches might be inspired to take similar positions with resolve.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Roman Catholicism in India and South Korea
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
During our class session of November 10, 2010, Fr Vincent Machozi of Boston University lectured on the History of Catholicism. As with previous presenters, he packed a lot of information into his lecture. This week our follow-up discussion group included two people from South Korea, one from India and one from the United States. We shared first about our impressions of Catholicism in India and South Korea. In India the church is known to have some of the best schools in the country; devout Hindus will often send their children to those schools because of their quality. The church also is quite involved in social programs. Our South Korean participants noted that there Roman Catholics have a reputation of being positively engaged in society while their Protestant counterparts are often seen as corrupt. In addition, Catholics are often thought of as being united while Protestants are split into many different factions. The strong and clearly defined hierarchical leadership structure is also a plus in Korean society which values those kinds of structures rather than more egalitarian ones. We wondered if perhaps that is why Christian Base Communities which were so popular in Latin America have not been part of the Korean Catholic experience.
In both Korea and India Roman Catholics are known for being open to an engagement with indigenous cultures and other religions. They are involved in inter-religious dialogue with Buddhists and Hindus, and in India many apply the bindi spot on their foreheads, a Hindi tradition. In Korea Catholic liturgy appropriates certain aspects of the traditional ancestor veneration. Protestants, on the other hand, include recognition of the ancestors but have changed significantly the way it happens in the liturgy so as to distance themselves from traditional ceremonies.
As our discussion time ended, we had just started to discuss Peter Phan’s Boston 2010 presentation about inter-religious dialogue at the 1910 missionary gathering and Vatican II. We were trying to decide if we agree with his suggestion that Christians need to be open to being converted by our interlocutors as we dialogue with those of other religions. If we accept that premise, what then does mission look like?
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Monday, November 15, 2010
Remarkable change of Roman Catholic Church
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On November 10th, we had privilege to have Vincent Machozi, a catholic priest. he lectured on the four main changes within Catholic church for the last one hundred years.
After the lecture, our group members talked long about the lecturer’s claim that the attitude of Catholics towards Protestants has been radically changed showing openness. Although all of us welcomed the change, a few students raised questions over the alleged remarkable change of Roman Catholics that they are open to all cultures and theologies. One student observed that Catholics are open to dialogue only as long as authority of pope is not questioned. In this sense, Catholic church is not truly open. The other student agreed with him and added that we should not overlook the fact that Catholics want others to come under their authority when they dialogue with other Christian traditions.
Our talks developed into Catholic Church’s structure and theology. One student commented that Catholics seemed to be closed in structure, but becoming more open theologically to others. But another student rebutted. He claimed that Catholics are not open theologically either pointing out the fact that the RCC does not acknowledge baptism by non-RCC churches because they believe that other traditions lack apostolic succession. He added that basis of dialogue should be recognition of others as body of Christ, but he was doubtful whether Catholics view Protestants as real brothers in Christ. One Korean student in our group mentioned the opposite situation pointing out the fact that many Korean Protestants view Catholics as a heresy. We talked around this issue for a while and concluded that theological intolerance of both Catholics and Protestants is a real stumbling block in the ecumenical movement.
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Significant changes in the Roman Catholic Church
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Last night, November 10th, Vincent Machozi came to our class as a representative for the Roman Catholic tradition. He began by reminding us that the adjective “Roman,” before Catholic is a relatively recent development. Such a distinction only appeared after the Reformation, when Protestant history and Roman Catholic history finally diverged after sharing a common history for 1,500 years. It was an effective way to remind a classroom of Protestants that although he, as a Roman Catholic, and we, as Protestants, are now separate Christian traditions, together we still have much in common.
In our small group discussion, this peaceful rapprochement was immediately picked up. “I am blown away,” a student effused, “at the enormous shifts within the Roman Catholic Church over the last century. There is an entirely different attitude towards Protestants, other religions, and toward the laity.” The changes are so enormous, that one student wondered how the Roman Catholic Church is able to negotiate the reversals.
Another student made a fascinating observation: “Roman Catholics used to teach that there was no salvation outside the institutional church. They have changed now, and have accepted Protestants as separated, but nevertheless saved, brethren.” In Korea, he went on to explain, Protestants have not been quite so generous. Many Korean Protestants do not believe Roman Catholics are Christians, so practice a Protestant form of “no salvation outside the [Protestant] Church.” Further discussion revealed the complex history of Catholicism and Protestantism in Asia. In several East Asian languages, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are distinguished as entirely separate religions; they are not considered as two strands of one Christian tradition. This reflects the antagonistic history of the two streams.
It was good to be reminded that, historically, there has been very real animosity between Roman Catholics and Protestants. The shift in attitude over the last generation may cause amnesia. In fact a student responding to the Korean Protestant condemnation of Roman Catholics, initially stated that never happened in the West. “There was suspicion between the two groups, yes, but not a Protestant conviction that Catholics were going to hell.” A short review of Protestant history, though, quickly refreshed her memory, and amended her position.
One student expressed mixed feelings about the seismic changes in Roman Catholic doctrine initiated at Vatican II. The pope, he recalled, was trying to open a window to modernity. Observers, though, have suggested the Roman Catholic Church paved a superhighway for modernity. The sustained resistance to modernity ended, and there was widespread accommodation to the modern world. Yet, a generation later modernity seems hopelessly doomed by post-modern critiques. “How ironic,” he noted, “that people are now trying to find effective points of resistance to the modern mindset. A generation ago, the Roman Catholic Church appeared to be a bastion of resistance, but because of Vatican II now seems complicit in the modern project.” Another student added, “The post-modern attack on meta-narratives is in need of a powerful antidote. Roman Catholicism used to have a strong meta-narrative; now, though, it seems hopelessly confused as it tries to accommodate the truth claims that exist from competing religious communities.” Something may have been gained at Vatican II, but there was a wistful longing—by Protestants of all things—for all that was lost.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Struggles in the Anglican Communion
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In our Global Christianity course on October 27th, we had the opportunity to hear from Reverend Ian Douglas, now the Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut within the Episcopal Church USA. Reverend Douglas is also a former faculty member at the Episcopal Divinity School right across the river from us at Boston University. He brought his academic and ministerial experience to the discussion of global Anglicanism.
The 38 episcopate structured churches and several extra provincial churches that share a common history are loosely connected as the Anglican Communion, which together is the 3rd largest Christian group after Orthodox churches and Roman Catholics. In Reverend Douglas’ discussion of the last 100 years of Anglicanism to the present, a common thread of tension arose: the struggle to maintain the integral unity of the Communion within the diversity of independently administered episcopate churches—between the particular and the universal, the local and the global.
Our discussion centered on some of the issues that cause tension within the Anglican Communion. Some of most divisive concerns center on gender and sexuality: the ordination of women, and the inclusion of gay and lesbian into the church, including the ordination of openly gay and lesbian men and women. We quickly noted that churches within the Anglican Communion, even within episcopates, sometimes move in completely opposite directions on these important issues: for example the ordination of Reverend Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire enflamed controversy both in the Episcopal Church USA, as well as in churches across the globe, particularly in Nigeria, home to a sizable proportion of the world’s Anglicans.
One of the participants in our discussion had regularly attended an Episcopal church in New England. He shared that his church was extremely conservative on the issues of the ordination of women and did not condone gay and lesbian partnerships. However, this church belongs to a diocese that is open and inclusive. When Reverend Gene Robinson was ordained, some in that church left the Communion altogether. They left not because of what was happening locally but because there was no way to enforce uniformity on the issue globally. The church that remained made a compromised to with the diocese to maintain a different theological perspective on gender and inclusion.
We discussants asked ourselves if the structure of Anglican administration allows for pragmatism and patience with regard to theological differences. Brad noted that pragmatism or compromise may not be able to stop large schisms, since defections over the issue of women and gay and lesbians are disproportionately large in the ‘global south.’
Despite bitter disagreement on the full inclusion of persons in the church because of varying views on gender, we discussed how Anglicans have come together to work against racism and Apartheid in South Africa, for example. The Reverend Desmond Tutu has said he had the whole of the Anglican Communion behind him in his struggle. We wondered if in our lifetimes we would see Anglicans rally so unanimously against sexism, or homophobia. We left reflecting on how the tension of diversity and unity play out along the important questions of who can be fully included in the body of Christ, not only for the Anglican Communion, but also for our own churches.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
The shift of global Anglicanism
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the evening of October 27, Episcopalian bishop Ian Douglas lectured us on Anglicanism. Most of all, bishop Douglas preferred to use “Anglican Communion” rather than “Anglican Church” in referring to the Anglicanism. According to him, Anglican Communion is the family (or communion) of churches that has originated from the Church of England and is now made up of 38 regional or national churches known as provinces with 80 million members around the world. He particularly highlighted that Anglicanism is no more identified with the white, English-speaking West, but a multi-cultural, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic entity. As a result, he stressed, Anglicanism is struggling to find unity at the expense of the diversity and at the same time, the diversity at the expense of the unity.
Our discussion began by sharing impressions of the lecture. By and large, we shared that the way in which he presented Anglicanism was appealing in terms of their goal being reconciliation through the gospel. Not only that, but one of colleagues stated that the tangible description of the tension between contextualization and catholicity was very impressive. However, there was an inquiry on the origin of Anglicanism. One argued that Anglicanism seems closer to Catholics in terms of theology and structure because, he sees, the schism of Anglican Church from Catholicism in the 17th century seems to be centered on the political situation rather than theology. Anyhow, we agreed that the global presence of Anglicanism is point to the balance of unity and diversity within its theology and administrative structure, i.e. ecclesiology.
Turning to the globalization issue, we discussed about the demographic shift of Anglicanism between colonial eras to global Anglicanism today. In fact, Anglicanism began to spread in the light of colonialism by Britain in the 19th century and by the USA in the 20th century. But the typical Anglican today is different from that of colonial eras. It is female, black and non-English speaking. As one of our members pointed out, there seems to be a gap between realities of two moments. Then, what causes this shift and the global Anglicanism today? One argued that the hierarchical authority structure would contribute to preserving Anglicanism. That is, though Anglican Communions exist around world, they can maintain unity amid diversity because of their episcopacy. This view seems to come from one’s structural understanding of Anglicanism. Another participant argued that global presence of Anglicanism is possible through the backlash against colonial oppression. By the end of colonialism, many indigenous people seek to establish their churches with Anglican background. In addition to this efforts, the goal of reconciliation through the gospel effects on the forming of the indigenous faith. As a result, this participant sees, Anglicanism by the black, female, non-native English speaking was settled down. We can surmise in diverse way, but there were two things we converged: the missionary efforts since colonial era and the strategic transition from missionary sending to missionary partnership with younger churches under influence of post-colonialism.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Unity and diversity in Anglicanism
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On October 27th, we had an opportunity to hear about Anglicanism and its globalization by Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas. After his lecture, our group shared general reflections on his lecture.
We first talked about the history of Anglicanism, particularly over its beginning. During the lecture, Dr. Douglas posits that the Henry VIII divorce issue was not the most important issue but several students expressed different views. For example, one student argued that divorce problem of the English king was indeed a turning point, although, the issue of contextualization, as Dr. Douglas mentioned, was also very important. Other students agreed that we cannot ignore the historical fact that English reformation had something to do with complicated issues including political, social, and religious motivations.
After that, we talked at length about the “unity within diversity slogan” of the Anglican Church. One student pointed out that the concept of unity within diversity must be a recent concept since Anglican Church pre-American colonialism was rather intolerant. For example, the very reason why the Puritans wanted to make a new society was something to do with the intolerance of Anglicanism. In addition, the works of George Whitefield and John Wesley, who were ordained ministers of Anglican Church, were also criticized within Anglicanism. The other student agreed with him and added that he believed that the Anglican Church exported a universal Anglicanism in its colonial endeavors. However, we all agreed that the current Anglican Communion model can serve as a good model for the 21st century global church. And all students said that they learned a lot from today’s lecture about the important concept of “diversity and unity.”
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Thursday, October 28, 2010
What can be learned from global Anglicanism?
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On October 27th, we had the pleasure of hearing a lecture on global Anglicanism from Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas, former EDS faculty member and current bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut. Starting from the beginning of Anglicanism, he outlined the primary struggle that has followed the Communion throughout its history into the present: the struggle between the particular and the universal, or the local and the global. What has resulted is a Communion that strives to achieve unity within diversity, often through means of social justice, as they aim to serve God throughout the world.
In our small group discussions, we discussed the indigenization of Anglicanism in the Korean context. One group member, a Korean Methodist who has visited an Anglican church in Korea, was surprised to see the level of indigenization there. The building is built in the Korean style, and within contains Korean ethnic depictions and ornaments. A question was raised, however, about what makes a church truly indigenous. Anglicans are largely united by their worship service (liturgy, prayer book, etc). This was confirmed by our Korean group member who noted that services at Trinity Church Boston (Episcopal) and the South Korean Anglican church were almost identical, save for the language difference. Is language alone what makes a church indigenous?
Our group also discussed what other Christian churches and traditions could possibly learn from the history of Anglicanism, especially in light of what they’ve faced throughout the 20th century. Why does it seem that Anglicanism has had more success in achieving unity within diversity? We seemed to agree that this might be because of the Anglican Communion’s leadership structure. There is a lack of central authority, yet it is one cohesive unit and for the large part acts as such (within the 38 churches). It is not as easy to leave the Anglican Communion as it is, for example, to start a new Baptist church if disagreements arise. The sense of community within the Anglican Communion is certainly a strength that other Christian traditions might benefit from investigating further.
Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator
What it means to be Anglican
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
After Ian T. Douglas, bishop of the Connecticut diocese, spoke about the Anglican Communion, our group huddled to reflect and process on what we heard. Our conversation revolved around two foci: the historical presentation we were given about Anglicanism, and the present form of the Anglican Communion.
Students appreciated how Douglas described the current situation within the Anglican Communion. His optimism and conviction that differences can be generative (not merely destructive) resonated profoundly. One student, for instance, found it comforting to hear the current conflict in the Anglican Communion framed in these hopeful terms, because in her own denomination the internal differences are currently polarizing the church. Additionally, she added, “I liked how he described the current situation. It is not something new. These people [differences] have always been here, but now they have a voice.”
Another student chimed in, “I am really surprised that the Anglican Communion has pulled this off, that they have become an international body. They seem so firmly rooted in England!” He went on to share his bewilderment that a tradition that seems so bound to its liturgical form could appeal across so many cultures. “I can see how more expressive forms of Christianity cross cultural boundaries, but Anglicanism? That just really surprises me.”
These comments drew out a lengthy discussion about what it means to be an Anglican. The lecturer had stated that it is the liturgy, the worship, within the Anglican Communion that is universally recognizable. It is not a confession or a hierarchical structure that provides unity, but the liturgy. Not everyone was convinced. One student observed, “In Korea, the Anglican Church takes a very ‘high church’ approach, but in Japan it is a very ‘low church’ style of worship.” How, then, are these two churches united in their form of worship? One student asked, “If it is the liturgy that unites the Anglican Communion, does that mean that they are not united on doctrine?” In other words, he explained, is Anglicanism about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy? To all of these problems, students offered tentative solutions, but it became clear that the one hour with Rev. Dr. Douglas had been insufficient. Many things remained unanswered.
The final turn in the conversation revolved around Douglas’ telling of the history of Anglicanism. He had emphasized, strongly, that Anglicanism was born out of the desire for the catholic faith to take on a contextual form. The universal church needed to be expressed in an English medium. When it spread to other parts of the world during the 18th and 19th centuries, therefore, and managed only to reproduce English style congregations, the Anglican Church was unfaithful to its own originating impulse. This was a very attractive way of telling the story, and perfectly set the stage for the current diversity within the Anglican Communion. However, there was suspicion among the students that such a story was more propaganda than history. Could it be, one wondered, that the church in fact emphasized unity over diversity not only through the 18th and 19th centuries, but from the beginning? Is it only now, when suddenly England and the United States are not comfortable with the theological positions of the rest of the Communion, that they so loudly trumpet diversity? Is this revisionist history to fit their agenda? It was a sharp series of questions on which to end. For answers to such questions, more reading and reflection will need to be done.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Monday, October 25, 2010
The appeal and growth of "Marginal" churches
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Our topic of discussion in Global Christianity for October 20 was ‘Marginal’ Christianity. Our main textbook for the course, The Atlas of Global Christianity, uses the term ‘marginal’ to describe Christian groups who are distinct from Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant groups because of divergent views on commonly accepted confessions such as the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ, or if the authority of a leader or another scripture supersedes these confessions.
Our guest speaker Matthew Bowman provided a compelling history over the last 100 years on the second largest marginal Christian group, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, is the largest faction of the group commonly referred to as Mormons). Mr. Bowman focused our attention on the changing policies of the LDS church that made global expansion possible. He emphasized a shift from a policy of ‘the gathering’ - where the Kingdom of God was envisioned as a new Zion and followers gathered together in Utah - to reforms that encouraged expansion, such as building new temples, a lifting of the ban on priesthood from males of African descent, the policy of ‘correlation’ extending connections to churches outside Utah headquarters, and a call to engage in missions abroad for young men. These changes allowed the LDS church to expand globally.
Demographically speaking, marginal Christians, although small in number, have experienced extraordinary growth rates worldwide. Among the groups we discussed were Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification church led by Reverend Moon (sometimes called the Moonies), and The Family International (or Children of God) initiated by David Berg.
Although none in our group had any interpersonal contact with marginal Christians, many of us expressed an interest in learning more about these groups and what attracts followers to them. “When I first learned about them as a young Christian,” Sam said, “their odd beliefs made me take a step back from investigating these movements. When I entered academia, their oddness instead drew me to them and to studying the circumstances of their historical and social development.”
The main questions for us trying to understand why some marginal Christians are growing at such a rapid pace: what might be some of the factors that account for growth? What would make conversion so appealing? One postulation is each group makes an unequivocal truth claim about what it means to be the truly Christian. This confidence and conviction might be an important attraction for many people. Sam observed that within a world of globalization and post-modernity, where identity and belief are so fractured and unstable, the conviction of marginal groups may offer stability in the midst of change and volatility.
Another factor we discussed was the communal solidary joining a marginal church or movement provides. Precisely because of belief in a unique truth claim, adherents may feel particularly special. Members may have a deep sense belonging and commonality with other members. The community looks out for each other more than other Christian groups might, just from being, for example, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic. This does impose a certain moral rigor and limitation on people who belong to the community. Further, in some cases, there is more emphasis on common life, or belonging, than in believing the same things—which might be characterized in Mormonism. Mr. Bowman pointed this out as an ‘orthopraxy.’ Further, Sam proposed that this might be because of the intellectual freedom provided within Mormonism. It is uniquely postmodern in this way, and lends itself to absorbing others and allowing for a more communal existence without the rigors of extremely enforced intellectual tethers.
Globalization and post-modern strains on firm identities related to family and sexuality, such as the changing ideas of family, the emancipation of women, the sexual revolution and the decline of traditional marriage, also made for interesting discussion. Isaac pointed out the importance of family in the Unification Church, which is a major religious movement where he’s from in South Korea. For both the LDS and the Unification Church, a proper and blessed marriage and children in very ‘traditional’ bent are very important and made sacred and essential to salvation. A harking back to more ‘traditional’ values and making the hetero-sexual marriage union sacred could be a factor in their growth. At the same time young women are leaving Mormonism in North America in alarming numbers (some estimate a defection rate of 75%). Where Mormons and the Unification church went in one direction on family and sexuality, the Family International shows a different orientation completely. The Family, in quite opposite fashion, has embraced the sexual revolution. This church has also made sexuality sacred, but sees sexual relations with many (heterosexual) partners as a way to enhance one’s relationship with Christ, and even to minister to others.
We left our discussion thinking further about not only the appeal and growth of marginal Christians but also how these groups are adapting to new challenges. We pushed ourselves to better understand their unique claims to truth and their struggle within competing Christian assertions of authenticity.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Orthopraxis vs. orthodoxy in Mormonism
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In the session for the Marginal Christianity, we had a special lecture on Mormonism by Mathew Bowman. In a succinct summary fashion, he gave us impressive information on Mormon history during the last century, which consisted of several themes, such as Mormon sacraments, priesthood and global presence of the Mormon Church. Bowman depicted 1890 as the pivotal year for the Mormon Church because they renounced polygamy officially. Six years later, Utah was regarded as the promised land for Mormonism and was admitted to the United States. Since then, Mormonism has been developed as one of world religions, thereby, one can see Mormon presence in the countries other than the United States. The interesting point he made is that Mormonism is a religion of “orthopraxis” rather than “orthodoxy” unlike traditional Christianity. Accordingly, he stated, theological discipline is not indispensable for being a priest in the Mormon tradition.
The lecture was interesting for us because most of us had little chances to hear about Marginal Christianity, especially about Mormonism. At the same time it was very strange and odd for us because we are unfamiliar with it. In this respect, the first reaction came from our discussion group was to ask the Christian identity of Mormonism. One tackled the category in the Atlas of Global Christianity because it categories the Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), Jehovah’s Witness, and Unification Church as Marginal Christianity. From his point of view, it is controversial whether they can be called Christian. Another member supported this idea that Bowman covered history of Latter Day Saints but did not talk about what they believe. Arguing that Bowman kept it to how Mormonism came about, one of our members made a point that in terms of religious freedom Mormonism is a good religion, but in terms of Trinitarian Christian beliefs they cannot be accepted under this label. As our discussion went on, we tend to think there is some difference between major denominations and marginal Christians that are based on theological concepts but Mormons focus more on the pious life (orthopraxis). Admittedly, we respect them in terms of morality and religious piety.
On the question whether diversity of marginal Christians hinders or contributes to the development of the global church, we agreed that it depends on which "marginal" it is referring to. That is because the marginal group is not the one body but the collective of several different faiths. Among them, there might be a religion that seems to never contribute to society, e.g. the Unification Church in Korean and Japanese society. On the other hand, one pointed out that regardless, their missionary focus and aggressive outreach strategy would contribute to their growth.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Considering Mormonism
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On October 20th, we had a guest speaker, Dr. Matthew Bowman who presented the history of Mormonism and its international mission.
After the lecture, our group members shared our reflections: First, one student raised a question over the relevance of calling Mormon as marginal Christians. She said that Mormons have such different beliefs than ‘orthodox’ Christians. Apart from including familiar Biblical characters, their core beliefs are radically different from the basic tenets of the non-“marginal” Christian traditions. Thus, she asked, “is it not better, then, to define them as a “new religion,” rather than attempting a connection with Christianity?”
To her question, one student pointed out that we should know how Mormons view other Christians. If they think that Orthodox Christians are their targets for converting, then it is hard to call them Christians. In other words, if Mormonism considers itself the only path to salvation neglecting other Christian body, then we can call them new religion not Christians. In addition, we should know how they identify themselves. Do they call Christians or not? According to him, he rarely heard that Mormons call themselves as I’m a “Christian.” They would qualify: I’m a Mormon. Another student also suggested that we should think of a better term than grouping Mormonism under the title of “marginal” Christian groups.
After sharing the general reflection, I asked to our members whether their views of Mormonism changed after the lecture. Interestingly, all the group members agreed that our knowledge about the history of Mormonism is upgraded, but they told me that their basic views on Mormonism did not change that much. They remain reluctant to accept Mormonism’s argument.
Then, we turned to the question how does Mormonism’s spread affected the development of Global Christianity. To that question, one student thought that it hinders strength of “orthodox” Christians. And another student said that Mormonism allows for a new opportunity for reevaluation of how “orthodox” defines themselves in their relations to other faiths, how they will define themselves publicly in an understandable way to those outside the faith. But it is also a chance to practice showing “love.” To his opinion, all of us agreed.
For the remaining time, we talked about other marginal Christian group, Jehovah’s witness. Particularly, we talked about the persecution against Jehovah’s witness for their refusing to participate in the mandatory military service. Many of us were surprised because Korean government throws everyone who refused to do the military service behind bars. And we also heard from Korean students that there is ongoing debate whether Korean government should allow them to do some alternative service rather than military training.
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Mormonism in South Korea and India
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In our October 20 class session we were privileged to have an informative and energetic presentation on “Mormonism as a Global Religion” by Matthew Bowman. After a brief introduction to the history of the movement and its subsequent accommodation to American culture in the late 19th century, he addressed its progress in the 20th century. A dedication to evangelism, the extension of the priesthood to people of African decent, and the standardization of worship and practice around the world have resulted in a large increase in the movement outside of North America. But that very standardization has also meant that Mormonism has not been contextualized in local cultures as have been some of the other Christian movements. In the long term that might hinder its growth as people look for religious experiences that make sense in their own local contexts.
In our discussion group we shared perspectives on the Latter-day Saints tradition from our different contexts. We had one person from the U.S., one from South Korea, and one from India. None of us had been familiar with the development of the movement as our lecturer outlined it, so it was good to learn of the issues that Mormonism has faced and its unique leadership structure. Our Korean member shared that Mormon churches have not grown significantly in his region, but another group from the Marginal category, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has experienced significant growth. He said that in Korea Latter-day Saints do not use the aggressive evangelization techniques that are more common among Evangelicals in the country. Our Indian member shared that in his region neither group has been successful at attracting large numbers of participants.
Despite their small numbers in Asia, worldwide Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses together make up 92% of the Christians in the category of Marginal Christians (according to the Atlas of Global Christianity). Why are they so much more numerous than other marginal groups? One of our members suggested two reasons: an emphasis on mission/evangelism and the strong piety practiced in the two traditions. We agreed that that made sense. Significant attention to attracting new members would seem to be an important growth factor. As both traditions seem to have a reputation for strong piety among the laity, they likely attract people from other traditions in which the zeal for the faith has lapsed or where piety among the laity is no longer evident.
With the emphasis on lay leadership at the ward level, we wondered to what extent there might be a mistrust of theological education in the Latter-day Saints tradition. If so, what were the influences that might have caused that?
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Definition of a Christian?
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On October 20th, Matthew Bowman spoke about the history of Mormonism, particularly over the last 100 years. It was an outstanding tour through the major shifts within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it has grappled with becoming an international church. After he left, our group gathered together, and began to ask questions about Marginal Christianity, those groups identified in the Atlas as “Christian,” but somehow distinct from the rest of the Body of Christ.
What makes a group marginal? The first person to respond pointed out that a charismatic leader frequently starts marginal groups, and their organizations often reflect and help to enforce the supremacy of the founder. While we recognized the truth in that statement, it was not entirely satisfying. Further suggestions that marginal groups have departed from Trinitarian theology, or that they change the meaning of common Christian language were helpful additions that illuminated other traits of marginal groups. Nevertheless, one could ask, tongue in cheek, whether or not Jesus was a marginal Christian. Was he not a charismatic figure? Does not his organization exalt him as supreme? Was not his preaching rather weak on Trinitarian doctrine? Was not Jesus infusing new meaning into common religious language?
One student interjected, “All those who identify themselves with Christ are Christian. Who am I,” he asked, “to judge whether they are truly Christian or not?” And yet…
And yet, no one was content to leave the matter there. The same student who was willing to apply the term Christian to anyone associated with Christ, found it difficult to embrace Mormons as truly Christian. A student from Korea, likewise, felt that Moonies should not be counted in the Atlas of Global Christianity because the claims of Rev. Moon diverged so widely from Scripture and Christian tradition.
While everyone seemed anxious to demonstrate what one student called, “a changed attitude,” and be willing to embrace a wide range of Christian beliefs, in the end no one was completely comfortable with an unlimited open-endedness. There must be a line somewhere, some traits that marks a person as “in” or “out” of Christianity.
As the conversation wound down, exhausted by its inability to solve the problem, a new question was introduced: How would marginal Christians have written the Atlas? How many of us, in this group, would have been counted as Christians? Time expired before we could answer, but the question posed—in a different form—the troubling issue of how Christianity is defined, and who gets to define it.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Learning from the Orthodox tradition
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the week of October 13th in the class on Global Christianity, Father Luke Veronis from Holy Cross Seminary gave a guest lecture on the Orthodox Church history and the impact on Orthodox missions, especially in the past century.
If we paint the history of Christianity in terms of broad strokes, one of the dominant colors would be the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global South’ in the last 100 years, a shift that has brought Christian growth in areas of the world where the gospel had no foothold a century ago. But the story of the Orthodox churches would be a counter stroke of a different color. Historically, the Orthodox churches are the oldest Christian traditions. They have a rich spiritual history that shaped early Christianity and the monastic traditions, and as far as missions go, they also have had many missionary champions. However, persecution, repression, and immigration have threatened many Orthodox traditions. This past century has witnessed the multiplying of such treats, through communist oppression in the former Soviet Union and other communist states, the repression and immigration across the Middle East, and the genocide committed against the Armenian people. But it is also a story of survival and resurgence, and hope for the future in other places that have opened up to newfound religious freedoms.
This counter story is all the more disheartening given the widespread lack of knowledge about Orthodoxy among many Christians. Indeed, several participants in our discussion group had not known of the Orthodox churches until this course. The learning experience has been a pleasant surprise. Some of the students expressed an appreciation for the mystical tradition of theosis and the profound encounter with God as mystery within the Orthodox traditions. In our discussion, Teasoeb contrasts this sense aptly: “I think the Orthodox have different, even alluringly mysterious liturgical styles, and although they seem to accept anyone who comes, they definitely do not expose their interior liturgical life like Western bodies do.”
Many in our discussion group were also intrigued by the Orthodox approaches to missions. Father Luke’s lecture stressed that at their best Orthodox models for missions were very respectful of local culture; the pace of missions was slow as to adapt to local culture and language, as well as built a strong base for local leadership … all this in a missionary tradition that flourished long before fervent Catholic and Protestant missions began. It seems that one of the Orthodox models for spreading the gospel was one of patience. Persecution, repression and the minority status of many churches (we can see this at the fall of the Byzantine empire, and more recently of communism), did cause many churches to retreat into a kind of survival mode. Father Luke proposed this may be a reason why many Orthodox churches lost touch with their missionary traditions.
One student, Myung Eun, remarked on their very different style of evangelism: “the Orthodox tend to evangelize people in a different way than Westerners. They do not go forward to evangelize people in the same strong or forceful manner. In Korea many Christian churches have grown in the last hundred years, but there is only one Orthodox church. The Orthodox churches don't use any “marketing” as other churches do to bring people in."
Some in our group were more cautious than others about the Orthodox version of history with regards to missions. Bruce and Jeff pointed out that the Orthodox may see themselves as the ‘underdogs’ of history compared to the Western churches. From this perspective they can differentiate themselves from the more extreme forms of Christian imperialism and cultural insensitivity.
Nevertheless, we could agree that Protestants and Catholics alike can learn much from the patience, the strong sense of continuity with ancient Christian tradition, the rich mystical theology, and the perseverance of the Orthodox churches.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
Monday, October 18, 2010
Orthodoxy in Korea and China
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In this week’s class our guest lecturer, Luke Veronis, gave a very informative talk on the history of Orthodoxy. He gave a brief overview of the apostolic era to the 19th century, focusing especially on significant mission activity from the 4th to 6th centuries and the 9th to 11th centuries. He reminded us that Orthodox missionaries were translating the Gospel into local languages and training local leaders before the Protestant reformation even happened. But from the 15th century onward the advance of Islam resulted in reduced missionary zeal, though there was movement into Slavic areas, Russia and Siberia. During the 19th century missionary work in Korea, Japan and Alaska was organized from Moscow. During the 20th century Orthodoxy spread through emigration into Europe and the Americas but the Church in Eastern Europe and Russian was stifled by persecution until the end of the century. The majority of our group does not know the story of the Orthodoxy well, so it was good to have this introduction. One of our group noted that the lecture we heard gives the impression that in the Orthodox tradition there is a strong sense of history, that things take time. The Gospel needs time to settle into a region; one has to wait for people to be ready. She contrasted that with a sense of urgency that one gets from the Protestant mission tradition, for example.
We talked a bit about the Orthodox tradition in Korea and China. Will the Orthodox tradition experience explosive growth in China as it has in the freer environment of Russia and Eastern Europe in recent years? Certainly the church does not have as significant a history in China to build on as it does in Russia. One of our South Korean members noted that there is only one Orthodox congregation in Seoul. Hence one might get the impression that the Orthodox faithful are not numerous, but of course they are in other regions of the world like Russia, Ethiopia and the Balkans. She also observed that in Korea the church is known for its liturgy which is different from that of the more numerous Protestants. In addition the church don’t use the same marked-oriented means of evangelism, and one gets the impression that the church has not grown rapidly as have their Protestant counterparts. One of our members who is familiar with the tradition noted that Othodoxy is not focused as much on conversion as on theosis, the long journey of getting closer to God. Hence the concept of evangelism is seen in a different light. Again we noted the Orthodox (?) sense that things take time and that patience is necessary.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)