普世基督教动向(The Hope of the Global Church)

 这是严蓉晖老师三年前就读美国伊立夫神学院（Iliff School of Theology ）时，修读“现代社会的基督教”（Christianity in Modern World）的一份作业。（当时美国社会谈论的话题是美国是否已预备接纳一位黑人或是女性总统的恰当时机。）授课老师要求从美国教会的现状，来看全球教会 的出路和希望。作为伊立夫神学院少数亚裔同学中唯一的一位中国女生，严老师的思考显然有其独到的见解，值得与大家分享。现用英文原稿刊出，以保留其原有的 语境，可以让我们一窥普世基督教的些许动向。

经与美国教会各层人士的交往，从一个来自第三世界国家，在美国求学的外来者和观察者的视角，看 普世教会的希望，在于让所有的声音在普世的处境中都能听到；让所有国家及其文化能够在其中显耀，从而改变原先唯西方、唯资本主义国家、唯男性、唯白人主导 的神学建构的“铁饭碗”。这需要非主流的基督徒人群提高意识，力取属于自己的生存空间。第三世界的神学家协会在1976年就确定“从压迫者的角度来进行神 学改进”的意识，而在白人男性文化中开始的对以往的殖民主义、西化、文明等方面的反思，带动了在态度、方法论和释经等方面的改变都给予希冀。现虽有成果， 如在文化层面上主流教会的主日崇拜也采用黑人的手鼓音乐；在社会关怀上开展对穷人、无家可归者的社会服务和社会公义事业等……但还有可继续发展、做得更好 的空间。拉丁美洲的解放运动有其特色，而韩国的民众运动则有更多可借鉴的层面……

As an alien from the third world and studying in the United Sates, an outsider more than an insider and an observer more than a doer in North American context, I believe the greatest hope for the global church is to let every voice be heard and each nation and culture shine its value in the global context. EATWOT (The Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians) had the vision in 1976 to “evolve theology from the side of the oppressed,” which was basically “against the prevalent white, male, capitalist, Western, speculative, domination theology” and in “orientation and method from point of view of the different geographical, gender and cultural background and the changing world situation had to be worked out in the future” (Balysuriya, 48-49). It is encouraging that the dominated white male culture began its critical reflection on colonization, Westernization, and civilization, which follows the change of attitude, methology, and exegesis in reinterpreting the Bible. It is also meaningful that the changes happened among the colonized people through uprising revolutions and liberation movements to recover their culture and value. The historical liberation of slavery in the American society, the renewal of the African American church, the uprising of the social gospel to work on social political change, the success of Latin Liberation theology, the modern multicultural society of America all give hope for the global church.

 

From dehumanization to emphasizing humanity in the African American culture, eliminating the use of the word savage and incorporating African drum music into mainstream worship, we begin to see the hope for the whole church, even though many works are still required to create more change. At least, some people are working for social justice and peace, have began to outreach to the poor and all marginalized people, and are willing to live out the commandment of loving God and loving neighbor. It is a great hope that some people have begun to be concerned about the “two-thirds World” – the poor of the Third World that exceeds two-third of the world’s population (Tinker, 46). I have been involved with hosting and feeding the homeless, collecting donated clothing for the refugees after Hurricane Katrina, becoming friends with international students, and being “a person in need” and observing the Manna food and clothing distribution center. Certainly, it’s an emotional image to see many people donate their clothing after Salvation Army called or observe Manna Ministries’ non-profit service to poor people lacking food and clothing. I have found that there is still room for the American church to reach out to their communities.

 

In fact, my experience on the giving-receiving relationship gave me a sense of loss in the normal relationship. As a member of an advanced community that emphasizes social justice and peace in order to improve ministry and service, I felt I should be honest when speaking of my feelings. Most often I found it was not an equal, friendly relationship. We all know that “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Yet those who came to receive care and love seem to rely on the “giver’s” favor for mercy and compassion. It is hard to “invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” when giving a banquet, though it is more blessed because “they cannot repay you, [and] you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:13-14). Certainly, it is easier to send the beggar away, yet to love and receive the poor as Jesus himself and to establish a good relationship with the care receiver requires a great sacrificial love. Tinker challenged North Americans to show concern to the poor in appropriate ways, thus “solidarity with the poor certainly means making personal sacrifices in lifestyle… A genuine concern for the poor today means a concern for an economic vision of sharing wealth rather than simply accumulating it, for an equitable redistribution of the goods of the earth, for achieving a sense of balance in the world” (Tinker, 47).

 

However, I was touched by the enthusiasm for praying with the poor when I was wandering through a state park. I found a young gentleman laying his hands on a homeless wanderer, praying for God to guide his way and to help him find a job after serving a simple gift of food and water. It is more practical than sending people out saying “go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill” without supplying their bodily needs (James 2:16). To me, a warm word with respect is surely better than offering meat with a cold face since love is kind and not boastful (see 1 Cor. 13:4). I find it is easy for Chinese Christians to become involve in some social service than Americans. Chinese Christians would give up their better or best portion to the poor, sharing two coats with anyone who has none (see Luke 3:11); people may not be rich, but generous, just like the churches of Macedonia in first century ( see 2 Cor. 8:2-3). It might be due to the different living condition. The Chinese are not living in a credit life system; we earn a living, and try to save some money for amusement and better life; while the western people have to pay for what they have, always feeling they do not have enough for what they need. The poor widow’s offering and Jesus’ compliment to her challenge us to give with a willing heart for “God loves a cheerful giver” (see Luke 21:1-4, Mark 12:41-44, and 2 Cor. 9:7).

 

I should be thankful for what is already occurring in the United States. Different ethnic group, such as Indians, African Americans, Mexicans, and other immigrants, live in unity in a “multiracial society” where race can no longer be defined in the binary terms of white and black” (Takaki, 5). America no longer belong to one race or one group. “The theological task is to articulate a theology that can help North Americans to balance [the] tensive postures and foster the emergence of a credible value system that is a genuine reflection of scriptural and confessional intent” (Tinker, 46). And I am much encouraged to the awakening of the church and its mission. This awakening includes the dominated power’s confession and the reconciliation between the oppressors and the oppressed and the renewal of the oppressed with a new understanding of their value and meaning. “When the Christians of this continent are able to recognize that God reveals God’s self in other cultures and when we are able to ask both them and God to forgive us for the disaster of our reading of the Bible has caused for so many years, then perhaps we can begin a fruitful dialogue between two different canons, without the intention of one being imposed over the other” (Tamez, 19). 

 

Though liberation theology in the Latin American context played a significant historical meaning to the world, I felt Minjung theology, Korean’s form of liberation theology in Asian pluralistic multi-gods context, could speak as a more representative theology for Chinese Christians. Coming from one of the biggest Asian countries, next to Korea, I find it is easy to make connections between the Minjung theology and the hope for the Chinese church. Therefore I am going to use more Minjung theology, in my later part of this essay.

 

According to Tissa Balasuriya, Asian participants of EATWOT were the bridge-builders in trying to reconcile two visions of society and religion: Latin American’s emphasize on “social analysis and commitment to revolutionary social change” and African members’ stress on the “importance of religion and culture (including race) in the inter-relations of the peoples of Europe and the rest of the world” (Balasuriya, 47). Minjung theology can be the example of how to pick up the native culture and focus on the needs of the poor. American missionaries and the colonizers of Korea and China have influenced the culture of Koreans and the Chinese, while the immigrants from these countries in America have been mistreated (see Takaki, 252-255). And both countries were once under the conquest of Japanese, and Japanese soldiers killed 300,000 Chinese people in one Nanjing city within 6 weeks since Dec. 13th, 1937. During the colonization time, Chinese women, like Korean women, were also forced to be the military comfort (wainbu, official prostitutes for Japanese soldiers, see Kyung, 140). Asian people shared the same savage/massacre experiences as the Native American did, losing the land and populations. (see the massacre of the Pequot civilians in 1637, Salisbury, 221-223). We shared the same pain, and we would share the same joy as liberators.

 

 “A power analysis of poverty and wealth will begin to ask the hard question about the transformations of social and political structures that will be necessary to bring real healing and balance to the world in which we live” (Tinker, 48). The Korean church was once under missionaries’ influence that “Christians are not supposed to be mixed up with other religious such as Shamanism” and “it is a sin to see the mudang and participate in the kut” (Suh, 89). Though Paul told the first century Christians to “remain in the condition” in which they were called (see 1 Cor.7:20, 24), all colonized/conquest Christians shared the common de-value of their native culture. “To accept Christianity means to cut ourselves off from the old way of life – the old way of religion” because “Christianity is different from other native religions, and it is better than the rest” (Suh, 90; also see converted Indians’ experience in “praying towns” as a separation from others, Conquest, 26-27, 49-50).  People were forced to cut off relationship with the society and their social position. The author of “Shamanism: The Religion of Han” felt limitations were imposed on their theology because “Christ is against our culture, no matter how old and how strong it may be” (Suh, 90). In fact, Missionary services to other nations were not effective because it’s hard for native people to be separated from their culture, their circumstance.

 

Minjung theology made its connection to its own culture and identified Korean Christianity as “Shamanistic Christianity.”  “The shaman ritual, the kut, gives expression to the very soul and essence of the Korean people and their culture” (Suh, 90). Its success relies on its connection to deprived and oppressed minjung, women, in shamanism. “Shamanism in Korea is the least respected religion, even despised. Its practitioners are the most despised and oppressed” where they can bring “their han, their troubles, their tears, and their frustrations” (Suh, 102). It is said that “a Korean carries a Confucian head, a Buddhist heart, and a Shamanistic belly” (Suh, 107). By looking at their native religions and social influence systems, Korean Christians found their own understanding of the historical Jesus as both God and human and their salvation. When Korean Christianity rooted in the mudang religion, the mind of the minjung (it expels and resolves the deep rooted han and the Korean munjung, Korean women, the sick and the poor (Suh, 116)), Korean Christianity has been able to “grow in numbers, and become one of the most powerful and dynamic religions in Korea” (Suh, 117).

 

I agree that “As Christians, we must become critical of our own conception of the world” (Tamez, 19). If we no longer believe ourselves to be the only and the best, willing to live out the true witness of being a Christian, then Christians need not worry about being “no more than 21 percent of humanity, and according to some statistics we [Christians] will be 16 percent at the end of this century because of the population growth in the Asian Third World” (Tamez, 19). Chinese people become Christians not because of the speeches of Christians, but because of the creed of Christianity that compels their faith. As long as the dominated culture appreciates other cultures, shows respect to other people, seeking partnership with other nations instead of leadership, taking care of the poor, and connecting with the public and all marginalized people, then there exists hope for the church in the modern world.

 

Thus, the hope for the oppressed is doing theology in their own context, dealing with the most deprived and poor people, giving the freedom to oppressed women, and allowing artists to show their own understanding of Christianity and God’s revelation through their experience with confidence. “If we do not permit ourselves to fully experience who we are, we will not have the power to fight back and create our own space” (Kyung, 136). That is the hope and liberation for the women as well as all oppressed people. The greatest hope is the liberation of Jesus from Western captivity and to dismantle the Western Christology. Each group of people has their own identity of Jesus, the black Jesus, Asian Jesus, and the disabled Jesus, etc, gives each group of people hope. The light of liberation theology gave the native people the sense of being a person that God called them to be. For Asian Christians, liberation theology is a way to understand how Jesus is in solidarity with Asian people, and how Jesus in an Asian context can help the world understand how Asian people have met Jesus and how the living Jesus is manifested among Asian people today. In the global context, Asian people are no longer separate from other countries. In the post-colonial and post-modern circumstance, we are working hard to pick up what has been lost in the history. And that is the hope I see from learning the Christianity in modern society through North American context. 

 

Works Cited

 

Elsa Tamez, “Quetzalcoatl Challenges the Christian Bible” from Journal of Hispanic / Latino      Theology, Vol. 4, 1997, pp. 5-20.

 

Kwang-sun Suh, David, “Chapter 3: Shamanism: The Religion of Han”, from Korean Minjung     in Christ, pp. 89-117. Christian Conference of Asia, 1991.

Kyung, Chung Hyun, “Chapter 12: ‘Han-pur-ri’: Doing Theology from Korean Women’s      Perspective” from We Dare to Dream: Doing Theology as Asian Women, by Park, Sun Ai     Lee; Fabella, Virginia. pp. 135-146. Orbis Books, 1989.

 

Tinker, George E., “Blessed are the Poor” from Church and Society, Vol. 47, pp. 45-55. 1994.        Presbyterian Church USA.

 

Tissa Balasuriya, “Christologies in Dialogue in EATWOT: An Asian Historical Perspective”,   from Voices from the Third World, (Fall, 1995), pp. 47-73.

 

George E. Tinker, Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Cultural Genocide, Minneeapolis: Fortress, 1993.

 

Ronald Takaki, A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Boston: Little Brown, 1993.

 

Neal Salisbury, “Losers and Winners” from Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans and the Making of New England, 1500-1643, New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.