Author Archives: snoh3@uoregon.edu

Noh, Team 5, Question 1, 5/26

Posted on by under global christianity

Jacobsen divides Christianity in Asia into four regions: Islamic West Asia, Hindu South Asia, Religiously Mixed Southeast Asia, and Buddhist/Secular East Asia. The Islamic West Asia region comprises of 25 countries, and Muslims are the majority population in 23 of them. This means that the size of Christian communities in the Islamic West Asia region is considerably tiny, and it appears to be getting even smaller. According to Jacobsen, “Christians comprised five percent of the population in 1970 and about 4 percent today. Lebanon, which had a Christian majority in 1970 (60 percent of the population), is only one-third Christian today” (Jacobsen 164). However, there is one exception to common regional trend. The number of Christians within the six oil-producing Gulf nations of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates is actually increasing, but solely because of the abundance of recruitment’s (guest workers) who come for manual labor and domestic service. Many of the temporary workers are Christians and from the Philippines through a government-sponsored program. So in several Gulf nations, Christians account for almost 10 percent of the population. However, since the guest Christians are locked into long hours of work that are equivalent to an indentured servitude, passports are typically confiscated and workers cannot travel unless they have approval from of employers. This means that Christian guest workers almost have no impact on the religious ethos of the region, which is a majority Islamic. Guest workers have limited opportunities to even gather for Christian worship and ultimately have little to no impact on society.

The Hindu South Asia region is similar to the Islamic West Asia region in that both regions only have about four percent of the population being Christian. However, the living environment is completely different. And as Jacobsen points out about the Hindu South Asia region, “the great majority of these Christians (95 percent) live in India, where Christians are distributed unevenly across the country” (Jacobsen 165). Areas in the south, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu are sizable in number and live quite comfortably. A similar situation exists in the northeast region of the country. However, this is not the case for Christians living elsewhere in India. They are not so fortunate. Almost 75 percent of all the Christians in India are Dalits. Dalits used to be called “untouchables” and continue to exist at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This abuse and mistreatment makes it extremely arduous to be a Christian in the Hindu South Asia region.

The Religiously Mixed Southeast Asia region is different from the previous two regions in that Christianity is general thriving in Southeast Asia. It is especially thriving in the Philippines, which now has more than 90 million Christians. And looking at the region as a whole, Christians make up about 20 percent of the population is the Philippines is included. And even without the Philippines, Christians still make up 10 percent of the total population. Jacobsen states that the Southeast Asia region “in Thailand, for example, only 2 percent of the majority Thai people are Christian, but more than 30 percent of the minority Karen people are Christian” (Jacobsen 167). Jacobsen shows that Southeast Asia tends to be overrepresented in ethnic minority groups and considerably underrepresented in the majority ethnic groups.

Out of the four regions, the Buddhist/Secular East region of Christianity, consisting of China, Japan, Mongolia, North and South Korea, and Taiwan, is growing the fastest than anywhere else in Asia. In countries like North Korea and Japan (<2%) the numbers for Christianity are significantly low. But in South Korea and China, Christianity has grown significantly over the last few decades. Christians account for almost 30 percent of South Korea’s population. South Korea also has the biggest Pentecostal Christian church in the world. In addition, six of South Korea’s eleven presidents have been Christian. Christianity in China within the last 50 years has gone from one and a half million Christians in 1970 all the way to 100 million today. However, Christianity in China remains suspect by many Chinese government officials. The government in North Korea forbids Christianity along with any other religion.

Asian Christian theology has a “triple dialogue” (similar to Ubuntu in African tradition), which guides Christian action and thinking. “Triple dialogue” involves the balancing of Christian convictions with civic loyalty; respect for members who associate with other religions, and having deep concern and care for the poor. This creates an extremely unique form of Christianity. Asian Christians hold a strong faith in civic loyalty and emphasize seeing all people as equal, focusing on the positives of life rather than the negative. Although Asian Christians are constantly in the pursuit of Christ and maintaining a loyalty to Christ, they also maintain a solidarity relationship with non-Christian neighbors. Staying in constant conversation with other religions and their faiths helps Christians to be respectful and be open to other religions, which peacefully allows everyone to freely believe what they want to without the heavy pressure to radically change or convert to a different religion. In addition, occasionally the different beliefs overlap and are similar in some way to one another, which helps support the idea of having communication and respect for other religions. The harmony, peace, and mutual respect obtained by the Asian Christians experience with other religions through this “triple dialogue” is a large part of Asian culture in general and even existent in other Asian religions such as Buddhism and Taoism. The emphasis on inter-connectedness and community seems to power the aspects of these beliefs and culture, and when Christianity can respect other religions and work with them, a peaceful unity is available for people to experience as they live in contentment and satisfaction with one another.

Jacobsen pointed out that Western Christians tend to see and point out the differences before similarities when it comes to comparing religions. Western Christianity can learn from Asian Christianity in this particular way so that they are more aware about people of other beliefs and be open to the idea that there may actually be similarities between different religions. The one concern is that this should not be taken to the extreme, as we should not expect all religions to live in community together and not try to convert one another, because unless someone is a universalist, all people believe that their particular religion is true, meaning that they must help bring people to their religion, even if it is someone who associates or believes in a different religion. I think that Western churches and Christians have a tendency to do this type converting in an aggressive and non-respectful way that is not understanding of other religions or cultures. There are definitely some positive things that could come from Western Christianity adopting ideas from the “triple dialogue.” If Western Christians desired a balance and harmony, seeing everyone as human beings that deserve respect and kindness, then those harsh and aggressive conversion conversations and attempts could be much more relational and peaceful. Asian Christianity appears to see people for who they really are and acts accordingly. Asian Christianity respects other beliefs and religions and works to live alongside them while striving together for the benefit of the community.

Team 5, Question 2, 5/3

Posted on by under modernism

Gonzalez talks about how Protestantism in the United States had many different challenges to face outside of urban growth, but the most significant and important was intellectual in character. Europe had constantly been sending immigrants across the Atlantic, “but also ideas that questioned much that had earlier been taken for granted” (Gonzalez 341). It was Darwin’s theory of evolution that seemed to contradict the creation story in Genesis, and therefore produced an evident stir among the masses. However, amongst theologians, an even greater challenge was raised by the historical and critical studies that were happening in Europe. These studies raised doubts about the historical accuracy and authenticity of most books of the bible. From a methodological presupposition, all that seemed extraordinary or even miraculous was to be rejected. And “thanks to evolution and progress, the day was at hand when humans would be able to solve problems until then insoluble, thus bringing in a new age of joy, freedom, justice, peace, and abundance” (Gonzalez 342). Protestant Liberalism made an attempt to couch Christianity in the mold of these ideas, and eventually gained wide acceptance among the intellectual elite that resided in the United States. Many saw liberalism as a threat to the core of Christian faith, specifically in regards to the theory of evolution. But many conservative theologians knew that the question of evolution was only one aspect of the threat the new ideas posed to the fundamentals and foundations of Christianity. The term fundamentals became the characteristic of the anti-liberal reaction that began to be called fundamentalism. In 1846, the Evangelical Alliance was made, seeking to join all those who saw that liberalism as a denial of the faith. But it was in 1895, that the movement actually listed the five fundamentals that could not be rejected or denied without being put into the error of liberalism. The five fundamentals were the “inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return” (Gonzalez 342-43). Following this principle, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church adopted similar principles. The rise of fundamentalism gave rise to new interpretations and led to the connection it had with dispensationalists. Liberalism made its most significant contribution in what became known as the Social Gospel. The leader of a small core of liberals, Walter Rauschenbush, “insisted that the social and economic life of the nation should conform to the requirements of the gospel, and showed that economic liberalism—the theory that the law of supply and demand suffices to regulate the marketplace—results in great inequity and social injustice” (Gonzalez 343). The ultimate goal is to limit the unbridled power of runaway capital while advocating for laws that will help the poor and promote greater justice. The similarity between the Social Gospel and the rest of liberalism was the common optimism regarding human capabilities and the progression of society.

Fosdick characterizes the mentality of the fundamentalists as having an adamant intention to drive out the evangelical churches men and women who are of liberal opinions. “All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Fundamentalists” (Fosdick 155). The greatest conservatives give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is all around illiberal and intolerant of its ideas. The Fundamentalists see the strange new movements in Christian thought. The new knowledge is about the physical universe, its origin, human history, other religions, has come into man’s possession. There are many Christians who have been unable to keep this new knowledge in one area of their minds and the Christian faith in another. The new knowledge and the old faith must be blended together to create a new combination. The people trying to create this new combination are the modernist liberals, and the Fundamentalists are the ones who are campaigning to shut the doors of the Christian fellowship against them. Ultimately, Fosdick characterizes the modernists as the people who accept the new knowledge provided and try to use it to help explain their Christian faith. This is an attempt to find a method to incorporate the new knowledge in their belief system. However, the Fundamentalists attempt to ignore this new knowledge and begin a system that fights back against the new knowledge with five fundamentals (inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the Virgin birth, Jesus’ death on the cross as a substitute for our sins, and his physical resurrection and impending return) that must be observed.

Fosdick discusses how the Bible is observed in two different beliefs, with Fundamentalists taking one and the modernist taking the other. The Fundamentalists view the Bible as the literal work of God that is told to man in order to make up the proponents of the Bible. In this belief, all historical and scientific contexts remain without change and kept in the way it is told from the Bible. Fosdick is ultimately arguing that Fundamentalists take a much more literal translation of the Bible, and those who follow this thinking see the finality of the world, directly addressed within the Bible. As for the modernists, modernists view the Bible as God unfolding his will on the world from the beginning to end. This different and dynamic way to view the Bible allows for the incorporation of many new ideas and concepts. So ultimately, the Fundamentalists approach to the Bible was that they believed the Bible to be the absolute word of God, and viewed everything in it (including miracles, crucifixion, resurrections, etc.) as scientifically and historically true and accurate. Modernists viewed the Bible less so, less statically, believing that Christ was a representation of how God wanted us to live life. This would mean that the modernists were able to reconcile their religion with the new knowledge of the modern world. Fosdick identified himself as a modernist and strongly believed that trusting in science was the correct path to take while also believing strongly that this was the only way for Christianity to survive in the new modern world. Fosdick says the first part of the solution that is “necessary is a spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty” (Fosdick 157). Fosdick says that this is something that both the Fundamentalist and modernist need to learn. The second part of the solution is to realize and address the main issues of modern Christianity, while ignoring the little matters that Fundamentalist and modernists quarrel over.

Modernist Christianity integrating the scriptures with new knowledge would ultimately diminish the authority of the Bible in some way or another. For instance, miracles in the Bible are not meant to be explained or understood by man, rather, simply seen as an amazing work of God beyond reason or explanation. These are supernatural events that happen in the Bible. The new knowledge would not be able to explain these miracles, which would ultimately lead new knowledge to deny the miracles in the Bible. Although things like the crucifixion could be proven and understood with new knowledge, it would not even be able to explain or prove Jesus’ resurrection, which would mean that it would deny and reject that any resurrection ever took place. Miracles and Jesus’ resurrection are some of the key foundations and truth of the Bible; to have that incorporated with new knowledge would ultimately lead to the denial of these miraculous events from ever occurring, ultimately diminishing the authority of the Bible. The good moral teachings that are in the Bible would be one of few things, if not the only thing that would be relevant to the new knowledge because it can be explained and reasoned with. But because many of the things in the Bible would be denied and rejected because of no explanation or reason, I would imagine that it would diminish the authority of the Bible to some extent.

TEAM 5, QUESTION 2 (4/14 )

Posted on by under reformation

The Council of Trent seems to justify its own authority by saying that it is “lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, the same legates of the apostolic see presiding, adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the unanimous teaching of other councils and of the Fathers” (Voorst 359). The Council of Trent adds canons on the Holy sacraments of the church in order to “destroy the errors and extirpate the heresies that in our stormy times are directed against the most holy sacraments, some of which are a revival of heresies long ago condemned by our Fathers, while other are of recent origin, all of which are exceedingly detrimental to the purity of the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls” (Voorst 358).

The council understands the origins of the sacraments (the seven, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony) all coming from Jesus Christ. The significance of these holy sacraments is an addition for salvation, meaning the sacraments are another part to the full aspect of salvation. So for those men who have obtained from God through faith, and faith alone, the grace of justification, they must also need the sacraments of the new law for salvation. Only those who believe the sacraments of the new law grace is conferred through Christ’s work and those who have a certain spiritual and indelible mark that cannot be repeated imprinted on the soul a character through baptism, confirmation and order. Ex opera operato is the sacraments deriving from Christ’s work and conferring power inherent in the sacrament itself while ex opera operantis is the value and role of the recipient’s or minister’s moral condition in causing or receiving sacramental grace. Not all Christians have the power to administer the Word and all the sacraments. A minister, who is in mortal sin, even if he observes all the essentials that pertain to the conferring of a sacrament, affects his sacrament. The validity of the council comes when it says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments may not be omitted by ministers without sin and at their pleasure. Canon 1 brings on more sacraments than the Protestant Church because it says there are seven sacraments and just seven, when the Protestant Church observes two of those seven and not all. The two that are considered sacraments in the Protestant church are communion (The Eucharist) and baptism. Canon 4 is a direct refutation of the Protestant ideals because the Protestant Church believes in salvation and justification through faith and faith alone, not with a combination of sacraments. Also, Canon 8 is a refutation of Protestant church ideals because it says that grace is achieved through works. It also says in Canon 10 and 12 (which is also a refutation of the Protestant Church) that not any Christian can administer sacraments and that priests who marry cannot confer sacraments.

So in short, the Index of Prohibited Books says that the church claims that any book that goes against or even appears to challenge the doctrines of the Catholic Church is an inauthentic book. The books are identified and classified by (local) bishops, inquisitors, and theologians who are approved by the local bishop. The church identifies books from heresiarchs such as Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. and automatically forbidding them, labelling them as inauthentic. Books of other heretics, which deal with religion are also absolutely condemned and labelled inauthentic. Those books that do not deal with any religion and by bishops and inquisitors been examined by Catholic theologians and approved by them are allowed. Catholic books written by those who later fell into heresy and those who fell but returned back to the Catholic Church “may be allowed if they are approved by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition” (Schroeder 365). The translations of writers are permitted if they provide nothing contrary to sound doctrine. Books such as biblical translations and manuals can be used as support material to the Vulgate as long as they are allowed by the Catholic Church. The biblical translations of the Old Testament can be allowed to learned and pious men only, provided that they are only used as elucidations for the official Bible of the Catholic Church (Vulgate). The biblical translations of the New Testament “made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal” (Schroeder 365). But if with particular translations with the Vulgate edition are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been taken out by the theological faculty of a Catholic university or by the general inquisition, may be permitted to those who the translation is permitted for. The Index of Prohibited Books was released at a time when the printing press was still relatively new. This meant that information could be spread much easier and faster than the time before the printing press. By having almost every book published by or at least approved (or banned) by the Catholic Church meant that there was a complete control on what would be circulated and be seen in society, specifically the Christian community. The Catholic Church would even keep regulations and restrictions on the ideas that were not directly religious in foundation. The level of details within the document showed the unsteady time the Catholic Church was in and how they went to extreme measures to keep control over the spread of ideas in Christian society.

Skip to toolbar