The Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity

15 provocations from the future

2010-12-16T18:16:00.000-08:00

Uncertain future of Christianity

2010-12-16T18:14:00.000-08:00

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

Translatability and future of Christianity

2010-12-16T18:11:00.000-08:00

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/

"Boundaries" for mission today

2010-12-07T08:04:00.000-08:00

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/

Gospel and culture

2010-12-06T07:52:00.000-08:00

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

Historical developments of mission frontiers

2010-12-05T19:40:00.000-08:00

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

Voice of the marginalized

2010-12-05T18:35:00.000-08:00

Pioneer missions

2010-12-02T07:27:00.000-08:00

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

Different perspectives on mission and money

2010-11-29T18:13:00.000-08:00

Mission and Money

2010-11-29T12:02:00.000-08:00

Dynamics of mission and money

2010-11-23T08:14:00.000-08:00

"Money tells us very little about mission"

2010-11-22T07:17:00.000-08:00

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

Money and foreign missions

2010-11-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

Quality of Roman Catholic mission

2010-11-17T09:44:00.000-08:00

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/

Roman Catholicism in India and South Korea

2010-11-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

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

Remarkable change of Roman Catholic Church

2010-11-15T06:50:00.000-08:00

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

Significant changes in the Roman Catholic Church

2010-11-11T08:53:00.000-08:00

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

Struggles in the Anglican Communion

2010-11-02T08:34:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-02T08:21:00.000-07:00

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

Unity and diversity in Anglicanism

2010-10-31T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

What can be learned from global Anglicanism?

2010-10-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-28T07:53:00.000-07:00

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

The appeal and growth of "Marginal" churches

2010-10-25T19:13:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-25T18:52:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-25T08:34:00.000-07:00

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

Mormonism in South Korea and India

2010-10-24T10:26:00.000-07:00

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

Definition of a Christian?

2010-10-21T10:39:00.000-07:00

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

Learning from the Orthodox tradition

2010-10-19T16:06:00.000-07:00

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

Orthodoxy in Korea and China

2010-10-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

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

Persecution of the Orthodox Church

2010-10-18T03:25:00.000-07:00

This week, we had an opportunity to have a very impressive lecture from Father Luke Veronis from Holy Cross Seminary, dealing with a brief history of Orthodox Church, particularly focusing on the last 100 years. He especially depicts two realities of Orthodoxy during the last century. The first reality is the Orthodox diasporas leaving their homeland to the other land for seeking the better life. Because of their vulnerability, diaspora people (or immigrants) articulated the survival mentality within Orthodox Churches so that they built their own communities which are consisted of very ethnic and homogeneous groups. As a result, the Orthodox Churches are throughout the world but isolated within each ethnicity. The second reality Father Luke especially highlights is the persecution and martyrdom under the communism. What surprised us is the persecution history of Armenian Orthodox. After acknowledging us that there were 20 million martyrs under the pressure of USSR, he states that what happened during the great persecution means a lot for the Orthodox Church today. It implies to us that the more they had persecutions, the more they concentrated on the holiness and purification of their faith. Lastly, Father Luke emphasized the mission history of the Orthodox Churches by saying that the Orthodox Church has many exemplary missionary figures who reflected distinct missionary characteristics from their contemporary Western counterparts throughout her 2000 year tradition. However, he was pitiful for the fact that Orthodox Church’s missionary tradition is often unknown in Western circles.

The initial reflection came from the administrative structure of the Orthodoxy. Unlike Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy has the autocephalous structure by countries except the case of the ecumenical council under one authority. Our group agreed that Orthodox polity seems similar to that of Methodist (or Anglican) or Presbyterian. However, one of us pointed out that it looks like very “foreign” because they give an impression of being rather exclusive and inwardly-focused, but the talk dispelled some of that impression. The interesting thing for all of our group was that from Orthodox perspective they think Catholics and Protestants have much more in common than Eastern and Western churches do. Rome likes to pretend the Orthodox are the schismatics, but from their point of view they are the original.

Then, our discussion turned to the persecution issue. The pitiful story was that despite the extensive and distinctive missionary activity with translation, respect for culture, and indigenous leadership, all stopped since persecution had set in. On the other hand, one pointed out that the persecution history is the basis of Orthodox potential for the revival because it keeps the Orthodox Church alive. For instance, the number of converts is pretty amazing, especially in light of statements that they don't proselytize or seek converts. A Korean student supported this idea that one of many reasons explaining the rapid growth of Korean churches is very the persecution and martyrdom. We concluded that it doesn't actually seem possible to extinguish Christianity by directly persecuting it or suppressing it.

Lastly, we were talking about the Orthodox theology. One highlighted that theology of Orthodox is very mystic, spiritual, and holy, and the experience of persecution might have purified their faith. Another student stated that Orthodox theology is more compatible with creation care and ecological ethic. But, due to the time limit, we had to stop at this point.

Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Mission in the Orthodox Church

2010-10-17T06:30:00.000-07:00

On October 13th, Father Luke lectured on the brief history of Orthodox Church, focusing on what happened to the Orthodox Church in the last 100 years. He pointed out that people are very ignorant about the mission work of Eastern Orthodox, although long before the Protestant missionaries began their mission works, Eastern Orthodox missionaries were engaged in mission work including translating the Bible while respecting the indigenous culture. In his lecture, he explained the characteristics of Orthodox community under the rule of communism and the recent spiritual renewal of Orthodox mission work.

After the lecture, our group members got together and shared their reflections on the lecture. Initial reaction of most members was that they were surprised about the emphasis on missions in the Orthodox churches. But one student wanted to know what is the main message being emphasized in the Orthodox Church’s mission work. He claimed that when we serve as missionaries, we had better focus more on Jesus Christ over denominational differences. In his thought, this will help us unify as the body of Christ, rather than emphasizing the differences that often get elaborated. Our discussion moved on to the issue of denominational competitions in the mission field and agreed on that we should not give priority to denominational logics over Jesus Christ. Another student said that the call to attend an Orthodox church to learn history moved him to appreciate and strive to understand the wider perspectives of Christianity beyond our own context as Protestants or Catholics. We all agreed that it is not beneficial to have knowledge of only one side of the coin. And one student pointed out that as western Christians have much to learn about the Orthodox Church, orthodox Christians also have much to learn about western Christians. The other student said that Orthodox churches seem to have a greater emphasis on mysticism and, in his thought, monastic life also has an emphasis on creation and connecting with creation.

After sharing our reflections, our conversation turned to the ethnic characteristic of Orthodox Church after one student asked “Does a church with one ethnicity (ie. Russian orthodox, Greek orthodox) have a greater challenge in its perspective of world missions?” This question was a much thought provoking one, but due to the lack of time we could not have enough discussion time for that issue.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Learning about Orthodoxy

2010-10-15T07:46:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday evening the 13th of October, Father Luke Veronis of Holy Cross Seminary enthusiastically recounted the history of Orthodoxy, particularly over the last century. He highlighted how immigration and Communism were the primary factors shaping the Orthodox community through the 20th-century, but also spoke of the renewal of Orthodox mission. He departed with an appeal for students to familiarize themselves with the rich Orthodox tradition.

In our small group questions immediately surfaced about the Orthodoxy: Why does the Orthodox Church contain so many icons? Who has the longest Christian history—the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholic Church? How did the Orthodox Church get its name (in so far, as we all consider our theology orthodox)? What does it mean to “not be in Eucharistic Communion”? The ensuing discussion proved valuable in two ways. First, the questions were answered, providing a deeper understanding of how Orthodoxy fits within Christian history. Second, the questions underscored Father Veronis’s parting words—many of us do live largely in ignorance of the very broad and deep stream of Orthodox Christianity. The only remaining question will be whether our recognition of that fact will prompt us to remedy the deficiency. That question, it seems, will be settled outside of class.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

AICs, Independent Churches, and Asian Christianity

2010-10-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

In class this week we had a very informative lecture by Nimi Wariboko about African Independent Churches. His presentation introduced the historical involvement of Africa in the history of Christianity and provided a background of African views of reality that impact the way Independent churches engage Christian faith and their indigenous context. Among these churches salvation is most often holistic, includes the here and now as well as the afterlife, and is sought in the context of competition between the forces of God and Satan (evil). This, our presenter argued, provides the logic whereby the “Prosperity Gospel” is readily appropriated by African Independents because it deals with the exigencies of daily living and promises to transform dire living conditions. Our group’s first response was unanimous appreciation for Wariboko’s description of an African view of reality that contrasts with what we all are accustomed to. The explanation of the importance of the spiritual world and its connectedness to the material world helped us understand better the Independents’ characteristic “this worldly” approach to salvation. One member of our group said that this provided a more positive view of the “prosperity” themes that we all tend to disparage. Another of our group was familiar with the Redeemed Christian Church of God, an African Independent Church that Wariboko mentioned as one whose leadership has become increasingly sophisticated in its evangelistic efforts. That church has planted hundreds of congregations in the United States and has the goal of planting a congregation within a 10 minute drive of every American. What will be the impact on American Christianity of this and similar initiatives?

In our discussion of this week’s readings about Independent Churches, we noted how they provided laity with more opportunities to be involved than did the mission churches. Appropriation of local cultures also was an important contribution that they made and that was later been picked up mission established churches too. This had a positive impact on their successful growth and evangelization efforts. One of our group shared about a speaker she had heard in chapel. He was from the Solomon Islands and emphasized the importance of contextualizing the Gospel in Bible translation efforts in which he participates. He noted that the parables that we see Jesus using in the Gospels are after all teachings that Jesus contextualized so that they would be better understood by his contemporaries. Hence we, and Independent churches have Jesus as a model for contextualization efforts.

Our readings for the week also dealt with Eastern Asia and South-eastern Asia. As we reflected on the material about Korea, one of our group highlighted the irony of the fact that while South Korea is known as a stronghold of Christianity today, it was in North Korea that important early Christian revivals happened in the early years of the faith on the peninsula. She pointed out that the leaders who took the North in the direction of Communism and acted against Christianity came from Christian families. Another of us noted the importance of Christians from the Philippines who are spreading of the faith in countries of the Middle East. He found that fact that they have been instrumental in raising the population of Christians in that region to be an important missionary contribution.

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

AICs, salvation, and indigenization

2010-10-12T03:21:00.000-07:00

Professor Wariboko’s lecture on the evening of Oct. 6 was mainly about the African Independent Church (AIC) which has initiated from the late nineteenth century. Unlike the Western Christian theology, AIC’s theology accommodates the African traditional concept of God and their spiritual heritages so well. According to him, the meaning of salvation includes the beyond-human dimension of creation, so that it involves the fulfillment of catholicity of creation. Furthermore, the aim of salvation is not merely for the “soul immortality” but also for the “social immortality.” With the emphasis on the relationship with African Traditional Religions, Professor Wariboko pointed out that since salvation in African understanding is holistic, prosperity goes beyond material wealth and is a mark of blessing from the Lord for being obedient and faithful.

The reaction of our group was positive in that “AIC's (and other independents) have a different way of interacting with the world from the way the denominational churches do. Theological questions come from the local context.” And another student pointed out, the Independent churches are grass-roots, i.e. it is “bottom up” instead of “top down.”

Then, we were talking about Independent churches in other context. Someone shared that “Chinese independent churches were resisting government/cultural interference. The impact of communism and the Cultural Revolution forced creation of independent churches. This resulted in the disconnection from the "mother church." Another Asian student added that “authority structures in mainline churches are different. Independent churches are more responsive to local and particular conditions.”

Our discussion turned to “indigenization” issue by a student’s inquiry if AIC is “Africanized Christian” or “Christianized African.” Most of us agreed with the fact that inculturation is inescapable because culture is part and parcel of each individual. Language, thought, concerns—all comes from the environment and the culture. It is the "background of obviousness." Another agreement was that, however, there is also dangerous factor in indigenizing process. How much can it change before it's not Christianity anymore? The genius of Christianity is that it can adapt traditional religious culture such as spirit world, ancestors, sacrifice. If then, how far do we go? Our discussions naturally let us remind of the famous phrase “whose religion is the Christianity?” People can read the same Bible to answer those sorts of questions. Professor Warikobo didn't reject or avoid parts of indigenous culture by criteria of Christianity. Who decides?

Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Salvation in the African context

2010-10-12T03:18:00.000-07:00

The guest lecture for Global Christianity this week was Dr. Nimi Wariboko, who gave a general overview of African cultural and religious framework, and went on to discuss independent church movements in Africa and how they positively contextualize the gospel – resulting in high church growth. Two broad movements among independents are Pentecostal – Charismatic churches, and African Initiated Churches or African Independent Churches (AICs). In their own ways, both preach a message of concrete blessing, transformation and salvation for people in this lifetime. The focus on material blessing is sometimes called ‘prosperity gospel,’ a phrase almost exclusively used by those who find it in some way suspect. Our discussions centered on how to understand and evaluate a concept of salvation that emphasizes the present in African context.

We found Dr. Wariboko’s lecture very helpful since he put the preaching of so-called ‘prosperity gospel’ within the preview of an African framework. On one level, religion pervades all of life. Meaning, religion in Africa is neither isolated nor compartmentalized chronologically – postponing salvation into the future or afterlife. Neither can it be put in a separate ‘private’ sphere or emotion. Religion in general and Christianity by extension permeates the whole life of the believer, very much inclusive of physical and material. In this way, the Koreans in our discussion noted, a view of religion as integrated into all parts of life might not be so different than some Korean churches, particularly Full Gospel churches that are within the global family of the Pentecostal - Charismatic movement.

On another level, a ‘prosperity gospel’ represents hope that God can transform lives and liberate people in the here-and-now. This hope is an important message for people in deep economic, social, and even physical turmoil, as many people might struggle with poverty, disease, and the reality and consequences of war. We found an understanding of salvation that is holistic often rings true. It is especially attractive as African Christians also may focus on transformation of all the earth, humanity, animal life, and the restoration of all of nature.

Eva Pascal, discussion moderator

Thoughts on African Instituted Churches

2010-10-10T17:17:00.000-07:00

On October 6th, Dr. Nimi Wariboko lectured on AICs (African Initiated Churches or African Independent Churches), dealing with important issues of African Christianity such as African’s definition of religion and salvation; the nature of prosperity gospel; and reasons of the AIC’s rapid growth in Africa.

After the lecture, our members shared their reflections on his lecture. At first, our discussion centered on the fine line between syncretism and contextualization of AIC. Some students showed interested in AIC’s successful contextualization, but other students criticized their blending of two traditions, namely Christianity and African traditional religion. But to this critic, one student pointed out that we should not blame or put down one syncretism and uphold our own syncretism. He thought that it might be true that African Christians may do it with traditional religions, but churches in the west tend to do the same with materialism. Thus we must be gentle in our approach. Other students agree that we should recognize our own syncretism first before criticizing AIC’s syncretism.

Some critical comments against AICs were heard about AIC’s prosperity gospel (of course the prosperity gospel is not limited to AIC): One student criticized the so called prosperity gospel since it is materializing the gospel. Another student agreed with him saying that the prosperity gospel can be dangerous because it sometimes correlates salvation with the external and material. He added, “the New Testament speaks extensively about apostles having little in the eyes of the world.” Some students also showed concerns over the fact that many African preachers became preachers without proper theological background.

However, many students found positive aspects of AIC’s total or holistic understanding of salvation which includes not just saving souls but also saving bodies, which can be extended to saving all creatures. One student explains more about the holistic notion of salvation in Africa by mentioning some AIC’s tradition of confessing ecological sins. According to him, in some AIC, people confess sins against nature (for example, I cut down trees but did not plant new ones) in baptismal ceremony. And this comment made students think about ecological sins committed by western Christians.

At the end of discussion one student pointed out that Dr. Wariboko’s lecture was too focused on describing distinct characteristics of African Pentecostalism. He commented that we should more emphasize on the common traits of AIC as Christian community that above and beyond the cultural influence. Due to the lack of time, we could not talk much about this issue, but one student replied that the simple fact that Pentecostal churches are focusing on the presence of the Holy Spirit should be considered as a sign that they focus on common experiences with other Pentecostal churches outside Africa.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Theology of the Prosperity Gospel

2010-10-07T03:08:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 6th, the class turned to a discussion on African Initiated Churches as an example of “Independent” Christianity. Nimi Wariboko, originally from Nigeria and now professor at Andover Newton Theological Seminary, attempted to describe the reasons for the widespread growth of African Independent Churches.

A large part of Wariboko’s lecture focused on the theology of the Prosperity Gospel and its resonance with the African view of reality, so our small group opened by reflecting on the Prosperity Gospel.

The initial reaction came from a student that explained that Wariboko’s presentation was helpful, because, “Prosperity Gospel—that very phrase—produces a knee-jerk negative reaction within me that says, ‘That’s wrong!’ However, I thought it was interesting to hear how the Prosperity Gospel is rooted so deeply in the African worldview. It was a helpful reminder to slow down, and listen to what is happening historically and culturally before making a judgment.”

Another student broadened the conversation: “I think the Prosperity Gospel is a similar phenomenon to what we have in Korea. For instance, the Full Gospel Church preaches something similar to the Prosperity Gospel. So, this is not just an African story, but a Korean story as well. Traditional Korean religion continues to shape the form of Korean Christianity. The challenge is discerning is Gospel and what is not.”

A new perspective was introduced with a student interjecting, “Prosperity is not a problem, but the results of prosperity are a problem.” She continued by explaining that prosperity can lead people to have faith in themselves, and their own economic success. The Prosperity Gospel can distract people from focusing on the core of the Gospel to focusing on its benefits.

The conversation suddenly shifted when a student asked a pointed question, “How much is Christianity a Western religion?” The group was reluctant to answer, fearing that it was a dangerous question, but finally someone tentatively argued that it is not a Western religion. It did not start in the West, nor is it limited to the West. Another student added, “I think people have associated in with the West, because it entered Korea (for instance) through Western missionaries; however, as Korean missionaries take it to new places in the world it might be considered an Asian religion!” In a compromise, a student suggested that demographically Christianity is not a Western religion, but theologically it remains tied to the West.

With time running out, one student asked to share her thoughts on the lecture. “I think the speakers presentation was heavily influenced by colonialism,” she began. “However, Africans are not the only one with a colonial legacy. That happened in many places.” She continued, “With the collapse of colonial powers, the issue of contextualization has become important. It is easy to blame Western missionaries for failing to contextualize Christianity, but that is not really fair. No one can go beyond his or her own culture. We may try to reduce the influence of our culture, but we can never fully escape it.” She concluded by appealing for some generosity towards missionaries who transmitted their culture with their faith.

Once again, our time expired, and the conversation was left hanging in the air.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

World Council of Churches and the Lausanne Movement

2010-10-05T16:31:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 September 29, 2010, Dr. Rodney Petersen, Boston Theological Institute Director, lectured on the History of Protestantism. He presented on the roots of the movement in the Latin West, the different varieties that grew out of 16th century Europe, and brought us up to the twentieth century. There was a lot of information packed into a short presentation. Dr. Petersen mentioned the World Council of Churches (WCC) but did not have time to elaborate on their work or history. Our group talked about what the WCC does and one of us asked how it is related to the Lausanne Movement. Between us we knew that Lausanne is an Evangelical initiative that grew out of meetings in 1974 and resulted in follow-up meetings in 1989, 1994 and the upcoming 2010 meeting in Cape Town, South Africa. The movement carries on in the spirit of the 1910 conference but split with the WCC because it saw it as too liberal. We wondered to what extent the WCC and the Lausanne movement might collaborate today, but none of us knew. The two Korean members of our group commented that Korean churches interact with the WCC and the Lausanne Movement. There are many Presbyterian denominations in the country; some relate to the WCC while others that are more Evangelical in nature are connected to Lausanne. We had a new group member who is from India. He shared that, similar to the situation in Korea, churches in his country relate to one or the other.

Our discussion of the WCC and Lausanne Movement morphed into a conversation about how there is ample diversity in the global church, even within denominations. As we were getting to know our new member, he noted that in his denomination, Baptist, he sees significant differences in worship styles between Indian Baptist churches and those he finds in North America. In India church services tend toward more charismatic expressions that what he experiences here. Our Korean members noted that in their denominations, Presbyterian and Methodist, there are differences between Korea and North America with respect to authority in the church. In both denominations Korean pastors are invested with more decision-making authority than is the case here. They find that American congregations tend to have more laypeople invested with authority in a congregation’s committees and its various ministries than in Korea. This is true in both denominations despite differences in polity between the two denominational traditions. Perhaps cultural characteristics trump denominational traditions in this case. One exception is that in Korean Methodist churches it is normally laypeople, not the pastor, who lead prayers. This tradition seems to have developed because early missionaries to the country did not know Korean well enough to lead prayer, so it became a role that laypeople fill even up to today.

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

Ecumenism and evangelism

2010-10-05T16:29:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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.

For this week, Dr. Rodney Petersen was invited as a guest speaker. He lectured on the recent history of Protestantism. After the lecture, our group members shared their thoughts on the lecture.

We started our discussion over the excessive Denominational splits in Korea, which was mentioned during the lecture. Since there are 3 Koreans in our group, including myself, we could further think about the issues. Two Korean students maintain that although there were indeed cases of divisions over the issues of Christian teachings, he thinks that the dominant reason of splits has been power struggles between individuals.

To their remarks, I basically agreed, but, I pointed out that compared to other denominations such as Methodists, Baptists, and Holiness Churches, the splits within Presbyterian Churches were conspicuous. In other words, we need to acknowledge that Presbyterian is more focused on doctrine relative to other churches in South Korea. In fact, they tend to argue more about doctrine with groups that are different, arguing “we are the true Presbyterians.”

After that, we turned to the issue of ecumenicalism and evangelicalism which are considered the two most important movements in the twentieth Century. Student C raised question, “Is the ecumenical movement as important as Petersen made it in class?” He thinks that in his view, there is less interest in ecumenical movement. I added to his comment by mentioning the fact that there is significant lack of mutual understandings among the bodies of Christ. For example, Catholics do not recognize the validity of baptism in the Protestant churches.

For the rest of the time, we spent a lot of time in talking about the very interesting issue over converting Protestants to Catholics and vice versa. To the question, “what should we think about Catholic missions to Protestants and vice versa?” two students answer that we had better stop sending missionaries and place more importance in converting non-believers. Another student suggested that we shouldn’t be quick to be missionaries be more devoted to the task of enhancing mutual understanding among different bodies of Christ.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Protestant-led ecumenical movements

2010-10-05T16:26:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 discussion this week centered on Protestantism over the last hundred years within the broader context of Global Christianity. The term ‘Protestant’ includes churches within what are often referred to as ‘mainline’ denominations. These churches have roots in the Reformation (including Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregationalist). Within Protestantism two important tensions surfaced: denominational division (both between mainline traditions and internal break-offs within a tradition), and the ecumenical movements of the past century initiated between Protestant churches. It became evident in our discussion that these tensions can be viewed as challenges or opportunities for renewal.

Historically the ecumenical movement began with Protestant churches as much for practical reasons as for theological commitment to Christian unity. The extensive complexity denominational divisions present head-scratching challenges for missions when several denominations ‘compete’ to present the gospel. It also threatens the long-term sustainability of small congregations of Protestant Christians coexisting in proximity but administered under different denominations. Ecumenical cooperation has the advantage of presenting a united front of Christian unity. It worked well in regions with small Christians populations where no one denomination dominates, such as North India and Thailand, where various churches pooled resources and united.

In our discussion group, however, few knew about Protestant led ecumenical movements, and few experienced an ecumenical spirit within their churches. Dong Gyun expressed that in his Korean Presbyterian heritage there are many internal struggles and many break-offs. Maintaining a distinct identity overshadows the desire for unity. Jin, who is also Korean but a Methodist, pointed out that his tradition remained united in Korea, and much emphasis is placed on staying together within that church, and not so much on communion with other Protestant denominations. The ecumenical spirit was so far removed from Jeff’s local congregation that he questioned whether Protestantism should be distinguished as a group for their ecumenical efforts.

The gulf between the lack of ecumenical awareness and engagement on a local level, and the reality of the ecumenical councils within Protestant churches may be explained by the fact that ecumenical movements seem to have taken place among higher levels of church leadership, far away from the pews. In the book Boundless Faith, Robert Wuthnow draws attention to the centrality of the local congregation rather than the commitment to denomination administration in the lives of American churchgoers. Dong Gyun felt that was right in many ways for it seemed to him that local pastors have a huge influence on whether or not a given congregation will engage in ecumenism. We were left with the important question of whether ecumenism could be more powerful if engaged from the ‘ground-up’ – from the local worshippers to the denominational leadership – and what consequences that might have for Protestants.

Eva Pascal, discussion moderator

Denominationalism in Protestantism

2010-10-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 September 29th, Rodney Peterson, the director of the Boston Theological Institute, reviewed the history of Protestantism, and engaged the classroom in a discussion of denominationalism. After he left, small groups were formed to continue reflecting on the evening’s theme.

The first question forwarded, “What does it mean that there are 41,000 denominations in the world?” hung unanswered for several minutes. Finally, one student suggested that the diversity of denominations could be attributed to the diversity of people groups in the world. In that sense, denominations may be an important and positive factor in the rise of Global Christianity.

Another student countered, however, with the observation that homogenous cultures (e.g. Korea), are also divided into many denominations. There must be more than just cultural diversity that accounts for splits.

At that point, a third student suggested that Korean Christianity reflects the denominational history of the Western missionaries that first introduced the faith in a variety of forms.

The conversation branched into a new sphere when the mention of Western missionaries to Korea gave way to Korean missionaries going to other parts of the world. Someone asked, “Do most Korean missionaries start a Korean denomination in the places to which they are sent (e.g. ‘The Seoul Christian Church,'), or do they foster the development of new indigenous denominations?”

One student observed that most Korean missionaries are sent through parachurch organizations and therefore do not try to establish a particular denomination, but foster indigenous denominations. Another student added that in the earlier period of Korean missions there was a stronger emphasis on spreading a Korean form of Christianity, but that has given way to an emphasis on indigenous Christianity. A third student reflected, “If missionaries start their own denominations, they may impose their own cultural form of Christianity; however, if they initiate a new indigenous denomination they further divide the Christian community into 41,001 denominations.”

Such a statement caused one student to muse, “The huge number of denominations overwhelms and saddens me. The pessimist in me sees the growing number of denominations as representing the fact that schism is accepted, and the willingness to dialogue and work together is disappearing.”

Some agreed with negative assessment, and expressed a longing for unity. There was an acknowledgement by a few that the Roman Catholic church’s ability to contain renewal movements, and not fracture into denominations was an attractive alternative to Protestantism’s ceaseless divisions.

Others, though, offered a different perspective. One person suggested that denominations are losing their power to separate. From her own personal experience, she explained that she did not even know what, as a Methodist, made her different from any other Christian until she was in seminary. Another student added that it is not as important to be united to denominational title, as it is to be united in witness. Finally, one student closed the conversation by placing the discussion in a larger context: “Denominations are not that important to me. They are temporal occurrences that will eventually pass away at the eschaton.”

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

Contributions of Protestantism in the 21st century

2010-10-05T16:07:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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. Rodney Petersen lectured us about Protestantism around world in terms of its history, denominations and contributions. According to him, Protestantism began by the protest movement against Catholicism in the 16th C, later divided and developed into diverse denominations such as the Lutheran tradition, Reformed tradition, and Anabaptist tradition. He emphasized that it is American denominationalism that contributed to the forming of the global presence of Protestantism. That is because American denominationalism, by his explanation, guaranteed the Christian identity irrespective of having no state church membership. In the 21st C, efforts to unite among the Protestant denominations result in the ecumenical movement which now contributes to the global unity and cooperation between different Christian traditions such as Orthodoxy and Catholicism as well as Protestantism. Based on Dr. Petersen’s lecture and the required reading, our group discussed several issues.

First, we discussed the contributions of Protestantism in the 21st century.
Protestant churches have been willing to be conciliar, and conciliatory and willing to respect each other and dialog. Roman Catholic church after Vatican II appeared more open and more willing to have interreligious dialogue than "interfamily." Protestants also are getting together more to have interreligious dialogue, which is the contribution of 21st Cent. Protestant’s contribution to cooperate and collaborate. (Sam)

Protestants are more flexible and more willing to allow freedom of thought and interpretation. They tend to hold the tolerance of different ways of doing things. (Amy)

Father is Presbyterian pastor and he's a United Methodist. This is not a problem in Korean mainline Protestantism because the religious freedom is respected in Korea. (Earl)

Question about missions in other places. How much the move to make other churches be independent or was it becoming independent on their own. Is it encouraged by post-colonial independence or were missionaries encouraging indigenization? (Edward)

There is a criticism of foreign mission. Missionaries propagate their own denomination (and culture). Mission-founded and indigenous churches are two different categories. (Gun)

One contribution of ecumenical movement was to elevate role of women in church and society. Protestants are more egalitarian than Catholicism. (Gun)

And second, we discussed on the growth of Protestantism and its major challenges.
What are differences culturally that are leading to such a diversity of theologies? One challenge in particular—the ability of a richly-resourced culture to relate to the challenges facing Christians who are poor, politically oppressed, etc. Resource distribution is an issue. Jesus more a liberator and healer in the Global South, rather than an eschatological hope. (Sam)

Coming to terms with resources and how to use them is important. (Edward)

WCC website holds the huge body of work on issues of globalization, eco-justice, and neoliberal economics. These are the challenges. (Amy)

WCC made decisions on how to deal with capitalism. Global North well developed compared to Global South, which has been excluded. There should be a difference between the views of the Church in the North and South. (Earl)
I
t is the time to develop the theology of reconciliation to deal with economic injustice which results in and from the expense of the human enslavement in the poor countries. (Gun)
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Theological implications of the shift of Christianity

2010-10-05T14:51:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 Wednesday, September 22nd, our small group gathered to reflect on the shifting center of gravity for Christianity. The discussion, in particular, focused on the theological implications of the shift of Christianity to the South and to the East.

The initial observation was that Christian theology is undergoing cross-fertilization. People are seeking to do theology in a specific context, but they are cognizant of a larger, global dimension to their theology.

Another member added that the changing face of Christianity has meant a change in power. The student admitted there is no direct evidence of that assertion (yet), but felt the change was in part masked by the fact that theological power in the South and East is not connected to political or economic power. Thus, it is hard to recognize the theological power of Christianity in the Global South when we are fixated on money and might.

One student challenged the idea that theological power is shifting with the numerical growth of Christians in the South and East. Why, it was asked, do many Christians from the Global South continue to receive their training in the Global North, or from people trained in the Global North? Perhaps the “theological center” of Christianity has is still firmly fixed in the North.

In response, it was observed that “theology was developed in the West and North part of the world,” and thus explains why many people from the Global South traveled to study in the North. However, the student continued, even that trend is changing. In Korea, for instance, many students from South East Asia choose to pursue advanced theological degree there, rather in than in the Global North (although it was acknowledged many Koreans still receive their advanced training in the United States and Europe).

The conversation moved back toward the intersection of different theologies. One student shared from personal experience: When I was in Korea my understanding of the Trinity was based on love, obedience, and union. In America, we focus on the unique quality of each person and interconnectedness of the three persons. At first this relationship was really confusing and even produced cultural shock. Sometimes it seems Americans don’t stress the qualities I was taught enough, however I think the church of Christ must work together across cultural lines. I can say that considering different perspectives has led me to a broader understanding of the Trinity.

With one minute left for our allotted time, the question was asked, “Will the emergence of theologies in the Global South further divide, or unite Christians around the world?” Perhaps the division in our responses provided the real answer: two believed Christians would be more united through the cross-fertilization of theological perspectives; three felt the exacerbation of local differences would further divide the Christian community.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

Statistical center of gravity & African Christianity

2010-10-03T19:01:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 Dr. Johnson spoke on the Statistical Center of Gravity of Christianity over the past two thousand years and showed how it moved from Jerusalem up into Europe by the 1500s and then south and east because of Roman Catholic mission in the Americas. Finally it shifted again back towards the east and further south, ending up in Africa due to current Christian populations there and in Asia. Our groups posed the question of the theological significance of this change and its implications for Christian reflection, discipleship and evangelism. One member from our group expressed her hope that this shift would result in a richer understanding of Christianity as theology becomes contextualized in different cultures. She noted as example that in the West we see Christ as Savior and Redeemer but that in Africa He is more often Healer and Ancestor. Hence there is the occasion for a fuller and richer understanding of Christology. Another member of our group noted the value of hospitality in traditional cultures and suggested that as a resource for evangelism. While in the West we often emphasis orthodox teaching, thinking in terms of hospitality might open new ways of doing evangelism.

Our group spent most of the discussion time reflecting on the readings on Africa from the Atlas of Global Christianity. For one of our group this was her first serious look at African Initiated Churches (AICs), so we talked a bit about how AICs developed during in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was pleasantly surprised to read that AICs provided ways for women to be involved that were not apparent in other churches or in African society in general. They even founded churches in some cases. Being from Korea, she noted similarities from Korean history in which women were pioneer Christian converts who were very involved in their congregations. We asked ourselves if perhaps this is a general characteristic of Global Christianity. Another of our group, also from Korea, asked to what extent the openness to women’s involvement was part of western cultural that was imported to local contexts with Christianity. How does one separate the gospel from the culture of those who bring it? Certainly there is a mix of influences when the gospel is actualized in a particular place by a particular people.

Also with respect to Africa, we asked ourselves what the challenges of Christianity are on the continent. From the Kim and Kim book Christianity as a World Religion we noted the church’s attempt to come to grips with its complicity in violence in situations like Apartheid in South Africa or genocide in Rwanda. Poverty and HIV/AIDS infection rates also present a challenge, and one of our group explained how the upcoming Cape Town meetings hopes to address some of these issues. We noted also the challenge that African Christians face in the continuing influence of African Traditional Religions, particularly the prevalence of witchcraft.

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

Statistical center of gravity of Christianity

2010-10-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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, instead of having guest speaker, Dr. Johnson lectured on the change of the “statistical center of Gravity” in global Christianity. After the lecture, our group members shared precious reflections on the lecture and given questions. First, I raised question regarding the relevance of the terms global north and south. If the global north only means Europe and North America, what is the difference between using western/non-western dichotomy and using global north/south? I also pointed out that although the demographic center has been moving toward global north, financial center has not been much changed.

A student argued that Western theology is more based on tradition and bible. Thus, when it goes into the missions field among non Christians in the non-west there are some conflicts with many issues (e.g. polygamy, which is a societal concept, but rejected in most western theology). He proposed that missionaries from the west need to be even more understanding of what is happening in the south and learning the societal and cultural differences. B student agreed to A and added to that there need to be more partnerships with the churches in the global south when engaging in discipleship and evangelism. Simultaneously, she criticized the attitudes of some theologians belong to global South for their acceptance of Western theology without much reflections. For example, in her view, Korean theologians are so eager to learn and import theology from the west without taking much consideration eastern cultures being steeped in Buddhism. Therefore, she believes that there should be more contextualized theology within Korea (or any other southern country). C student, although he agreed that the church in the global south is too theologically dependent on the church of the global north, showed a slightly different opinion. According to him, there are indeed many contextualized works of theologians in the global South. The problem is that these works are not being translated into English. Thus, there is high need for more translated works of theology from the south into the North. He believes that. Student D pointed out that finances can be an important factor even in the theological issues. Thus, we need to pay attention to how the financial superiority of the global north is also causing theological dominance from the global north.

About the role of each Church in the global North and South for the future of Christianity, student A and C emphasized the importance of having the perspective that both global North and South are the half bodies of the body of Christ. In addition, since Global south does not have a long Christian history, he claimed that Global north needs to help the global south to avoid syncretism, etc. Student B and D pointed out that Syncretism is also found in global North pointing out how syncretistic Christianity in the global north is with things such as materialism, or certain post modern philosophies. However, all group members unanimously agreed that we should understand the interdependence of the church in the Global north and south.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Christian growth in Africa

2010-10-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 discussion in Global Christianity this week was launched from Dr. Todd Johnson’s presentation centered on the resurgence of Christianity in the global South. As Christians become more represented in the Global South – a trend that moves to better represent the distribution of the world’s population – two high growth areas of Christianity caught our attention. One is the growth of what The Atlas of Global Christianity terms “Marginal” Christians, a category that includes such organizations as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. Jin and Jeff questioned whether they be called Christian at all, even if the term ‘marginal’ serves as a qualifier. Although it is not an ideal term, it does capture the viewpoint that many more ‘traditional’ Christians hold. Jeff added to this standpoint: “It seems to me that Mormons are about as Christian as Muslims are Christian. Both have respect for Christ, but both insist that further prophetic revelation was necessary.”
The second area of Christian growth that caught our attention was Africa. Africa is the continent that has experienced the most significant growth in the Global South, particularly within the independent African Initiated Churches (AIC’s). Jin was quick to ask us what we think of the character of the African churches. To Jin, it seems that many African churches, especially AIC’s are a little different; aside from dealing with social concerns such as HIV/AIDS, they seem more interested in spiritual power and healing, and prefer more charismatic liturgy than in any other region of the world. It does seem that although they may have their own flavor, the message they preach, for example in spiritual healing, is inspired by accounts of such healings and exorcisms found in the New Testament. “I don't see a problem with the way they are exercising societal Christian practice,” Jeff suggested. “It seems in keeping with Christian history and tradition.” If the language African churches use follows the Bible and is Christ centered, what is it about some African Churches that might sound illegitimate? Can we identify what is behind our discomfort?
It does seem that the African context is rich in animistic traditions, and when Christianity moves in, it has to adapt to local cosmology. One question to ask is whether we can accept that some Christians believe in demons and spirits? Or should all Christians adopt a “western” cosmology? As Dong Gyun commented: “compared to the West, which is more rational and fond of systemization, Africans may have a cosmology that is more attuned to spirits and demons that others may see as unchristian.” He went on to draw from his experience: “Once you become a Christian in Korea, you cannot invoke spirits or pay heed to those practices of the past … There isn't any mixing of folk religion.”
I asked everyone what they would do if a woman came up to them convinced they were plagued by harmful spirits. Interestingly, despite all our reservations, not one of us thought that asking her to stop believing in her experiences would help her achieve spiritual wholeness. Jin shared that a similar episode happened to him. “It's a bit hard for me to discuss it, because when I share it, many people think I am weird. But as it is mentioned in the Bible, there are demons. I would like to do what Jesus did, and help her get rid of what is plaguing her.” I also shared that if I had been presented with this scene three years ago, I would have reacted by wanting to reconstruct the woman’s worldview. However, today I would be more open to meeting her somewhere closer to her own belief system.
Is that not, then, a strength of Christianity, and of the African churches that emphasize healing, to meet Africans where they are? Perhaps that is why in the last few decades Africans have been so successful at presenting the good news to other Africans because they can meet them where they are and bring about a sense of spiritual wholeness.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator

Demographic shift of Christianity

2010-10-03T17:56:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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’s lecture was about the demographic shift of Christianity from 1910 to 2010 and its implication to Christian theology. To calculate the central point of Christian gravity each year and to look at the ramification of the accumulated points is not merely a meaningless thing. The trajectory consisted of the Christian center implies what happened in Christianity as a world religion throughout the history. In a nutshell, the center of gravity has moved from the global north referring to the white European dominance to the global south such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America that used to be recognized just mission fields. Accordingly, global Christianity has moved to the demographic makeup of the time of Christ. As a result, the urgent task the contemporary Christianity faces is to recapitulate the Christian theology from non-western perspectives, i.e. the globalization of Christian theology through the vernacularization. With acknowledgements from the lecture and the required reading, our group discussed over these questions.
1. What insights did you gain from the lecture?
I could better realize the implications of global Christianity. Changes are either good or potentially good. The Western mind is not the be-all and end-all. (Amy)

Religious education from different cultural perspective penetrates the traditional concept of Christianity. (Edward)

Missionaries from the West are still constructing theology. The benefit of this is the abundant of theological resource, but the bad thing is the western imperialism and paternalism. For example, Christology is to see Christ as a healer rather than to have the western view propagating theological landscape. (Sam)

To calculate Christian gains and losses by the number of immigrants is problematic. It is much of over generalization to think the immigrant is gain and emigrant is loss because in Asian context, there are many immigrants of other religions. (Earl)
2. What do you think about the theological implications of the demographic shift between the north and south?

Theology affected by the change caused by intersection between Christianity and other faiths. The vitality is at the boundaries. Theologically three things go together: conservatism, communal outlook and supernaturalism. (Sam)

Christian theology is so far the monopoly of the western white men. The demographic change pushes us to adopt other views on Christianity. The integral view by having diverse scopes is the very implication. (Gun)

I can see that huge variety of preachers had already changed Christian communities very much. (Edward)

There is a tendency to see old views as bad and newer views as good. Theologically it isn’t necessarily so. (Sam)

Methodist issues the same argument. (Amy)

The theological implication of the demographic shift refers to what incarnation of the Christ means. It is vernacularization or indigenization of Christian theology. Just as the painter draws a picture with diverse colors on the canvas, Christian theology as a world religion must reflect all colors from all people. (Gun)

Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Religious freedom over time

2010-10-02T07:21:00.000-07:00

Context of religious freedom

2010-10-02T07:09:00.000-07:00

· One group member commented that she is interested in religious freedom, because religious freedom is related to sociology, culture, prejudices, and government power.

It is difficult to untangle religious freedom from the web of other human factors. For example, one group member has spent time with people in Palestine and Israel and feels the conflict doesn’t originate primarily from religious differences, but rather from political issues that are perpetuated by the media. For instance, the media may say that only one side is to blame and presents a very skewed picture of what is actually taking place.
The problem is quite complex. The matter of restriction cannot simply be relegated to religion. Many other factors such as political, military, and economic agendas carry influence.

Question: In discussing religious freedom and looking at the Atlas of Global Christianity, how do we account for the fact that some regions with great religious freedom show very weak religious growth or even decline (e.g., Sweden), while areas with considerable religious restriction seem to show increased religiosity (e.g., China)? Speaking of Christianity, is it better for the church to have persecution?

Suffering is helpful in faith.
In North Korea, people recognize that living as a Christian is extremely demanding. It requires commitment in the face of opposition. In the United States, on the other hand, belief or unbelief has few social consequences. It seems the strength of a person’s faith (and the vitality of a religious community) might be correlated to the level of suffering a person is willing to endure.

It’s hard to say whether it is “better” for Christians to experience persecution. Historically the number of Christians hasn’t steadily risen, but rather ebbed and flowed. It seems that the flow generally occurs in areas where persecution is present but I’m not sure that reflects a better situation. The Chinese church has grown while being persecuted; the US church is shrinking while enjoying a state of relative freedom. But does that mean that the situation is better for the church in China?

Maybe a little persecution is good whereas too much persecution can be devastating.

Question: How can religious majority and minority groups work together? In South Korea, we don’t have a lot of points of contact between Christianity and Buddhism. One member, who has participated in interreligious dialogues, felt the time was spent on achieving harmony between religious groups, but this member was not convinced such dialogues were aiming for the right goal, nor certain that these meetings were the best means for achieving religious ends.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

Healthy competition between majority and minority religions?

2010-10-02T06:53:00.000-07:00

Reflections on religious freedom

2010-10-02T06:35:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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.

One of our team members (D) questioned the “time frame” regarding Grim’s statistics. He asks, “How does the time frame of events affect the data as a whole?” In addition, he points out that the presentation did not mention any relationship between social events and religious freedom. For example, he wants to know how the religious riots in India in the 90s affected Indian society since then. Another member (B) shows her concerns over the lack of religious freedom in N. Korea, and wishes more numbers were available to consider.

(Student L) S. Korea does have social restrictions, despite what was seen on the chart. In S. Korea, Christianity is relatively conservative and preaches exclusivity, unlike any other faith in the country. (L) also raises questions over the reasons why the government wants to restrict the practicing of certain religions. Are there any cases when religious restrictions are needed? In other words, statistics can be misleading without mentioning the reasons for restrictions. We should acknowledge the fact that some countries have restrictions based on security.

Student J asks, “will the politicization of religion in Europe be prophetic for other areas where the state controls religion? Will religion fade in areas of the world where the state was tied so close to religion at one time? Or was European Christianity unique?”

Student D introduces very interesting concepts in understanding restrictions on religion, which are “shame-based“ and “guilt-based” cultures. According to him, Western cultures tend to have guilt-based culture which focuses on right or wrong, while Eastern cultures tend to have shame-based culture. And it seems that shame based society has more restrictions on religion (Iran, Iraq, etc). Guilt based societies have fewer restriction on religion (US, Canada, etc). Collective societies have more religious restrictions because they are more concerned about the group and the whole.

Student K argues that the government should play a strong role in promoting religious freedom, but should not be the primary initiative taker. What happens when there are conflicting ideologies brought forth by the government (i.e., banning the veil in France).

A number of members argue that the international community can play an important role by giving guidance to regional governments about religious freedom. Furthermore, religious groups and governments should provide education about the dynamics of all religions, tolerance, and understanding. Finally, regarding the role of the individuals, the role of family education seems to be important. Each family should teach the importance of being tolerant of other religions.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Religious Freedom and African Christianity

2010-10-01T19:54:00.000-07:00

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. Lead 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 this week we were fortunate to have a guest lecturer, Dr. Brian Grim, who spoke on themeasurement of religious freedom in countries across the globe. Dr. Grim showed rankings in terms of social attitudes and government restrictions that pertain to religious freedom, broadly understood. Some of the countries that ranked in both extremes, high and low, were surprising to some of us. There are two South Korean master’s students in our discussion group. One student, Jin, was both interested and shocked that South Korea did not get a more severe rating. Although South Korea constitutionally guarantees freedom of religion, some of the Christians he knows experience some social pressures. Furthermore, Jin said that it was difficult to negotiate his pacifist beliefs with mandatory military service. Another South Korean, Dong Gyun, noted that there are many subtleties to religious freedom to consider. In our discussion we noted that although minorities may experience significant degrees of social pressurefrom family or friends, such as in South Korea where Christians are steadily increasing in number, the pressure is not strictly speaking restrictive or violent. There were also countries that ranked worse than we had expected, such as Indonesia. Most of us took for granted the common perception that Indonesia is a prime example of a moderate Islamic country – in fact it did not rank as high as we had anticipated.
The second major topic of discussion was about African Christianity. Africa is the continent that has experienced the most sizable Christian growth in the last 100 years. It was interesting to ask if people were aware of the growing Christian churches in Africa. Dong and Jin said that reading about African in regard to its religious diversity, as well as statistics, was new to them. Dong Gyun also made an interesting observation: “It seems to me that African churches are largely charismatic that are geared toward the religious experience.” I made the point that is it easy for us to categorize new churches in Africa as charismatic. Yet many of these churches that we regard as charismatic may actually be under the umbrella of ‘independent’ African Initiated Churches (AICs). Although AICs emphasize spiritual healing, lively music and liturgy, they may not be denominationally Pentecostal. One of the issues we kept returning to in our discussion of Africa was our presuppositions about these churches. Do we see the African churches as being more socially conservative than in America, for example? Jeff, who is from a Methodist congregation, says this is the standing assumption among many in his circles and a cause for concern, especially regarding the ordination and role of women. How, we asked, should we engage these different African Christians? As Jeff suggested, “I believe it is better that we engage African churches; so long as they strive to maintain a connection to the scriptures and the early church, we can still have a common ground from which to start discussions. That should serve as a decent basis for dialogue.”

Eva Pascal, discussion moderator