The Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity: Translatability and future of Christianity

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

It was fitting that our last guest lecturer for Global Christianity, Dr. Jay Gary of Regent University, tried to encourage the class to think about the ‘future scenarios’ for Christianity in the next century. Dr. Gary looked at 15 scenarios that are projected into the next century, such as the rich-poor gap, ecological crisis, technology, many of them dilemmas of difference, and encouraged us to think about which might be more relevant to the future of Christianity.

Dr. Gary encouraged us to use our intuition to envision the factor we thought would be determinants of Christianity growth and transformation. A few of us thought that technology was important for Christianity. Hee Jin discussed how churches in Korea were already trying to close the technological generation gap by engaging in smart networking and creating applications about church activities and spirituality for smart-phones. We discussed, however, the fine line churches must walk between becoming too commercialized and thus loosing the mystery and tradition that goes beyond refashioning spirituality to the mundane and popular vernaculars of the day.

Many of the future scenarios that emerged predict a much darker future of conflict and competition for Christianity. Many settings envisioned were resonant with worldwide clashes of differences and how Christian communities might deal with conflict and rise above it. One of many concerns was for an East Asia in conflict with the West. But such generalizations are hard to pin down. Some of the situations projected intra-religiously cultural conflict – through Christianity of the North clashing with the rising Christianity of the South (Phillip Jenkins, The Next Christendom). Perhaps this would play out less in terms of North-South, but more along the lines of a more Charismatic, personal faith in contrast to a more traditional-historical and corporate faith. To some, the common prediction of an inter-religious clash between Islam and Christianity resounds as more likely. As The Atlas of Global Christianity aptly states, the history of Christianity indicates that growth is fragmentary and punctuated. Christianity has risen to prominence and fallen from many regions, only to rise in others (decline in North Africa, and the fast growth in sub-Saharan Africa are just one set of examples). By contrast, Islamic growth tends to be steady and territorial. As Brad pointed out, scholars like Lamin Sanneh and Andrew Walls argue that the translatability of Christianity is part of the reason for this fragmentation and punctuated growth.

Perhaps it is migration patterns that will be most likely to decide the future of Christianity. Christianity has defied predictions of decline due to secularization and the privatization of religion. The translatability of Christianity could very well create more fragmentation, yet with it seeds of renewal to forge future adaptations.

The Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity: "Boundaries" for mission today

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

Boston University historian Dr. Dana L. Robert was the most recent guest lecturer for our Global Christianity course. Dr. Robert’s fascinating talk traced the shifting use over the last century of the concept of the mission field as ‘frontier.’ Earlier uses of the term, influenced by American Western expansion, saw mission as a territorial frontier. But the strictly territorial use of the idea of mission as frontier shifted to accommodate political and social realities. Drawing ‘Social Gospel’ movement, some missionaries envisioned mission frontiers in terms of social justice. Others likened mission frontier to that of crossing the boundary between ‘belief’ and ‘unbelief.’ A more recent transformation of the idea of frontier comes from work of Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter, who made popular the idea that “Unreached People” who do not have access to the Gospel are the primary frontier for modern missions. Dr. Robert suggested this view a is narrowing of the meaning of frontier. Mission is commonly understood as a crossing over some kind of boundary, and ‘frontier’ language has proved resilient, and may see another transformation in the coming years.

As our group discussed the lecture, we could agree that mission is most recognizable as a crossing of a boundary. Yet given the thorny history of Christian expansion which is sometimes linked with imperialism, several important questions emerged in discussion. Is the term ‘frontier’ for mission useful today? And if so, what is the most helpful way to understand the main ‘frontier’ for contemporary mission? If one abandons the specific use of the word ‘frontier’, what is the boundary that is most important to cross in order to engage responsibly in mission?

One suggestion in the discussion was to see the incarnation event itself as crossing a frontier, and an incarnational model of mission, being Christ in a holistic sense to our neighbors and seeing Christ in them, might be helpful. In this sense each person, each heart, could be considered a mission frontier. Although it has some evangelical overtones (‘every person is a missionary, every heart is a mission field’), it might be more helpful a word than the word ‘frontier’ that to some smacks of territorial takeover. But would this be saying that everyone can or should be a missionary, thereby diluting the meaning of mission? Perhaps there is a distinction between saying everyone is a missionary and saying Christian should strive to be missional. There is a movement in the West identifying itself as “missional church” that engages in theology and local outreach which is intentionally incarnational. Through the discussion many of us still sought to grapple with mission as a boundary crossing. We further asked ourselves what were the main ‘boundaries’ for mission today?

The Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity: Dynamics of mission and money

The Changing Contours of World Mission and Christianity: 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.