A Chinese protestor blocks a line of tanks heading east on Beijing’s Changan Blvd. June 5, 1989 in front of the Beijing Hotel. The man, calling for an end to the violence and bloodshed against pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square, was pulled away by bystanders, and the tanks continued on their way.

Before you read this article please watch this clip. This is one of my favorite clips of all time: Tank Man Raw Footage

If you do not know who this man is, he is known as the tank man and the event is the protest of Tiananmen Square June 5, 1989 (the year I was born, an auspicious year!)

Every time I watch this footage or look at the clip I get chills. Yet this man remains unknown to this day. He disappeared into the crowds shortly after his “moment of self-transcendence.” Not only is this man’s identity a mystery, but so are the details of the event itself, the student protest of Tiananmen Square. The Chinese government has never disclosed the actual number of deaths. The Chinese government wants to play it off as if it never happened. They will not acknowledge that they were wrong while the students were right. Read the TIME’s 1989 cover story: here

This brings me to the point of this article stated in the sub-title: language defines reality. The one who tells the story controls the narrative. This has been repeated over and over again in history. Let me give some examples.

Armenian Genocide

I did my undergrad in Turkey. There, we were required to take a class on Turkish History. The professor was exceptional, except for one thing; she was in denial about the Armenian genocide (1915-1918; estimated deaths 1.5 million) . She taught that 1 million Armenians simply died from the difficult trek across Turkey. Even when I asked my class mates about this event, they had no opinion on it. It just didn’t happen or the fact that it happened or not did not matter to them.

Holodomor

I also lived in Ukraine for 6 years. Everyone knows about the Holocaust (1938-1945) where 6 million Jews were killed and 5 million non-Jews. But what about the artificial famine in Ukraine (1932-1933) were 7 million Ukrainians were starved to death, not because of a lack of food but because of a ruthless decree? The world did not know about it and foreign correspondents who knew kept quiet. Even today so many people don’t know about it. Watch a trailer on it: here.

Injustice like this continues to happen today. When I was in Ukraine this time last year a Malaysian airliner was shot down.

“Russia, however, denied all allegations it supplied weaponry to the rebels and has instead suggested a Ukrainian military plane had flown within firing range of the airliner just before it came down. The Ukrainian government rejected the claims.”

If Russia did not supply the weaponry, who did? It is obvious that Ukraine lacks the military artillery to bring down a plane. Moreover, that week Ukrainian planes had been shot down, so are they saying that Ukrainians are shooting their own planes? Not only that but when Media blames the “Pro-Russian Separatists” Who do you think is funding the pro-Russians? Think about it.

Anyway I write this article not so that all those reading will think the same way that I do, but so that those reading will see how language dictates reality. Communist governments have taken advantage of this. Look at North Korea, they indoctrinate their people with the idea that they are the best, that they live in plenty and that the outside world is their enemy. Their reality is spoon fed to them by their government.

The same thing happens here in the US. Everyone eats up what the media gives them. The problem is not a lack of education or resources, but a lack of interest. Ray Bradbury said, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” My plea for those who read this is to get educated on the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, Darfur , Arab-Israeli Conflict, Tiananmen Square, etc. Do not just eat up everything on tv. Do that brave tank man justice and hear his story. Do not let the government rob him of his identity a second time.

I want to finish with a quote from Azar Nafisi:

“I want to remind you of what Nabokov wrote when he was asked to tone down his criticism of the Soviet Union during World War II: ‘Governments come and go, only the trace of genius remains.’ That statement certainly came true for Eastern Europe. When you tell your own story, you take control over reality. In Iran, reality had power over us. And one way of negating that control was by telling our own stories. When you tell your story from your own perspective, then those people lose their power. It’s like Scheherazade, in A Thousand and One Nights. She changed the King through telling the story, and that was the whole idea of my book.”

What are your reactions to this article? Have you heard about the Tiananmen Square Masssacre, the Armenian Genocide, Holodomor or the Malaysian Airliner shot down July 2014 before? Do you agree that language determines reality? What is the story that you will share with the world? Do you  Question Everything?

Additional Reading:

5 Things You Should Know About the Tiananmen Square Massacre

In this passage our Lord is brought a man who is paralyzed. After proclaiming his sins are healed Jewish leaders accuse him of blasphemy. At this Jesus heals the man and sends him away. The second part is on the calling of Matthew.

The Paralyzed Man healed

What can be said about this passage? First and foremost Jesus has authority to forgive sins. Jesus has authority to forgive sins because it was given to him by the father. Beyond this his death and sacrifice for our sins allow us to live. When Jesus forgives the man the religious leaders become indignant. The religious leaders understood that only God could forgive sins, and they also understood this was done though the law, which they were the sole interpreters and keepers thereof. God would forgive them, they reasoned, but only through the means that have been given to them through the covenant of Abraham. Jesus knew all of this, yet he says “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?”. This means that there was something beyond them just being mistaken and not knowing the plan of the father for this is no sin. No, Jesus calls their thoughts evil because they were more concerned about someone stepping on their toes than their offense to God. This is a common theme in all of the gospels. Jesus goes on to challenge them with “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”- pointing out that they should know how to act but are not acting in the way God desires and commands after he is mocked by the leaders while eating with known sinners. How many of us are sinners? All of us, and so Jesus comes to all, but he is least accepted by those who are least without excuse. When Jesus heals the man he says “Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?” This is an example of a Jewish qal wahomer (“how much more”) argument: if God gives Jesus authority to heal the visible effects of humanity’s fallenness, why would he not send him to combat that cause of that fall? This is why social justice, mercy, and alms giving is so important for the Christian life. It proclaims the gospel.

The Calling of Matthew

Matthew’s calling displays that Jesus loves us in spite of us. I have often wondered why tax collector is such a “sinful” job. After all the entire bible gives a high view of taxes. Historically the tax levied to Rome was an occupier’s fee. The Jews were being charged for their occupation, and since their nation was seen as instituted under and by God; since it was a “kingdom of priests and holy nation”- being a Jewish tax collector would have been seen as traitorous and against God. Being a tax collector would have been seen as a betrayer of his culture, God, and people. So Jesus coming to the tax collector is a bold statement. Our sin is betrayal of God and yet this is who Jesus comes to. He comes to those who have betrayed him, “rebellious people, deceitful children, children unwilling to listen to the LORD’s instruction.” His action suggests that if God is willing to come to worst, is his not willing to come to all? And this is what he says “For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” The Pharisees self-righteousness he seeks to correct, but at this time they are unreceptive of him, as are all people who think they are so good as to be free from any sin. I often suspect that one can be so proud that they are beyond all save divine intervention. God must often break people like the Pharisees with painful trials so they can understand their condition.

These are my thoughts on the passage. If anyone has anything else to add please leave it in the comments.

Cs Lewis starts his address by stating that he will not be talking about what many of them assumed he would talk about: post World War 2 Europe. He says this is because most cannot be expected to marginally contribute to this condition in the next 10 years because “You will be busy finding jobs, getting married, acquiring facts.” This was striking to me because it is totally avoid of the modern mentality of “you can do anything” and the idealism that sweeps across modern campuses. He is being real here. He says instead he will give them advice for their lives. The next part is good enough to quote in its entirety:
“And of course everyone knows what a middle-aged moralist of my type warns his juniors against. He warns them against the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. But one of this trio will be enough to deal with today. The Devil, I shall leave strictly alone. The association between him and me in the public mind has already gone quite as deep as I wish: in some quarters it has already reached the level of confusion, if not of identification. I begin to realise the truth of the old proverb that he who sups with that formidable host needs a long spoon. As for the Flesh, you must be very abnormal young people if you do not know quite as much about it as I do. But on the World I think I have something to say.”
He goes on to say that in all groups of people the world over there exists an unwritten social code. Some people are “in” and some are “out”. He says many times there are no formal admissions, no formal expulsions. “People think they are in it after they have in fact been pushed out of it, or before they have been allowed in: this provides great amusement for those who are really inside. It has no fixed name. The only certain rule is that the insiders and outsiders call it by different names.” From the outside, if you despair of getting into it, you call it “That gang” or “they” or “So and so and his inner circle”. If you are up for admission you probably don’t call it anything. To discuss it with the other outsiders would make you feel outside yourself. And to mention talking to the man who is inside, and who may help you if this present conversation goes well, would be madness.
He proceeds though the rest of the essay to show that through all points in all people’s lives there is this intense desire to be “in”. Even those who protest being a part of the “in” crowd form a different group, and view themselves as “in” that group- the group protesting. “People who believe themselves to be free, and indeed are free, from snobbery, and who read satires on snobbery with tranquil superiority, may be devoured by the desire in another form.” He continues to say that trying to be a part of the in crowd (what he calls an inner circle) is a permanent main spring of human action. He says if you have never stayed up at night wondering why you did something to be a part of a group, to be included…then are you are more fortunate than most.
He gives two cautions. The first is that there is a difference between wanting to merely be a part of a group to be a part of a group and being a part of a group with a purpose. A person who loves chess and joins a chess club becomes a part of a ring, but he has found an “inside” worth having- whereas the person who joins the chess club because he wants to be in a club doesn’t really have a reward. The second caution is that Inner Rings are a large part of what allows good people to do bad things.
“And the prophecy I make is this. To nine out of ten of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear. Over a drink, or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still—just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, or naïf or a prig—the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which “we”—and at the word “we” you try not to blush for mere pleasure—something “we always do.”
And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man’s face—that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face—turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude; it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.
That is my first reason. Of all the passions, the passion for the Inner Ring is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.”

He concludes that the quest to be a part of the in crowd will break you unless you break it. Friendship is necessarily about something else- it is two hearts loving the same thing. He says that inner rings are avoidable- but we can through friendship and true love form something that looks identical to an inner ring.

And if in your spare time you consort simply with the people you like, you will again find that you have come unawares to a real inside: that you are indeed snug and safe at the centre of something which, seen from without, would look exactly like an Inner Ring. But the difference is that the secrecy is accidental, and its exclusiveness a by-product, and no one was led thither by the lure of the esoteric: for it is only four or five people who like one another meeting to do things that they like. This is friendship. Aristotle placed it among the virtues. It causes perhaps half of all the happiness in the world, and no Inner Ring can ever have it.
We are told in Scripture that those who ask get. That is true, in senses I can’t now explore. But in another sense there is much truth in the schoolboy’s principle “them as asks shan’t have.” To a young person, just entering on adult life, the world seems full of “insides,” full of delightful intimacies and confidentialities, and he desires to enter them. But if he follows that desire he will reach no “inside” that is worth reaching. The true road lies in quite another direction. It is like the house in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Thursday

I arrived late Thursday and had a very long talk with one of the students from the Hyde Park chapter. He asked how things had been. Honestly the messages in my chapter have greatly changed in the last year. I really see that God has worked on my pastor. He no longer adds world mission into places where I do not feel it is obvious. Our relationship is better these days, and he understands that our relationship is very different. I try to understand him more, and I try to communicate more with him. The student was glad to hear. We talked a lot and I got to sleep very late. I had requested to have bible study with the chapter leader the next morning so I was very tired by the time I awoke. He asked me to read the book of Ephesians and give a brief outline.

Friday

I brought my outline to the bible study. I outlined the book as such:

• Blessings of the Spirit
• Who Christ is and his role in God’s redemptive plan.
• Who Paul is and his role in God’s redemptive plan.
What the Church is and its role in God’s redemptive plan.
• How the church ought to act to carry out that plan and how its members should act to help carry out that plan.
• A call to persevere against Satan.

He showed me his outline which was much more detailed. We talked about how the church should proclaim the kingdom. And he taught me how the church should shepherd God’s people, but the context of John 10 needed to be carefully understood. He said that UBF has been given shepherds. I mentioned that while the sacrificial nature of UBF shepherds and their great love for their students was its strength sometimes it was had been over stepped. He corrected me “Many times.” He mentioned that shepherds proclaim the kingdom. It was a very good bible study. Later that day I went to campus night.

Campus Night

People were totally bewildered to see me. I think in large part because I was unaccompanied by my “shepherd”. I suppose it is also surprising to see someone travel such a long way when they are really obligated in any way. It didn’t escape my notice that Yvonne Lee stared for a long time. I eventually moved to the back and when I saw Dr. Augustine he was shocked to see me.

Later Dr. John Lee from Springfield joined. The first speaker was Jacob Lee. I remember he was funny. At one point he said “I was not good enough to called Abraham so they named me Jacob which means deceiver. But I came to like the name since he had 12 sons.” I was put off by his talk. The powerpoint read “Why UBF should remain in world mission.” I didn’t believe this was a point of debate, and furthermore his answer amounted to- because UBF always has. Just because something has always been done one way does not mean it has to. But eventually he made his point. He presented from Stephan Lutz book calling campus mission strategic. I won’t go into details but he gives an outline from that book.

Mark V was the next speaker. His talk was on the history of campus mission movements. Mark V spoke incredibly fast. I was having a hard time keeping up with him. He also had a pained look on his face. I later found out he was in extreme back pain, and I suspect he was trying to get through it as fast as possible. What really struck me about his presentation was that campus mission movements grew out of YMCAs and the student volunteer movement in the mid 19th century. That explains a lot. American imperialism and a drive to evangelize the world have often went hand in hand (along with all their problems too). And here we see it.

It was remarkable how so many of the ideas of the founders of the campus movement are so similar to the ideas that Samuel Lee would later speak of. Hearing these ideas from someone who doesn’t have the history of Samuel Lee gave them more of an air of legitimacy. The frequent quotes from the founders of the student volunteer movement and its role as a parachurch were very helpful for me to understand the core foundational ideas behind UBF and its relation to Christian doctrine and why at times this has been a weak point in campus mission movements.

Kevin Albright went on to give a survey of Intervarsity. He mentioned that they do a lot of the same things as UBF. They do inductive bible study for instance. He also mentioned that many people in their organization were not encouraged at times, and the author of the book he read on Intervarsity regrets that they were not given more help. One thing he mentioned that struck me was that Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ) was more for new converts and Intervarsity was more for discipleship.

Here he meant “discipleship” as “become a more mature Christian”. But for me I have always understood discipleship as growing in Christ in whatever capacity the Holy Spirit moved you. For me I have been taught that a Christian is a disciple and a disciple is a Christian (Acts 11:26, Ephesians 2:19-22). So for me telling me someone is not a disciple is the same as saying they are not Christian. But one can be a Christian and not mature. Although it is dangerous to judge or label, a goal of maturing Christians is a noble one at the very least (this makes no mention of the methods however). To call UBF a “discipleship ministry” has always been redundant to me.

In the next article I will talk about the last few speakers. I was more than a little surprised (and inspired) by their testimonies. I also caught up to someone on Joe Schafer’s recent letter, so I will include that next time too.

But there is also a side of Islam that we can not easily go and pass by – or even ignore. What about my Muslim neighbor, my acquaintance who practices his religion and remains a peaceful man or woman? Do I dare to befriend him/her, or even talk about faith? Am I ready to confess and testify God’s love before that person? Am I willing to know some principles of Islam in order to be able to respond in a more detailed way? Am I willing to trust God instead of just trying to get away from contact with Muslims?

Being from Germany, I am confronted with a society that houses many Muslim immigrants, as well as experiencing that the Christians in my surroundings are very often not interested in the subject of Muslim-Christian dialogue. Many Christians have doubts about it because they see it as either superficial (because it just enhances where we are “same”) or dangerous (because it can produce quarrels).

In fact, Youtube is full of examples that show us how a dialogue like that should not be held. There are so many bad and unhelpful examples. Still, there is something that i found different and very interesting. Since 2005, the “University of Wollongong, Campus Dubai” holds Muslim-Christian dialogue sessions, incited by students and carried out by two speakers – one representing the Muslim, the other representing the Christian view.

The 2013 dialogue between Rev. Tabibti Anayabwile and Imam Dr. Shabir Ally was particularly interesting. The topic of that session was:

How can we find forgiveness from a Holy God?

1.) both speakers respect each other (in this case, are good friends) and respect God
2.) they strictly keep to the subject in all they say about the Bible and the Qur’an
3.) the topic is relevant for every human that seeks God
4.) they agree to disagree at the end – and dismiss the session by telling the audience to research more on the topic and being / becoming responsible believers

Here is the trailer on Youtube:

If this makes you feel interested, just type “Dubai dialogue 2013 Christian” into Google and you will get the full session in Videos, each video has a duration of about 10-15 mins

I would be happy for some feedback on this topic!

1. Words have different definitions and meanings, especially food

A common irritation the whole time I was in the Philippines was that words had different definitions. It was most common with food. For example, when I got to the Philippines I was asked if I wanted spaghetti. I said yes and was given some spaghetti. As soon as I tried it I said “What is this? This isn’t spaghetti. It’s too sweet.” Nothing tasted like what it was. This wasn’t always for the worse, the eggs were fried in palm oil and they were amazing. But it made a common joy of life, eating, fraught with anxiety. On more than one occasion someone would spend a lot of money on food for me after I told them I liked that food, they would bring it to me and I would struggle to eat whatever it was I supposedly liked. But it wasn’t just with food. The term “every now and then” which in English means “occasionally” means “constantly” in the Philippines. This led to confusion a lot when I first arrived. I learned very late that if you want to politely ask someone to do something you say “Would you like to…” it is the American equivalent of “You should…” Once I was asked “Would you like to use a spoon?” and I just said “No.” The person was likely put off. I actually talked to a missionary last Sunday. She told me that it was the same when she arrived. She would enjoy a certain food but the American version would be so much saltier, so she would just eat Korean food. I wonder how many missionaries have come the US thinking they like American food and when they get here realize they hate the real thing.

2. No matter how hard you think you are adjusting you never are in their eyes

As much as I felt like I had adjusted and was adjusting. I could tell people didn’t think I was. Off hand comments about me that were not intended as insulting, but always referenced that I wasn’t really adjusting were common. I can only imagine being in America for 30 years and feeling like you are truly American. Then you say one thing a little bit wrong or make some Korean gesture and suddenly you “aren’t adjusted”. It would infuriate me, and it really gave me a realization for how hard it is to be a missionary. Many times I see and feel like because Koreans are not speaking English in my presence they havn’t really adjusted, but when I realize they could if they chose- never speak English. They would probably prefer it that way.

3. You resist changing because you know what is “right”, and because you are “right”, you are “elite”.

More than a few times I had conflicts. These conflicts often occurred because I expected something according to my standard, and then Hope, my fiancé, would explain “It’s not America.” But inside I wouldn’t want to change. That is how things are done. People get straws with the purchase of large Coke. You should be able to order a pizza without the tomatoes on top. I should be able to bring my soda into a store that doesn’t sell soda. I should have hot water in my shower if I pay for a hotel room. I should eat dinner by 5. If there is a conflict I should straight forwardly tell people about it, not just say nothing. Every time I had a conflict I was explained that that is not the way it works in the Philippines. I would agree but in my mind say “But that isn’t how it should be…” It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to see how Korean ideals and culture and this idea of “how it should be…” could cause an issue. My culture and its ideals dictate “how it should be…” What is more, it lead me to feel elite. Because I know how things “should be” it made me feel better. As much as I tried to repress, repent, and not act on this. Even when I acknowledged it I couldn’t drive it away. I don’t know what can be done. Can it be that the missionary must give up their culture to join another? Is this the true calling of the missionary? More and more I think that the missionary life requires throwing off one’s culture for another, otherwise pride will always blind a person from being a true example of Jesus.

4. Love is complicated by conflicting cultures.

Many missionaries marry the native people they serve. I know of at least 2 couples in UBF. To be clear I am using missionary as UBF sense of “any person in a different country who is also in UBF”. One thing I found was that cultures have pretty strict rules on courtship. These rules are so deeply imbedded in people that it can cause huge issues. Filipino courtship is all about serving the other person. The man is expected to carry objects for the girl, hold an umbrella, etc. The woman is expected to serve the man by making food, caring for him in sickness, looking out for his wellbeing, etc. Amercian courtship has all but eliminated chivalry. It is seem as “clingy” or “desperate” to constantly be fawning over and looking after a person. The issue is love is shown by these actions, so it appears that I don’t love her if I don’t so these things. I wonder how many early marriage by faiths failed because of this. How many still do? I don’t have an answer but it seems like a remarkably hard thing. Marrying someone in the same culture is much easier. Remarkably I understand how frustrated missionaries must be when they are trying to show love. I know for many missionaries to love someone is to lord over them, this seems cultural. The concept of love is so deeply imbedded that it causes huge issues, as it does in courtship. I understand now how hard it is. You feel like you are loving someone and then suddenly they are upset. What did I do? I was just trying to love you! Jesus told me to!

And that is a basic summary of what I learned with regards to missionaries. I am interested in what you all think. Remember, to explain something isn’t to justify it. How can we work towards missionaries, should we even do so? How much should a native person change and bear with a missionary? These are all good questions.

Below are some positive quotes. I think it is wise to also realize that Mandela had a “dark side” as we all do. To be human is to embrace the good and the bad, which I see Mandela did. He did not build his own fantasy, but lived in the real world.

“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

“If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”

“I am not the only one who did not want revenge. Almost all my colleagues in prison did not want revenge, because there is no time to do anything else except to try and save your people.” —Larry King Live, May 16, 2000

“I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one.” —Larry King Live, May 16, 2000

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” —Rivonia trial, 1964

“I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.”

“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”

“Difficulties break some men but make others. No axe is sharp enough to cut the soul of a sinner who keeps on trying, one armed with the hope that he will rise even in the end.” —From a letter to Winnie Mandela, 1975

“Man’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished”

(source)

So to “do” world mission meant you go out into the world (i.e. the closest campus) and fish. To “fish” means to invite students to one-to-one bible study. This seemed to fit nicely with point 1 of the ubf heritage, “go back to the bible”.

The good, bad and ugly

Good (keep it)

– The world mission slogan helped me to expand my thinking beyond my own little world. Growing up as a country boy from a small hick town, this idea of serving the world was helpful.

– I learned to tolerate and accept people of different cultures and language than me.

Bad (change it)

– Emphasizing “Jesus’ world mission commands” lead me to ignore Jesus’ other commands, many of which are more important.

Ugly (stop it)

– I learned quickly that even though I was to think about many countries around the world, Korean culture was supreme.

– World mission taught me to lose my identity as an American and adopt the ubf version of Korean culture.

– I gave up all my dreams and sacrificed much in order to be a missionary to Russia, only to be told this would not be possible in ubf. I found out ubf is not a missionary sending organization. ubf is a Korean missionary sending organization. A small number of non-Koreans have been sent by ubf, but those actions seem to me to be just an appeasement.

Philip Jenkins, writing in his pre-9-11 book The Next Christendom, laments the fact that religion — in particular, the dawning of the movement of Christianity from a Western European and North American context to a Latin American, Asian and African one — “was barely mentioned in all the media hoopla surrounding the end of the second millennium.”[1] With the rise of Christianity in the Southern hemisphere, the most important issues in politics, demographics, land and culture in the majority world will have to do with how well Christians interact with each other and with other religions such as Islam. Jenkins writes, “I suggest that it is precisely religious changes that are the most significant, and even the most revolutionary, in the contemporary world. Before too long, the turn-of-the-millennium neglect of religious factors may come to be seen as comically myopic…”[2]

Given the projections that by 2050 only one Christian in five will be white, Jenkins endeavors to investigate the ecclesiastical and theological impact of the Southern hemispheric shift on the whole Church.

(Just to clarify: throughout this article, I will use “Church of the global South” to refer to Christianity below the equator, and “Church of the West” to refer to the Christianity of Western Europe.)

Jenkins believes that we should give pause before asserting “what Christians believe” or “how the church is changing.” [3] Such blanket statements usually refer to what Western Christians believe. Before presenting the “Christian” stance on an issue, we need to acknowledge that Christianity has undergone a global shift.

The Church in the global South defies stereotype. At present, the Southern hemisphere is home to the poorest people on the planet. With the advent of liberation theology, one might expect Christianity in South America, for example, to be politically-minded, leftist and revolutionary. However, that is not the case. Jenkins writes, “the denominations that are triumphing all across the global South are the stalwartly traditional or even reactionary by the standards of the economically advanced nations.”[4]

Many denominations are feeling the impact of the global shift. In the Roman Catholic church, for example, Catholics in the global South already outnumber their Western counterparts. It is the Vatican’s best interest to cater to the conservative views of the South rather than the liberalism of the West. Jenkins states, “In the traditionalist view, adapting to become relevant or sensitive to the needs of the Western elites would be suicidal for the long-term prospects of the Church. It is the so-called traditionalists, rather than the liberals, who are playing the political game of the new century.”[5]

How does Christianity in the global South differ from that in the West? To answer this question, I will focus here on issues of gender and sexuality. Sex and gender roles are divisive issues in the traditionalist-liberal debates in the West. Yet if we analyze these issues from a purely Western perspective, we can easily miss what is truly happening. For example, Jenkins cites an article by New York Times reporter Brent Staples, who was argued that Christianity “had failed and was collapsing, and would continue to do so unless and until the religion came to terms with liberal orthodoxies on matters of sex and gender.”[6] Although ordained women are a crucial part of leadership in Latin American Pentecostal churches and African Independent Churches, those churches are still comfortable preaching traditional roles for women in society. Abortion is prohibited in Africa, and homosexuality is seen as an alien practice.

Southern views on gender roles and sexuality are reinforced by their biblical interpretation. Southerners believe that Scripture speaks clearly and decisively and on these issues, whereas Westerners look for cultural context in the Bible and deem it necessary “for churches to change in accordance with secular progress.”[7] “Liberals judge Scripture by the standards of the world; conservatives claim to set an absolute value on Scripture and religious sources of authority.”[8] So at Lambeth 1998, the Southern Anglican bishops defeated Western liberal motions on gay rights. Conservatives in the West discovered that that they had large numbers of allies in Africa. Lambeth inspired conservative Anglican Americans to be ordained in the conservative Southern Anglican church, and henceforth become a part of the Anglican mission in America to “lead the Episcopal Church back to its biblical foundations.”[9]

Throughout this book, Jenkins proved his thesis well. Specifically, with respect to gender and sexuality, he argues that views of the global South have increasing ecclesiastical and theological salience.

Unfortunately, Jenkins says little about hermeneutics. Personally, I would have liked more discussion on how Christians in the global South and West differ in how they approach Scripture. Biblical interpretation lies at the core of many divisive issues.

I think that readers could also have benefited from a brief section about Southern views of the work of the Holy Spirit. This is related to hermeneutics. For example, if the African Anglican church believes that the Holy Spirit is working through them in a special way, they would naturally claim to have greater authority on biblical interpretation and downplay the presence of the Holy Spirit among Episcopals and Anglicans in America and England. As Western Christians struggle to understand Southern perspectives on gender and sexuality, they need to consider how their brothers and sisters in the South see them in light of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit.

[1] Pg. 3
[2] Pg. 1
[3] Pg. 3
[4] Pg. 7
[5] Pg. 197
[6] Pg. 9
[7] Pg. 201
[8] Pg. 202
[9] Pg. 203