Enjoy the Process

Tag: christianity

  • The Letter of Robert to the New Jerseyians

    Introduction

    The idea to write this letter sprouted a couple of years ago when I submitted an application for an entry in a theological newsletter. The idea was to document the process of writing a handwritten letter and to contrast that with reading letters in print. I wanted to summarize what I learned academically and disseminate the nuggets of wisdom I discovered in an accessible format. However, my idea was not accepted.

    A few months ago, I spoke with a friend from New Jersey. We talked about faith and church. Through the conversation, I remembered this idea. However, this time I had a particular audience in mind and a greater reason as to why I wanted to write the piece.

    I wrote this letter because I wanted to encourage and inspire a handful of people I knew. I wanted to succinctly document my theological learning and experiences over the past five years. I wanted to express the content in a familiar format so people can approach biblical letters with a renewed perspective.

    The Letter in Print

    Whether or not a New Jerseyian was encouraged or inspired, it was a fun process to write (by hand), type, edit, format, and print this creative piece with a humble curiosity for greater things.

    New Jerseyians

  • Culture of Enlightenment Births Evangelicalism

    Through its culture of reason and progress, the Enlightenment created a new environment for Christian faith and practice, particularly expressed through the complicated birth of evangelicalism.[1]

    The Enlightenment consists of multiple people, events, behaviors, and ideas that stretch across a large breadth of time and place. The eighteenth century in particular has been most notably known as the Age of Enlightenment.[2] This century had seen a greater “push for societies based on reason rather than religious confession.”[3] More legitimacy was given to the separation of church and state and “the will of the people rather than the will of God” was becoming the predominant voice of society.[4] There were significant advancements in science and technology, and new understandings of anthropology, sociology, and the modern economy.[5]

    One could say that the “social imaginary” — “the way people imagine their social existence” — was ultimately transforming.[6] This transformation primarily took place through “the public sphere among educated elites in the eighteenth century” and the set of practices developed by the public sphere “gradually changed their meaning for people, and hence helped to constitute a new social imaginary (the ‘economy’).”[7]

    These broad trends and cultural shifts were demonstrated in the heart of a local town in Newport, Connecticut. Documented in the life of Sarah Osborn, an eighteenth-century writer, she provides a “unique vantage point” of the changing times.[8] Her story illuminates three cultural tones of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: consumerism, capitalism, and humanitarianism.[9]

    The economic social imaginary that was developing in the eighteenth century consisted of an abundance of material goods that were to be traded in the marketplace. Technological advancements provided a better means to living and thus a “consumer revolution” took place in Newport, where people “could savor the pleasures of buying a new book, choosing a new outfit, or investing in a matched set of Wedgwood plates.”[10] Sarah welcomed this consumer revolution and saw it “as a reflection of God’s beneficence toward his creation.”[11]

    With an abundance of goods and a growing marketplace, mercantile capitalism began to take shape. New opportunities were offered by the marketplace and while “[Sarah] and other evangelicals saw nothing wrong with either making money or buying things in the marketplace,” there was a growing skepticism to some of the inherent values supported by capitalism. “Capitalism depended on a commitment to the values of acquisitive individualism, benevolent self-interest, and free choice.”[12] The merchants in Newport, “acted as though they were the master of their own fate” while Sarah fought against this value system that seemed to displace the providence of God.[13]

    Related to this new economic reality was the cultural voice of humanitarianism. An emphasis on the will of the people over the will of God changed the narrative of the roles of humans in society.[14] The humanitarian movement was characterized by religious skepticism or even disbelief, viewed happiness as the greatest good, sought to abolish suffering, believed humans could make the world a better place, and ultimately claimed humans as essentially good.[15] These values stood in stark contrast even to the prior century.

    Due to Sarah’s existing faith in God, she lived in tension when these economic and humanitarian values intersected with her beliefs and thus embodied the impact of the Enlightenment with Christian faith and practice.

    Consumerism and the increase in material goods and standard of living created a temptation for the “the Powerful Love of the World and Exorbitant Reach after Riches.”[16] The tension that arose was not with the materialism itself. When “people participated in the consumer economy, they were encouraged to imagine themselves as free agents who could fashion their identities however they pleased, gratifying their desires instead of repressing them.”[17] It was this kind of choice that Sarah saw sinful and the emphasis on the autonomous individual over and against her sovereign God.[18] While eighteenth-century ministers condemned the sin of covetousness, they were ironically “pioneers in using commercial techniques to spread the gospel. Like merchants who advertised their goods in local newspapers, they publicized their meetings in order to attract as many people as possible.”[19] While there was a prophet-like condemnation on luxury and corruption, ministers of the time “knew how to ‘sell’ religion.”[20] The effect of consumerism impacted both personal and public expressions of Christian faith and practice.

    The capitalistic values of individualism, self-interest, and free choice may have had one of the biggest impacts on Christian faith and practice. This is most evidently seen by the evangelical emphasis on personal experience and one’s choice to believe. Catherine Brekus explains that

    Enlightenment philosophers defended the right of the sovereign individual to … worship according to the dictates of his own conscience… Evangelicals were ambivalent about the individualism that was enshrined by the Enlightenment, but in response to the challenges of their time they crafted a new form of Protestantism that was based more on the converted individual than the covenanted community… [Even] though evangelicals agreed that both personal and communal transformation were important, they put their pronunciation more on the individual, arguing that one could not be a Christian without a personal experience of grace.[21]

    While Sarah and other “evangelicals did object… to the model of selfhood that formed the bedrock of the emerging capitalist order,” the influence of the Enlightenment may have given greater significance to Sarah Osborn’s story and personal conversion, especially during a time where the female voice was a minority. Evangelicalism “gave women a new vocabulary of individual experience to justify their authority and leadership.”[22] This was clearly evident in Sarah Osborn’s life.

    Another impact of individualism and the larger socioeconomic changes were on the family dynamic, which as Mary Eberstadt argues, has a correlative effect on religious practice.[23] In the seventeenth century, ministers viewed the family as a “hierarchical ordering of both church and state.”[24] This began to change as the institution of the family began to have less influence on its members. “[Whether] or not evangelicals understood the underlying historical forces that were changing the family, they were disturbed by their effects.”[25]

    The humanitarian movement had a more direct effect on Christian faith and practice, as one of its characteristic traits is religious skepticism. The view of the essential goodness of humanity inevitably brought the doctrine of sin into question. “Ordinary Protestant” believers found the language of total depravity, corruption, and evil “extreme, perhaps even absurd.”[26] As seen in her writings, Sarah did not adopt this particular message of humanitarianism and in numerous occasions highlights her sinfulness. Nonetheless, there was a growing popularity in “a new gospel of human goodness.”[27]

    A very complex dynamic that arose between humanitarianism (and the broader changes of the Enlightenment) and Christian faith and practice is through their birth of the antislavery movement. Interestingly, it was neither of these two forces alone that ultimately addressed the inherent wrong of owning and selling another human being. First century Christians up until the early eighteenth century have coexisted with slavery.[28] While Sarah had a tremendous heart to welcome slaves and free blacks into her home to sing, pray, and listen to their stories, she was more concerned with their salvation than their bodily freedom.[29] Most Enlightenment philosophers “imagined reason as the sole property of white European men, denigrating all other peoples as ‘racially inferior and savage.’”[30] Historians have studied how the antislavery movement picked up particular strength in the late eighteenth century. Explanations include how “it emerged in tandem with the humanitarian movement, revolutionary rhetoric, and mercantile capitalism.”[31] It was this complex dynamic of these cultural forces along with a strong Christian ethic that gave breadth to “a powerful indictment of slavery.”[32] For Sarah, because of “her zeal to save sinners she sometimes turned a blind eye to the entrenched evils of her time, especially slavery.”[33] However, through the radical change in the late eighteenth century and the influence of abolitionist Samuel Hopkins, she also had a change of heart seeing the “horrid sin” of slavery.[34]

    One other particular impact of the Enlightenment on Christian faith and practice, worth mentioning in brief, is how the overall trend toward reason and knowledge as well as the evangelical emphasis on personal experience may have both contributed to the demise of the authority of Scripture. “[Evangelicals] did not view conversion as an intellectual assent to the truths of the Bible or as a slow, imperceptible turning to God; for them it was a ‘new sense’ that was as real as the physical senses of seeing, hearing, or tasting.”[35] And through the elevation of scholarly study, the Bible became like any other ordinary ancient text examined for its truthfulness and usefulness to contribute to the broader pool of knowledge.[36]

    It is clear that the Enlightenment and its cultural values had a significant impact on Christian faith and practice, particularly seen through the eyes—or rather words—of eighteenth-century writer, Sarah Osborn. Although it was a brief review of the complex interactions occurring at the time, this exploration of history provides, as John Fea argues, “one small way of cultivating the virtues necessary for a thriving democracy.”[37] He continues, “We can attend religious services with people who share our socioeconomic status, skin color, theological beliefs, and style of worship… ‘How can we take responsibility for our society if we remain in such a state of isolation, growing fat in our ideological enclaves?’[38]

    While Sarah Osborn—nor any person in history for that matter except Jesus Christ—was not perfect, she did exemplify a life that most definitely reached across different skin color and socioeconomic status, and attempted to live a life most pleasing to God as she wrestled within the tension of the growing values of the Enlightenment and her own expression and practice of Christian faith. She reminds modern day Christians to do the same.

    [1] Catherine A. Brekus, Sarah Osborn’s World: The Rise of Evangelical Christianity in Early America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 9.

    [2] Iain Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 391.

    [3] Ibid.

    [4] Ibid., 392.

    [5] Ibid., 391-2.

    [6] While outside the scope of this essay, there is a strong case for the argument of an eighteenth-century social imaginary, as presented in Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).

    [7] Taylor, 30.

    [8] Brekus, 5.

    [9] Ibid., 7. While these words and the modern understanding of the concepts did not develop until later, “language often lags behind reality” as demonstrated through the life of Sarah Osborn.

    [10] Ibid., 193.

    [11] Ibid.

    [12] Ibid., 213.

    [13] Ibid. 193.

    [14] Provan, 392.

    [15] Brekus, 218.

    [16] Ibid., 44.

    [17] Ibid., 193.

    [18] Ibid.

    [19] Ibid.

    [20] Ibid.

    [21] Brekus, 187. Charles Taylor corroborates this point in his analysis of the “disembedding” of individuals. He notes that Protestant—or perhaps more specifically, evangelical—churches “operated, where one was not simply a member by virtue of birth but had to join by answering a personal call. This is turn helped to give force to a conception of society as founded on covenant, and hence as ultimately constituted by the decision of free individuals.” See Taylor, 62 (emphasis added).

    [22] Brekus, 183.

    [23] See Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2013).

    [24] Ibid., 45.

    [25] Brekus, 45.

    [26] Ibid., 46.

    [27] Ibid.

    [28] Ibid., 287.

    [29] Ibid., 269-70. E.g., Jonathan Edwards did not view slavery as a sin even referring to Scripture. See Brekus, 268.

    [30] Ibid., 267.

    [31] Ibid., 284.

    [32] Ibid., 287.

    [33] Ibid., 219.

    [34] Ibid., 287.

    [35] Ibid., 94.

    [36] Provan, 401.

    [37] John Fea, Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 117.

    [38] Ibid. Fea quotes Nicholas Kristof, “The Daily Me,” New York Times, March 19, 2009.

  • Loving God with a Social Imaginary of Expressive Individualism

    What does it mean to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength?”[1] I have pondered this question numerous times in my journey of faith. Loving God with all my strength was “easy” to practice as it meant faithfully attending Sunday gatherings, tithing, and generally living with a decent moral compass. Loving God with all my mind had brought me to Regent College to wrestle with some of the skeptical questions I have had, prior to which have either been dismissed with juvenile responses or left unanswered. Despite all the good deeds and contemplation thus far, ironically, it seems that at this juncture of my journey I am reminded once again, to have faith like a child and to love God like a child. I believe this disposition is most crucial to the Christian and to the church. Simply put, love God with all your heart.

    Loving God with all your heart is crucial to the Christian and the church because it is central to the greatest commandment, referenced above. Our hearts contain our identity, character, and attitude, thus loving God in this manner requires our whole selves, which I believe is the very essence of being in relation with a living and dynamic God. And being in relation with God further reveals our identity, shapes our character, and aligns our attitude. It is from this foundation that all other expressions of love and action ought to take place.

    This disposition is crucial to the Christian because a deeper understanding of our identity helps clarify and fulfill our purpose. Understanding ourselves and discovering a purpose is ubiquitous in the narrative of the modern West. For the Christian, we may rephrase this as identifying God’s purpose for me, hearing the call of God, living a life honoring to God, being faithful witnesses, or searching for a vocation, to name a few. Despite any criticism of contemporary culture, this is the main thread that weaves through the lives of countless individuals, Christian or not. Without a proper understanding of one’s identity, it will be difficult to live a life of purpose that is distinct from someone who does not have a relationship with God. Self-centered, consumeristic, and immanent lives plague the Christian in the modern West.[2] Perhaps loving God with all our hearts will move the Christian to a God-centered, giving, and transcendent life that will be a blessing to those around him or her.

    The church being the body of Christ, made up of different members, ought to consist of these individual Christians and as a whole, love God as a community. I believe that without the first commandment being exercised fully, it will be exponentially more difficult to follow through with the second commandment, that is, love your neighbor as yourself.[3] While simplistic, perhaps this definition of church is ever more necessary in an ever more increasingly complex society. Church is more about going to church or doing church and is being pulled in endless directions of identifying with either a tradition, political party, or particular stance. Perhaps the foremost identity the church ought to reestablish is to love God with all our hearts. This may seem too philosophical for those who do not sit in academic institutions or too airy for those who are busy standing in the corner of marketplaces, but I would argue that bridges must be built across all gaps of Christian communities to affirm a unified identity.

    While important in a local setting to be an example of love and peace to the community, it is equally important to establish this identity in the broader biblical narrative and global context. It is crucial to understand the history of the people of God represented through Israel as well as in the early church. The current narrative engrained into most is Western Christendom, however a retelling of the Christian story is critical particularly for those in the modern West. I believe this must start from academic institutions that emphasize this particular narrative over the lost Eastern Christianity and of even more relevance, the burgeoning Christianity in the Global South. Without a humble, unified identity, there is no hope for a global ecumenism to flourish.

    Without a renewal of the heart to and for God, without a proper identity, redeemed character, and humble attitude, I believe the church will no longer have any relevance in the modern West. Just like the empty cathedrals in Western Europe serving as tourist attractions to ancient days, it is only a matter of time before church and Christian would become irrelevant to the fast-paced, changing culture. Whether in Vancouver where folks are mostly politely ambivalent to any religious overtone or where the bright lit crosses littered throughout the city of Seoul hold little to no meaning of hope, the need for a renewed love for God is ever more necessary.[4]

    This change of heart is very much needed in the modern West and quickly wherever modernity and affluence reach next. It is particularly more pressing where Christianity was once fruitful but now is becoming more secular. Growing up in the Greater New York area, I have certainly felt the cross-pressures between faith and questioning.[5] Raised as a nominal Christian by parents who were “first-generation Christians,” it was easy to become an atheist once I learned about evolution and science in my early years and later in my adolescence mostly living between either as an agnostic or Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.[6] This was the foundation that I stood on, albeit being shaky, and the lens that I saw the world through. Inevitably, I became a product of the secular age.

    Plagued by a “profound dissatisfaction with a life encased entirely in the immanent order,” whilst faithfully attending Sunday gatherings and participating in mid-week communal activities, I began my own quest to search for a deeper meaning than what I had known thus far.[7] This journey began with exploring a myriad of “meaningful activities,” from volunteering at soup kitchens to joining professional student organizations and because of my religious background, an attempt to read the Bible seriously with an open heart and mind. What remained were the tugs of the transcendent. In Evangelical terms, the grace of God. While my personal spirituality was growing and the relationship with a living God blossoming, I was still dissatisfied with the status quo of Christian belief and activities, oscillating between a self-righteous attitude and a “holy discontent,” as some have described. After relocating to Vancouver in an attempt to explore God not only in an academic manner, but also at ground level in the “real world” of downtown, I am still on this journey that started years ago.

    This past summer, my wife and I took the time to explore what it means to be the church without strictly defining it to a tradition or local gathering. Personally, I am still asking God what it means to be a good and faithful servant,[8] and in tandem feeling the pull of asking what it means to be the faithful church. While we were so accustomed to having a regular rhythm on Sundays, which demarcated our weeks, I wanted to challenge ourselves to worship God not only on Sunday with the gathered body of believers—although that no longer is the case as most churches accommodate to the non-believer, seeker, or whoever else—but to live a life of worship every single day without having the crutch of the rhythm of Sundays. This season of exploration has led us to encounter so many different expressions of communities attempting to live faithful lives. There are a select few who voluntarily choose to live in an impoverished area to see greater flourishing to those in the margin, without treating mercy as a ministry program. There are those who want to engage with their local community through housing refugees and aiding them to be assimilated into a foreign country, without any stipulation of first believing in the same belief. There is a leader who seeks to be deeply embedded in rich traditions, however does not want to be limited to be congregation focused, but rather community focused. There is another leader who realizes the urban context and culture they are centered in and thus seeks to be a resource ministry to all those who come by and alongside them.

    Clearly, there is a desire for change in various capacities with a common theme of focusing on the larger community. It is encouraging to see these glimpses of impact of faithful churches. However, most of these efforts come from the “institutional community”. While I believe that the traditional models of church and the work that the institutional church does is necessary, in the Age of Authenticity,[9] in a culture of growing distrust of centralized power, in the spirit of innovation and disruption, perhaps there can be new expressions of being the church.[10] But more than creating a new model, more than assessing what may be the most efficient missional strategy, more than discussing what tradition or doctrine is right or wrong from debates over centuries ago, more than attempting to determine what political party or stance is righteous, more than anything else, it is to first and foremost be certain that there is a genuine love of, for, with God with all one’s heart. I believe this is most relevant in our day and age, where authenticity of the individual and the whole is at stake.

    Love God with all your heart may seem subjective and my very proposition is one that has already been doused with “the social imaginary of expressive individualism.”[11] And there is a plethora of arguments against this spirit from traditional religions and institutions.[12] But what if we can be open to a different “take” rather than assuming the existing ‘“spin” – an overconfident “picture” within which we can’t imagine it being otherwise, and thus smugly dismiss those who disagree’?[13] How can this disposition be cultivated and encouraged?

    First, it is a simple, yet difficult question of asking what do you truly believe? What do you truly love? If we were given the space to slow down, if we were given the space to be frank with ourselves without fearing any judgement or the need to go along with a herd mentality, maybe then there will be a clearer identification of what our hearts desire. Equally important is studying our own culture and language. Without leaders realizing the limitations of the language they have assumed and used, it will be impossible for anyone else to see the blinders they may have put on. Scholars such as James Smith and Charles Taylor provide such a rich contribution to this conversation, but there is a need to make this available to the masses in a way that is engageable and understandable.

    A practical application for the leadership for the church is to teach the biblical narrative in light of an exilic motif.[14] As secularity and its ideologies continue to grow at rapid rates and Christians, their language, place, and values are being pushed further to the margins, there is an abundant source of wisdom and hope in forging an identity rooted in exile. From the literal exile of the people of Israel, to the exile and diaspora in the early centuries of the church, adopting this identity as our own in the modern West may give us the right lens to correct our posture and attitude in our culture and society. A change of heart, a “conversion of the church” is core to the vast amount of issues facing Christian witness and living.[15] “While many traditional churches will never be able to make some of the radical shifts necessary to thrive in the new cultural reality, they can participate in the renewal of the church by supporting these kinds of initiatives.”[16] Hopefully, traditional churches will have the ears to hear and listen carefully to the changing tone and landscape of this modern age.[17] With a humble heart and child-like faith and love for God, perhaps then the Christian and the leadership of the Church can exercise a “prophetic imagination,” which “leads us to recall that exile is a time for people to consider where they have come from and to discuss what traditions and practices from the past no longer function effectively as ways of doing ministry or articulating faith in a new contextual reality.”[18] With a renewed love for God, the Christian and the Church can then practice new skills and competencies that provide effective witness of God and perhaps then can any real ecclesial unity flourish with global participation and cooperation.

    This brief reflection on the contemporary age and the church may seem urgent and necessary, however I must frankly conclude that this concern is a far second priority compared to the immediate influence I have as a Christian—first, knowing that all must begin with my own love with God and second, to my wife, my toddler daughter, and my immediate communities.[19] The wisdom from exilic prophets are rich, yet, I am also aware that it is not a prophet’s duty to change the hearts of the people of God and it is ultimately the work of the Spirit.[20] Prophets are held to a higher responsibility to obey, they are tasked with doing ridiculous acts to speak to the people of God, and even sometimes have the love of their life taken from them.[21] I am glad that there are a few who find this concern a noble call and I hope that it is rooted in a deep desire to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

    [1] Mark 12:30 NIV.

    [2] The concept of immanence and secularity in this essay is adapted from James K. A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014).

    [3] Mark 12:31.

    [4] South Korea is an interesting case study of the dramatic rise of Christianity in the early 20th century followed quickly by modern advancements, and now facing the challenges of secularity only a century later. See Robert Lee, The Influence of Economic Prosperity on Religious Flourishing: A Case Study of South Korea (Research Paper, Regent College, 2019).

    [5] Smith, 14.

    [6] The term “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” comes from Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

    [7] Smith, 89.

    [8] It is interesting to do a careful study of the parable of the talents where this commendation is found. While preachers may use this passage to distinguish different “talents” of individuals doing the work of God, it is primarily a parable couched in economic terms, found in the greater Mount of Olives discourse, regarding the end times.

    [9] Smith, 85.

    [10] While weighing out the pros and cons of the necessity of institutions and traditions is outside the scope of this brief reflection, I do believe that they are necessary. But just like the Hilton hotels did not become obsolete with the disruption of Airbnb or taxi medallions with Uber, I believe there ought to be more room for the institutional and traditional church to accommodate the changing the times.

    [11] Smith, 85.

    [12] Ibid., 90.

    [13] Ibid., 94.

    [14] I am indebted to the vision presented by Lee Beach, The Church in Exile: Living in Hope After Christendom (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015).

    [15] Beach, 148.

    [16] Ibid., 152.

    [17] Ezekiel 2-3.

    [18] Beach, 144.

    [19] In reference to the Circle of Influence and the Circle of Concern found in Steven Covey’s, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change (New York: Free Press, 2004), 81-91.

    [20] Ezekiel 2:2.

    [21] Ezekiel 3:18-21; 4:12; 24:15-27.

  • The Influence of Economic Prosperity on Religious Flourishing: A Case Study of South Korea

    The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber argues that “practicality has somehow received the sanction of modern religious understanding, so that what appears to be purely pragmatic and egoistic behavior is actually religiously motivated in some way; [and] religious understanding has somehow been debunked within modern culture in such a way as to give a free reign to practicality and pragmatism.”[1] In this paper, I will argue that economic prosperity—regardless of the root cause being of Christian origin—compounded by the effects of globalization,[2] will inevitably lead to a practical and pragmatic worldview that will impact people of all nations, including Christians. I will utilize Korea as a case study for this trend, which in turn can be analyzed as a signpost for the larger global society.

    The history of Korea is plagued with a tumultuous narrative of multiple, successful invasions from various nations.[3] While the prosperous footprint of South Korea can be seen internationally today, it has been only less than a century since the end of Japanese rule and the Korean War, leaving the nation to rebuild from its agricultural roots.[4] Since the war, South Korea has seen unprecedented economic growth, which has been coined as the “Miracle of the Hangang River.”[5]

    This miracle can be attributed to earlier forms of globalization with the involvement of Japan and Western nations. While the Japanese colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century has been associated with much tragedy, it has also paradoxically aided in the development and modernization of Korea.[6] “Undeniable economic exploitation by Japan, especially in the agricultural sector, was balanced by the deliberate creation, often for strategic reasons, of the public works and communications infrastructure of a modern country.”[7] Following the Korean War, the 1965 normalization treaty “provided for a $500 million settlement in grants and loans which Japan promised to South Korea” and in turn greatly helped stimulate the economy.[8] As the economy of South Korea grew, it quickly attracted international attention and received investments from the United States and other Western nations.[9]

    As the external influences of globalization aided in South Korea’s miracle recovery, rebuilding with improved technology was also integral to the nation’s growth. Known as the Saemaul movement, this was a collective effort to improve the rural standard of living alongside the industrial development.[10] Improved agricultural technology and proper infrastructure has essentially rid rural poverty in South Korea.[11] The Saemaul movement continues to be an indispensable part of South Korea and its modernization and economic improvement.[12]

    The miraculous economic growth of South Korea cannot be examined without exploring a parallel miraculous growth of Christianity in the 20th century. In 1900, only 1% of the population of South Korea was Christian and by 2010, it grew to roughly 30% of the population.[13] This growth has been attributed to varying circumstantial and spiritual reasons. In the early 20th century, the “Japanese oppression of the Korean church… cast it as a champion of Korean nationalism.”[14] Christianity later provided various social improvements such as education, medical aid, and community engagement.[15] In regards to the spiritual climate of Korea, there was a natural attraction to the Christian ideas of salvation.[16] In addition, there was a strong emphasis on evangelism, prayer, and Bible studies.[17]

    At this point, one could argue that the growth of Christianity could have been a root cause of the growth of economic prosperity in South Korea, especially when considering what Max Weber explicated in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.[18] While it is evident that Korea was influenced by Western culture and values,[19] I argue, it is irrelevant whether economic prosperity comes from a Christian origin or other means such as through globalization and improved technology. It seems once a nation reaches a certain level of prosperity, that nation will inevitably veer towards a form of secularization as seen in Western nations and now in South Korea.

    As discussed thus far, economic prosperity and Christianity has seen tremendous growth over the past century in South Korea. However, Christian growth has now somewhat stagnated, reaching a “saturation point” particularly for Protestantism.[20] Despite South Korea being considered one of the centers for global Christianity,[21] the plurality—i.e. 46%—of the country has no religious affiliation.[22] Economic growth, on the other hand, continues to rise—in 2017, South Korea ranked 12th in gross domestic product.[23] The technological development in South Korea has vastly improved and according to one study, ranks third in the entire world, just behind Japan and the United States.[24] The development and progress of South Korea since the Korean War has vastly improved “the material quality of life,”[25] however a former South Korean pastor argues that “the church faces the challenge of filling the spiritual void in Korea, which has been created by materialism and the obsession with economic development.”[26] (italics mine) Reverend Kisung Yoo, a senior pastor of a church in Seoul, also acknowledges that “the Korean church has achieved tremendous quantitative growth since the 1980s, but there has been too little focus on qualitative growth.”[27] He is seeking to battle the “challenges of secularization” through the Walking with Jesus movement, a combination of spiritual practices aided by the use of digital technology.[28]

    The story of Christianity in South Korea is still being written and perhaps it is too early to make any definitive conclusions. However, if the Western church is any indicator of its progress in light of its prosperity, it will be challenging to say the least. Son Bong-ho, a philosophy professor, criticizes the South Korean church having “a fatal lack of critical attitude toward the materialism of modern culture.”[29] And the spiritual void mentioned earlier could very well be a result of the “impact of revolutionary capitalism” and how a modern system creates a “cultural vacuum.”[30] While South Korea is not a Christian nation in the same sense Western Europe or North America was, there is a similar pattern developing even in its short history that aligns well with Weber’s critique that practicality and pragmatism will reign.[31]

    By utilizing South Korea as a case study, one can see the impact economic prosperity has on a country in a relatively short span of time. South Korea has had a unique experience, and despite its tremendous and rapid growth, it is facing similar challenges that Western Christians are addressing, such as materialism and consumerism. While most of the development of South Korea happened in the 20th century, a time period filled with massive innovation that fueled globalization,[32] the technological innovation happening in the 21st century is only compounding these effects. Take for example, the number of monthly active Facebook users in 2008 was 100 million and by the end of 2018, it had 2.32 billion monthly active users.[33] This accounts for approximately 30% of the world population.[34] Our global society has never been more connected than it is today.

    Despite the complexities associated with defining and placing globalization, it is a trend that will continue to progress, for better or worse. My focus is not to argue for or against globalization as some have attempted, but that it is an inevitable reality.[35] Technology and economy will progress, most notably now in the form of cryptocurrencies and digital money. This new technology offers a “gospel” to developing nations and is a practical means of lifting them up out of poverty.[36] When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, [37] especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.[38] This is particularly concerning as Christianity has shifted to the Global South and is growing in developing nations. As globalization will exponentially increase the speed in which nations reach a certain level of prosperity, the global church should take heed with what is happening to the church of South Korea.

    When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.

    The key takeaway here is to recognize that this complex force of globalization and modernization may be the biggest competitor to any form of religious flourishing. The greater danger is that those who are engaged with globalization are making futile arguments for resistance, while the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike are either ignoring or fearing it.[39] Peter Heslam, who works from an interdisciplinary approach, may have stated it best: “The only substantial agreement is that this is a transitional period. Many of the values, assumptions and structures that once enjoyed broad acceptance have been set aside, but new ones have not yet fully emerged.”[40] While this temptation is nothing new to followers of Christ as he instructed that we cannot serve two masters, hopefully the global church will not follow in the same patterns as the church of South Korea.[41]

    [1] Taken from Craig Gay’s explanation of Max Weber’s thesis found here: Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004), 27.

    [2] Globalization, defined for the purposes of this paper, is a process in which people of all nations are being evermore connected by means of technology, including but not limited to communication, manufacturing, and production, thereby making every decision and action interwoven and impactful on a global scale.

    [3] David Rees, A Short History of Modern Korea (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988), 2.

    [4] Ibid., 64.

    [5] “The Korean Economy – the Miracle on the Hangang River,” Korea.net, accessed April 9, 2019. http://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Economy/The-Miracle-on-The-Hangang.

    [6] Rees, 72.

    [7] Ibid.

    [8] Ibid., 148.

    [9] Ibid., 149.

    [10] Ibid., 151.

    [11] Ibid., 155.

    [12] Ibid., 154.

    [13] Philip Connor, “6 facts about South Korea’s growing Christian population,” Pew Research Center, accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/12/6-facts-about-christianity-in-south-korea/.

    [14] Donald N. Clark, Christianity in Modern Korea, Asian Agenda Report 5 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), 36.

    [15] Ibid., 29-30.

    [16] Ibid., 36.

    [17] Ibid.

    [18] While outside the scope of this paper, this would be an intriguing proposition to explore as Protestantism constitutes most of the Christian population in South Korea. See Douglas G. Jacobsen, The World’s Christians: Who They Are, Where They Are, and How They Got There (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 190.

    [19] Clark, xi, 47-49.

    [20] Jacobsen, 191.

    [21] Ibid., 373.

    [22] Connor, Pew Research Center.

    [23] “Gross domestic product 2017,” World Bank, January 25, 2019, accessed April 11, 2019. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.

    [24] David Allouche, “Top 10 of the Most High Tech Countries in the World,” accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.young-diplomats.com/top-10-high-tech-countries-world/.

    [25] Clark, 16.

    [26] Ibid., 37.

    [27] Kisung Yoo & Paul Sung Noh, “The Korean Cyber Monastery Movement: Overcoming the challenges of secularization,” Lausanne Global Analysis Vol 7, Issue 5 (Sep 2018), accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2018-09/the-korean-cyber-monastery-movement

    [28] Ibid.

    [29] Clark, 25.

    [30] Gay, 42-3.

    [31] Ibid., 27.

    [32] Robert Angus Buchanan, “The 20th century,” History of technology, accessed April 10, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-technology/The-20th-century

    [33] “Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2018 (in millions),” statista, accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.

    [34] Calculated based on 7.7 billion people in the world from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/, accessed April 10, 2019.

    [35] Peter S. Heslam, Globalization: Unravelling the New Capitalism, Grove Ethics Series ; E125 (Cambridge [England]: Grove Books Ltd., 2003), 25.

    [36] In reference to the remittance industry and digital money in smaller fractions than the US dollar. See Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016).

    [37] Myers, 255.

    [38] See Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Reprint edition (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2015).

    [39] Myers, 4.

    [40] Heslam, 3.

    [41] Matt 6:24.

  • Book Review: Theology in the context of World Christianity: how the global church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology

    By Timothy C. Tennent
    Zondervan, 2007
    295 pages
    ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27511-4
    $43.99 CAD

    In the era of late globalization, it is jarring that there is not a greater concern and focus on theological discussions with a global framework. Timothy C. Tennent’s Theology in the context of World Christianity is a much-needed work, particularly for theologians who still operate under the assumption that Christianity solely follows a Western narrative. As the tides of Christianity have shifted to the Majority World, it is important “to explore the implications these shifts are having in the formulation of theological discourse” (11). Tennent argues for the “mutual exchange” between theologians and missiologists (22), between Christians from old Christendom and new burgeoning areas of religious plurality, in the hopes that with humble collaboration, a beautiful church of Jesus Christ would emerge.

    Tennent unapologetically structures his book under major headings of systematic theology (19), which include, theology, bibliology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. He explores each topic within the context of emerging churches in non-Western continents, particularly those who have come to know Jesus Christ from an Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist background (21).

    Tennent seeks to bridge the gap between students studying systematic theology from a Western perspective and Christians who are from the Majority World asking questions rooted in their culture and traditions. He notes that while there may be some acceptance of cultural translatability—referencing Andrew Walls’ “pilgrim” and “indigenizing” principles (12)—there is a greater hesitancy to accept theological translatability, which he defines as “the ability of the kerygmatic essentials of the Christian faith to be discovered and restated within an infinite number of new global contexts” (16). It is upon this premise that he engages his readers in hopes that they will listen to the various theological questions that are being asked by a rapidly growing church. By structuring his book in this manner, Tennent is bringing this conversation to the forefront, highlighting the fact that it is no longer “mere squabble” among “Christians with strange faces from even stranger places,” but these new Christian voices are influencing what the West has viewed as essential truths and expressions (19).

    An example of the significance of this conversation is how Christians from an African heritage express their Christology—see Chapter 5. Tennent begins most of his discussions with a general background to the particular topic of systematic theology from a Western perspective. He then introduces the particular people group or religion and then provides a case-study on how these emerging Christians influence the theological discussion of the specific topic at hand. While many may be comfortable with their “Christology from the shelves of universities” (117), Christians from Africa are challenging Western Christians with a different “ontic expansion of God in Jesus Christ” (111). Tennent demonstrates that these are no longer peripheral matters, but are central to the developing Christology not only in Africa, but for Christians around the world and through time.

    In the concluding chapter, Tennent promotes for a “renaissance in Western theological scholarship” (250). He concludes with four key themes that may mutually benefit theological scholarship and missiological praxis, which then will serve “to pull the entire church forward into that great eschatological fact of Jesus Christ” (272).

    While a theological scholar may easily dismiss this work due to the brevity and treatment of each theological topic, Tennent is well aware and admits that this book is not exhaustive. Yet, it is “suggestive” of the “general direction of theological inquiry in the context of global Christianity” (271). Theology students studying in Western contexts simply may not have the experience or awareness of some of these matters discussed in Tennent’s book. He provides a broad background and technical language so scholars may, hopefully, engage with these topics and even more so, the people behind them (22).

    Tennent writes with experience as a pastor, missionary, and seminary professor (250), thus knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each vocation. While he has nearly twenty years of experience in India and with Hinduism (xxi), he gives fair weight to other regions and beliefs such as Africa, Japan, Latin America, Muslim nations, and China, to name a few. He assesses the complexities of each culture and or religion and the impact they have on theological reflection and practice. He asks in the conclusion of his chapter on theology, “Why do theological students in the West continue to spend countless hours learning about the writings of a few well-known, now deceased, German theologians whose global devotees are quite small, and yet completely ignore over one billion living, breathing Muslims who represent one of the most formidable challenges to the Christian gospel today” (49)? Upon reading this book, at the very least, students will no longer be able to plead ignorance.

    On the other side of the spectrum, Tennent also does not want to dismiss the importance of traditional systematic theology. He does not give in to mere syncretism or relativism, but defends against some of the emerging trends with strong biblical references. His posture though is not one of determining which train of thought is most correct, but again “to think more globally about the formation of theology and to expand our own understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the twenty-first century” (xviii).

    It is this very theme that interweaves from the beginning of the book to the end. And in doing so, Tennent’s work provides a refreshing critique of Western theological scholarship. During my own studies, I have found that much of Christian reflection is done in a “theological vacuum” (35) and many of the questions being asked have little to no relevance in a globalized, pluralized world. Global or World Christianity should not be an elective course or peripheral topic for students in the West, but rather be mandatory regardless if one ventures out of their comfortable Western lifestyles and thought. At the least, this book may equip Western students to converse with people of different backgrounds. Or with more hope, to humble ourselves to admit that our “experience and expression of Christianity” is not “normative for all Christians everywhere” (6).

    In my own reading, it was difficult to pinpoint any major issues with Tennent’s work. Perhaps at times he could be overly harsh on Western Christians, however, I believe his criticisms are warranted. His main audience is Western theology students. Thus, he still uses language, such as kerygmatic or preparatio evangelica, which is tailored to this demographic. However, he provides a glossary at the end of the book to ensure that this work can be used as a platform for all Christians to engage with one another. Another minor point of contention is Tennent’s use of Protestant or Evangelical interchangeably. It may have been helpful if he clarified what he meant by his use of labels, however, it may also reflect how muddy denominational affiliation can be.

    Tennent reminds us that “in the context of global Christianity we must first and foremost see ourselves as Christians proclaiming the apostolic faith and only secondarily as Reformed Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Dispensational Christians, or Arminian Christians” (269). With the aid of this book and more importantly with God being sovereign over all, we Christians in the twenty-first century can do our part and begin this long and complex process of being a people from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).

    The author is currently undertaking a Masters in Theological Studies at Regent University.

  • Power of Money, Ideology of Money, our Response to Money

    The three most important ideas presented in Jacques Ellul’s Money and Power, Craig Gay’s Cash Values, and Ron Sider’s Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger respectively are:

    1) Christians ought to recognize the power of money before anything else; 2) Due to this power of money, it has formed its own ideology reshaping the values of society, particularly in developed nations; and 3) Christians in these developed nations must be aware of the global consequences their money and wealth has created.

    While I have heard a few teachings on the stewardship of money or how the love of money is the root of all evil, I now realize how much more powerful money is compared to what society and the church regards it to be.[1] When Jesus was teaching his disciples and said “You cannot serve God and wealth,[2]” (Matt 6:24, NSRV) he was not getting “this idea from his cultural milieu.”[3] Rather, Jesus considers wealth as a sort of god and while wealth and money “is certainly God’s opposite in the area of behavior,” argues Ellul, it “enjoys no equality with God.”[4] It is this power that I think is often masked to most people, however most deceivingly to Christians. It seems that,

    “All that the church has been able to say about the exclusively personal nature of our use of money is no doubt true, but it is obsolete because of the character of the world in which we live… The church must not adapt to the world… The world itself once again seems to be God’s instrument in forcing the church to face up to its conscience… [the church] should not then take refuge in a new abstraction which has nothing to do with humanity today or with the structure of our times.”[5]

    This lack of attention, to say the least, or perhaps more significantly the lack of an active stance towards money may be the cause of how money has developed its own ideology, subconsciously influencing and shaping society including Christians, thus leading to the alarming statistics on the behaviors of Christians in developed nations. I believe I have been a byproduct of this lack of teaching and serious consideration of money and its power. My parents grew up in a Confucius society and partnered with the pursuit of the American dream, birth an extreme focus on studies leading to a well-paying job. Upon attending church and becoming Christians, their upbringing of me did not vary from this. This was not an uncommon narrative for other peers I knew. I would argue before anything else, that it is this power of money and its deception particularly over Christians, that has made our reflections obsolete, stance weak, and behaviors indistinguishable from the rest of our society regarding money matters.

    Clearly Ellul’s idea has impacted me the most, thus it has led me to revisit prior thoughts, assumptions, and motivations. Most interestingly about the timing of these readings is how it has intersected with a recent pursuit, i.e. to become a millionaire by the time I am 35 years old. This goal was not just a pursuit to obtain more money for consumerism or security, but was rather a challenge to test myself to pursue audacious goals. This past summer, I noted for myself a desire for “financial freedom”.[6] However, I now have to ask myself—why? Another interesting timing is how money as we know today is rapidly changing from a predominately fiat-currency to a digital-currency. I wonder what kind of effects this marriage of digital technology and money will have on the nature of this beast—or more accurately, on both beasts. While I am actively learning about cryptocurrencies, new technologies, and now a renewed Christian reflection on money, I still feel inadequate to respond well to why and what I am exactly pursuing, nor to the greater implications this money-technology will have. More concerning is the complete lack of knowledge concerning this topic for the vast majority. My concern is that due to the lack of dialogue and engagement with money as a whole and its new developments, the church as a whole is largely unprepared for any intelligent, thoughtful, or wholesome response. At best, most will probably only respond after the fact when this massive train of change will hit all of global society.[7]

    To provide a balanced response and fair treatment of the other authors, I must agree that Christians in developed nations need to take money more seriously.[8] If we acknowledge and accept what Gay defines as the Money Metric,[9] then we must also acknowledge that it is within this framework that Christians in developed nations are reflecting on money. Perhaps this is why Sider criticizes and calls forth rich Christians, simply because the Money Metric has already shaped the overarching narrative of their lives.

    In closing, I must agree with Ellul about the complex nature of money. “Nothing, whether in human nature or in the nature of things, whether in technology or in reason, adequately explains the original act of creating and accepting money.”[10] Nonetheless, it has become a power of its own, a Money Metric, that will continue its reign as a counterfeit god.[11] Hopefully, Christians can be faithful to God’s will as we continue to tackle this problem of money.[12]

    [1] The sheer lack of teaching on this topic, despite its numerous references in the Bible, is evidence of the lack of recognition of the power of money by Christians.

    [2] In Greek, mammon.

    [3] Jacques Ellul, Money and Power (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 75.

    [4] Ellul, 75, 94.

    [5] Ellul, 32.

    [6] This term has many definitions and viewpoints, most often coined by the wealthy elite class. It is interesting how the pinnacle of monetary pursuits is phrased as the freedom from it.

    [7] There is much more to be said on this topic and I will further explore it in a future paper.

    [8] Not just in the pursuit and acquisition of it, but asking themselves why and which master they are serving.

    [9] I.e. the system’s ‘exaltation of the monetary unit’. See Gay, 52.

    [10] Ellul, 81.

    [11] Ellul, 95

    [12] Ellul, 19.

  • Theological Reflection on Blockchain Revolution | How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World

    Bitcoin has recently garnered a tremendous amount of attention, despite it having been around for nearly a decade. Momentous highlights include purchasing pizza with bitcoin as the first transaction completed to the Silk Road scandal where numerous illegal drugs were being sold.[1] However, bitcoin attracted the most attention once its market value surpassed $10000 skyrocketing to nearly $20000 in December 2017. More recently, the price has settled down close to $7000, as of the writing of this paper.[2] Despite the negative attention and skewed portrayal of bitcoin by the media, the underlying technology has largely been overlooked—i.e., the blockchain. In the recent book, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World, authors Don and Alex Tapscott explore the bigger implications behind bitcoin and blockchain technology.[3] In this paper, I will provide a critical review of the thesis discussed in Blockchain Revolution and offer additional reflections from a theological point-of-view.

    Critical Book Review

    Similar to bitcoin, the term blockchain has become overhyped that companies with no track record of any means to utilize or adopt the technology is adding blockchain to their names, triggering huge spikes in their stocks.[4] It is important to understand not only the difference in terminology but of function in order to fully grasp the opportunities and challenges this technology presents. The original intent of blockchain was to introduce a peer-to-peer electronic cash system utilizing digital coins, or bitcoin.[5] This new protocol was first outlined by a pseudonymous author, Satoshi Nakamoto. This protocol allows individuals to send payments to one another without having to go through a third party, such as a financial institution, utilizing encryption or cryptography. The distributed, public ledger upholds the integrity of all transactions and relies on the consensus of the majority, rather than a select few. The blockchain forms as transactions in a block are verified by a node in the network, which is then immutable, linking to the following block, forming a chain. While this is a grotesquely oversimplified version of the technology, its premise is simple: “[blockchains] enable us to send money directly and safely from me to you, without going through a bank, a credit card company, or PayPal.”[6]

    The implication of this technology is massive and undated, a protocol that “enables mere mortals to manufacture trust through clever code.”[7] The public perception and trust in centralized institutions is quickly fading beginning with the 2008 financial crash to the recent massive data breaches. This ‘Trust Protocol,’ as Don and Alex Tapscott phrase it, is the culmination of technologic development over the recent decades, from the inception of the World Wide Web to the current Internet of Things (IoT). “We believe the truth can set us free and distributed trust will profoundly affect people in all walks of life.”[8]

    The most prominent and widely discussed application of this technology is with the financial sector. Much of the news is focused on how much bitcoin and cryptocurrency is being traded for, however this only scratches the surface. Because of the disruptive nature of the technology, those who hold the majority of the wealth are concerned and are seeking ways to safeguard the $100 trillion global economy by creating private or permissioned blockchains.[9] The blockchain will challenge the financial industry because of improved attestation, cost, speed, risk management, value innovation, and open source.[10] Financial intermediaries are no longer the gatekeepers to verify one’s identity or establish trust and there are substantially reduced costs and greatly improved speeds to execute transactions. Financial institutions are already adopting this technology internally and “could eventually use it to replace traditional exchanges and centralized markets, upending how we define and trade value.”[11] Influential stakeholders are attempting to keep their walls up, however,

    “[whereas] the old world was hierarchical, slow-moving, reluctant to change, closed and opaque, and controlled by powerful intermediaries, the new order will be flatter, offering a peer-to-peer solution; more private and secure; transparent, inclusive, and innovative.”[12]

    An example of this new order is Consensus Systems (ConsenSys), founded by Joseph Lubin in 2014. ConsenSys is a company that runs on the Ethereum platform[13] and functions like a holacracy, “a collaborative rather than hierarchical process for defining and aligning work to be done.”[14] The platform allows for members to own a stake in projects, incentivizing collaborative behavior. The eventual goal is to build a “decentralized autonomous organization owned and controlled by its nonhuman value creators, governed through smart contracts rather than human agency.” When asked about the risk of removing human agency in decision making, Lubin comments that his concern is not for machine intelligence as humans will evolve alongside it, or even if it surpasses humans, it will operate in a different ecological niche.[15] The blockchain allows firms to shift from vertical hierarchies to horizontal networks, connecting those on a global scale. The vision Lubin describes is that, “Global human society can now agree on the truth and make decisions in ten minutes, or ten seconds. This surely creates an opportunity to have a more enfranchised society… The greater the engagement, the greater the prosperity.”[16]

    Don and Alex Tapscott also explore the wider applications of blockchain technology from the development of decentralized applications in forming new business models to the Ledger of Things connecting the IoT. While we are currently beginning to scrape the surface of smart objects such as home thermostats and wearable technology, the near future will unfold to all these objects being able to communicate and transact with one another through the blockchain. Carlos Moreria, CEO of WISeKey, states “We are moving into another world where the trust is delegated at the object level. An object that is not trusted will be rejected by the other objects automatically without having to check with a central authority… This is a huge paradigm shift that has tremendous consequences in the way that processes will be conducted in the years to come.”[17]

    Another major impact of blockchain is the disruption of the prosperity paradox—while the global economy is growing, the scales of inequality are as well. The Global South has typically favored being anonymous to their corrupt government officials, however, new digital identities and inclusion into the vast economic network will allow for a more balanced opportunity for those in developing countries.[18] Remittances account for a large flow of capital for developing countries, however, the industry has been plagued by high fees, slow transactions, and corruption to name a few of the challenges. New companies such as Abra or Stellar are focusing on banking the unbanked and overcoming these hurdles through the blockchain.[19] The benefits and opportunities are not limited to the economic sphere but can radically change governments to form new models of democracies as well as the arts, giving power back to content creators rather than the centralized intermediaries.

    While the opportunities and possibilities of blockchain technology seem limitless, there are inherent risks and challenges as well. Some of the more apparent ones we are facing already are large consumptions of energy, government restrictions, and criminal use. There are technical hurdles impeding greater mass adoption, the fear of job loss, and a lack of a strong enough incentive to collaborate. The possibility of a Skynet where machines become fully autonomous is no longer that of science-fiction, but much more of a possible reality.[20]

    The Tapscotts acknowledge that “[the] debate over technological innovation and progress is an ancient one: Is the tool good or bad? Does it advance the human condition or degrade it?”[21] They conclude that “[technology] does not have agency. It does not want for anything or have an inclination one way or the other.” Rather, the harmful use of any technology “speaks more to the lack of strong governance, regulation, advocacy, and education than to its underlying virtues.”[22] Therefore, Don and Alex Tapscott are calling forth leaders from all industries—governments, venture capitalists, developers, academics, nongovernment organizations—to form what they call global solution networks (GSNs).[23] These GSNs are not controlled by states or state-based institutions, but involve a plurality of stakeholders, working together on and with blockchain, “pushing us inexorably into a new era, predicated on openness, merit, decentralization, and global participation.”[24]

    A Theological Reflection

    Blockchain Revolution contains bold implications and bright promises for the future. It is undeniable how revolutionary the technology is and while the authors do introduce some precautions to take, there may be even greater unintended consequences society ought to embrace for. It is apparent that in the call for global stakeholders to participate in the formation of the new world order, there is no mention for religious leaders or philosophers to contribute, which is not surprising at all. While there have been cases made that scientific experimentation and technological innovation birth from a Judeo-Christian principle and accelerated even more so from the Protestant Reformation, it is clear that society has moved on well passed these older premises. Regarding technological innovation, Professor of History and Economics, David Landes states, “Success bred imitation and emulation; also a sense of power that would in the long run raise men almost to the level of gods.”[25] Lewis Mumford corroborates this point in saying, “Mechanics became the new religion, and it gave to the world a new Messiah: the machine.”[26] What motivated the development of new technologies in the past and continues to do so today is the close link with economic profit.[27] The early conversations of bitcoin and blockchain revolved around tech geeks or the dark web; however, once Wall Street developed a universally positive opinion of blockchain and its role in finance in 2015, did the rest of the world begin to take interest.[28]

    Why this is concerning is not because there is a need to refer back to a metaphysical or religious explanation, but because of the tremendous insight previous philosophers and religious thinkers provided in the direction of technology.[29] While Don and Alex Tapscott do make a point about technology’s lack of agency in regards to the negative use of it by humans, they are making a critical flaw in treating blockchain as a neutral agent. Twentieth-century philosopher, Martin Heidegger argues, “we are delivered over to [technology] in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral; for this conception of it, to which today we particularly like to do homage, makes us utterly blind to the essence of technology.”[30] Joe Lubin’s perspective on the evolution of machine intelligence and his claim that it would “occupy a different ecological niche” is limited when considered against Neil Postman’s argument that “[technological change] is ecological… One significant change generates total change… Therefore, when an old technology is assaulted by a new one, institutions are threatened. When institutions are threatened, a culture finds itself in crisis.”[31] While there have been technological innovations that disrupted societies throughout the centuries, there has been none to the scale of blockchain technology. Adding further complication to this matter is the effect technology has on one’s consciousness, as discussed by sociologist and theologian, Peter Berger. Technological production is not just limited to those who are directly involved in the industry, but it has formed the consciousness of modern society affecting the way we view the world, one another, and even ourselves.[32]

    The conundrum of blockchain technology and the new age it is ushering in is that it has been long awaited for by the technological wave unleashed centuries before. It is the capstone of all innovations prior, “utilizing the machine to make the world more perfect: the machine was the substitute for… the Christian ideals of grace and redemption.”[33] All the inventions of the past along with the cultural transformations that took place surrounding it “had at last formed a complex social and ideological network, capable of supporting the vast weight of the machine and extending its operations still further.”[34] This is seen with the possibility of connecting the IoT through the distributed network, allowing for autonomous agents to communicate and transact with one another, greatly improving efficiency, speed, and costs. The blockchain is also the epitome of the network described by Francis Fukuyama in his 1998 work, The Great Disruption.[35] Fukuyama was already aware twenty years prior that “there has been substantial pressure to decentralize, federalize, privatize, and delegate authority.”[36] He writes, “If we understand a network not as a type of formal organization, but as social capital, we will have much better insight into what a network’s economic function really is. By this view, a network is a moral relationship of trust.”[37] Fukuyama understood that “it is hard to turn ideas into wealth in the absence of social connectedness, which in the age of the Internet still requires something more than bandwidth and high-speed connectivity.”[38] The decentralized, privatized, delegated authority that functions based on social capital eliminating the need for trust, fulfilling what the Internet age has lacked, this very something is the blockchain.

    The blockchain revolution in this sense has even bigger implications than what Don and Alex Tapscott propose. It is not just a new technological invention to allow peer-to-peer transactions, but with its disruption of institutions, it will disrupt cultures and consciousness on a global scale as never seen before. The possibilities of new technologies forming with and through the blockchain is no longer science-fiction. Amidst this revolution, is ironically the fate of Christian religion, which debatably gave birth to this behemoth. While it is tempting to retreat to some form of romanticism and recover the past, 20th century German Catholic priest, Romano Guardini would suggest one ought to fully understand, acknowledge, and accept this new world.[39] French philosopher and lay theologian, Jacques Ellul, takes this concept even further claiming that “[Christians] must not weaken the opposition that exists between the Christian faith, the claims of revelation, and life in the world and its demands, its faults, and its compromises.”[40] He calls for the critical position of the laymen, essential to both the church and the world, who “ought to place himself at the point of contact between two currents: the will of the Lord, and the will of the world.”[41] “Thus it is not for us to construct the City of God, to build up an ‘order of God’ within this world, without taking any notice of its suicidal tendencies. Our concern should be to place ourselves at the very point where this suicidal desire is most active, in the actual form it adopts, and to see how God’s will of preservation can act in this given situation.”[42]

    While the Christian claims that it is only through Jesus we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free,[43] there is a direct contender to this truth, the Trust Protocol. It would be foolish to dismiss blockchain technology despite its suicidal tendencies, even from a Christian perspective. The possibilities of connecting the Global South and reaching diasporas is unprecedented with blockchain technology, a relevant concern for missiology and the church. The benefits of distributing wealth and economic inclusion for the billions of people in extreme poverty as well as uplifting those in corrupt governments should be celebrated by Christians. It is a critical opportunity to be in the middle of this disruption to not only provide social and economic relief, but to provide a transcendent meaning as well. Perhaps the attitude is not to be overtly against this new era, despite its many alarming signs, but to be God’s salt, light, and sheep amongst wolves where it seems most needed.[44] It seems the world will continue along its path without inviting religious leaders and thinkers a seat at the table and perhaps rightfully so because their discourse is becoming more irrelevant. However, this may be a call for the lay leaders to walk outside the comforting walls of churches and old traditions and engage with the wolves of this world. “Of course [a Christian] can always immerse himself in good works and pour out his energy in religious or social activities, but all this will have no meaning unless he is fulfilling the only mission with which he has been charged by Jesus Christ, which is first of all to be a sign.”[45]

    Debates about the value of bitcoin have been longstanding and ongoing, with predictions of its monetary value increasing well over $20000 in 2018. What is less debatable is the inherent value and the simultaneous disruption of value itself blockchain will have in the near future. The impact this technology will make will affect all verticals, all industries, including the church. Heidegger describes the essence of technology as enframing, a challenging forth, a revealing,[46] which blockchain will do first and foremost in the financial sector, along with governments and nongovernmental organizations, music artists and videographers, developers and coders, networks and individual consciousness, and the local and global church. “Human activity can never directly counter this danger. Human achievement alone can never banish it. But human reflection can ponder the fact that an all saving power must be of a higher essence than what is endangered, though at the same time kindred to it.”[47]

    This is the time when a collective effort is needed to reflect on the implications the blockchain revolution will have on the world. While there is a call for global leaders to collaborate, how will the global church respond to such a massive paradigm shift? Will the church continue to operate as siloed, centralized institutions amidst a changing landscape? Will global Christians be able to find consensus and be on the frontiers of great disruption? Or will Christians become largely irrelevant as the religion of the machine reigns?

    The blockchain revolution has only begun.

    [1] Marco Santori, “Silk Road Goes Dark: Bitcoin Survives Its Biggest Market’s Demise,” accessed April 9, 2018. https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-milestones-silk-road-goes-dark-bitcoin-survives-its-biggest-markets-demise/.

    [2] Based on coinmarketcap.com.

    [3] Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016).

    [4] Fitz Tepper, “SEC warns against public companies adding blockchain to their name,” accessed April 9, 2018. https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/25/sec-warns-against-public-companies-adding-blockchain-to-their-name/.

    [5] Satoshi Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,” accessed April 9, 2018. https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper.

    [6] Tapscott, 6.

    [7] Ibid., 5.

    [8] Ibid., 7.

    [9] Ibid., 55, 67.

    [10] Tapscott, 58–60.

    [11] Ibid., 60.

    [12] Ibid., 86.

    [13] Ethereum is a decentralized platform that runs smart contracts: applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third-party interference. See www.ethereum.org.

    [14] Tapscott, 88.

    [15] Ibid., 91.

    [16] Tapscott, 89.

    [17] Ibid., 154.

    [18] Ibid., 174.

    [19] See www.abra.com and www.stellar.org.

    [20] Tapscott, 253–76.

    [21] Ibid., 277.

    [22] Ibid., 276.

    [23] Ibid., 283–300.

    [24] Ibid., 310.

    [25] David S. Landes, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999), 59.

    [26] Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1934), 45.

    [27] Ibid., 26.

    [28] Tapscott, 66.

    [29] Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (New York: Harper & Row, 1977).

    [30] Heidegger, 4.

    [31] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, (New York: Vintage, 1993), 18.

    [32] Peter L. Berger, The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (New York: Vintage, 1974).

    [33] Mumford, 58.

    [34] Mumford, 59.

    [35] Francis Fukuyama, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order (New York: Free Press, 2000).

    [36] Ibid., 195.

    [37] Ibid., 199.

    [38] Ibid., 211.

    [39] Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, trans Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1994).

    [40] Jacques Ellul, The Presence of the Kingdom (New York: Seabury Press, 1967), 16.

    [41] Ellul, 20, 27.

    [42] Ibid., 28.

    [43] John 8:32 [ESV]

    [44] Ellul, 9.

    [45] Ibid., 12.

    [46] Heidegger, 12, 14, 20.

    [47] Ibid., 33–34.

  • Technology’s Fingerprint on Christian Thought and Culture

    A glance at the news and our surroundings will undeniably speak of how much technology[1] has become a central focus and part of people’s lives. The growth of the digital footprint over the past two decades alone has been exponential and shows no sign of stopping. While there have been numerous benefits of technology, society is beginning to experience some of the adverse consequences and is now being challenged with difficult questions such as the negative effects of social media. While it is easier to identify certain effects of technology, particularly those directly associated with the field or product, it is more difficult to be aware of how it influences and shapes our thinking.

    This paper will focus on how much technology’s influence on human consciousness consequentially impacts Christian thought and culture.[2] I will be painting broad strokes across multiple areas with the intent to bring awareness. This brief exploration will not discuss the positive impacts of technology for the church and broader culture, while I do acknowledge them. Nor is it to prove or voice a pro- or anti-technology stance, but rather to state the current condition of Christian thinking and perhaps reevaluate how to consciously think ahead.

    In order to claim that Christian thought and culture have been compromised, it is imperative to understand the effects of technology at the level of consciousness as well as knowing its ideology. First, regarding the effects of technology at the level of consciousness, Peter Berger best demonstrates this by examining the “essential concomitants of technological production” and how it shapes the “everyday consciousness of ordinary people engaged in [it].”[3] There is an organization of knowledge intrinsic to technological production. Workers possess a specific knowledge in relation to a much larger pool of scientific and technical knowledge, which creates a hierarchy of experts.[4] This work knowledge is unique in content as well as in style, which consists of mechanisticity, reproducibility, and measurability.[5] There is a cognitive style intrinsic to technological production, with its main features being componentiality and the assumption of maximalization.[6] These features and their impact will be expounded upon later. The key takeaway that Berger argues is that it will be “very difficult to ‘think away’ these elements while assuming that technological production will continue.”[7] The result is that this unique technological consciousness bleeds into the majority of the population. “For better or for worse, it is not necessary to be engaged in technological work in order to think technologically.”[8]

    Second, an ideology of machines has emerged in the technologically dominated culture. Neil Postman defines an “ideology as a set of assumptions which we are barely conscious but which nonetheless directs our efforts to give shape and coherence to the world.”[9] One assumption of technology is that it “[eliminates] complexity, doubt, and ambiguity,” which can result in a lack of intellectual struggle for the ordinary thinker.[10] A consequence particular to the field of medicine is that medical technology has dissociated the disease from the patient and thus created a hierarchy where the “objective” technology is more reliable than the subjective patient.[11] In other words, the ideology of technology is that it is more trustworthy. Another unique assumption of technology is its ability to think, or more popularly known as artificial intelligence. When society continues to use and depend on artificial intelligence and unknowingly acknowledge a technology’s possession of beliefs, we reject the “view that humans have internal states of mind that are the foundation of belief and [argue] instead that ‘belief’ means only what someone or something does.”[12] Highlighting this ideology of technology may provide further clarity to its impact on Christian thought and culture.

    With the above foundation in mind, we can now assess the impact this technological thinking and ideology has on Christian thought and culture. The organization of knowledge intrinsic to technological production impacts Christian thinking by disrupting the oneness of body. While there are some similarities between the hierarchy of experts within an institution and a Christian body,[13] the mechanical and reproducible nature of technological production can make one feel replaceable and dispensable. This is in direct contrast to Apostle Paul’s instruction, “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ … On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are dispensable.”[14] While the irony may seem that the Corinthian church struggled with this issue before the technologically dominated world, it is only enhanced in today’s worldview. When Christians are constantly influenced by technological thinking whether in their workplace or subconsciously with the use of technology, it is ever more difficult to properly view Jesus’ definition of his body. With globalization ever increasing, this type of thinking not only affects the microcosm of a local body, but on a macroscale as well where each church may view others as dispensable, measuring success with false proxies such as attendance and finances.[15]

    Closely related to this aspect is componentiality, i.e. “the components of reality are self-contained units which can be brought into relation with other such units—that is, reality is not conceived as an ongoing flux of juncture and disjuncture of unique entities.”[16] One major consequence is the “segregation of work from private life.”[17] While this occurs at an institutional level and thus a common prerogative for those seeking a job is a good work-life balance, this type of consciousness has impacted Christian thinking reflected in the Sunday-Monday gap.[18] There is a clear struggle for many Christians to connect their faith and work, and thus there is a lot of focus on redeeming one’s vocation, faith and work movements, or business as missions. The point here is componentiality has made its impact and now Christians are forced to respond to the consequences.

    Another aspect of componentiality reveals itself through anonymous social relations. Berger argues that there is “an intrinsic requirement of technological production that those who participate in it define each other as anonymous functionaries.”[19] This has broad implications affecting the way people relate to one another and even one’s own identity. The componentiality of self and others leads to a human engineering of self, others, and emotions.[20] While the immediate effects of this can be seen in local Christian communities, how this affects the global relation amongst Christians is yet to be seen. The universal church is no longer an abstract idea forced into anonymity, but different denominations, branches, and schools of thought may be forced to view each other as concrete persons. Or, the global church will exhibit the same symptoms as the rest of the technological world.

    Componentiality also affects the way we relate to Christianity. The 2002 National Survey of Youth and Religion (NSYR) discovered that “while most U.S. teenagers feel generally positive toward religion, [it] is not a big deal to them.” “Other social and cultural forces (therapeutic individualism, mass-consumer capitalism, the digital communications revolution)” compete for and take priority even within Christian culture.[21] From an early age, the compartmentalization of Christianity versus extracurricular activities, friends, and school take place. In other words, Christianity is just another component of one’s life, rather than something that defines it entirely.

    On a related note, componentiality affects Christian teaching and learning. The NSYR found that “the single most important influence on the religious and spiritual lives of adolescents is their parents.”[22] However, how often do we find parents leaving spiritual formation and guidance to youth directors and mentors, albeit being influential? Thus, this creates a mechanistic way of looking for those with the best knowledge to guide and teach. One step further, there is a clear distinction in teaching and learning at higher-degree institutions verse the formation and teaching within a community. It seems that advanced theological learning takes place at an institution and afterwards those with specialized knowledge are plugged into different “systems,” operating as components within a larger system that can be reproduced, measured, and replaced.

    The second feature of the cognitive style in technological production is the assumption of maximalization. More simply put in contemporary language: bigger, better, faster. The way this shapes Christian thinking is more apparent than componentiality: bigger churches is synonymous with success, an overemphasis on better strategies and improving programs and methods of reaching out, and especially with the instant-gratification culture, expecting faster prayers, discipleship, and community. A unique element of this feature is multi-relationality, which poses a “constant threat in the situation of meaninglessness, disidentification, and the experiences of anomie,” which only adds fuel to what has already been discussed.[23]

    The ideology of technology further complicates this current mentality. The main aspect that is being threatened is trust. As demonstrated with medical technology, medicine is now “about disease, not the patient. And, what the patient knows is untrustworthy; what the machine knows is reliable.”[24] Jacob Bronowski challengingly asks, “how are we to choose between what we have been taught to think right and something else which manifestly succeeds?”[25] For contemporary Christians, when someone is sick, are our instincts to pray and ask God for healing or is it to turn to ‘reliable’ medicine and examinations? The danger here is that this ideology is breeding less critical, intellectual reflection on these matters. There is a belief forming in this ideology that is secretly competing within Christian thought without many being aware of its dangers. While Jesus warned his followers that no one can serve two masters contrasting that with a more tangible mammon, the ideology of technology is largely invisible to most Christian thinking.[26]

    While more can be discussed regarding the consequential effects of technological thinking upon Christians, equally important is to look ahead and be prepared. As stated earlier, it will be difficult to simply shift one’s frame of mind, however, we can be more aware and better prepared moving forward. Postman suggests a revamping of education so we can understand how technology is affecting our society and psyche, so that more informed conversations can happen surrounding it.[27] Romano Guardini also agrees for a deeper, richer education, yet goes further and suggests that an entirely new approach, thought, inwardness, and freedom is required to combat the chaos of the world.[28] The old worldviews nor a romanticism for the past will suffice, “but a living adumbration of what is coming.”[29] New technologies are being developed at incessant rates, which will continue to feed into the technological thinking and ideology. The task for the Christian is no longer to ponder about elusive concerns, but to wake up to the current condition of this world and provide direction moving forward. “When a method of doing things becomes so deeply associated with an institution that we no longer know which came first – the method or the institution – then it is difficult to change the institution or even imagine alternative methods for achieving its purposes.”[30] “Will we come to God from the depths of our being, link ourselves to him, and in his freedom and power master chaos in this coming age?”[31] Or will we continue in the patterns covertly dictated by technology?

    [1] Technology is used here and most commonly understood as modern or digital technology. While there are extensive works on how to define technology, I will be using the word in an all-encompassing manner, with a leaning towards modern technology.

    [2] Although narrow focused, I will speak about what I am most familiar with, i.e. a modern Western Christian thought and culture.

    [3] Peter Berger, Brigitte Berger, and Hansfried Kellner, The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness (New York: Vintage, 1974), 23.

    [4] Berger, 25.

    [5] Ibid., 26.

    [6] Ibid., 27, 36.

    [7] Ibid., 39.

    [8] Ibid., 40.

    [9] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Vintage, 1993), 123.

    [10] Ibid., 93.

    [11] Ibid., 100.

    [12] Postman, 112.

    [13] 1 Cor 12:20 (ESV).

    [14] 1 Cor 12:21-22.

    [15] The idea of a false proxy was taken from, Dave DeVries “Measuring Success in Your Church,” Missional Challenge, accessed March 5, 2018. https://www.missionalchallenge.com/measuring-success-in-your-church/.

    [16] Berger, 27.

    [17] Ibid., 29.

    [18] Princeton University Faith and Work Initiative, “Sunday-Monday Gap Research Projects,” accessed March 5, 2018. https://faithandwork.princeton.edu/research/sunday-monday-gap.

    [19] Berger, 31.

    [20] Ibid., 34-35.

    [21] Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 202, 205.

    [22] Ibid., 203.

    [23] Berger, 37.

    [24] Postman, 100.

    [25] John G. Burke, The New Technology and Human Values (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 1966), 33.

    [26] Mat 6:24

    [27] Postman, 198.

    [28] Romano Guardini, Letters from Lake Como: Explorations in Technology and the Human Race, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1994), 83.

    [29] Ibid., 91.

    [30] Postman, 143.

    [31] Guardini, 95.

  • Minimalism: Key to Success of the Early Church

    There has been a recent reawakening of an interest towards minimalism. This can be seen by scouring Netflix documentaries such Minimalism: A Documentary About the Important Things or Small Is Beautiful: A Tiny House. Tech leader Apple, Inc. paved the way for flat design, an interface incorporating a minimalist style, which is now standard practice for websites and applications. Running has adopted this theme with new design for minimalist sneakers, spearheaded by Christopher McDougall in his 2011 book, Born to Run: A Hidden Tribe, Superathletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen. From physical houses to digital designs, this reversion to minimalism perhaps is speaking of a greater desire, that society is searching for a purer, simpler form of its interests. The simplicity of minimalism gives way to an unadulterated version of the subject.

    When looking at modern-day churches, particularly in the Western world, perhaps the church can learn and adopt some of these practices. A brief study of the early church may help recover the identity of the modern-day church and its purpose. Minimalism may be the key next step for the church to continue its ongoing mission, to be a witness to the end of the earth.[1]

    As contextualization is key, it is important to paint a picture of the first few centuries the early church existed. Three factors influencing this period would be the socioeconomic condition, persecution, and religious syncretism. The early church was born in a time of relative peace and connectedness. The “Roman law and Hellenistic culture comprised the context in which the early church took shape.”[2] Trade routes and developed roads allowed the early Christians to travel more easily and thus could have aided in the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This time of peace is quickly overridden by a series of persecutions beginning with Nero in the late first-century to the Great Persecution in the late third to early fourth-century. Martyrdom was common and exemplified by men like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Interestingly, martyr is the Greek word for witness and it is perhaps in this kind of spirit that these early Christians gave their lives for the testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is, however, outside the scope of this paper. The imperial unity brought forth by the Roman Empire also came with challenges, one being syncretism (i.e. “the indiscriminate mixing of elements from various religions and emperor worship”[3]). With the conquest of different lands and the discovery of a plurality of gods, it was important to merge these religions to keep a relative peace. This came as a challenge to the message of Jesus as the one and only true God.

    With the backdrop of historical context in place, it is now easier to picture the early church’s gathering, purpose, and structure. The early church gathering mainly consisted of those who believed. Following Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and baptism, is the first example of a gathering of believers. This church primarily consisted of Jewish Christians, but soon after did Gentile Christians become the dominant demographic. The Hellenized Jews and Greeks who came to faith caused divisions in the early church, an issue Apostle Paul was forced to address in his epistles.[4] The distinction between the church and the general gathering is further enhanced by the rise of the catechumenate, where two services were issued, one of the Word and one of the table.[5] Despite the differences, the gathering of the church was meant for a body of believers and less focus was given on the church and its existence for nonbelievers. This singular focus may have simplified the decision on where to gather as well.

    The late 20th and early 21st century gave rise to a reawakening of the house-church movement. An article from Ministry Today in 2000 gives four reasons in support of this movement, reclaiming the New Testament church found in Acts.[6] “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts.”[7] This return to the “original church” has been questioned by Edward Adams in The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses?. By examining scriptural, literary, and archaeological evidences, Adams concludes that “while there is indeed good evidence for houses as Christian meeting places in the first two centuries, it is not as extensive or exclusive as usually thought.”[8] Through the methodology of availability, analogous use, adequacy, and advantage, Adams identifies other possibilities of meeting places such as the taberna, meaning shop or workshop.[9]These retail spaces were a very likely meeting place considering it was “the most ubiquitous and dominant urban architectural form”[10] and were places where “private worship and intellectual/didactic activity” were conducted.[11] The location of where the early church gathered begs modern Christians to question the rationale behind meeting at designated places of worship, requiring zoning applications, massive fundraising, and stark intrusion into communities. Whether at homes, tabernas, public spaces such as inns or catacombs, it seems less important about where the church gathered. These early Christians perhaps are the earliest examples of the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation for the sake of the gospel.

    Regardless of location, it was more important to gather frequently. “Let your assembling together be of frequent occurrence: seek after all by name,” wrote Ignatius to his disciple Polycarp.[12] The author of Hebrews exhorts his readers as well: “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some.”[13] Justin Martyr also defends the Christian faith acknowledging the gathering on Sundays in his First Apology.[14]

    Most important to the identity of the early church was the purpose of their gathering. Central to this would be a close look again at the first gathering of believers:

    “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. … And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, … praising God and having favor with all the people.”[15]

    It would be foolish to cover the depths of this passage and the ensuing meaning of sacramental theology, but as minimalism requires a purity and simplification, it is evident that the believers focused on: 1) teaching, in context of the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 2) fellowship, consisting of the Eucharist, meals at homes, and prayer; 3) selling possessions and distributing to other’s needs; and 4) praising God. Justin Martyr confirms this type of gathering in the second-century, where believers gathered, the reader read from apostles’ memoirs and writings, prayer was said, bread and wine presented, and a distribution took place.[16] An important aspect of this gathering or what modern Christians may call worship, is that “in the New Testament there is no essential distinction between worship and life: man’s existence is not split into two areas, one where Christ is honoured and the other where man is more or less independent.”[17] J.G. Davies then explains why cultic acts were engaged in, particularly manifesting in baptism and the Eucharist.[18] When examining what modern churches are now responsible for, it may be worth considering what is essential to a gathering of believers, and what are “extra-ecclesial”.[19]

    As the gathering of believers continued to grow, there arose a need for structure. The second century quickly brought about a need for ordained ministry, consisting of bishops, presbyters, and deacons.[20] The early church fathers gave further insight to this new order, some holding extremely high views of the positions. Ignatius wrote in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans an order boiling down to the laity being subject to the deacons, whom to the presbyters, whom to the bishops, whom to Jesus, whom to God.[21] Ignatius also holds the view that Caesar be obedient to the bishop, as demonstrated in his Epistle to the Philadelphians.[22] Disregarding the issues concerning two- or three-tier hierarchies,[23] or what the exact meaning of building the church on Peter means,[24] there is a clear role of leadership. With the church’s gradual rise, did “the movement to transform function into office [proceed]” and gave way to a graded hierarchy.[25] Eventually, responsibilities grew outside the religious spheres to include civil matters. When studying the instructions to an elder or deacon, it is interesting to note that there is less emphasis on administrative duties, but more on character.[26] It is also revealing that in the early inception of this order, there were those “[engaged] in sedition against its presbyters” as Clement warned in his first epistle.[27]

    While this overview of the early church may be a grotesque oversimplification of the matter, there are some significant nuggets to discover. While the Greco-Roman world may seem alien to the 21st century Christian, the socioeconomic context may not be too far different. The advancement of Rome through roads and trade routes providing a greater access to their world could be seen similar to the ease of international travel today, which only took place in the past century. One step further is the advancement of the Internet in the past few decades, which continues to evolve and connect the world. In addition, although the modern world does not have an emperor issuing syncretism, its spirit still exists in the form of bumper stickers proclaiming, “COEXIST”[28] and new forms of universalism. The church now exists in this cultural, global context. And there has been a push for more church-planting efforts, as it is the “most effective evangelistic methodology known under heaven.”[29]

    Without having to reinvent any wheels and to stand upon the shoulders of the greats, perhaps an ongoing study of what churches ought to look like in the modern age is of equal importance to the actual planting itself. The brief look of the early church highlights some key points where the church was first and foremost a gathering of believers. The evangelism taking place may not have primarily happened in or at the gathering on Sundays, but perhaps in the tabernas and more common social circles the early believers engaged. Also, where they gathered is equally important as planting a church does not need to be confined to a church building, but more importantly is the frequent gathering and the purpose: to study the gospel of Jesus Christ, to have fellowship with other believers, to distribute needs, and to praise God. Lastly, as any initial gathering grows into an organization, structure is important, but perhaps more emphasis on character and heart would lead to a greater administration, rather than prioritizing the latter.[30]

    The minimalism of the early church holds much value to the ongoing discussion of what it means individually and corporately to be a witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This paper focused more heavily on the model of the church, but there may be more to discover even in terms of purifying the content of the teaching, simplifying the fellowship, and even the various expressions of praise. Davies describes Christian belief in the Church as Christological and Pneumatological. He states, “Hence the ‘double polarity’ of the Church: it is the Temple of the Presence; it is the Body of Christ; it is the Bride of Christ – yet the Temple has still to be built together, the Body has still to be built up, the Bride has still become wholly one with her divine Bridegroom.”[31] Irenaeus also states, “For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.”[32] It is in this spirit that minimalism of the church ought to be examined, that the Church in all its essences continue to be built up and that the global church, a reality now compared to Irenaeus’ imagination, believe in unity, the same faith and Lord Jesus Christ.

    [1] Acts 1:8 (ESV)

    [2] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (Broadway: HarperCollins, 2010), 19.

    [3] González, 20.

    [4] Rom 11; 1 Cor 1:10-17; Eph 2:11-22.

    [5] González, 35.

    [6] Jeffrey Henning, “Ministry Today: Serving and empowering church leaders,” accessed November 14, 2017. https://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/ministry-today-archives/66-unorganized/720-the-growing-house-church-movement

    [7] Acts 2:46

    [8] Edward Adams, The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (New York: Bloomsbury, 2016), 198.

    [9] Ibid., 138.

    [10] Ibid.

    [11] Ibid., 143.

    [12] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, eds., and A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene fathers: The writings of the fathers down to A.D. 325 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 94.

    [13] Heb 10:24-25a.

    [14] Roberts, 186.

    [15] Acts 2:42, 45, 46a, 47a.

    [16] Roberts, 186.

    [17] J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church: A History of Its First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 57.

    [18] Ibid., 58.

    [19] A pun on extracurricular, meaning activities outside what ought to be essential to the church

    [20] Davies, 46.

    [21] Roberts, 90.

    [22] Ibid., 82.

    [23] David W. Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 155-157.

    [24] Mat 16:18.

    [25] Davies, 187.

    [26] 1 Tim 3:1-13.

    [27] Roberts, 18.

    [28] COEXIST is an image originally created by Piotr Mlodozeniec, made up of symbols of Judaism, Christianity and Islam

    [29] Peter Wagner, Strategies for Growth (Glendale: Regal, 1987), 168.

    [30] More exploration on the “free church” can be explored here: Everett Ferguson, The Early Church and Today Volume 1: Ministry, Initiation, and Worship (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2012), 15-32.

    [31] Davies, 54-55.

    [32] Roberts, 331.

  • Disrupting Christianity

    It almost feels heretical to write something along this line of thought. How can we disrupt Christianity? How can we innovate something that is sacred, holy, and religious? I ask myself, “Why not?”

    This thought of disrupting Christianity became a new theme recently as I was praying. When the words slipped from my mouth, I was at first shocked and surprised. But after praying over this more, it became apparent that this concept has been brewing for quite some time.

    Early Faith

    The early beginning of my faith, what I once thought was unique and special to me, I now realize is a common story for many—grow up in the church, have a falling away, then begin the search to come back. However, being the extreme person that I am, I can say that I’ve experienced the polar opposites of this story—i.e., deeply involved in religious activities as a young leader to becoming a self-proclaimed atheist.

    And the comeback story, which I believe is still writing itself out, has been quite a journey as well. Initially, the story started out as a simple search for meaning. Meaning encompassed many different areas of life such as developing professional career, relationships with family and close friends, social outreach, and religion. Although I had the Christian background and upbringing, I knew it was empty and dry, thus I reasoned to search the Bible with the desire to discover for myself what meaning of life could be hidden in this book, which at that time was nothing more than a book. And as time passed, every other facet of life faded away and the only thing that remained was reading the Bible.

    That’s when the pursuit after a “real faith” began to take shape, and I forced myself to unlearn everything that was taught to me, and began to learn like a new born what, or rather who, God is. I had to deconstruct every aspect of faith and religion, going as far back as, “Is there even a god?” And as the faith and relationship continued to grow, I began asking, “Is Jesus Christ real? Do I truly believe that his death and resurrection is real? What does that relationship even look like?”

    Career Development

    During this ongoing search and pursuit, my seemingly non-spiritual compartment of life developed from working for a medical communication company to a tech startup in the music and events industry. What could have easily been contributed to exploring my career, I now see how every stage was preparing me for this new chapter of life. At my time in the corporate institution, I had to jump through hurdles in questioning why certain processes were done, as antiquated as they seemed. There was a natural push to innovate and change, to stay ahead of the curve, to be relevant and profitable in our industry. And at the tech startup, I learned what innovation looked like on a mass scale, through the company I was assisting to build as well as being exposed to the vast networks of entrepreneurship. And that’s where there was this common theme of disrupting what we know, changing the way we work, to either improve and build upon existing structures or tear it all down and build something new. We now see the effect of this disruption and innovation in almost every vertical—retail, housing, entertainment, transportation, even the rigid medical field.

    God’s Artistry

    What I first thought as leaving behind one phase of my life, I now see God’s artistry in weaving these two seemingly different paths—the explorative, questioning, innovating mind with the sacred, holy, introspective aspect of faith. It is clearer than ever that I can’t leave this “phase” behind because that’s who I am: I explore. I question. I challenge. I ask why.

    In the recent past, it has been difficult to ask questions. Though people struggle with faith and their Christianity, it’s still a nicely packaged struggle. Perhaps this is just in my own circle of influence. But nonetheless, Christianity as I know uses a very similar language and jargon to talk about faith. The struggles almost seem rehearsed. It was almost heretical to ask, “Is Jesus’ resurrection real and if so, how does that affect me?” An impossible act in our human reality, yet something Christians just so easily accept and grasp. Or these days, there’s an abundance of talking about reformed theology and seems like it is a growing elite, the Harvard way of thinking about Christianity, because other schools of thought are just not “right”. But what exactly is this reformed thinking? Is it something that I truly believe, or am I just mirroring and parroting what other spiritual leaders do and say?

    I wonder what kind of struggles John Calvin and Martin Luther went through when they challenged the traditional way of thinking in the 16th century, what kind of praises or criticism they faced. And now seeing years later how much the leaders of that time have positively impacted the understanding of Christianity today, I wonder, with a healthy fear, what new ways of approaching and seeing this gospel, can help me and possibly help others grow? How can we begin to talk about Christianity in new ways, new perspectives, global contexts, relevant to the ever so changing cultures of our time now?

    To think that I can be the next John Calvin would be far-fetched, nor am I desiring to pursue this path just to create another branch off the course in the evolution of Christianity. However, if I can be a small part of God’s story to help further advance the kingdom in fresh, new ways, that’s something worth pursuing. That’s something that I want formal training in, to be able to approach the Bible, now developing as the Word of God, to really be able to glean wisdom in new and deeper ways. I want to be a part of and work together with global leaders, whether in harmony or in struggle, pushing the boundaries of disrupting what seems like antiquated ways of ministry and approaches to faith.

    I hope this time at Regent will help foster me grow to be a deeper man of faith, to have a greater intimacy with Jesus Christ, and a greater fear of the Lord. I’m excited for this next chapter in my journey, I’m excited how my love relationship with God will continue to unfold the story of my life. I’m excited how I can disrupt Christianity.