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
Monday, November 29, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)