Author Archives: blibolt@uoregon.edu

Team 1; Question 1; Libolt

Posted on by under global christianity

Asia is such a massive continent that it is hard to talk about it as a whole in general terms. It is diverse in every way imaginable, from people and language to landscape and climate. Jacobsen divides Asia into four subcontinents or regions to make generalizing more manageable. These four regions are the Islamic West Asia, Hindu South Asia, Religiously Mixed Southeast Asia, and Buddhist/Secular East Asia. Each region is different geographically and demographically, allowing us to examine Christianity in Asia more effectively.

The Islamic West is primarily a Muslim region, as the name would suggest. Christian presence in the area has decreases over the last few decades, with the exceptions of a few small countries. Christians in Lebanon went from around 60% of the population to just one third of the population. An increase of temporary guest workers in some countries has increased the Christian population a little bit, but this increase isn’t significant enough to expect big change in the future.

In the Hindu South Christianity is scarce as well. Only about 4% of the population is Christian. The majority of these Christians live in India, and live relatively comfortable lives. There are, however, a large number of Christians that are seen as “untouchable” in parts of India and get treated as the bottom of the social hierarchy. This mistreatment makes being a Christian difficult in much of Hindu South Asia.

The Religiously Mixed Southeast Asia is significantly more Christian than the previous two regions. The Philippines is home to around 90 million Christians, and Christians make up 20% of the region’s population as a whole. In this Southeast region the Christian population is significantly bigger in minority ethnic groups, and barely existent in the majority ethnic groups. For example 2% of the Thai people are Christian while over 30% of the Karen people, another ethnic group in Thailand, identify as Christian.

In the Buddhist/Secular East Christianity is growing the fastest. In countries like North Korea and Japan the numbers are tiny, but in South Korea and China Christianity has grown significantly over the last few decades. Christianity is relative in Chinese government because of its recent growth, and in North Korea the government forbids Christianity along with any other religion.

Asian Christianity is distinct from the other forms we have seen throughout the world. Asian Christians have a theology called “triple dialogue” that, much like Ubuntu in the African tradition, guides their Christian thoughts and actions. This “triple dialogue” places an emphasis on harmony and balance that leads to a respect other religions and beliefs. They stress civic loyalty, which causes them to see other people as equal, and focus on the good and successes of life rather than the negative and shortcomings. Staying in conversation with other religions and faiths helps Christians to be respectful and open to other religions, allowing people to believe what they want freely without pressure to convert or change. Sometimes the different beliefs overlap and are similar to one another, which is reason for more connection and respect. The harmony that Asian Christians experience with other religions by this “triple dialogue” is a large part of Asian culture and other Asian religions such as Buddhism and Daoism. Inter-connectedness and emphasis on community fuels aspects of those beliefs and culture, and when Christianity can respect that and work with that, a peace is available for people to experience as they live in harmony and balance with one another.

Like Jacobsen said, Western Christians like to point out differences before similarities. I think Western Christianity can learn from Asian Christianity in this way, so that they are more aware of people of other beliefs and understand that there may be some similarities in other religions. Now, this can be taken too far, and I don’t think that we should expect all religions to live in community together and not try to convert one another, because in the end one religion or none of them are true, not all of them. Western Christians have a tendency to do this converting in a less than kind way that isn’t understanding of other religions or cultures. If Western Christians desired a balance and harmony, seeing everyone as human beings that deserve respect and kindness, then those conversion conversations could be a little less crass. Asian Christianity sees people for who they are: people. It respects other believes and lives alongside them while pushing together for the good of the community. There are definitely some things the West could learn from this “triple dialogue.”

Team 1: Libolt, Question 1

Posted on by under fundamentalism

The conflict within Christianity in the late 19th century rose on the intellectual battleground, sparking a clash between groups that would come to be known as the fundamentalists and liberals. As people had new ideas about the world, science, and religion the authenticity and completeness of the bible came into question. Darwin’s theory of evolution seemed to throw a wrench into the creation story found in Genesis, which caused a stir within Christianity. The historical authenticity of most books of the bible was brought into question as well, and the supernatural miracles in the bible became less and less popular. People began to realize the capabilities of human beings, and found great satisfaction in solving problems and gaining knowledge. Protestant Liberalism arose in the elite class of U.S. citizens to accommodate these new ideas while still holding to Christian beliefs. Liberals could think as freely as they wanted, as long as they never crossed over into the realm of superstition. A few number of radicals emerged as modernists, who renounced the bible and Christianity as merely another religion and book. The majority of Protestant Liberals didn’t go too far, however, and just saw an opportunity to wrestle with the new intellectual ideas of the time, and fit them into their Christian beliefs. Opposition slowly arose as people saw liberalism as a threat to the very essence of Christianity. The main debate had to do with the theory of evolution, a debate that is relevant today in public schools. This group of people against the liberals were known as the fundamentalists, and stuck to the fundamentals of Christianity. These fundamentals were the inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return. This debate between fundamentalists and liberals went on for years as new intellectual ideas have come up. The fundamentalists hold true to the bible and the core of Christian doctrine while the liberals think more freely about biblical truths.

 

In the Princeton Doctrine, the ideas of Inspiration and Revelation are discussed. Inspiration is defined as the constant attribute of all the thoughts and statements of Scripture, while revelation is defined as frequent. The authors believe there was a mixture of both human and divine agency in the creation of scripture. The people who wrote it were humans in history, but God inspired them. The authors of the bible experienced facts in reality that turned into ideas inspired by God. The Holy Spirit was at work the whole time, “causing His energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the though designed by God.” (144) In other words, the Holy Spirit was intricately involved in the entire authorship of the bible.

 

Laws talks about the difference between the fundamentalists and modernists, classifying them as the new and old theologies. The main issue he addresses is the question of authority. People abiding by new theology didn’t think the Scripture was the final authority, but that God’s speaking into their life was. They thought that scripture was being made into a kind of pope, which is what the Protestants were trying to escape from. The old view of the bible was that it was divinely inspired by God, and should absolutely speak authority into the Christian’s life. The Bible is still spiritual and inspired by God, so it isn’t like another pope that one has to slavishly obey. It contains the words of God revealed to man that are relevant to life in any context or culture.

 

It is hard to believe that the arguments made by the people at Princeton are dispassionate. There is definitely emotion and passion involved in the ideas they are talking about. They are talking about what they believe to be ultimate truth and reality, while holding to traditional ideas and views that they have known probably their whole life. It is extremely difficult to be unbiased when talking about religion, because it is often so ingrained within the lives of the people in conversation. That being said, they have a decent argument for why the old theology is superior to the new. If God divinely inspired the authors of the bible to write down what he wanted them to, and everything in the bible came from a perfect God, then it absolutely should be authoritative. If one questions the authority of the bible, it would seem they have to question the authority of God, or the truth of the bible. Their view of God probably comes from the bible though, and it isn’t logical to believe some of it to be true and divinely inspired by God and not all of it. From a logical standpoint, if Christians believe God to be all knowing, all perfect, and all-powerful, then what he says is authoritative. If some of the bible is true and inspired by this God, then all of it has to be, or the God they believe in is something different than the one described above.

Team 1: Question 1 – Libolt

Posted on by under spiritualism

George Fox was a very spiritual man. Spirituality guided his life from the moment he quit his job to pursue a higher calling. He claimed to have been led by the Spirit of God, and started exploring religious meetings to search for “illumination from on high.” He studied scripture as well, so much so that people said he knew it all by heart. Eventually he came to the conclusion that every church in England was wrong. Fox challenged the notion of a church building, the paying of pastors, and the workings of a worship service. He thought that hymns, sermons, and even the sacraments were all human hindrances, and were removing the freedom of the Spirit to move and work within an individual. He even said that scripture wasn’t the ultimate authority, that since the Spirit wrote it, the Spirit had authority over scripture. Luther would have cringed at this suggestion. Fox disagreed with Calvinist doctrine, specifically the idea that all humans are totally depraved. Instead, he believed that all humans had an “inner light,” some dim and some bright. If someone follows that inner light, it will lead him or her to God.

Fox stayed quiet about his ideas for a while, before finally speaking out in churches as he felt led by the Spirit. The reaction from people of other Christian groups was rather unfriendly, and often resulted in him being kicked out, beaten, and even stoned on some occasions. However, he did gain a following, and his numbers grew swiftly. They became known as the Quakers and the Friends, and eventually had tens of thousands of members. Their services were silent, allowing people to speak whenever they felt the spirit leading them. The Quaker experience was a spiritual one, denying any human obstacles that would get in the way of the Spirits call on one’s life.

Fox had mystical experiences that he accredits to the Spirit within him. These experiences include a type of ascension to a state of perfection or Christlikeness. He claims to have been at a state like Adam before the fall, a state of innocence and purity that wasn’t condemned with sin. While he speaks of ascension, there is also an inward aspect to these mystical experiences. Fox says he “brought them all to the spirit of God in themselves.” If we all would go to the inner light within us, being led by the spirit toward the truth, that inward reaching into God will ascend us upward to a state of perfection and Christlikeness. It is all very spiritual, and Fox says over and over again that the spirit led him into these states and experiences.

Like stated above, these ideas were not met with open arms. Fox tells of being beaten, whipped, stoned, and hated by many. The people who claimed to be Christians were attacking them violently, proving to Fox that they were in fact not Christians at all. Instead of retaliation, the Quakers chose to endure the suffering and not fight back. They thought it was against the teachings of Christ to repay violence with violence, so instead they suffered and endured.

Fox’s epistles focus on the spiritual life of a Quaker. He talks very little about outward living outside of the context of an inward spiritual life. A common theme is that of a seed. This seed is referring to the “inner light” that all have within them. Focusing on that seed and growing in it and living by it is how to live a spiritual life. Fox’s epistles are very mystical in nature because they all encourage the reader to look within for spiritual growth and success. If God is inside everyone, then the outward actions and practices mean nothing without a focus on the inward relationship with God. Fox still mentions social justice briefly, saying that the Friends need to feed widows and orphans among them. Outside of this short epistle speaking to feeding the poor, the main message is to live life in the Spirit, almost rejecting the outward things of the world. George Fox was by all means a spiritual man, who took it to the extreme by allowing everything he did to be led by and point to the Spirit of God.

Skip to toolbar