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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)