Why Don’t We Hear Much from the Global Church?

William A. Dyrness 

Everyone by now is aware the global shift that has taken place in Christianity. Whereas in 1900, 80% of all Christians were Caucasian and 70% lived in Europe, today the situation is almost exactly reversed. More Christians worship in China than all of Europe; there are more Anglicans in Kenya than in the US and Canada combined, and so on. More importantly, because of globalization, these various groups do not exist in isolation but in increasingly complex relationships. They all participate in the transnational flows of people, goods, and ideas.

Yet despite this reality, and in the face of these transnational connections, the teaching of theology and the formation for ministry dominant in North American institutions is adapting very slowly to this new situation. It is safe to say that we theological educators are mostly not hearing much from what is sometimes called the majority church—and this is happening at precisely the time when North-South connections are more critical than they have ever been, and, ironically, given the Internet and email, more easily promoted.

Why is this so? Let me list very briefly a few of the reasons I think important.

1. We hear little from the majority world because the screen of western media and popular culture rarely lets voices from abroad be heard. The lopsided flow of information is almost entirely from North to South. For example in 2006 (according Bowker.com statistics) there were 292,000 books published in the U.S., of which 18,000 were religious titles. Compare this to 300 published in Kenya, of which 76 were religious and some 1200 in Nigeria, of which 203 were religious  (figures from 1994, 1995 the most recently available UNESCO statistics). And try ordering any of these books from Kenya or Nigeria—they are not available through Amazon!

2.  While we owe much to scholars like Philip Jenkins or Andrew Walls, they also illustrate the fact that voices from abroad, even when they are called to our attention, are mostly interpreted for us by western scholars. Andrew Walls, for example, focuses on historical factors that led to the expansion and growth of Christianity, rather than the theological (or ideological) impulses this represented. Try as we might the different voices escape us.

3.  Behind these factors lies what I think is the most important reason: the

formation we have experienced of the western self screens out too much. While there are significant differences between liberal and evangelical versions of Christianity in the West, in this respect there is a tacit agreement: western Christianity is indelibly shaped by the “liberal self,” in which the individual exists prior to and apart from society, so that the primary locus of religion is the individual.

In contrast, most places in the world experience the world in various pre-modern, modern, or even in some cases post-modern ways, and their churches are mostly untouched by this western liberal self. For them and for most people outside the West, community and relationship are pre-existent, involuntary, and constitutive (as Roberto Goizueta puts it). This means that actual relationships take precedence over abstract dogmatic declarations, whether these involve the physical form of the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico or the overwhelming presence of the Spirits in Africa.

           

So here is our problem: that which has determined our fundamental attitude toward truth and knowledge—the Enlightenment, simply does not exist for many people. This led the late Ogbu Kalu in his installation address a few years ago to the Luce Chair in World Christianity at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago to wonder: can real exchange be possible when western intellectual assumptions deny fundamental African beliefs about God and the spirits? As he put it: “Church historians who are in bondage to the tyranny of modern world  view and secular social-science models…collude by diminishing the geist of the profession and ignoring the miraculous and experiential dimensions [of the Church].”* How, he wonders, can intellectual exchange negotiate this difference?

           

There is much more to be said, about economic disparity and inequality for example, but this is enough to show that hearing from the other is not as easy, or as pleasant as we sometimes wish it could be. It leads us to ask: How might we work to change this situation?

*Ogbu Kalu, Clio in a Sacred Garb: Essays on Christian Presence and African Response, 1900-2000 (Trenton NJ: Africa World Press, 2008), 16.

**William A. Dyrness is professor of Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological seminary, co-editor (with V. M. Kärkkäinen) of Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church (IVP Academic 2008). A longer version of this essay was given at the Ministry Conference at the University of Chicago Divinity School, May 1, 2009, and has been published in Fuller’s Theology, News and Notes, Fall, 2011.

Teaching the Bible in a Different Culture

Yung Suk Kim

Ellen Ott Marshall wrote in a blog: “Transnational pedagogy is learner-centered teaching. It takes into account the varied experiences of students in the classroom, recognizing and utilizing expertise and also accommodating different backgrounds.” Her words struck a chord in me.

I am teaching in the area of biblical studies, and New Testament in particular, at the school of theology where I am the only faculty member of Asian (Korean) heritage and my students are predominantly African-American. They are thirsty for the “living waters” so to speak.

Most of my students, full-time employees in the private or public sectors, come to study in the evenings during the weekdays or on weekends. In this unique environment, teaching the Bible or theology is a daunting task, partly because I am a cultural stranger to the students and partly because my students are divergent even within their African culture.

Some are more marginalized than others. There are also issues regarding gender and class. More importantly, their theological spectrum is broader than I had assumed, ranging from liberationist to fundamentalist positions. However, one thing I have discovered again and again is that I could share my own marginalized experience with them.

I also found that the students are very open to new learning and challenges in biblical studies. Over the years, as I wrote in my Web site, I have come up with the following teaching philosophy that tells who I am or what I am doing in this vocation of theological education:

I teach to engage in the knowledge of who we are in this world where we see one another as diverse. Diversity is not taken for granted but utilized as a source of critical engagement with others. I value both a critical and self-critical stance toward any claim of knowledge, truth, and reality and emphasize the following as pedagogical goals: learning from others, challenging one another, affirming who we are, and working for common humanity through differences. All in all, the goal of my teaching is to foster critical diversity and imagination in their learning process.

Most recently, I taught Introduction to Biblical Studies to first year students. The contents and design of the course focused on helping students to become critical contextual biblical theologians. I explained the processes and complexities of biblical interpretation in which the reader takes the center stage. I also emphasized three elements of critical contextual interpretation: how to read (the text), what to read (textual focus or theology), and why to read (contextuality of the reader), which will be the topics of my future book.

In my teaching, I reiterate the importance of the role of the reader, who has to engage not only the text but also his or her life in a particular life context. At the same time, I help students to be critical of all readings because not all are equally valid or helpful. The oft-cited verse in my classroom is: “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

We not only unpack the texts from many perspectives, but also deconstruct our familiar readings and reconstruct them in new life contexts. Students are refreshed because of their new learning experience in biblical studies. They also find themselves loving the scripture not simply because of what has been written there but also because they can engage it critically and faithfully for their lives. Oppressive theologies are rejected and the students are reaffirmed as the people of God. In this way the Bible is deconstructed and reconstructed through their lives, because God is the God of all. God is not the God of the past alone, but of the present amidst their turmoil.

In one of my classes, I asked each group (made up of six or seven people) to discuss and answer this question: “Who is Jesus to you and your community? Portray him, using all kinds of methods or approaches that you have learned so far.”

Each group worked hard, and all were genuinely engaged. They used pencils, colored pens, and poster board. Afterward, members of each group stood alongside each other and presented their works creatively and faithfully. I was very impressed by their comprehensive understanding of Jesus in context and by their skills in portraying him from their particular life contexts.

One group said Jesus is water because he is the source of life for Africans and others. After the presentation, I added one thing: Water is a great metaphor since I could relate to my experience of water in my culture. I briefly talked about the image and metaphor of water in Daoism and my cultural experience. The experience here is cross-cultural, spiritual, and contextual.

The other group said Jesus is the sun, because he shines upon all people, showing God’s love to all in the world. The idea here is that Africans need the light and that they become a light for others. I added one more thing: Jesus as the sun is like the power plant, which runs with nuclear fusion, giving energy and light to others (centrifugal). In contrast, the Empires gather power for them at the expense of others (centripetal). There are three more groups that presented nicely. I could see all of my students were engaged in the exercise and they were excited by what they had done. Finally, all said amen. 

  

*Professor Yung Suk Kim is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology in Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia. He is the author of A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul (Cascade, 2011) and Christ’s Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Fortress, 2008).

Teaching Theology in a Global Context

William A. Dyrness

Dwight N. Hopkins

Kwok Pui-lan

Dwight N. Hopkins

Despite the evident globalization of Christianity and the increasingly diverse character of our congregations and students, the pedagogy of teaching theology has not changed to address the new global situation.

Theological education in the U.S. has become a transnational enterprise. As a result, theological schools have sought to make their curricula responsive to the growing ethnic diversity of their students. Courses have been added on culture and ethnicity; history and ministry courses have included more diverse material; and many students and faculty have lived and/or traveled abroad. But up to this point the pedagogy within theology courses has not changed much.

More importantly, it has yet to engage constructively with the diversity of theological traditions both inside and outside of the U.S. As a result, students have come away feeling the tension between their experience and traditional pedagogies. Meanwhile, growing conversations, like those centered on comparative theology (and philosophy) and postcolonial theology, offer significant resources that have yet to be explored.  



Kwok Pui-lan

In the past two decades, there has been a growing body of literature on global theology and the construction of theological doctrines, such as creation and trinity, from an intercultural or global perspective. One particular volume talks about the importance of shaping a “global theological mind” so that students can be better prepared to be leaders and ministers in this increasingly interconnected world.

But a review of the 18 syllabi posted in the Syllabus Project of the American Academy of Religion in the category Theology (Christian) shows that except for the course on “Jesus across Cultures,” the other syllabi indicate: (1) there is little emphasis on the global nature of theology and the growing body of literature on the subject, (2) the majority of required texts are written by white European and Euro-American male theologians, (3) none or only one required text is by a theologian outside North America, usually from Latin America, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez or Leonardo Boff, and (4) there is minimal acknowledgment of the contribution of the work of racial and ethnic minority scholars in the United states.

William A. Dyrness

Theology is a longstanding discipline and occupies a central place in the theological curriculum. The ways that teachers approach the subject will shape the cultural ethos of the school and educational experience of students. William A. Dryness, Dwight N. Hopkins, and Kwok Pui-lan gathered a group of theologians and ethicists from Catholic, Protestant Mainline, Pentecostal, and Evangelical traditions from November 21-22, 2011 to discuss strategies of teaching theology in a global world.

We discussed some of these questions:

·         What developments in western theology have raised questions that cannot be answered by western theologians alone? For example, perhaps the intense attention to worship renewal and liturgical history, or the growth of the field of comparative theology offers bridges by which theological questions can be approached in non-traditional ways.

·         Where today are connections being made by Christians and people of faith from multiple settings that might have potential for raising (new) theological questions? (e.g., refugees, immigrant congregations, faith-based development programs, etc.).

·         Where do we find sources to teach global theology? Where do we go (figuratively) to listen? Who do we listen to and who are conversation partners for developing global theology? Books and articles are part of it, but that is only the start. What are the sources locally: students in our classes and ethnic enclaves in our cities, etc? Online resources? Study centers? Global networks?

·         What are the strategies of changing the theological curriculum as a whole to respond to our global context? How can we solicit support from colleagues who teach in traditional ways? How can we change institutional structures and ethos when we are not tenured? How can we form allies?

Members of the group hope to work toward a book to offer some answers to these questions and will share our insights along the way in this blog. We welcome your ideas and suggestions.

* William A. Dyrness is Professor of Theology and Culture at Fuller Theological Seminary. Dwight N. Hopkins is Professor of Theology at the University of Chicago Divinity School. Kwok Pui-lan is William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at the Episcopal Divinity School.

What Is Transnational Pedagogy?

Ellen Ott Marshall

Thanks to a grant from the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Religion and Theology, eight faculty members at Candler School of Theology (Emory University, Atlanta) participated in a seminar on Transnational Pedagogy during 2010-2011. Some of us focused on improving the way we teach courses about topics or issues that are transnational in nature. Some of us focused on issues related to diversifying the syllabus. Some of us focused on pedagogical skills that improve learning in ethnically and culturally diverse classrooms. All of these efforts fall under the umbrella of transnational pedagogy.

In our monthly meetings, we discussed each other’s syllabi and substantive issues raised in common readings. Participating faculty represented the disciplines of Biblical Studies, Mission and Evangelism, Worship, Theology, and Ethics. The syllabi under consideration came from introductory and elective courses in these areas, as well as, the foundational seminar for students in Candler’s ThM program. In our discussions and readings, we considered a range of issues, including culture, language, Freirean method, embodiment in the classroom, Eucharistic liturgy, learner-centered teaching, and hermeneutics. Our final task as a seminar was to explain succinctly how we understand transnational pedagogy in relationship to our particular course. The following response relates to my course, Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding, and constituted one piece of our seminar’s very diverse set of definitions and reflections. 

   

First, transnational pedagogy emphasizes the contextual and migratory aspects of our subject matter. Incorporating transnational pedagogy into “Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding,” for example, means that we study the contextual aspects of a particular conflict and the peacebuilding efforts attempted there; and that we consider the ways in which conditions for violence and peace in that particular place are impacted by the migration of people, culture, commerce, weapons, and ideologies, among other things. We study context in order to understand the particular forms of religious violence and religious peacebuilding that emerge in discrete geographic locations. And we emphasize migration in order to see that what emerges from that discrete location is not conditioned solely by indigenous factors. Attending to migration helps us perceive connections between places not by zooming out to the most generic and bland attribute, but by charting mutual impact in specific, historical ways. 

Second, transnational pedagogy requires a team of teachers working together to understand and convey the multiple dimensions of the subject. Ideally, the contextual specifics of the material are taught by persons from that context, or persons who have intimate knowledge of the context. Ideally, the migratory elements are taught by persons steeped in the respective discipline (e.g., anthropology, economics, political theory, religious studies). Given the realities of faculty life and institutional structures, however, team-teaching is difficult to achieve. In lieu of that, transnational pedagogy can be advanced through interdisciplinary readings and using a variety of contextual-specific sources. Technology also affords opportunities to bring those at a geographical distance into the classroom for guest lectures. And maintaining relationships with organizations working in the field opens the opportunity to bring in knowledgeable guest speakers.

Third, transnational pedagogy is learner-centered teaching. It takes into account the varied experiences of students in the classroom, recognizing and utilizing expertise and also accommodating different backgrounds. Accommodation, here, primarily means building into the design of the course some flexibility for students to explore aspects of each conflict that are particularly meaningful given their own vocational direction. The over-arching goal in this classroom is not coverage and assessment of a certain amount of material, but rather fostering a set of practices for learning and for religious leadership in a world that is both interconnected and violent. 

* Professor Ellen Ott Marshall is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Conflict Transformation at the Candler School of Theology, Emory University, and received the Eagle’s Wings Excellence in Teaching Award by vote of the Candler Class of 2011.