Unity and diversity in Anglicanism

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

On October 27th, we had an opportunity to hear about Anglicanism and its globalization by Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas. After his lecture, our group shared general reflections on his lecture.

We first talked about the history of Anglicanism, particularly over its beginning. During the lecture, Dr. Douglas posits that the Henry VIII divorce issue was not the most important issue but several students expressed different views. For example, one student argued that divorce problem of the English king was indeed a turning point, although, the issue of contextualization, as Dr. Douglas mentioned, was also very important. Other students agreed that we cannot ignore the historical fact that English reformation had something to do with complicated issues including political, social, and religious motivations.

After that, we talked at length about the “unity within diversity slogan” of the Anglican Church. One student pointed out that the concept of unity within diversity must be a recent concept since Anglican Church pre-American colonialism was rather intolerant. For example, the very reason why the Puritans wanted to make a new society was something to do with the intolerance of Anglicanism. In addition, the works of George Whitefield and John Wesley, who were ordained ministers of Anglican Church, were also criticized within Anglicanism. The other student agreed with him and added that he believed that the Anglican Church exported a universal Anglicanism in its colonial endeavors. However, we all agreed that the current Anglican Communion model can serve as a good model for the 21st century global church. And all students said that they learned a lot from today’s lecture about the important concept of “diversity and unity.”

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

What can be learned from global Anglicanism?

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

On October 27th, we had the pleasure of hearing a lecture on global Anglicanism from Rev. Dr. Ian Douglas, former EDS faculty member and current bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut. Starting from the beginning of Anglicanism, he outlined the primary struggle that has followed the Communion throughout its history into the present: the struggle between the particular and the universal, or the local and the global. What has resulted is a Communion that strives to achieve unity within diversity, often through means of social justice, as they aim to serve God throughout the world.

In our small group discussions, we discussed the indigenization of Anglicanism in the Korean context. One group member, a Korean Methodist who has visited an Anglican church in Korea, was surprised to see the level of indigenization there. The building is built in the Korean style, and within contains Korean ethnic depictions and ornaments. A question was raised, however, about what makes a church truly indigenous. Anglicans are largely united by their worship service (liturgy, prayer book, etc). This was confirmed by our Korean group member who noted that services at Trinity Church Boston (Episcopal) and the South Korean Anglican church were almost identical, save for the language difference. Is language alone what makes a church indigenous?

Our group also discussed what other Christian churches and traditions could possibly learn from the history of Anglicanism, especially in light of what they’ve faced throughout the 20th century. Why does it seem that Anglicanism has had more success in achieving unity within diversity? We seemed to agree that this might be because of the Anglican Communion’s leadership structure. There is a lack of central authority, yet it is one cohesive unit and for the large part acts as such (within the 38 churches). It is not as easy to leave the Anglican Communion as it is, for example, to start a new Baptist church if disagreements arise. The sense of community within the Anglican Communion is certainly a strength that other Christian traditions might benefit from investigating further.

Gina Bellofatto, discussion moderator

What it means to be Anglican

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

After Ian T. Douglas, bishop of the Connecticut diocese, spoke about the Anglican Communion, our group huddled to reflect and process on what we heard. Our conversation revolved around two foci: the historical presentation we were given about Anglicanism, and the present form of the Anglican Communion.

Students appreciated how Douglas described the current situation within the Anglican Communion. His optimism and conviction that differences can be generative (not merely destructive) resonated profoundly. One student, for instance, found it comforting to hear the current conflict in the Anglican Communion framed in these hopeful terms, because in her own denomination the internal differences are currently polarizing the church. Additionally, she added, “I liked how he described the current situation. It is not something new. These people [differences] have always been here, but now they have a voice.”

Another student chimed in, “I am really surprised that the Anglican Communion has pulled this off, that they have become an international body. They seem so firmly rooted in England!” He went on to share his bewilderment that a tradition that seems so bound to its liturgical form could appeal across so many cultures. “I can see how more expressive forms of Christianity cross cultural boundaries, but Anglicanism? That just really surprises me.”

These comments drew out a lengthy discussion about what it means to be an Anglican. The lecturer had stated that it is the liturgy, the worship, within the Anglican Communion that is universally recognizable. It is not a confession or a hierarchical structure that provides unity, but the liturgy. Not everyone was convinced. One student observed, “In Korea, the Anglican Church takes a very ‘high church’ approach, but in Japan it is a very ‘low church’ style of worship.” How, then, are these two churches united in their form of worship? One student asked, “If it is the liturgy that unites the Anglican Communion, does that mean that they are not united on doctrine?” In other words, he explained, is Anglicanism about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy? To all of these problems, students offered tentative solutions, but it became clear that the one hour with Rev. Dr. Douglas had been insufficient. Many things remained unanswered.

The final turn in the conversation revolved around Douglas’ telling of the history of Anglicanism. He had emphasized, strongly, that Anglicanism was born out of the desire for the catholic faith to take on a contextual form. The universal church needed to be expressed in an English medium. When it spread to other parts of the world during the 18th and 19th centuries, therefore, and managed only to reproduce English style congregations, the Anglican Church was unfaithful to its own originating impulse. This was a very attractive way of telling the story, and perfectly set the stage for the current diversity within the Anglican Communion. However, there was suspicion among the students that such a story was more propaganda than history. Could it be, one wondered, that the church in fact emphasized unity over diversity not only through the 18th and 19th centuries, but from the beginning? Is it only now, when suddenly England and the United States are not comfortable with the theological positions of the rest of the Communion, that they so loudly trumpet diversity? Is this revisionist history to fit their agenda? It was a sharp series of questions on which to end. For answers to such questions, more reading and reflection will need to be done.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator

The appeal and growth of "Marginal" churches

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

Our topic of discussion in Global Christianity for October 20 was ‘Marginal’ Christianity. Our main textbook for the course, The Atlas of Global Christianity, uses the term ‘marginal’ to describe Christian groups who are distinct from Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant groups because of divergent views on commonly accepted confessions such as the Trinity and the person of Jesus Christ, or if the authority of a leader or another scripture supersedes these confessions.

Our guest speaker Matthew Bowman provided a compelling history over the last 100 years on the second largest marginal Christian group, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, is the largest faction of the group commonly referred to as Mormons). Mr. Bowman focused our attention on the changing policies of the LDS church that made global expansion possible. He emphasized a shift from a policy of ‘the gathering’ - where the Kingdom of God was envisioned as a new Zion and followers gathered together in Utah - to reforms that encouraged expansion, such as building new temples, a lifting of the ban on priesthood from males of African descent, the policy of ‘correlation’ extending connections to churches outside Utah headquarters, and a call to engage in missions abroad for young men. These changes allowed the LDS church to expand globally.

Demographically speaking, marginal Christians, although small in number, have experienced extraordinary growth rates worldwide. Among the groups we discussed were Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Unification church led by Reverend Moon (sometimes called the Moonies), and The Family International (or Children of God) initiated by David Berg.

Although none in our group had any interpersonal contact with marginal Christians, many of us expressed an interest in learning more about these groups and what attracts followers to them. “When I first learned about them as a young Christian,” Sam said, “their odd beliefs made me take a step back from investigating these movements. When I entered academia, their oddness instead drew me to them and to studying the circumstances of their historical and social development.”

The main questions for us trying to understand why some marginal Christians are growing at such a rapid pace: what might be some of the factors that account for growth? What would make conversion so appealing? One postulation is each group makes an unequivocal truth claim about what it means to be the truly Christian. This confidence and conviction might be an important attraction for many people. Sam observed that within a world of globalization and post-modernity, where identity and belief are so fractured and unstable, the conviction of marginal groups may offer stability in the midst of change and volatility.

Another factor we discussed was the communal solidary joining a marginal church or movement provides. Precisely because of belief in a unique truth claim, adherents may feel particularly special. Members may have a deep sense belonging and commonality with other members. The community looks out for each other more than other Christian groups might, just from being, for example, Presbyterian, or Roman Catholic. This does impose a certain moral rigor and limitation on people who belong to the community. Further, in some cases, there is more emphasis on common life, or belonging, than in believing the same things—which might be characterized in Mormonism. Mr. Bowman pointed this out as an ‘orthopraxy.’ Further, Sam proposed that this might be because of the intellectual freedom provided within Mormonism. It is uniquely postmodern in this way, and lends itself to absorbing others and allowing for a more communal existence without the rigors of extremely enforced intellectual tethers.

Globalization and post-modern strains on firm identities related to family and sexuality, such as the changing ideas of family, the emancipation of women, the sexual revolution and the decline of traditional marriage, also made for interesting discussion. Isaac pointed out the importance of family in the Unification Church, which is a major religious movement where he’s from in South Korea. For both the LDS and the Unification Church, a proper and blessed marriage and children in very ‘traditional’ bent are very important and made sacred and essential to salvation. A harking back to more ‘traditional’ values and making the hetero-sexual marriage union sacred could be a factor in their growth. At the same time young women are leaving Mormonism in North America in alarming numbers (some estimate a defection rate of 75%). Where Mormons and the Unification church went in one direction on family and sexuality, the Family International shows a different orientation completely. The Family, in quite opposite fashion, has embraced the sexual revolution. This church has also made sexuality sacred, but sees sexual relations with many (heterosexual) partners as a way to enhance one’s relationship with Christ, and even to minister to others.

We left our discussion thinking further about not only the appeal and growth of marginal Christians but also how these groups are adapting to new challenges. We pushed ourselves to better understand their unique claims to truth and their struggle within competing Christian assertions of authenticity.

Eva Pascal, discussion moderator

http://theredconnection.blogspot.com/

Orthopraxis vs. orthodoxy in Mormonism

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

In the session for the Marginal Christianity, we had a special lecture on Mormonism by Mathew Bowman. In a succinct summary fashion, he gave us impressive information on Mormon history during the last century, which consisted of several themes, such as Mormon sacraments, priesthood and global presence of the Mormon Church. Bowman depicted 1890 as the pivotal year for the Mormon Church because they renounced polygamy officially. Six years later, Utah was regarded as the promised land for Mormonism and was admitted to the United States. Since then, Mormonism has been developed as one of world religions, thereby, one can see Mormon presence in the countries other than the United States. The interesting point he made is that Mormonism is a religion of “orthopraxis” rather than “orthodoxy” unlike traditional Christianity. Accordingly, he stated, theological discipline is not indispensable for being a priest in the Mormon tradition.

The lecture was interesting for us because most of us had little chances to hear about Marginal Christianity, especially about Mormonism. At the same time it was very strange and odd for us because we are unfamiliar with it. In this respect, the first reaction came from our discussion group was to ask the Christian identity of Mormonism. One tackled the category in the Atlas of Global Christianity because it categories the Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), Jehovah’s Witness, and Unification Church as Marginal Christianity. From his point of view, it is controversial whether they can be called Christian. Another member supported this idea that Bowman covered history of Latter Day Saints but did not talk about what they believe. Arguing that Bowman kept it to how Mormonism came about, one of our members made a point that in terms of religious freedom Mormonism is a good religion, but in terms of Trinitarian Christian beliefs they cannot be accepted under this label. As our discussion went on, we tend to think there is some difference between major denominations and marginal Christians that are based on theological concepts but Mormons focus more on the pious life (orthopraxis). Admittedly, we respect them in terms of morality and religious piety.

On the question whether diversity of marginal Christians hinders or contributes to the development of the global church, we agreed that it depends on which "marginal" it is referring to. That is because the marginal group is not the one body but the collective of several different faiths. Among them, there might be a religion that seems to never contribute to society, e.g. the Unification Church in Korean and Japanese society. On the other hand, one pointed out that regardless, their missionary focus and aggressive outreach strategy would contribute to their growth.

Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Considering Mormonism

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

On October 20th, we had a guest speaker, Dr. Matthew Bowman who presented the history of Mormonism and its international mission.

After the lecture, our group members shared our reflections: First, one student raised a question over the relevance of calling Mormon as marginal Christians. She said that Mormons have such different beliefs than ‘orthodox’ Christians. Apart from including familiar Biblical characters, their core beliefs are radically different from the basic tenets of the non-“marginal” Christian traditions. Thus, she asked, “is it not better, then, to define them as a “new religion,” rather than attempting a connection with Christianity?”

To her question, one student pointed out that we should know how Mormons view other Christians. If they think that Orthodox Christians are their targets for converting, then it is hard to call them Christians. In other words, if Mormonism considers itself the only path to salvation neglecting other Christian body, then we can call them new religion not Christians. In addition, we should know how they identify themselves. Do they call Christians or not? According to him, he rarely heard that Mormons call themselves as I’m a “Christian.” They would qualify: I’m a Mormon. Another student also suggested that we should think of a better term than grouping Mormonism under the title of “marginal” Christian groups.

After sharing the general reflection, I asked to our members whether their views of Mormonism changed after the lecture. Interestingly, all the group members agreed that our knowledge about the history of Mormonism is upgraded, but they told me that their basic views on Mormonism did not change that much. They remain reluctant to accept Mormonism’s argument.

Then, we turned to the question how does Mormonism’s spread affected the development of Global Christianity. To that question, one student thought that it hinders strength of “orthodox” Christians. And another student said that Mormonism allows for a new opportunity for reevaluation of how “orthodox” defines themselves in their relations to other faiths, how they will define themselves publicly in an understandable way to those outside the faith. But it is also a chance to practice showing “love.” To his opinion, all of us agreed.

For the remaining time, we talked about other marginal Christian group, Jehovah’s witness. Particularly, we talked about the persecution against Jehovah’s witness for their refusing to participate in the mandatory military service. Many of us were surprised because Korean government throws everyone who refused to do the military service behind bars. And we also heard from Korean students that there is ongoing debate whether Korean government should allow them to do some alternative service rather than military training.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Mormonism in South Korea and India

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

In our October 20 class session we were privileged to have an informative and energetic presentation on “Mormonism as a Global Religion” by Matthew Bowman. After a brief introduction to the history of the movement and its subsequent accommodation to American culture in the late 19th century, he addressed its progress in the 20th century. A dedication to evangelism, the extension of the priesthood to people of African decent, and the standardization of worship and practice around the world have resulted in a large increase in the movement outside of North America. But that very standardization has also meant that Mormonism has not been contextualized in local cultures as have been some of the other Christian movements. In the long term that might hinder its growth as people look for religious experiences that make sense in their own local contexts.

In our discussion group we shared perspectives on the Latter-day Saints tradition from our different contexts. We had one person from the U.S., one from South Korea, and one from India. None of us had been familiar with the development of the movement as our lecturer outlined it, so it was good to learn of the issues that Mormonism has faced and its unique leadership structure. Our Korean member shared that Mormon churches have not grown significantly in his region, but another group from the Marginal category, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has experienced significant growth. He said that in Korea Latter-day Saints do not use the aggressive evangelization techniques that are more common among Evangelicals in the country. Our Indian member shared that in his region neither group has been successful at attracting large numbers of participants.

Despite their small numbers in Asia, worldwide Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses together make up 92% of the Christians in the category of Marginal Christians (according to the Atlas of Global Christianity). Why are they so much more numerous than other marginal groups? One of our members suggested two reasons: an emphasis on mission/evangelism and the strong piety practiced in the two traditions. We agreed that that made sense. Significant attention to attracting new members would seem to be an important growth factor. As both traditions seem to have a reputation for strong piety among the laity, they likely attract people from other traditions in which the zeal for the faith has lapsed or where piety among the laity is no longer evident.

With the emphasis on lay leadership at the ward level, we wondered to what extent there might be a mistrust of theological education in the Latter-day Saints tradition. If so, what were the influences that might have caused that?

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator