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
Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mission. Show all posts
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Historical developments of mission frontiers
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the evening of Dec. 1, Dr. Dana Robert gave us the lecture on Christian Mission during one hundred years since Edinburgh 1910. Her lecture was especially focused on Mission Frontiers which have been shifted by years. According to Dr. Robert, frontier was a geographical term when it coined to Christian Mission. In the early twentieth century, mission frontier was recognized as “Unoccupied Regions,” and in accordance with that, missionaries were pioneers who rush out to the frontier. By the influence of the “Social Gospel Movement,” however, the concept of frontier began to shift from geography to justice. It was radical shift of frontier regarded as industrialization, political movement, and social justice. In post-colonial context of 1960s, the frontier was understood as “boundary crossing” by the non-professional missionary and student movement; the boundary between belief and unbelief. Then, the mission frontier became multi-directional, that is, it includes not only the East and global south, but also the West and global north. Since the mid 1970s, by virtue of the contribution of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, mission frontiers refer to “Unreached People” who never heard about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the most well known concept because it is recent one and the impact of McGavran’s Church Growth Movement was so huge in evangelical churches. Dr. Roberts evaluates, however, it reduced the meaning of Mission Frontier by backing to geographical concept though it clarifies the target and urgency of Christian mission.
The lecture was so comprehensive and clear that discussion panels of my group were persuaded by the historical development of Mission Frontiers. Without exception, each of us experiences the frontiers in the ministry of our local congregation. As one pointed out, there are frontiers even within the local congregation. The generation gap between adult and youth, the secularism that prohibits college students to go to church, and even our neighbors who have the other faiths are the frontiers we face in our daily life and local congregation. Thus, to see mission frontiers as boundary crossings between belief and unbelief is quite relevant. Another insists that frontier must refer to something beyond humanity. Since he sees that debates on mission frontiers are anthropocentric so far, it must be extended to something considering whole creation beyond humanity by virtue of holism. The only tackle was from Dr. Robert’s notion of reductionism on the concept of “Unreached People.” The opinion was that it is comprehensible to see mission frontiers surround us in the postmodern world which is somewhat unfriendly to Christian faith. However, when it comes to mission, the broaden concept of frontier would weaken the importance of the foreign mission. Considering the fact that there are still a lot of people who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, the concept of “Unreached People” focuses on our task of mission rather reduce it. On the whole, the lecture was good enough to open our eyes to see the Mission Frontiers in terms of historical development.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
On the evening of Dec. 1, Dr. Dana Robert gave us the lecture on Christian Mission during one hundred years since Edinburgh 1910. Her lecture was especially focused on Mission Frontiers which have been shifted by years. According to Dr. Robert, frontier was a geographical term when it coined to Christian Mission. In the early twentieth century, mission frontier was recognized as “Unoccupied Regions,” and in accordance with that, missionaries were pioneers who rush out to the frontier. By the influence of the “Social Gospel Movement,” however, the concept of frontier began to shift from geography to justice. It was radical shift of frontier regarded as industrialization, political movement, and social justice. In post-colonial context of 1960s, the frontier was understood as “boundary crossing” by the non-professional missionary and student movement; the boundary between belief and unbelief. Then, the mission frontier became multi-directional, that is, it includes not only the East and global south, but also the West and global north. Since the mid 1970s, by virtue of the contribution of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, mission frontiers refer to “Unreached People” who never heard about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the most well known concept because it is recent one and the impact of McGavran’s Church Growth Movement was so huge in evangelical churches. Dr. Roberts evaluates, however, it reduced the meaning of Mission Frontier by backing to geographical concept though it clarifies the target and urgency of Christian mission.
The lecture was so comprehensive and clear that discussion panels of my group were persuaded by the historical development of Mission Frontiers. Without exception, each of us experiences the frontiers in the ministry of our local congregation. As one pointed out, there are frontiers even within the local congregation. The generation gap between adult and youth, the secularism that prohibits college students to go to church, and even our neighbors who have the other faiths are the frontiers we face in our daily life and local congregation. Thus, to see mission frontiers as boundary crossings between belief and unbelief is quite relevant. Another insists that frontier must refer to something beyond humanity. Since he sees that debates on mission frontiers are anthropocentric so far, it must be extended to something considering whole creation beyond humanity by virtue of holism. The only tackle was from Dr. Robert’s notion of reductionism on the concept of “Unreached People.” The opinion was that it is comprehensible to see mission frontiers surround us in the postmodern world which is somewhat unfriendly to Christian faith. However, when it comes to mission, the broaden concept of frontier would weaken the importance of the foreign mission. Considering the fact that there are still a lot of people who never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ, the concept of “Unreached People” focuses on our task of mission rather reduce it. On the whole, the lecture was good enough to open our eyes to see the Mission Frontiers in terms of historical development.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Voice of the marginalized
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On December 1, 2010, our class had the privilege of welcoming Dr. Dana Robert of BUSTH to lecture on Christian missions over the past 100 years. Dr. Robert focused on the concept of mission frontiers; not just in the sense of new places where missionaries have reached, but defined mission itself as a global frontier movement.
Our post-lecture small group was generally impressed by this approach to mission history in the 20th century as it was a new idea to most of us. We reflected on how useful the term “frontier” is; not simply in a mission context, but in anything that is in continual forward-motion. Dr. Robert highlighted how the usage of the term gradually morphed over the course of the 100 years; we found this ongoing redefinition of the term to be beneficial in understanding the dynamics and history of recent Christian mission.
As perhaps an extension of the frontiers discussion, one group member mentioned a recent article in Christianity Today that discussed dynamics of power and authority. Historically, it has been the power class—those in control—who had the privilege of writing history, often at the expense of the marginal voice. Now, however, the marginalized are increasingly obtaining more power and authority as their opinions are being called to stand out apart from the rest. This parallels Jesus Christ’s example of listening and reaching out to the poor and estranged. This caused us to ponder: Who knows what kind of reform today’s marginalized will bring? What voices are or will be the most prominent in the 21st century frontiers?
Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator
On December 1, 2010, our class had the privilege of welcoming Dr. Dana Robert of BUSTH to lecture on Christian missions over the past 100 years. Dr. Robert focused on the concept of mission frontiers; not just in the sense of new places where missionaries have reached, but defined mission itself as a global frontier movement.
Our post-lecture small group was generally impressed by this approach to mission history in the 20th century as it was a new idea to most of us. We reflected on how useful the term “frontier” is; not simply in a mission context, but in anything that is in continual forward-motion. Dr. Robert highlighted how the usage of the term gradually morphed over the course of the 100 years; we found this ongoing redefinition of the term to be beneficial in understanding the dynamics and history of recent Christian mission.
As perhaps an extension of the frontiers discussion, one group member mentioned a recent article in Christianity Today that discussed dynamics of power and authority. Historically, it has been the power class—those in control—who had the privilege of writing history, often at the expense of the marginal voice. Now, however, the marginalized are increasingly obtaining more power and authority as their opinions are being called to stand out apart from the rest. This parallels Jesus Christ’s example of listening and reaching out to the poor and estranged. This caused us to ponder: Who knows what kind of reform today’s marginalized will bring? What voices are or will be the most prominent in the 21st century frontiers?
Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Pioneer missions
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the evening of December 1st, Dr. Dana L. Robert treated us to one of the three lectures she recently delivered for the Henry Martyn lecture series in Cambridge. She traced the concept of “frontier” in mission theology from 1910-2010. In an incredible display of her command of mission literature, Dr. Robert laid before us a bountiful feast of “frontiers.” She explained how the term emerged in the United States, and then followed its various reconfigurations throughout the world up to the present. So much information came at us so fast that we had to take time to unpack what we heard.
A significant part of the time was spent filling in the gaps. We asked one another, “What did she say, again, about…” But, we also settled into some deeper reflections. One student made a great observation. “Dr. Robert mentioned that Ralph Winter’s idea of ‘frontier’ significantly shrunk the meaning of ‘frontier’ in mission discourse. He applied it in one way – to unreached people groups. I had the impression that she felt that was a loss, but I think that strict definitions can be more helpful than elastic and multi-layered ones.” He went on to point out that when a term like “frontier” or “mission” becomes too broad, it becomes either meaningless or a mockery. “How can helping my unbelieving neighbor carry in groceries,” one student asked, “be compared with moving to a different place, learning a different language, and proclaiming the gospel to a people who have never heard of Jesus?” Frontiers may be crossed in both cases, but can they truly be considered the same frontier?
Another student probed a subsidiary idea, in Dr. Robert’s lecture, regarding “pioneers.” The language of frontiers and pioneers are bound together. Yet, the student asked, “Has there been adequate theological reflection on that term?” Pioneers, the group conceded, popularly evokes images of individual heroics, conquest, and the subjugation of the earth. The pioneer may not be an adequate metaphor for this time.
The discussion ended around the discussion of missionary pioneers, and the attitude of superiority that sometimes accompanied them into a new culture. A student spoke gratefully for the work of pioneer missionaries in Korea, but regretted that some of their feeling of cultural superiority had seeped into their ministry and the church. “How,” he asked, “can we avoid sending missionaries with those kinds of attitudes today? What do they need to be taught?” One student suggested that the expansion of Christianity in the Global South, and its reduction in the North has convincingly demonstrated that Christianity is not a captive of Western culture. In fact, Western culture may be corrosive to the gospel. Therefore, she suggested, Western missionaries are less likely now to tie Christianity to their civilization. Another student added that history could be a great place to teach humility. Western missionaries should be familiar with the implosion of Western “Christian” culture during the World Wars, and remember the criticisms of the colonized peoples. Those historical lessons, he offered, could be a training ground for cultural humility. As our time ended, another student added that Christian humility may not be a matter of “information” taught in a classroom, but of “formation” acquired through discipleship. And with that, our time was over, leaving us to consider what practices might foster mission humility without subverting missionary boldness.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
On the evening of December 1st, Dr. Dana L. Robert treated us to one of the three lectures she recently delivered for the Henry Martyn lecture series in Cambridge. She traced the concept of “frontier” in mission theology from 1910-2010. In an incredible display of her command of mission literature, Dr. Robert laid before us a bountiful feast of “frontiers.” She explained how the term emerged in the United States, and then followed its various reconfigurations throughout the world up to the present. So much information came at us so fast that we had to take time to unpack what we heard.
A significant part of the time was spent filling in the gaps. We asked one another, “What did she say, again, about…” But, we also settled into some deeper reflections. One student made a great observation. “Dr. Robert mentioned that Ralph Winter’s idea of ‘frontier’ significantly shrunk the meaning of ‘frontier’ in mission discourse. He applied it in one way – to unreached people groups. I had the impression that she felt that was a loss, but I think that strict definitions can be more helpful than elastic and multi-layered ones.” He went on to point out that when a term like “frontier” or “mission” becomes too broad, it becomes either meaningless or a mockery. “How can helping my unbelieving neighbor carry in groceries,” one student asked, “be compared with moving to a different place, learning a different language, and proclaiming the gospel to a people who have never heard of Jesus?” Frontiers may be crossed in both cases, but can they truly be considered the same frontier?
Another student probed a subsidiary idea, in Dr. Robert’s lecture, regarding “pioneers.” The language of frontiers and pioneers are bound together. Yet, the student asked, “Has there been adequate theological reflection on that term?” Pioneers, the group conceded, popularly evokes images of individual heroics, conquest, and the subjugation of the earth. The pioneer may not be an adequate metaphor for this time.
The discussion ended around the discussion of missionary pioneers, and the attitude of superiority that sometimes accompanied them into a new culture. A student spoke gratefully for the work of pioneer missionaries in Korea, but regretted that some of their feeling of cultural superiority had seeped into their ministry and the church. “How,” he asked, “can we avoid sending missionaries with those kinds of attitudes today? What do they need to be taught?” One student suggested that the expansion of Christianity in the Global South, and its reduction in the North has convincingly demonstrated that Christianity is not a captive of Western culture. In fact, Western culture may be corrosive to the gospel. Therefore, she suggested, Western missionaries are less likely now to tie Christianity to their civilization. Another student added that history could be a great place to teach humility. Western missionaries should be familiar with the implosion of Western “Christian” culture during the World Wars, and remember the criticisms of the colonized peoples. Those historical lessons, he offered, could be a training ground for cultural humility. As our time ended, another student added that Christian humility may not be a matter of “information” taught in a classroom, but of “formation” acquired through discipleship. And with that, our time was over, leaving us to consider what practices might foster mission humility without subverting missionary boldness.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Monday, November 29, 2010
Different perspectives on mission and money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
Last week, we had the privilege of having Dr. Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University. His lecture on the relationship between money and mission was fascinating. His claim that we do not need a lot of money to evangelize the world was well substantiated with various anecdotes. However, our members had very different ideas on the role of money while understanding his points.
One student pointed out that there has been a general tendency to downplay the role of money in world mission. He shared his experience while participating in the Boston Conference 2010: he was in a room where one student presented his paper regarding the role of NGO on mission. He said that he was surprised during the discussion time that how many people were angry, arguing that we should keep money separate from the proclamation of the gospel. Another student agreed with him. He said that we should recognize the fact that we need money in mission. Although the missionaries came in faith without money, but they still had to pray to God for their needs. So we can’t say that money isn’t necessary in doing mission. Faith-based mission (depending on God for our money and needs) has also something to do with money. They just seek for another source for the money. The other student defended Dr. Bonk’s position. She said that it seems that he just wanted to emphasize that we don’t need to assume that we need so much money in doing mission. But the first student maintained that we should accept that money is important tool in world mission.
Another student jumped in the discussion and turned our attention to broader issue of power. He talked that we should remember there are other types of power beyond the monetary. Intellectual capital, networks of powerful people, etc. If we are to be responsible with our money, let’s also think how to be righteously rich with our other blessings. We agreed with his point. One student added to his remark by saying that since the shift to the south, money has become so much associated with colonialism.
At the end of the discussion, we briefly shared our expectations toward pastor relating to money issue and found very interesting cultural differences between Koreans and African-American: Many Koreans said that they want their pastors poor, but we learned that in many African-American churches, the leaders wear gold since the way a pastor lives is a reflection of the generosity of the congregation. What an interesting cultural difference!
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Last week, we had the privilege of having Dr. Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University. His lecture on the relationship between money and mission was fascinating. His claim that we do not need a lot of money to evangelize the world was well substantiated with various anecdotes. However, our members had very different ideas on the role of money while understanding his points.
One student pointed out that there has been a general tendency to downplay the role of money in world mission. He shared his experience while participating in the Boston Conference 2010: he was in a room where one student presented his paper regarding the role of NGO on mission. He said that he was surprised during the discussion time that how many people were angry, arguing that we should keep money separate from the proclamation of the gospel. Another student agreed with him. He said that we should recognize the fact that we need money in mission. Although the missionaries came in faith without money, but they still had to pray to God for their needs. So we can’t say that money isn’t necessary in doing mission. Faith-based mission (depending on God for our money and needs) has also something to do with money. They just seek for another source for the money. The other student defended Dr. Bonk’s position. She said that it seems that he just wanted to emphasize that we don’t need to assume that we need so much money in doing mission. But the first student maintained that we should accept that money is important tool in world mission.
Another student jumped in the discussion and turned our attention to broader issue of power. He talked that we should remember there are other types of power beyond the monetary. Intellectual capital, networks of powerful people, etc. If we are to be responsible with our money, let’s also think how to be righteously rich with our other blessings. We agreed with his point. One student added to his remark by saying that since the shift to the south, money has become so much associated with colonialism.
At the end of the discussion, we briefly shared our expectations toward pastor relating to money issue and found very interesting cultural differences between Koreans and African-American: Many Koreans said that they want their pastors poor, but we learned that in many African-American churches, the leaders wear gold since the way a pastor lives is a reflection of the generosity of the congregation. What an interesting cultural difference!
Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator
Mission and Money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In the session for finance, Dr. Jonathan Bonk, the president of OMSC gave us the special lecture on the relationship between mission and finance. The lecture was moved for my group because Dr. Bonk was very persuasive with several concrete stories. Especially, the story of Mizoram that was one of the poorest regions in Northern India and later became the second highest literacy village in India was amazing. Though they are poor, they are sending missionaries with supporting fund by 40% amount of their total budget because they see the task of proclaiming the gospel as their responsibility as a nation. With the stories, Dr. Bonk concluded that mission is not the byproduct of the money affair, but the precious fruit of the passion.
The responses of my group were varying from positive to the other side. Most of participants agreed with conclusion, “mission is the precious fruit of the passion.” Since the subject of mission is God and we are just agents for God’s mission, our obedience with passion to God’s mission is most important element in mission activities any other than circumstance, finance and cultural equipment. However, one of my group members pointed out in a succinct manner that money matters in all activities including mission. It could be used as a resource or asset and this is obvious when we are going to the ends of the earth. Another responded that the lecture has very familiar stories because he heard similar stories in Korea, that is, people would describe spiritual movements through people. Another member also stated that the lecture was little different from what he expected because he expected to hear the story related to how the financial problem can be solved in mission enterprises. Despite these responses, we agreed that we should have missionary zeal like Mizoram people who show us the miracle of God’s mission. Lastly, we finished our discussion by talking on the business mission stated by Dr. Johnson for a moment.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
In the session for finance, Dr. Jonathan Bonk, the president of OMSC gave us the special lecture on the relationship between mission and finance. The lecture was moved for my group because Dr. Bonk was very persuasive with several concrete stories. Especially, the story of Mizoram that was one of the poorest regions in Northern India and later became the second highest literacy village in India was amazing. Though they are poor, they are sending missionaries with supporting fund by 40% amount of their total budget because they see the task of proclaiming the gospel as their responsibility as a nation. With the stories, Dr. Bonk concluded that mission is not the byproduct of the money affair, but the precious fruit of the passion.
The responses of my group were varying from positive to the other side. Most of participants agreed with conclusion, “mission is the precious fruit of the passion.” Since the subject of mission is God and we are just agents for God’s mission, our obedience with passion to God’s mission is most important element in mission activities any other than circumstance, finance and cultural equipment. However, one of my group members pointed out in a succinct manner that money matters in all activities including mission. It could be used as a resource or asset and this is obvious when we are going to the ends of the earth. Another responded that the lecture has very familiar stories because he heard similar stories in Korea, that is, people would describe spiritual movements through people. Another member also stated that the lecture was little different from what he expected because he expected to hear the story related to how the financial problem can be solved in mission enterprises. Despite these responses, we agreed that we should have missionary zeal like Mizoram people who show us the miracle of God’s mission. Lastly, we finished our discussion by talking on the business mission stated by Dr. Johnson for a moment.
Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Dynamics of mission and money
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
This past week in Global Christianity, Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University gave the lecture on Christian mission and finance. Instead of elaborating on his article from The Atlas of Global Christianity, which discusses the concentration of Christian wealth in the ‘global north’ despite the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global south,’ he took a narrative approach. Dr. Bonk started by looking at the large amounts of money pumped into mission in the global north, particularly mission approached from the impulse of economic and social development and contrasted this with extraordinary stories of successful evangelizing missions done by communities on limited economic resources, such as the Mizoram in northeast India, and the Kachin Baptist churches in Myanmar (Burma).
Through mission the good news of the gospel has an important impact on culture. However, as Dr. Bonk pointed out, the Christian message may necessitate a shift in culture but not necessarily a change towards western consumerism. This we thought was an important insight when considering finance and mission. We discussed the case of Korea, where during the post civil war era the country was in financial crisis. The infusion of money from missions allowed missionaries to build structures such as schools and hospitals. Two Korean students in our discussion suggested this may have forged a path for some to come to the church, as a first step of evangelism in the Korean church. At the same time, we discussed how accepting financial help has complex affects. It can create a one-sided influence from the providers, and perhaps create a dependency relationship. While educational and healthcare institutions might be a positive, the missionaries also westernized Korea and pushed aside many cultural practices considered unchristian. As a result there was some lose of cultural identity. Our discussion came to a consensus that relationship building is an important way of doing mission that is incarnational. Such a holistic, incarnational approach to mission ensures that missionaries retain a sensitivity to local culture and avoid, to some extent, the political pitfalls associated with social issues.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
This past week in Global Christianity, Dr. Jonathan Bonk from the Overseas Ministry Study Center at Yale University gave the lecture on Christian mission and finance. Instead of elaborating on his article from The Atlas of Global Christianity, which discusses the concentration of Christian wealth in the ‘global north’ despite the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global south,’ he took a narrative approach. Dr. Bonk started by looking at the large amounts of money pumped into mission in the global north, particularly mission approached from the impulse of economic and social development and contrasted this with extraordinary stories of successful evangelizing missions done by communities on limited economic resources, such as the Mizoram in northeast India, and the Kachin Baptist churches in Myanmar (Burma).
Through mission the good news of the gospel has an important impact on culture. However, as Dr. Bonk pointed out, the Christian message may necessitate a shift in culture but not necessarily a change towards western consumerism. This we thought was an important insight when considering finance and mission. We discussed the case of Korea, where during the post civil war era the country was in financial crisis. The infusion of money from missions allowed missionaries to build structures such as schools and hospitals. Two Korean students in our discussion suggested this may have forged a path for some to come to the church, as a first step of evangelism in the Korean church. At the same time, we discussed how accepting financial help has complex affects. It can create a one-sided influence from the providers, and perhaps create a dependency relationship. While educational and healthcare institutions might be a positive, the missionaries also westernized Korea and pushed aside many cultural practices considered unchristian. As a result there was some lose of cultural identity. Our discussion came to a consensus that relationship building is an important way of doing mission that is incarnational. Such a holistic, incarnational approach to mission ensures that missionaries retain a sensitivity to local culture and avoid, to some extent, the political pitfalls associated with social issues.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Monday, November 22, 2010
"Money tells us very little about mission"
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
After reading Jonathan Bonk’s essay in the Atlas of Global of Christianity it was a delight to have him speak in class on November 17, 2010. It was a rare opportunity to hear and speak with one of the authors of the book. Without repeating what was written in the Atlas, Bonk exposed us to a variety of contemporary forms of mission that are accomplished with little or no money. His overarching point was to dissociate mission and money. Echoing the tenor of the lecture, one student in our group summarized the lesson: “Money tells us very little about mission.”
The way Bonk presented the material made an impression on the class. He narrated a variety of stories, interspersing them with a few observations or remarks. In this way he did not try to argue the class into seeing mission and money differently, he illustrated it. It was a delightful and subtle approach, and left a strong impression. One student noted appreciatively, “I picked up a lot of good preaching points and illustrations from tonight’s class.”
As our group settled into discussing the details of how money and mission overlap, current concerns surfaced. One student explained that she will move to Israel in two months in order to become a missionary working among Palestinians. She is currently pressed by her mission organization to complete the raising all of her funds. The money, she trusts, will come. However, there are deeper problems. Her church and mission organization both want to send out missionaries who have impressive credentials: university and seminary degrees, certificates of ordination. “How,” she asked, “do those status symbols help me live more closely to those among whom I want to minister?” The symbols of academic and clerical achievement she fears will only intensify her “outsider” status. Yet, ironically, the institutions that desperately want her to become an “insider” insist that she hold them. Mission really does struggle with issues of money, and the status symbols that can be purchased by it.
The theme of Bonk’s lecture, focusing on creative ways groups have engaged in mission, later called forth further examples from the group. In particular, the early Methodist movement was singled out. It did not raise money for expanding the church, someone reflected, but as Methodists moved about they started their own small groups. As those groups grew, they might eventually appeal for a clergyman. “Why,” it was asked, “have we inverted that process?” Why do we send the religious specialist first? It costs so much money to support the religious specialist, but none to support a migrant who has settled into a new community and found a new job. By sending the religious specialist first we have forced ourselves to create structures for sending money from outside a community, and grown a bureaucracy of mission. Nostalgia for a simpler time, or simpler way of doing mission seemed to affect the whole group. Nevertheless, parting remarks revealed an awareness that we cannot simply dismember the history and institutions of the modern missionary movement. We cannot naively return to a simpler time or way of doing mission. We can though learn from alternative models. And that, we concluded, was the gift of the evening. It was an opportunity to stretch our imaginations.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
After reading Jonathan Bonk’s essay in the Atlas of Global of Christianity it was a delight to have him speak in class on November 17, 2010. It was a rare opportunity to hear and speak with one of the authors of the book. Without repeating what was written in the Atlas, Bonk exposed us to a variety of contemporary forms of mission that are accomplished with little or no money. His overarching point was to dissociate mission and money. Echoing the tenor of the lecture, one student in our group summarized the lesson: “Money tells us very little about mission.”
The way Bonk presented the material made an impression on the class. He narrated a variety of stories, interspersing them with a few observations or remarks. In this way he did not try to argue the class into seeing mission and money differently, he illustrated it. It was a delightful and subtle approach, and left a strong impression. One student noted appreciatively, “I picked up a lot of good preaching points and illustrations from tonight’s class.”
As our group settled into discussing the details of how money and mission overlap, current concerns surfaced. One student explained that she will move to Israel in two months in order to become a missionary working among Palestinians. She is currently pressed by her mission organization to complete the raising all of her funds. The money, she trusts, will come. However, there are deeper problems. Her church and mission organization both want to send out missionaries who have impressive credentials: university and seminary degrees, certificates of ordination. “How,” she asked, “do those status symbols help me live more closely to those among whom I want to minister?” The symbols of academic and clerical achievement she fears will only intensify her “outsider” status. Yet, ironically, the institutions that desperately want her to become an “insider” insist that she hold them. Mission really does struggle with issues of money, and the status symbols that can be purchased by it.
The theme of Bonk’s lecture, focusing on creative ways groups have engaged in mission, later called forth further examples from the group. In particular, the early Methodist movement was singled out. It did not raise money for expanding the church, someone reflected, but as Methodists moved about they started their own small groups. As those groups grew, they might eventually appeal for a clergyman. “Why,” it was asked, “have we inverted that process?” Why do we send the religious specialist first? It costs so much money to support the religious specialist, but none to support a migrant who has settled into a new community and found a new job. By sending the religious specialist first we have forced ourselves to create structures for sending money from outside a community, and grown a bureaucracy of mission. Nostalgia for a simpler time, or simpler way of doing mission seemed to affect the whole group. Nevertheless, parting remarks revealed an awareness that we cannot simply dismember the history and institutions of the modern missionary movement. We cannot naively return to a simpler time or way of doing mission. We can though learn from alternative models. And that, we concluded, was the gift of the evening. It was an opportunity to stretch our imaginations.
Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Quality of Roman Catholic mission
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
This past week in our Global Christianity course we had the opportunity to hear from guest lecturer Father Vincent Machozi of Boston University on significant changes in Roman Catholicism over the last one hundred years. Father Machozi brought up some important points that stimulated our discussion. Among his points was expansion of the church in the global South, and with it a changing understanding of ‘catholicity’ as fullness of life. Father Machozi also brought attention to changes in the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council, particularly with the attention given to the church and social action.
We found Father Machozi’s point that catholicity understood as fullness of life has a profound impact on mission very interesting. Such an approach no longer sees mission as converting the whole world, and instead focuses on mission as quality of life. It shifts the evaluation of mission success away from quantitative convert head counts, to whether Christianity is qualitatively relevant and potent to deal with problems people face daily, such as poverty and injustice. We noted that the question of quantity vs. quality in Roman Catholic missions is very important in Latin America, where Catholics are a majority in most countries. If quality is not emphasized, then people might become Catholics in name or identity only, without Christianity having a significant influence on important activities and decisions.
The Roman Catholic Church’s emphasis on social action was an aspect that we found very interesting, especially since all of us came from Protestant traditions we thought failed to take global action seriously as church bodies. We discussed whether the centralized hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church allows Catholics to speak with tremendous power with a unified voice on important issues and stand up to such things as the debt of developing nations, poverty, and nuclear proliferation. We were left engaging with ideas on how Protestant churches might be inspired to take similar positions with resolve.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Learning from the Orthodox tradition
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On the week of October 13th in the class on Global Christianity, Father Luke Veronis from Holy Cross Seminary gave a guest lecture on the Orthodox Church history and the impact on Orthodox missions, especially in the past century.
If we paint the history of Christianity in terms of broad strokes, one of the dominant colors would be the demographic shift of Christianity to the ‘global South’ in the last 100 years, a shift that has brought Christian growth in areas of the world where the gospel had no foothold a century ago. But the story of the Orthodox churches would be a counter stroke of a different color. Historically, the Orthodox churches are the oldest Christian traditions. They have a rich spiritual history that shaped early Christianity and the monastic traditions, and as far as missions go, they also have had many missionary champions. However, persecution, repression, and immigration have threatened many Orthodox traditions. This past century has witnessed the multiplying of such treats, through communist oppression in the former Soviet Union and other communist states, the repression and immigration across the Middle East, and the genocide committed against the Armenian people. But it is also a story of survival and resurgence, and hope for the future in other places that have opened up to newfound religious freedoms.
This counter story is all the more disheartening given the widespread lack of knowledge about Orthodoxy among many Christians. Indeed, several participants in our discussion group had not known of the Orthodox churches until this course. The learning experience has been a pleasant surprise. Some of the students expressed an appreciation for the mystical tradition of theosis and the profound encounter with God as mystery within the Orthodox traditions. In our discussion, Teasoeb contrasts this sense aptly: “I think the Orthodox have different, even alluringly mysterious liturgical styles, and although they seem to accept anyone who comes, they definitely do not expose their interior liturgical life like Western bodies do.”
Many in our discussion group were also intrigued by the Orthodox approaches to missions. Father Luke’s lecture stressed that at their best Orthodox models for missions were very respectful of local culture; the pace of missions was slow as to adapt to local culture and language, as well as built a strong base for local leadership … all this in a missionary tradition that flourished long before fervent Catholic and Protestant missions began. It seems that one of the Orthodox models for spreading the gospel was one of patience. Persecution, repression and the minority status of many churches (we can see this at the fall of the Byzantine empire, and more recently of communism), did cause many churches to retreat into a kind of survival mode. Father Luke proposed this may be a reason why many Orthodox churches lost touch with their missionary traditions.
One student, Myung Eun, remarked on their very different style of evangelism: “the Orthodox tend to evangelize people in a different way than Westerners. They do not go forward to evangelize people in the same strong or forceful manner. In Korea many Christian churches have grown in the last hundred years, but there is only one Orthodox church. The Orthodox churches don't use any “marketing” as other churches do to bring people in."
Some in our group were more cautious than others about the Orthodox version of history with regards to missions. Bruce and Jeff pointed out that the Orthodox may see themselves as the ‘underdogs’ of history compared to the Western churches. From this perspective they can differentiate themselves from the more extreme forms of Christian imperialism and cultural insensitivity.
Nevertheless, we could agree that Protestants and Catholics alike can learn much from the patience, the strong sense of continuity with ancient Christian tradition, the rich mystical theology, and the perseverance of the Orthodox churches.
Eva Pascal, discussion moderator
Monday, October 18, 2010
Orthodoxy in Korea and China
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
In this week’s class our guest lecturer, Luke Veronis, gave a very informative talk on the history of Orthodoxy. He gave a brief overview of the apostolic era to the 19th century, focusing especially on significant mission activity from the 4th to 6th centuries and the 9th to 11th centuries. He reminded us that Orthodox missionaries were translating the Gospel into local languages and training local leaders before the Protestant reformation even happened. But from the 15th century onward the advance of Islam resulted in reduced missionary zeal, though there was movement into Slavic areas, Russia and Siberia. During the 19th century missionary work in Korea, Japan and Alaska was organized from Moscow. During the 20th century Orthodoxy spread through emigration into Europe and the Americas but the Church in Eastern Europe and Russian was stifled by persecution until the end of the century. The majority of our group does not know the story of the Orthodoxy well, so it was good to have this introduction. One of our group noted that the lecture we heard gives the impression that in the Orthodox tradition there is a strong sense of history, that things take time. The Gospel needs time to settle into a region; one has to wait for people to be ready. She contrasted that with a sense of urgency that one gets from the Protestant mission tradition, for example.
We talked a bit about the Orthodox tradition in Korea and China. Will the Orthodox tradition experience explosive growth in China as it has in the freer environment of Russia and Eastern Europe in recent years? Certainly the church does not have as significant a history in China to build on as it does in Russia. One of our South Korean members noted that there is only one Orthodox congregation in Seoul. Hence one might get the impression that the Orthodox faithful are not numerous, but of course they are in other regions of the world like Russia, Ethiopia and the Balkans. She also observed that in Korea the church is known for its liturgy which is different from that of the more numerous Protestants. In addition the church don’t use the same marked-oriented means of evangelism, and one gets the impression that the church has not grown rapidly as have their Protestant counterparts. One of our members who is familiar with the tradition noted that Othodoxy is not focused as much on conversion as on theosis, the long journey of getting closer to God. Hence the concept of evangelism is seen in a different light. Again we noted the Orthodox (?) sense that things take time and that patience is necessary.
Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Mission in the Orthodox Church
Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.
On 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
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Ecumenism and evangelism
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
Denominationalism in Protestantism
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
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)
- It 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)