Globalizing Theology

Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity

Ott, Craig, Netland, Harold A.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781441201348
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

One of the most powerful forces in the twenty-first century is the increasing phenomenon of globalization. In nearly every realm of human activity, traditional boundaries are disappearing and people worldwide are more interconnected than ever. Christianity has also become more aware of global realities and the important role of the church in non-Western countries. Church leaders must grapple with the implications for theology and ministry in an ever-shrinking world. Globalizing Theology is a groundbreaking book that addresses these issues of vital importance to the church. It contains articles from leading scholars, including Tite Tiénou, Kevin Vanhoozer, Charles Van Engen, M. Daniel Carroll R., Andrew Walls, Vinoth Ramachandra, and Paul Hiebert. Topics covered include the challenges that globalization brings to theology, how we can incorporate global perspectives into our thinking, and the effect a more global theology has on a variety of important issues.

Part 1
World Christianity and
Theological Reflection

1
Christian Theology in an Era
of World Christianity

TITE TIÉNOU

Globalization, understood as the awareness “that the world is rapidly coming to be apprehended as ‘one place,’ . . . a totality wherein discrete selves, nation-states, and even civilizational traditions have their respective niches, each interconnected by complex, reticular relationships” (Garrett and Robertson 1991, ix), is not a new phenomenon. Today, however, the reality of globalization seems to be more evident for an increasing number of the world’s population. Not surprisingly, this reality has generated publications on religion and globalization. A few examples will suffice here: Religions/Globalizations:Theories and Cases (Hopkins, Lorentzen, and Mendieta 2002), Globalizing the Sacred: Religion across the Americas (Vásquez and Marquardt 2003), A Global Faith: Essays on Evangelicalism and Globalization (Hutchinson and Kalu 1998), “Toward a Global Church History” (Shenk 1996), “Shifting Southward: Global Christianity since 1945” (Robert 2000), The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Jenkins 2002), One World or Many? The Impact of Globalisation on Mission (Tiplady 2003), and Whose Religion Is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West (Sanneh 2003). These publications provide ample evidence of the “polycentric nature of Christianity” (Tiénou 1993) for academic and nonacademic readers. Polycentric Christianity is Christian faith with many cultural homes. The fact that Christianity is at home in a multiplicity of cultures, without being permanently wedded to any one of them (Tiénou 1993), presents for Christians everywhere a unique opportunity for examining Christian identity (Choong 1998; Shenk 2001) and Christian theology.

During the last two decades of the twentieth century, the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada examined the effect of globalization on theological education in North America through its Task Force on Globalization.¹ In June 1999, the Association of Theological Schools adopted its Guidelines for Evaluating Globalization in ATS Schools. Globalization is currently an aspect of the “Characteristics of Theological Scholarship” of the “General Institutional Standards” of the ATS Standards of Accreditation (2002, 54). Yet as Donald Lewis says, globalization “appears to have become all things to all theologians” (1998, 37). Indeed, in spite of the attention paid to Globalization and the Classical Theological Disciplines (1993), Christian theology does not seem to be greatly affected by globalization. This may be due, in part, to the four meanings of globalization the Association of Theological Schools considers acceptable: “the church’s universal mission to evangelize the world”; “ecumenical cooperation between the various manifestations of the Christian church throughout the world”; “dialogue between Christianity and other world religions”; and the mission of the church in its social and political dimensions (1999; Browning 1986, 43–44). Nothing in these four meanings of globalization suggests that it has a bearing on Christian theology itself.

With the foregoing in mind, I examine in the following pages the implications of globalization for Christian theology because “the task in the twenty-first century is to conceptualize theology in light of the fact that the Christian faith is global with multiple heartlands” (Shenk 2001, 105). The purpose here is not to propose a theological method for an era of world Christianity but to inquire about the conditions for a world conversation on Christian theology. I chose the present approach because world Christian theologizing cannot take place without worldwide conversation. For this reason, the following reflections seek to establish the framework for world conversation on theological method. I first state my convictions regarding the nature and purpose of the theological task. Second, I review the status of contemporary world Christianity. Third, I examine the challenges of making Christian theology an endeavor and a conversation in which Christian theologians from the world community participate fully.

The Theological Task: Nature and Purpose

Theology is essential and indispensable for Christian living. This fact was recognized by nontheologian Dorothy L. Sayers (1969; 1980). For Christians, theology is necessary because it enables them to think and live Christianly so that they can love God fully, with heart, mind, soul, and strength. This implies that theologians should envision their task as one that helps “the faithful to think theologically, by which one basically means thinking Christianly” (Williams 2000, 161). This understanding of the theological task is grounded in the conviction that “theology is about making Christian decisions in critical situations” (Walls 2002a, 222). That may be the reason for what Tshishiku Tshibangu, a Catholic theologian from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stated many years ago: Church life cannot exist without active theology (1987, 7: “il n’y a pas de vie d’Eglise sans théologie en activité”). Theologians, then, are called to foster active theology and to participate in sustaining it. They must do so by always remembering that Christian life needs participation in a community of disciples (Bonhoeffer 1954). Meaningful participation in a community of disciples requires that theologians live and work with humility as they seek to cultivate “creative fidelity” and “joyful performance” in Christ’s followers (Vanhoozer 1995).

The development of active theology that nurtures “creative fidelity” and “joyful performance” grows out of the understanding that “Christian theology is not merely ‘Christianity defensively stated.’ It is also entrusted with the duty of ‘Christian self-expression’ ” (Turner 1952, 16). Moreover, it takes for granted “the character of theology as Christian intellectual activity on the frontier with the non-Christian world, and hence as essentially communicative, evangelistic and missionary” (Bediako 1995, 259; see also Turner 1952; Bosch 1991). This character of theology helps legitimize what Wilbert Shenk calls “a new criterion of theological validity,” whereby “only theology that motivates and sustains the church in witness and service in the world deserves to be accredited” (2001, 105, italics in the original). Consequently, the nature and purpose of the theological task require that it be a shared task because “Christian theology . . . is an intellectual enterprise by and for the Christian community” (Grenz 2000, 203). To say that the theological task is a shared one means that it cannot be done by one person or even a single group of people; the theological task is a communal one. The communal nature of the task applies to theological method also, for “method is not a set of rules to be followed meticulously by a dolt. It is a framework for collaborative creativity” (Lonergan 1972, xi). If it is granted that theological method “is a framework for collaborative creativity,” then it is important to understand who, today, may participate in the theological task. This brings us to the second part of this chapter, namely, the shape of contemporary world Christianity.

Contemporary World Christianity: Where Is the Center?

Today, the people who should participate in the theological task come from a Christian community that is ever wider, since “the new reality of the Christian community can be fully appreciated only from a global perspective” (Shenk 1996, 56). We know, thanks to the works of numerous scholars (mostly missiologists and historians of world Christianity), that the Christian faith is no longer the faith of white Western people alone. David Barrett, Dana Robert, Wilbert Shenk, Lamin Sanneh, Andrew Walls, Kwame Bediako, and Philip Jenkins (to name only a few) have taught us that the center of gravity of world Christianity has shifted to the South.

Missiologists have known this fact for a long time, even though it may surprise the general population as well as many Christians. Indeed, in his 1989 Friends of St. Colm’s public lecture, Andrew Walls stated that “the twentieth century has seen the most staggering development in the church for at least a millennium” (1989, 2).² For Walls, this “most staggering development” is the result of two major changes: the de-Christian-ization of the West and the Christianization of the non-Western world. Walls provides the following statistical evidence. “In 1900, 83% of the world’s Christians lived in North America and Europe. Today [in 1989], something approaching 60% live in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific” (1989, 3). Note that this change occurred in less than a century. No wonder Walls could only come to the conclusion that “we have seen a massive change in the centre of gravity of the Christian faith, so that Africa has become one of its heartlands” (1989, 3). I sometimes refer to the change in world Christianity as the literal darkening of Christianity’s complexion.

The published literature on the southward shift of Christianity’s center of gravity (including statistical documentation) tells only part of the story, for the darkening of Christianity’s complexion cannot be fully documented in published form. For one thing, some of the documentation will remain inaccessible to scholars who read European languages exclusively. This is why documentation is needed on grassroots Christianity in Africa written in African languages or on Chinese Christianity written in Chinese. Moreover, much of the story of Christianity around the world remains untold. Commenting on the African situation specifically, Kwame Bediako suggests that “African Christianity must be distinguished from the literature on African Christianity” (n.d., 1–2). Similarly, world Christianity must be distinguished from the literature on world Christianity. Nevertheless, the literature on Christianity around the world provides sufficient information that things have changed dramatically. The change implies an increasing non-Western imprint on the Christian religion. We must, for this reason, keep in mind that “what at first glance appears to be the largest world religion is in fact the ultimate local religion” (Robert 2000, 56). We may therefore have to consider the adoption of a new vocabulary such as that suggested by Lamin Sanneh: “world Christianity” instead of “global Christianity.” He writes:

World Christianity is not one thing but a variety of indigenous responses through more or less effective local idioms, but in any case without necessarily the European enlightenment frame. “Global Christianity,” on the other hand, is the faithful replication of Christian forms and patterns developed in Europe. (2003, 22)

Sanneh’s distinctions may not persuade everyone, but it is a helpful description of two ideas: (1) Christianity is a world religion because it is a local religion, and (2) “flexibility at the local level, combined with being part of an international network, is a major factor in Christianity’s self-understanding and success today” (Robert 2000, 56). These two ideas provide a good framework for understanding the reality of the Christian religion in the world today. This is why “world Christianity” has been used in this chapter.

The shift of Christianity’s center of gravity is good news because it means that, as a global reality, the Christian faith is increasingly at home in many cultures and will not be imprisoned by any single culture. The good news, in this case, is that since people of color now represent the majority of Christians in the world, the perception of Christianity as a Western religion can be corrected. Making the case for Christianity on the basis that it is a worldwide global religion can, especially in Africa, erase the stigma of Christianity as a white man’s religion. This will bring about apologetic dividends not only for Christians in Africa but also for those in Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific Islands. In other words, if Christianity is de-Westernized, Christians in Africa, Asia, and Latin America will be able to defend themselves when accused of being agents of Westernization and puppets in the hands of foreigners whose intention is the destruction of local cultures and religions.

The apologetic dividends of a non-European Christianity may also apply to the United States and some European countries. Sociologist R. Stephen Warner contends that the immigration of people of color into the United States “represent[s] . . . the de-Europeanization of American Christianity” (2004, 20), while Walter Hollenweger notes that “in many European cities there are more black, yellow and brown Christians coming together on a Sunday morning than white Christians” (2003, 94).

I am fully aware of the fact that many around the world continue to perceive Christianity as a Western religion. This perception does not, however, alter the reality that Christianity is now a local world religion. As Lamin Sanneh writes, “Christianity as a truly world religion [is] increasingly defined by the values and idioms of non-Western cultures and languages” (1997, 296; see also Robert 2000; Walls 1989). Yet one would not know that Christianity is increasingly non-Western if one reads publications such as Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (1996).

It is remarkable that in this book, published in 1996, Huntington states, “The West is now universally used to refer to what used to be called Western Christendom” (1996, 46). This statement seems to accredit the idea that Christianity is Western, especially if one accepts, as Huntington apparently does, the proposition that “religion is a central defining characteristic of civilization” (1996, 47). Western civilization, then, continues to be defined by the Christian religion.

Huntington does not mention a particular civilization pertaining to Africa. This is how Huntington deals with the African situation: “Most major scholars of civilization, except Braudel, do not recognize a distinct African civilization” (1996, 47). Huntington cites many reasons for the nonexistence of African civilization. Among the explanations given, of course, is the usual idea about “tribal identities” being pervasive in Africa. But what is most intriguing and interesting is the following statement: “Most significantly, European imperialism brought Christianity to most of the continent south of the Sahara. . . . Conceivably sub-Saharan Africa could cohere into a distinct civilization with South Africa possibly being its core state” (1996, 47).

It has been noted that “Huntingdon’s [sic] hypothesized ‘African civilization’ has always been one of the least convincing parts of his argument” (Ranger 2002, 265). Be that as it may, what should one make of his assertion about Africa? Why has Huntington emphasized European imperial Christianity and not paid sufficient attention to the long presence of Christianity on the continent? Is it true that the presence of Christianity in Africa has obliterated African civilizations? If so, how can a distinct African civilization “cohere” around one of the most Christianized countries of the continent? Moreover, why did the presence of Christianity in Asia not produce the same effects?

Chee Pang Choong, from Trinity College in Singapore, provides an Asian perspective on some of the ideas expressed by Huntington. According to him, “Western or the West is . . . used rather broadly or loosely as a synonym for Christian or Christianity minus the ‘Slavic Orthodox civilization’ ” (1998, 222). For Choong, this constitutes a serious problem because it only reinforces “the already common impression and prejudice in the non-Western world that Christianity is a Western entity rather than a cross-cultural and universal religion” (1998, 222). For Christians in Asia and Africa, then, Huntington’s ideas provide arguments only for Asian and African critics of the Christian faith. This is because “the Christian population in Asia seems to have been ignored completely. Huntington seems to have failed to recognize the very important fact that the Christian population or ‘map’ worldwide has changed significantly since World War II” (Choong 1998, 223). In failing to acknowledge the worldwide nature of the Christian faith, Huntington and others only perpetuate the identification of Christianity with the West. As long as people continue to perceive Christianity as Western, the changes in world Christianity will not have the impact they deserve.

Major changes have indeed occurred in world Christianity. These changes are known by missiologists and historians of world Christianity and less known by Christians who are not in missiology and similar disciplines in the West. The southward shift of Christianity’s center of gravity is hardly noticed or seriously taken into account by scholars who happen not to be Christian.

Non-Christian scholars may be able to ignore the shift in Christianity’s center of gravity. For Christian scholars (even those in the West), ignoring this southward shift has detrimental effects. Christian scholars, especially the theologians among them, need to be aware of the change in Christianity’s center of gravity because

the faith of the twenty-first century will require a devout, vigorous scholarship rooted in the soil of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, [for] the majority of Christians are now Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, and Pacific Islanders. . . . Christianity is now primarily a non-Western religion and on present indications will steadily become more so. . . . The most urgent reason for the study of the religious traditions of Africa and Asia, of the Amerindian and the Pacific peoples, is their significance for Christian theology; they are the substratum of the Christian faith and life for the greater number of the Christians in the world. (Walls 1997, 153)

In light of the foregoing, perhaps the question should be, Why has Christian scholarship paid so little attention to the “majority of Christians”? Is it because few Christian scholars, even theologians, agree with Andrew Walls that “the future of the Christian faith, its shape in the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries, is being decided by events which are now taking place in Africa, in Asia, and Latin America, or which will do so in the near future”? (1989, 3). What would happen to Christian scholarship and theology if all Christian scholars and theologians (from Northern as well as Southern continents) really believed that the future of Christianity no longer depends on developments in the North?

Acknowledging the fact that the majority of Christians are no longer Westerners is one thing. One may even concede that the demographic future of Christianity belongs to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Does this also mean that the future of Christian theology and scholarship is being decided on these continents as well? One cannot presume a positive answer to this question in spite of the fact that Andrew Walls affirms that “the primary responsibility for the determinative theologica...