From Episcopal Life:
In reality, globalization has been an active historical force since at least the 15th century when growing numbers of European merchants, military, and missionaries began making voyages to the earth’s ends. But trade with distant people and the intrusiveness of new religious ideas really belong to much earlier times. The Acts of the Apostles, considered as travel literature for a moment, reflect many of the tensions facing the contemporary global church. In the century after Christ’s death, his followers around the Mediterranean literal compiled various oral traditions about Jesus as Messiah and prayerfully applied them in their own widely diverse settings. Understandably, sharp disputes arose, both among Christians, and with enthusiasts for Greek, Roman, Jewish and other religious expressions. Globalization is never friction free.
Fast forward now to the present. The deeper causes of current tensions originate less in talk about sex than in unresolved frictions in the postcolonial encounter. Until now, the model of inter-Anglican relations has been an export-import one. The United Kingdom and North America were major exporters of their versions of Christianity; Africa, Asia, and Latin America were the willing importers. As such, the latter were expected to reject much of what had been important in traditional religions, such as ancestor veneration, and unilaterally adopt western dress, culture, and religions. One example of this incongruous process: I once entered an isolated small Vietnamese church and was greeted by the local priest who showed us the church’s prized possession, a large 19th century plaster statue of the Joan of Arc, arrayed with sword, shield, and full body armor.
New times demand new approaches.
Wheeeee!!! “The deeper causes of current tensions originate less in talk about sex than in unresolved frictions in the postcolonial encounter. Until now, the model of inter-Anglican relations has been an export-import one.” And, “New times demand new approaches” and dialogs on life, action, theology, and experience which concentrate on our joys and our actions to combat the things we think are wrong in the world. God apparently changes his mind depending on what we think, and MDGs are the highest expression of Christianity.
It’s impressive that this priest of God mentioned God 4 times in his article, in the context of applying what we think are (or should be) his social action goals in the world, but not in context of his plan for our salvation. And he mentioned Jesus once, in a historical sense as if he had passed on beyond presence with us to become merely a legend in oral traditions of the early Christians. It’s good that such comprehensive recognition is given to our Creator and Savior, and our own part in events is downgraded so humbly.
Further, it’s comforting to know that our differences are only due to frictions in the post-colonial encounter and export-import difficulties, and not about substitution of Man for God. It’s good that we only need to dialog about how we think things should be in the world, knowing that God will value our thinking and adjust his to match. And it’s sooooo nice to not worry about discovering HIS plan for salvation and becoming obedient to IT instead of our own desires. That takes such a load off!
What a brave new world it is!!! Wheeeee!!!
(/sarcasm)
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
1 How do we understand the Reign of God in its contemporary setting. Is it an expansive or a restrictive concept?
2 How does it relate to the national settings in which contemporary Christians find themselves?
3 How do the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) relate to our understanding of New Testament mission?
4 How best can we listen carefully to one another, walk together rather than talk at each other, and live together compassionately, despite seemingly harsh differences?
While I believe that God dwells within me, that does not make me God. I think these “new approaches” make perfect sense for a narcissist.
Interesting that he should use the phrase “Reign of God” which implies God lays down the rules and we obey. How well do we obey the rules God has revealed through the ages? Interesting too how anglocentric his view is, completely discounting the RC in Latin America, Vietnam, and elsewhere. The RC have done a much better job of incorporating their religious leaders from all nations in the College of Cardinals, and being one church as a result. This article strikes me as fairly dismissive of the religious understanding of the great world that to him is formerly “colonial.”