Demographics, Power and the Gospel in the 21st Century

SIL International Conference and WBTI Convention, 6 June 2002

It is a very great honor and priv­i­lege to be in­vited to be with you. I have long had the great­est ad­mi­ra­tion for the work which Wycliffe and its al­lied or­ga­ni­za­tions are do­ing and many friends in Wycliffe in var­i­ous parts of the world. As some­one con­cerned for the well be­ing of Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy, I think there is no greater the­o­log­i­cal is­sue at the mo­ment than the one with which you are con­cerned: Mother tongue Chris­t­ian think­ing is, for rea­sons that I hope we can dis­cuss in the com­ing ses­sion, one of the cru­cial things for the fu­ture of the Chris­t­ian faith.

The Maori peo­ple of New Zealand, and I think this is true of other Poly­ne­sian peo­ples, speak of the fu­ture as be­ing be­hind us. We can­not see it. The past is what is in front of us. We can see that stretched out be­fore us, the most re­cent plainly, the more dis­tant shad­ing away to the hori­zon. As we ap­proach a topic such as the one as­signed to me it’s wise to re­mem­ber that the fu­ture is be­hind us. De­spite a ti­tle that speaks of the gospel in the 21st Cen­tury, I can­not say what that Cen­tury will hold for the Chris­t­ian faith or say what will be­fall the Church of Christ. What we can do is to look at the past in front of us and see what it sug­gests of the way that we have come and per­haps read in out­line, as on a sketch map, the place to which we have been brought now. That may give us some hints of what we can ex­pect in the days to come. That might be the rea­son why so much of the Bible con­sists of his­tory in one form or an­other. We are to use the past spread out be­fore us to show us where we are, as we en­ter a fu­ture that is still be­hind us.

I’d like to at­tempt some gen­er­al­iza­tions this morn­ing about Chris­t­ian his­tory that may tell us some­thing about what we might call a Chris­t­ian de­mo­graph­ics, and this may give us some hints for lo­cat­ing our­selves for the work of the gospel at the point of Chris­t­ian his­tory to which we have now come.

The first gen­er­al­iza­tion is about the na­ture of Chris­t­ian ex­pan­sion. Chris­t­ian ex­pan­sion is not pro­gres­sive; it is se­r­ial. Per­haps we can un­der­stand this best by com­par­ing the his­to­ries of Chris­tian­ity and Is­lam. Both faiths call the whole world to al­le­giance. Each has suc­ceeded in es­tab­lish­ing it­self among peo­ples among di­verse cul­ture and di­verse ge­o­graph­i­cal lo­ca­tions. But in the light of com­par­a­tive his­tory, Is­lam has, so far at least, been much more suc­cess­ful than Chris­tian­ity in main­tain­ing that al­le­giance over time. Lands that have be­come Mus­lim have, gen­er­ally speak­ing (there are ex­cep­tions), re­mained Mus­lim. Ara­bia now seems so ut­terly, ax­iomat­i­cally Mus­lim that it’s hard to re­mem­ber, isn’t it, that the Yemen was once a Chris­t­ian kingdom.

Con­trast Jerusalem, which can­not even claim an un­bro­ken Chris­t­ian his­tory, let alone a dom­i­nant one. Jerusalem, the mother church of us all, is not the Chris­t­ian Mecca. Or con­sider Egypt or Syria or Tunisia -these were once the show­case churches, the churches that led the Chris­t­ian world, adorned by the great­est the­olo­gians and the pro­found­est schol­ars, and sanc­ti­fied by the blood of the Mar­tyrs. They were churches that had seen the col­lapse of pa­gan­ism around them and the tri­umphs of Christ through­out their sur­round­ing areas.

Or think of the days, and few Chris­tians nowa­days even re­al­ize that those days hap­pened, when the Chris­t­ian faith was the pro­fes­sion of the whole Eu­phrates val­ley and most of the peo­ple who live in what is now Iraq, pro­fessed that faith; when new churches were spring­ing up in Iran and across Cen­tral Asia, even in the coun­tries we now call Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

Or con­sider my own coun­try, with its towns where John Knox and John Wes­ley once preached but are now full of churches that no­body needs and that get turned into fel­low­ship doors or restau­rants or even night­clubs. In my own city of Ab­erdeen we have a for­mer church that now re­joices as a night­club un­der the name “The Min­istry of Sin.”

In each of these cases, a place that had been a lead­ing cen­ter of Chris­t­ian faith, an area where the Chris­t­ian faith was dom­i­nant, ceased to hold that po­si­tion. For what­ever rea­son, and there are many dif­fer­ent rea­sons in the dif­fer­ent cases, the light was dimmed, some­times in­deed, ex­tin­guished. As the Book of Rev­e­la­tion puts it, the can­dle­stick was taken out of its place. But in none of these cases did the dim­ming or with­er­ing of Chris­t­ian wit­ness in one of its ma­jor cen­ters lead to the end of Chris­t­ian wit­ness in the world. The very re­verse. By the time the Jerusalem church was scat­tered to the wind, as hap­pened within the very first Chris­t­ian cen­tury, there were churches of Greek ex-pa­gan Chris­tians right across this Mediter­ranean area and be­yond it. As the churches in Iraq de­clined, the churches in Iran in­creased. As the great Chris­t­ian cen­ters of Egypt, and Syria and North Africa passed un­der Mus­lim rule, the Bar­bar­ians of north­ern and west­ern Eu­rope, from whom peo­ple like my­self are de­scended, were grad­u­ally com­ing to ap­pro­pri­ate the Chris­t­ian faith. With­er­ing at the cen­ter went along with blos­som­ing at or be­yond the mar­gins of the Chris­t­ian faith.

Chris­t­ian ad­vance is not steady in­evitable progress. Ad­vance is of­ten fol­lowed by re­ces­sion. The spread of the gospel does not pro­duce per­ma­nent gains that can be plot­ted on a map: “We have done that.” Chris­tian­ity has vul­ner­a­bil­ity at its very heart, fragility in its ex­pres­sion. It’s per­haps the vul­ner­a­bil­ity of the Cross and the fragility of the earthen vessel.

Is­lamic ex­pan­sion of­ten is pro­gres­sive; it moves steadily out­wards from its cos­mic cen­ter, and Mecca con­tin­ues to have that cos­mic sig­nif­i­cance that no place on earth can have for Chris­tians (even our Jerusalem is the new Jerusalem, not the old one, and it comes down ready-made out of heaven at the last time).

Chris­t­ian progress is se­r­ial, rooted first in one place, then in an­other. Chris­tian­ity has no equiv­a­lent of Mecca, no sin­gle per­ma­nent cen­ter. Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties of­ten wither in their heart­lands, their ar­eas of seem­ing strength, and then flower anew at or be­yond the pe­riph­ery. No one coun­try, no one cul­ture, owns the Chris­t­ian faith. There’s no per­ma­nently Chris­t­ian coun­try, no one form of Chris­t­ian civ­i­liza­tion, no sin­gle Chris­t­ian cul­ture. At dif­fer­ent pe­ri­ods, dif­fer­ent ar­eas of the world have taken lead­er­ship in the Chris­t­ian mis­sion and then the ba­ton has passed on to others.

This is one thing we see as we look at the whole Chris­t­ian past in front of us. But let’s look a lit­tle more closely at the part right in front of us, the re­cent past, the last hun­dred years or so. The 20th Cen­tury has prob­a­bly been the most re­mark­able Cen­tury of church his­tory since the first. Cer­tainly the shape of the Church de­mo­graph­i­cally changed more com­pletely, more rad­i­cally, dur­ing the 20th Cen­tury than it did in any pre­vi­ous century.

Two things hap­pened si­mul­ta­ne­ously. One was the great­est re­ces­sion that the Chris­t­ian faith has known since the rise of Is­lam, and that re­ces­sion was cen­tered in Eu­rope and has be­gun to spill into North Amer­ica. The sec­ond was a huge ac­ces­sion to the Chris­t­ian faith, again prob­a­bly the largest that has ever been known. There were only about ten mil­lion pro­fess­ing Chris­tians in the whole of the African con­ti­nent when the 20th Cen­tury be­gan. No one knows how many there are now, but an ed­u­cated guess would be in the re­gion of 350 mil­lion – that in the course of a cen­tury. Ko­rea had a tiny, tiny church when the cen­tury be­gan. Now it sends its mis­sion­ar­ies all over the world, takes over where West­ern mis­sions left off, and en­ters places where West­ern mis­sions never went.

We’ve heard this morn­ing al­ready of events in north­east In­dia, of Chris­t­ian states where, what is it? Over 90% of the pop­u­la­tion pro­fess the Chris­t­ian faith in Mi­zo­ram in a state that sends out mis­sion­ar­ies all over In­dia. But a hun­dred years ago that church hardly ex­isted. Fifty years ago Nepal was still a closed land and cer­tainly a cen­tury past, mis­sion work amongst the tribal peo­ple of the Indo-Burma bor­der­land was in its in­fancy. Now, that pic­ture that we have from north­east In­dia is part of a whole chain of new Asian Chris­t­ian pop­u­la­tions stretch­ing from the Hi­malayas through the Arakan right through the South­east Asian penin­sula. The new Chris­t­ian in Nepal, the move­ment in north­east In­dia, over the bor­der in south­west China, the peo­ples in Myan­mar and Thai­land and be­yond, a whole Chris­t­ian con­stituency that no one has thought of very much be­cause it cov­ers so many coun­tries and in each Chris­tians are a mi­nor­ity and not a small mi­nor­ity; but see that whole chain of new churches that have come into be­ing in the course of the 20th Century!

Over the past cen­tury Chris­t­ian ad­vance and Chris­t­ian re­ces­sion have gone on si­mul­ta­ne­ously, re­ces­sion in the West, ad­vance in Africa, Asia and Latin Amer­ica; with­er­ing at the cen­ter, blos­som­ing at the edges. The ba­ton is pass­ing to the Chris­tians of Asia and Africa and the Amer­i­cas, and let me add the Pa­cific (you have a most re­mark­ably uni­ver­sal rep­re­sen­ta­tion here); but it’s in these ar­eas, these south­ern con­ti­nents, if we may so call them, where more and more every year re­spon­si­bil­ity now lies for Chris­t­ian mis­sion in the world.

Chris­t­ian ad­vance in the world is se­r­ial and, in the prov­i­dence of God, it is the Chris­tians of Africa and Asia and Latin Amer­ica and the Pa­cific that are next in the se­ries. We who be­long to the West are no longer the lead­ers, the ini­tia­tors, the norm set­ters. We are now to learn to be the helpers, the as­sis­tants, and the fa­cil­i­ta­tors. The great event, the great sur­prise for Chris­tian­ity over the past hun­dred years has been this shift in the cen­ter of grav­ity of the Church. This rad­i­cal change in its de­mo­graphic and cul­tural com­po­si­tion, by all pre­sent in­di­ca­tions ap­pears to be con­tin­u­ing. It means that the Chris­tians of the south­ern con­ti­nent are now the rep­re­sen­ta­tive Chris­tians, the peo­ple by whom the qual­ity of the 21st and 22nd Cen­tury Chris­tian­ity will be judged, the peo­ple who will set the norms, the stan­dard Chris­tians. And the qual­ity of 21st Cen­tury Chris­tian­ity will de­pend on them.

A hun­dred years ago Eu­ro­pean and Amer­i­can mis­sion lead­ers took re­spon­si­bil­ity for re-Chris­t­ian mis­sion in the world. My of­fice in Ed­in­burgh is right next door to the place where the World Mis­sion­ary Con­fer­ence met in 1910. There were a few dis­tin­guished Asian Chris­t­ian lead­ers at that con­fer­ence. There wasn’t a sin­gle African pres­ence, by the way. But the pro­ceed­ings were shaped by the peo­ple of Eu­rope and Amer­ica. That will be less and less the sit­u­a­tion in the fu­ture. We must con­sider in a mo­ment the ques­tion of power, but what­ever may be true in the eco­nomic and mil­i­tary spheres, what hap­pens in the Chris­t­ian sphere will in­creas­ingly de­pend on the Chris­tians of Asia, Africa and Cen­tral and South­ern Amer­ica, and the Pa­cific. The de­mo­graphic fact we now have to live with and work with and think around is that we be­gin the 21st Cen­tury with an in­creas­ingly post-Chris­t­ian West and an in­creas­ingly post-West­ern Christianity.

At the World Mis­sion­ary Con­fer­ence in Ed­in­burgh in 1910, of which I’ve spo­ken, one of the In­dian del­e­gates was a young, still not very ex­pe­ri­enced An­gli­can min­is­ter, V. S. Azariah. He was asked to speak at a fringe meet­ing on co­op­er­a­tion be­tween mis­sion­ar­ies and na­tion­als in what were then called the younger churches. He an­a­lyzed some of the (par­tic­u­larly mis­sion­ary) at­ti­tudes that some­times made re­la­tions dif­fi­cult. Then he ut­tered the words, which have be­come per­haps the most fa­mous of all the many thou­sands of words that were ut­tered at Ed­in­burgh. “Through all the ages to come,” he said, “the In­dian church will rise up in grat­i­tude to at­test the hero­ism and self-deny­ing labors of the mis­sion­ary body. You have given your goods to feed the poor; you have given your bod­ies to be burned. We also ask for love. Give us friends.” And that was the last word of the speech. It was a bomb­shell. Mis­sions were busy plan­ning the evan­ge­liza­tion of the world, but the first de­sire of the so-called in­fant churches was not for lead­er­ship, not for more work­ers, not for more funds, but for friend­ship. Friend­ship im­plies equal­ity and mu­tual re­spect. A friend is some­one you want to spend your spare time with.

These younger churches were not, even at that time, prat­tling in­fants, and over the years since Ed­in­burgh 1910, many of those churches have been through the fires. What church in his­tory has gone through what the church in China has done over the last 50 years and emerged as it has done? What churches in his­tory have had rou­tinely to cope with such per­sis­tent hor­rors of dev­as­ta­tion, war, dis­place­ment, and geno­cide, as have those of cen­tral Africa and the Su­dan? Which churches have ever been re­quired more ur­gently to give moral lead­er­ship to their na­tion than those of South Africa, or to speak for the poor and op­pressed and the needy than those of Latin Amer­ica? Or have ever more thor­oughly de­voted them­selves to the spread of the Chris­t­ian gospel than those of Ko­rea? It is the churches of the non-West­ern world that now bring to the world the ac­cu­mu­lated ex­pe­ri­ence of God’s salvation.

In what parts of the world has God been prepar­ing his peo­ple by suf­fer­ing and des­o­la­tion? In what parts of the world does the cry go up most ur­gently for God to de­liver His peo­ple from saints be­neath the altar?

A sec­ond propo­si­tion is that Chris­tian­ity lives by cross­ing cul­tural fron­tiers. The first be­liev­ers in Jesus were all of them Jews by race. They saw in Jesus their Scrip­tures be­ing ful­filled. It gave new mean­ing and in­sight to every­thing that they’d al­ways known. They didn’t have to change their re­li­gion. Be­cause of Jesus the Mes­siah, they loved the Law; they loved the tem­ple with its liturgy and its sac­ri­fices, far more than they’d ever done be­fore. Every­thing about Jesus made sense in Jew­ish terms, and for a long time the lead­ers were very anx­ious that all other Jews should know about Jesus, but rarely men­tioned Him to peo­ple who were not Jews, and then only in spe­cial circumstances.

All that changed when de­scribed in the 11th chap­ter of Acts, a group of be­liev­ers who had been forced to flee Jerusalem (as we heard just now) af­ter the Stephen af­fair, made their way to An­ti­och and be­gan to talk about Jesus to their Greek pa­gan neigh­bors. It was so un­usual that the apos­tles sent an en­voy, an am­bas­sador Barn­abas, to in­spect what had hap­pened. He was de­lighted in that church at An­ti­och, where Jews and Gen­tiles mixed and ate to­gether, sent its own mis­sion­ar­ies to the Greek world, Jew­ish and Gen­tile mis­sion­ar­ies to the Jew­ish and Gen­tile Greek world. When Paul came back from one of these mis­sion­ary jour­neys, the Jerusalem church was glad to hear of the suc­cess of his work, but if we read Acts 22 care­fully, we can see that most peo­ple in Jerusalem still be­lieved that the re­ally sig­nif­i­cant work of the church lay right there at home. “You see, brother, how many thou­sands of the Jews there are who have be­lieved and all of them zeal­ous for the Law.” In other words, it’s great to hear these sto­ries from the mis­sion field, but the real work is what’s go­ing on here. This is the cen­ter. Yet, the Jerusalem church did not, in fact, have much time left. A gen­er­a­tion, and the Ro­man war had bro­ken out and that church had scat­tered and with the fall of the Jew­ish state in AD70, it lost its nat­ural habi­tat. Chris­tian­ity would have been noth­ing more than a mi­nor Jew­ish sect but for one thing. It had crossed a cul­tural bound­ary into the Greek world, and when that ear­li­est church, the church of the apos­tles, the church that had known the min­istry of Jesus Him­self, when that church was eclipsed, a new one, Greek speak­ing, Gen­tile, was al­ready in place.

Sim­i­lar things have hap­pened sev­eral times since. Chris­tian­ity be­came char­ac­ter­is­tic of the Hel­lenis­tic world; it spread to a dom­i­nant place in the civ­i­liza­tion of the Ro­man Em­pire with its de­vel­oped lit­er­a­ture and its tech­nol­ogy. But there came a time when that church, too, was eclipsed. What en­abled the faith to sur­vive and to grow was the fact that it had crossed an­other cul­tural bound­ary. It had en­tered the world that the Ro­mans feared so, as de­stroy­ing their civ­i­liza­tion, the peo­ple that they called Bar­bar­ians, the bar­baroi, the peo­ple whose lan­guage is all ‘bar-bar’, who don’t speak real lan­guages. Once again, Chris­tian­ity had sur­vived a ma­jor cri­sis be­cause it had been trans­mit­ted to a peo­ple of a dif­fer­ent lan­guage, dif­fer­ent cul­ture, dif­fer­ent way of life.

We could go on and on over the cen­turies, but the past cen­tury has seen that story re­peated.  When the 20th Cen­tury be­gan, Chris­tian­ity was very much the re­li­gion of the West. More than 80% of those who pro­fessed and called them­selves Chris­tians lived in Eu­rope or North  Amer­ica. A cen­tury later, Chris­tian­ity in Eu­rope is in deep de­cline, and North Amer­ica I sus­pect show­ing many of the signs that Eu­rope did when its own, soon rapidly ac­cel­er­ated, de­cline from Chris­tian­ity be­gan. But in the world as a whole, the Chris­t­ian faith is not in de­cline and the rea­son is that, in the past cen­tury and in the time be­fore that, by means es­pe­cially (though not ex­clu­sively) of the mis­sion­ary move­ment of which so many of us are be­ing priv­i­leged to be a part, the gospel crossed cul­tural fron­tiers in Africa and Asia. A cen­tury ago, the num­ber of Chris­tians in the non-West­ern world looked quite small. Now they are the ma­jor­ity, and every year there are fewer Chris­tians in the West and more in the rest of the world.

Chris­tian­ity lives by cross­ing the bound­aries of lan­guage and cul­ture. With­out this process it can wither and die. So, in the com­ing cen­tury, the new rep­re­sen­ta­tive Chris­tians of Asia and Africa and Latin Amer­ica and the Pa­cific will be re­quired, I’m sure, to cross cul­tural bound­aries, pos­si­bly even west­ern cul­tural bound­aries, in or­der to share their faith.

The third propo­si­tion is that cross­ing cul­tural fron­tiers con­stantly brings Christ into con­tact with new ar­eas of hu­man thought and ex­pe­ri­ence. All of these, con­verted, be­come part of the func­tion­ing body of Christ. The full stature of Christ de­pends on all of them to­gether. We see how the ear­li­est church was en­tirely Jew­ish in race and in cul­ture in its ways of thought. It de­vel­oped a thor­oughly Jew­ish way of be­ing Chris­t­ian, a Jew­ish-Chris­t­ian lifestyle. When those Greeks in An­ti­och were con­verted, many be­liev­ers must have taken it for granted that they would be­come Jew­ish pros­e­lytes, ac­cept cir­cum­ci­sion and keep the Torah. That had al­ways hap­pened when Gen­tiles came to rec­og­nize the God of Is­rael. There was, in fact, only one style of Chris­t­ian life that any­one knew, and it was a Jew­ish style. The Lord, Him­self, had lived that way and had said that not a jot or ti­tle would pass from the law by His agency. All the Apos­tles con­tin­ued to this day to live by it. But when that great coun­cil of Jerusalem de­scribed in Acts 15 came to con­sider the mat­ter, the lead­ers of the church agreed that cir­cum­ci­sion and Torah were not re­quired for Gen­tile be­liev­ers. Hel­lenis­tic be­liev­ers would now have to find a Hel­lenis­tic way of be­ing Chris­t­ian un­der the guid­ance of the Holy Spirit be­cause they had to live in Hel­lenis­tic so­ci­ety and they would have to change Hel­lenis­tic fam­ily and so­cial life, but change it or­gan­i­cally, from the in­side. The Hel­lenis­tic way of be­ing Chris­t­ian would be dif­fer­ent from the Jew­ish way of be­ing Chris­t­ian, and yet the two be­longed with each other. One was not su­pe­rior to the other, one was not a soft op­tion for be­nighted hea­then, the other was not a le­gal­is­tic bondage for peo­ple who didn’t live in cos­mopoli­tan civ­i­liza­tion. These were dif­fer­ent seg­ments of so­cial re­al­ity, each be­ing turned to­wards Christ, con­verted to Him and be­long­ing to­gether in the func­tion­ing body of Christ. That’s what the Epis­tle to the Eph­esians is about, cel­e­brat­ing this ex­tra­or­di­nary fact not just of the two mu­tu­ally hos­tile races be­ing joined to­gether but of two cul­tures brought to­gether to eat and work to­gether within the Body of Christ.

When the Epis­tle to the Eph­esians was writ­ten, there were only two ma­jor cul­tures in the Chris­t­ian church, two Chris­t­ian lifestyles, the Jew­ish and the Hel­lenis­tic. How many are there now? One of the great tasks of Chris­t­ian mis­sion in the com­ing cen­tury will be to al­low these dif­fer­ent Chris­t­ian lifestyles to grow but to in­ter­act be­cause (I love this rep­re­sen­ta­tion in the art­work be­hind me and around the wall), yes, all these be­long to­gether in the body of Christ.

Dis­tinct seg­ments of so­cial re­al­ity, be­cause we never meet hu­man­ity gen­er­al­ized. Christ was not hu­man­ity gen­er­al­ized. Christ was hu­man in a very spe­cific cul­tural sit­u­a­tion, and as He’s re­ceived by faith in other set­tings, He’s again trans­lated into spe­cific seg­ments of so­cial re­al­ity. Yet all this is the Body of Christ, and the Body of Christ is not com­plete, the full stature of Christ is not reached un­til all these cul­tures and sub-cul­tures, which your dif­fer­ent cul­tures rep­re­sent, are brought to­gether in Heaven. We have reached an Eph­esian mo­ment such as the Church has never seen since that First Century.

The Eph­esian sit­u­a­tion arose be­cause of the vi­tal dif­fer­ence be­tween con­verts and pros­e­lytes. Be­fore the time of Christ the Jews had de­signed ways of wel­com­ing Gen­tiles who rec­og­nized the God of Is­rael. Pros­e­lytes were cir­cum­cised, bap­tized and en­tered into the life of Is­rael by seek­ing to obey the Torah. That great coun­cil as we’ve seen de­cided that Gen­tile be­liev­ers in Jesus, al­though they were ex-pa­gans with­out the life­long train­ing in doc­trine and moral­ity that Jews had, should not keep the Torah, should find a lifestyle of their own within Hel­lenis­tic so­ci­ety un­der the guid­ance of the Spirit. They were not pros­e­lytes, they were con­verts. This dis­tinc­tion be­tween con­vert and pros­e­lyte is of fun­da­men­tal im­por­tance. If the first Gen­tile be­liev­ers had be­come pros­e­lytes, liv­ing ex­actly the style of life of those who brought them to Christ, they might have be­come very de­vout be­liev­ers but they would have had vir­tu­ally no im­pact on their so­ci­ety. They would have ef­fec­tively been taken out of that so­ci­ety. It was their task as con­verts to con­vert their so­ci­ety, con­vert it in the sense that they had to learn to keep turn­ing their ways of think­ing and do­ing things (these, of course, were Greek ways of think­ing and do­ing things) to­wards Christ, open­ing them up to His influence.

I wish we had time to ex­plore this. Let me, in the mo­ments that are left to me, sug­gest two as­pects of the new world or­der that arises out of this post-Chris­t­ian West and post-West­ern Christianity:

One of them is eco­nomic. I can sum­ma­rize this by point­ing to the United Na­tions re­port on pop­u­la­tion pub­lished last year. On this count the world’s pop­u­la­tion is in­creas­ing by 1.2%, 77 mil­lion peo­ple each year, half that in­crease com­ing from six coun­tries: In­dia, China, Pak­istan, Nige­ria, Bangladesh, In­done­sia. The in­crease in pop­u­la­tion growth will be con­cen­trated in the coun­tries that are least able to sup­port it. By 2050, Africa, it is pro­jected, will have three times the pop­u­la­tion of Eu­rope, and this de­spite the an­tic­i­pated deaths of three hun­dred mil­lion Africans from AIDS by that time. On the other hand, the pop­u­la­tion of Eu­rope and most other de­vel­oped coun­tries is pro­jected to fall: Ger­many and Japan by 14%, Italy by 25%, Rus­sia and Ukraine per­haps as much as 40%. This will re­quire mi­gra­tion to main­tain eco­nomic lev­els in the de­vel­oped world and the prime tar­get for im­mi­gra­tion will be the US, which with a mil­lion new im­mi­grants per year will be one of the few de­vel­oped coun­tries to in­crease its pop­u­la­tion per­haps to 400 mil­lion, but en­tirely as a re­sult of immigration.

So, the Eph­esian mo­ment brings us a Church more cul­tur­ally di­verse than it’s ever been be­fore, nearer po­ten­tially to that full stature of Christ that be­longs to the sum­ming up of all of hu­man­ity. But it also an­nounces a Church of the poor. Chris­tian­ity will be mainly the re­li­gion of rather poor and very poor peo­ple with few gifts to bring ex­cept the gospel it­self. And the heart­lands of the Church will in­clude some of the poor­est coun­tries on earth. A de­vel­oped world in which Chris­tians be­come less and less im­por­tant and in­flu­en­tial will seek to pro­tect its po­si­tion against the rest.

Sud­denly, the main po­lit­i­cal is­sue across West­ern Eu­rope has be­come the in­com­ing peo­ples from East­ern Eu­rope and be­yond. As the bombs have rained down on Afghanistan, so Afghans have moved to the west. New po­lit­i­cal par­ties have arisen across West­ern Eu­rope, with op­po­si­tion to let­ting im­mi­grants in as their plat­form. They have fright­ened the old par­ties by their elec­toral suc­cess, so the old par­ties be­gin to use the same lan­guage. West­ern Chris­tians are go­ing to be faced with some enor­mous Chris­t­ian choices.

The Eph­esian ques­tion at the Eph­esian mo­ment is whether or not the Church in all its di­ver­sity will be able to demon­strate its unity by the in­ter­ac­tive par­tic­i­pa­tion of all its cul­ture-spe­cific seg­ment, what is ex­pected in a func­tion­ing body. In other words, will the body of Christ be re­al­ized or frac­tured? And there will be both eco­nomic and, I think, the­o­log­i­cal con­se­quences from the answer.

May I have a cou­ple of min­utes for the­ol­ogy? Please al­low an el­derly West­ern aca­d­e­mic to speak from his heart. I think the the­o­log­i­cal en­ter­prise of the 21st Cen­tury is sim­i­lar in scope and ex­tent to that of Chris­tians in the Greek world in the 2nd and 3rd Cen­tury and be­yond. This is the time when the foun­da­tions of the Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy were be­ing laid us­ing the ma­te­ri­als avail­able in the Hel­lenis­tic world. We can ex­pect to see new build­ing on those foun­da­tions, us­ing the ma­te­ri­als that are to hand away in all the var­i­ous peo­ples which you rep­re­sent or where you have been fa­cil­i­tat­ing the preach­ing of the gospel.

The­ol­ogy is made out of lo­cal ma­te­ri­als ap­plied to the Bible, be­cause the pur­pose of the­ol­ogy is to make or to clar­ify Chris­t­ian de­ci­sion. Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy is think­ing in a Chris­t­ian way and is done by all sorts of peo­ple who don’t know that they are be­ing the­olo­gians. It’s about choice, about think­ing in a Chris­t­ian way. But the need to do this arises from the spe­cific con­di­tions in which life is lived. So the the­o­log­i­cal agenda is cul­tur­ally in­duced. Cul­ture sets the tasks for the­ol­ogy. As the gospel crosses new cul­tural fron­tiers, cre­ative Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy goes on. The the­o­log­i­cal task is never com­plete. The the­o­log­i­cal work­shop is al­ways open and it be­comes more ac­tive every time we cross a cul­tural frontier.

And the ma­te­ri­als for Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy are also cul­tur­ally con­di­tioned. On the one hand, there’s the bib­li­cal ma­te­r­ial; but this ma­te­r­ial has to be brought to bear on the sit­u­a­tions which have caused the need for Chris­t­ian choice. This means us­ing the men­tal ma­te­ri­als of the time and the place where the choice has to be made. These ma­te­ri­als have to be con­verted, turned to­wards Christ to make this pos­si­ble, be­cause this is not what they orig­i­nally were de­signed for. The doc­trines of the Trin­ity and the In­car­na­tion, which the church at large con­fesses in its creeds now, were con­structed from the ma­te­ri­als of mid­dle pe­riod Pla­ton­ism con­verted to han­dle the ma­te­r­ial of the Chris­t­ian tradition.

Let’s re­mem­ber that con­ver­sion is about turn­ing things to Christ. It’s more about di­rec­tion than about con­tent. It’s not a mat­ter of sub­sti­tut­ing some­thing new for some­thing old or adding some­thing new to some­thing old; it’s a mat­ter of turn­ing what is al­ready there to­wards Christ.

But what brought the doc­trines of the Trin­ity and the In­car­na­tion, in the for­mu­la­tions that we know, into be­ing? They came from a need to think in a Chris­t­ian way about Christ across a cul­tural fron­tier. The need arose be­cause the gospel had crossed from the Ju­daic to the Greek world. The first be­liev­ers were Jews who saw Jesus in terms of Jew­ish iden­tity, Jew­ish his­tory, and Jew­ish des­tiny. When they came to faith in Jesus and came to share their faith in Jesus with Greek-speak­ing Gen­tile peo­ple who’d been pa­gans, they had a dif­fi­culty. The word that meant most to them per­son­ally was Mes­siah. The whole of the Old Tes­ta­ment was summed up in that word. But the word didn’t mean much to Greeks and needed an ex­pla­na­tion even if you trans­lated it into Greek. A term had to be used that would mean some­thing to Greek-speak­ing pa­gans, and they chose the word Kyrios, Lord, that those pa­gan peo­ple used for their cult di­vini­ties. To many, that must have seemed an im­pov­er­ish­ment, even a dis­tor­tion. Wasn’t it dan­ger­ous to use lan­guage that be­longed to hea­then cults? Shouldn’t Gen­tile con­verts learn about the Mes­siah as Is­rael’s na­tional Sav­ior? In fact, the use of the term was en­rich­ing. It made peo­ple think about Christ in a dif­fer­ent way be­cause they now thought of Him in in­dige­nous categories.

It also raised awk­ward ques­tions that had not been raised be­fore. For in­stance, what was the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the Mes­siah and the One God? Jew­ish be­liev­ers could use a phrase like “Jesus is at the right hand of God.” And every­body knew what that meant. It was enough to get Stephen lynched! But this wasn’t enough for Greeks. Did it mean that God had a right hand? Even if you got over that an­thro­po­mor­phism, it didn’t deal with what a Greek needed to know: the re­la­tion­ship of God to Mes­siah in terms of be­ing, of essence. There was no es­cape from the lan­guage of ou­sia and hy­posta­sis. All that long ag­o­niz­ing de­bate (are they the same ou­sia [essence], dif­fer­ent ou­siai, sim­i­lar ou­siai) was needed to ex­plain what Chris­tians re­ally meant about Christ. Of course, the Bible was cen­tral to the de­bate, but there was no sin­gle text that would clearly set­tle the mat­ter. It was nec­es­sary to ex­plore the sense of the Scrip­tures us­ing the in­dige­nous vo­cab­u­lary, the in­dige­nous meth­ods of de­bate, the in­dige­nous pat­terns of thought.

It was a risky busi­ness. There’s no such thing as safe the­ol­ogy. The­ol­ogy is an act of ado­ra­tion fraught with a risk of blas­phemy, but an act of ado­ra­tion, of wor­ship, nev­er­the­less. Or­tho­doxy is giv­ing the right glory to God. A risky busi­ness. Peo­ple came up out of that risky but re­ward­ing process with a more thor­ough un­der­stand­ing of Christ as the eter­nal Son of God, be­got­ten of His Fa­ther be­fore all worlds, than they could ever have reached solely by us­ing the Jew­ish cat­e­gory of Mes­siah. And this en­riched knowl­edge came be­cause peo­ple asked Greek ques­tions, us­ing Greek ma­te­ri­als in lan­guage and thought, ask­ing the ques­tions that came from cross­ing that cul­tural frontier.

Trans­la­tion did not de­stroy the old tra­di­tion ei­ther. The old cat­e­gory of Mes­siah meant just as much as it did be­fore. There was no need to give any­thing up. And look­ing back, of course, one can see those dis­cov­er­ies about Christ were there in the Scrip­tures all the time. But it was pos­si­ble to miss them, un­til they were trans­lated into an­other lan­guage and an­other set of men­tal cat­e­gories. Every time the gospel crosses a cul­tural fron­tier there’s a new need for the­o­log­i­cal cre­ativ­ity. It was cross­ing the fron­tier from the Greek to the Bar­bar­ian world that brought the doc­trine of the Atone­ment to the mea­sure of un­der­stand­ing we now have of it, and so one could go on and on.

The process will be made in­creas­ingly nec­es­sary in this vast Eph­esian world that we now have by the ques­tions that come about Christ in the cir­cum­stances of all these di­verse Chris­t­ian peo­ples who are rep­re­sented here.

As it stands at the mo­ment, the West­ern The­o­log­i­cal Acad­emy rep­re­sented in our uni­ver­si­ties and sem­i­nar­ies is sim­ply not equipped to lead in the new world or­der that the de­mo­graph­ics of the Holy Spirit has brought about. I don’t have time to elab­o­rate that. What I’m try­ing to say is that even in terms of the­o­log­i­cal cre­ativ­ity, more and more the re­spon­si­bil­ity will fall on the Chris­tians mak­ing their Chris­t­ian choices in mother tongue the­o­log­i­cal think­ing in Africa, in Asia, in Latin Amer­ica, in the Pa­cific islands.

The pre­sent sit­u­a­tion of Chris­tian­ity is like that I’ve de­scribed with the first fron­tier, the Greek world was crossed, only this time it’s not the Mediter­ranean world or the West­ern world at all that’s the scene of the in­ter­ac­tion. The cru­cial ac­tiv­ity is now the Chris­t­ian in­ter­ac­tion with the an­cient cul­tures of Africa, Asia, the Amer­i­cas, the Pa­cific. The qual­ity of the Chris­tian­ity of those ar­eas and thus the qual­ity of 21st Cen­tury Chris­tian­ity as a whole will de­pend on the qual­ity of that in­ter­ac­tion. If the qual­ity is good, we might see some­thing like what ap­peared in the 3rd and 4th and 5th Cen­turies, a great cre­ative de­vel­op­ment of Chris­t­ian the­ol­ogy; new dis­cov­er­ies about Christ that Chris­tians every­where can share; ma­ture dis­crim­i­nat­ing stan­dards of Chris­t­ian liv­ing; peo­ples and groups re­spond­ing to the gospel at a deep level of un­der­stand­ing and per­son­al­ity; a long-term Christ-shaped im­print on the think­ing of Africa and Asia, a new stage in the church’s growth to­wards the full stature of Christ.

If the qual­ity is poor we shall see dis­tor­tion, con­fu­sion, un­cer­tainty, and al­most cer­tainly hypocrisy on a large scale. This is not sim­ply a mat­ter that af­fects the south­ern con­ti­nents. We’ve see that in the 21st Cen­tury Chris­tian­ity is re­vealed as an in­creas­ingly non-West­ern re­li­gion. The prin­ci­pal the­aters of Chris­t­ian ac­tiv­ity in this lat­est phase are in those south­ern con­ti­nents and what hap­pens there will de­ter­mine what the 21st and 22nd cen­turies will be like. What hap­pens in Eu­rope and even, I think, in North Amer­ica, will mat­ter less and less. The crit­i­cal processes will take place where the rep­re­sen­ta­tive Chris­tians take on the de­vel­op­ment of the­o­log­i­cal think­ing, eth­i­cal think­ing, the Chris­t­ian im­pact on so­ci­ety, the re­spon­si­bil­ity for the evan­ge­liza­tion of the world. The pri­mary re­spon­si­bil­ity for de­vel­op­ing the­o­log­i­cal schol­ar­ship is go­ing to lie in those com­mu­ni­ties. The point’s worth stress­ing be­cause it will prob­a­bly be the only field of schol­ar­ship where this is the case. In sci­en­tific and med­ical and tech­no­log­i­cal spheres lead­er­ship will re­main with the West or in those ar­eas of East Asia where East Asia can out­strip the West.

But in the­ol­ogy, au­then­tic the­o­log­i­cal schol­ar­ship has to arise out of Chris­t­ian mis­sion and, there­fore from those prin­ci­pal the­aters of mis­sion, mak­ing Chris­t­ian de­ci­sions a crit­i­cal sit­u­a­tion; and it’s in the south­ern con­ti­nent where those de­ci­sions will be most cru­cial. The­ol­ogy is a byprod­uct of cul­tural con­ver­sion. Will the de­mo­graphic trans­for­ma­tion of the Church great is­sues use for the­ol­ogy will be ar­riv­ing from the in­ter­ac­tion of bib­li­cal think­ing with the an­cient cul­tures of the south. We’re at the thresh­old of an age that could prove as cre­ative and en­rich­ing the­o­log­i­cally as any since the sim­i­lar in­ter­ac­tion with Greek cul­ture in the 2nd Century.

Con­ver­sion is the steady, re­lent­less turn­ing of all the men­tal and moral processes to­wards Christ; turn­ing what is al­ready there; turn­ing to Christ the el­e­ments of the pre-con­ver­sion set­ting. Ori­gion puts it beau­ti­fully with a lit­tle touch of his own spe­cial sort of ex­e­ge­sis: “How is it,” he asks, “that the Is­raelites were able to make the cheru­bim and the gold or­na­ments of the taber­na­cle while they were in the wilder­ness? The an­swer was, of course, that they had pre­vi­ously spoiled the Egyp­tians. The cheru­bim and ves­sels for the taber­na­cle were made from Egypt­ian gold and the taber­na­cle cur­tains of Egypt­ian cloth.” “It is the busi­ness of Chris­t­ian peo­ple,” he goes on, “to take the things that are mis­used in the hea­then world and to fash­ion from them the things for the wor­ship and glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of God.”

The se­r­ial na­ture of Chris­t­ian ex­pan­sion has taken its heart­lands away from the West and into the south­ern con­ti­nents. The trans­la­tion of the faith into new cul­tural con­texts, and the new ques­tions that process gives life to will ex­pand and en­rich, if we will al­low it, our un­der­stand­ings of Christ. Chris­tians every­where, in­clud­ing those who live in the mam­mon-wor­ship­ping cul­ture of the West, the last great non-Chris­t­ian cul­ture to arise, are called to the re­lent­less turn­ing of their men­tal and moral processes to­wards Christ. In the process and in the fel­low­ship of the body of Christ, we may no­tice that the taber­na­cle is now adorned with African gold and its cur­tains are hung with cloth from Asia and the Pa­cific and from Cen­tral and South America.

This doc­u­ment is also avail­able in PDF for­mat: De­mo­graph­ics, Power and the Gospel in the 21st Century


Kartidaya, First Alliance Organization in Indonesia, Celebrates 30th Anniversary

Kartidaya personnel praise and thank God for the completed Scriptures ...

Read more

02/2020 Indonesia

Colour and Beauty – Kartidaya Celebrates 30 Years

Colour & Beauty – Kartidaya Celebrates 30 Years from Wyclif...

Read more
Dave Crough on the John Muir Trail

02/2020 Global

In Memory of Dave Crough

It is with great sadness that we bring you the news that Dave Crough p...

Read more