Exploding the myth of Christianity as a white religion

[jook]

Companions of Life
Philip Jenkins |

Be careful what you wish (or pray) for: you may get it. For some centuries, European and American Christians prayed fervently for the conversion of the wider world, especially in Africa and Asia, and many devoted their lives to achieving this end. And to an astonishing degree, they succeeded. During the 20th century alone, around 40 percent of the population of Africa converted from animism or primal religion to some variety of Christianity. Within a few decades, the African continent could be, in numerical terms, the center of world Christianity. Growth in Asia has also been impressive, while enthusiastic new forms of Christianity have blossomed in Latin America. Many denominations are discovering, to their surprise, that large numbers of their adherents, even majorities, no longer live in those areas that could once be claimed to represent the "Christian world."

At least by the 1970s, churches were acknowledging, at least in theory, that concepts of mission had to reflect these changing realities, that mission could no longer be seen as a blessing bestowed by Europeans and Americans upon those less fortunate dwellers beyond the pale. But for all the well-intentioned egalitarian talk of "mission in six continents," we still find people asking, semi-humorously, whether someday we might even find African or Asian missionaries coming to evangelize Europe and North America—as if such missionary efforts were not already widespread and thriving. As to the intellectual effects of the epochal southward movement of Christianity, no less a celebrity than Father Andrew Greeley opines that "We will depend on them for vitality, but they will continue to depend on us for the ideas." Uh-huh. I somehow doubt that the global South's contribution to theological inquiry will be confined to rhythmic dancing or hand-clapping.

In order to rethink mission, we Northerners must absorb a number of basic points. Primarily, we must appreciate the wider context in which we stand in relation to the wider Christian world. Already, we do not represent the norm within Christianity, whether in racial, social or economic terms, and we will over time be ever further marginalized. By 2050, white non-Hispanics could represent just 15 or 20 percent of the world's Christians. Following from that fact, the world's "average Christian" looks very different from the media stereotype. She or he is above all likely to be an extremely poor person by Western standards, with all that implies in terms of access to food, water, schooling, transportation, medical care, and a healthy environment. Nor, probably, does this ordinary believer live in a stable nation-state in which government is limited by the popular will, and where human rights receive more than lip service.

In terms of mission, that profile demands a reorientation of priorities. Of course, it is far too early to think of abandoning the basic task of proclamation, of introducing Christian faith and doctrine to new sections of the world. For all the brilliant successes of the past century, the gospel still remains unknown in much of the Muslim and Hindu worlds, in the celebrated 10-40 window, and where Christianity is known in those regions, its Western cultural associations often give it a radioactive taint. But having acknowledged this, we must also recognize how effectively and thoroughly the basic job of foundation-laying has already been done across so much of the world. It is impossible to travel in much of Africa without noticing the constant revivals, healing services, and prayer meetings. (A bemused Kenyan friend once asked me, "How do people find time to do any work?") Today, the primary obligation is not trying to make people Christians, but to help the Christians who are already there, and who are often living in dreadful circumstances.

Rather than thinking about how to carry the message, then, the churches of the Old Christendom must now undertake a rigorous self-assessment to determine just what "we" have that "they" still lack. High on the inventory, obviously, would be the incalculable material riches of the global North, as well as the technological brilliance that manifests itself in medicine, transportation, and communications. Europe and North America still also carry the ambiguous blessing of their immense political and military predominance, which could—if used judiciously—be used to defend Christian communities under assault, facing massacre or forced conversion.

Second, we should take account of the opportunities presented by globalization, and by global mass migration. A network of churches in the United States (say) might wish to make an impact in Central Africa or in South Asia. Rarely, though, do they begin by asking just what communities from those regions might be found on American soil, perhaps in the same cities in which the churches themselves operate. Any study of the historic spread of world religions suggests the importance of networks, of peer-to-peer evangelism within family or social groupings. Also critical are migrant groups, who often "catch" a religion on their travels, and then spread it back home: faith, like disease, can be studied through a kind of epidemiology. If one wishes to reach Guatemalans or Ghanaians, then approaching people of those origins within the United States is an excellent way to begin.

Nor, often, do "native" European or American religious groups have much awareness of the flourishing churches in their own cities that have roots in the global South. Africans pastor four of Britain's ten largest megachurches, and Nigerian-founded churches are springing up all over North America. A group such as the Redeemed Christian Church of God is rapidly becoming a truly global denomination. How many churches have taken advantage of the opportunities presented by such enthusiastic new neighbors, for instance by forming tactical alliances with immigrant congregations, and using such links to provide entrée to their home countries?

Third, if we are serious about "mission in six continents," we should look impartially at where we see the greatest need for a mission to introduce and reinforce the Christian faith. By any rational standard, is the need not greatest in Europe? The language of mission so often assumes the establishment of churches in new territories, in virgin soil. But perhaps the time has come to think rather of reconversion. Anyone familiar with Christian history has read accounts of the planting, growth and development of churches; but how many know accounts of the decline or extinction of Christian communities or institutions? Though the concept is unsettling, such events have certainly occurred, in North Africa in the early Middle Ages (in the first waves of Islamic conquest) and in much of the Near East in the first half of the 20th century. Most Muslims in modern North Africa and the Near East are the descendants of once-Christian families, and often of communities that retained their Christian loyalties for several centuries. Sometimes, the religious collapse is the direct result of persecution, but Christian churches also perish when societies change, and some new faith does a more effective job of identifying and serving the spiritual marketplace.

[jook]

Indeed, whatever the reasons, one of the most significant and least studied facts of Christian history is dechristianization, the destruction or removal of Christian beliefs and loyalties in a particular region. According to many observers, such a phenomenon is now under way in much of Europe, and we should pay close attention to the means by which churches are trying to rekindle the ancient flames before they gutter out entirely. Such endeavors would for example include the very successful Alpha Course, which derives from highly secular Great Britain, and the Thomas Mass, which has revitalized worship and liturgy in areas of Scandinavia. Perhaps we should be sufficiently modest to borrow from the practice of Muslims, who do not undertake mission ("sending out") but instead believe in da'wa, the call or invitation to faith, which is directed to nominal believers as well as outsiders.

Deciding what we must unlearn is a much more straightforward matter, and in fact there really are only three minor items on this "to forget" list, namely history, geography, and politics.

In terms of history, we must understand that the emerging shape of the Christian world is not a radical departure from normality but rather a resumption of older norms. It is a salutary exercise to rethink the familiar narrative that explains "how we got here." We all know the standard image of the Christian trajectory from Palestine into the Mediterranean, into Western Europe and then to North America: Westward the course of Salvation takes its way. And of course it did, but in the very same centuries, the faith also drove eastward and southward from the Holy Land. By the 13th century, there were probably more Christians in Asia than in Europe.

I think of the Chinese-born Rabban Bar Sauma, who appeared in European courts around 1290 as the ambassador of the Mongol emperor. European kings and bishops were amazed to find that this strange creature was a Christian bishop, who owed his loyalty not to a Roman Pope or a Byzantine Patriarch but to a Nestorian Katholikos residing in Baghdad. Europeans were shocked to discover that the Christian world stretched much further than they had ever dreamed, to the shores of the Pacific. Bar Sauma told them how "many of our Fathers have gone into the countries of the Mongols, and Turks, and Chinese and have taught them the Gospel, and at the present time there are many Mongols who are Christians." He, in turn, was surprised to find that Christianity was so well established in Europe, and was not just an Asian affair, as he had assumed. The Nestorian church, perhaps the greatest Christian missionary body in all history, operated equally comfortably in Syriac, Persian, Turkish, and Chinese. And don't even get me started on the 1,700-year story of the Ethiopian Church. Christianity is a religion born in Africa and Asia, and in our lifetimes, it is going home.

We should also rethink our view of geography. Familiar American visions of the world reinforce the notion of "mission" as literally a top-down phenomenon, flowing from the Christian North to the various hearts of darkness on or near the equator. Maps do much to shape our consciousness, and the great historian Fernand Braudel famously advised that if you wanted to shake up your preconceptions, to see connections you had never dreamed of hitherto, an excellent start is to turn your maps upside down. You can find globes that do place the global South at the top, and they offer a sobering reorientation of global reality. We also need to abandon our beloved Mercator projection, which so exaggerates the size and consequence of lands far from the Equator. (No, Greenland is not in fact anything like as vast as it appears, whereas Africa and Arabia are much, much bigger than Mercator makes them look.) Modern-day geographers advocate replacing Mercator with the Gall-Peters projection, which shows areas of equal size on the globe as also having equal size on the map. For mission studies, the newer projection does a wonderful job of highlighting both the world's largest and most populous regions, and focuses attention on the areas of most dramatic Christian growth. When colored to reflect ecological zones (jungles, deserts, steppes, and so on), such a world map also makes it easy to see at a glance the fault-lines between faiths, especially the contested Christian-Muslim borderland. You can really see the 10-40 window.

These geographical shifts also help us understand the emerging realities of mission. Over the past two centuries, Christian mission overwhelmingly did mean a movement from North to South. Today, though, so much of the story is South-South, and takes place between communities within Africa, Asia, and Latin America: we think of Brazilians in southern Africa, Nigerians in Asia, Koreans everywhere. And once again, Gall-Peters offers a fine visual perspective, presenting countries such as Nigeria, Brazil, and the Congo as what they are in reality, namely booming centers of the world's Christian population, and of mission.

And we should unlearn our politics. In any society, ideas tend to become associated with particular traditions, so that ideologies represent packages of themes and beliefs. Tell me an American's stance on gun control, and I will make a plausible bet about his views on abortion, or on granting POW status to terrorist suspects. Western Christians, too, take their beliefs not singly but in packages, and we know what is implied by umbrella terms like "liberal" and "conservative." Or to take other ideological labels, Americans know that liberation theology advocates social justice activism, and opposes unjust or exploitative political structures. At the opposite end of the spectrum we would expect to find charismatic believers in deliverance, who espouse spiritual warfare and confront the demonic or supernatural forces holding humanity in thrall. Politically, such believers would be presumed to be on the Right just as assuredly as liberation is on the Left.

All of which prepares us poorly for the world of the emerging Christian churches, which have rediscovered the basic semantic truth that liberation and deliverance are actually the same thing. To be credible, any presentation of the Christian message must offer the prospect of freedom from the oppressive forces of this world and the other worlds. We should not be startled when global South evangelicals are "conservative" about abortion or homosexuality but also demand forceful state intervention to fight poverty, even if that means regulating the free market. And we should not expect that newer churches will respect the walls that separate styles of worship and belief among Europeans and North Americans, between churches that are evangelical and catholic, liturgical and charismatic.

In short, Christians of European descent should learn that they are not necessarily the norm within the Christian tradition, still less the authentic core; nor, perhaps, have they ever been. And whether they like it or not, the rules will continue to change and evolve, because that is the nature of growth. This principle was well expressed by a Chinese scripture that so often parallels Christian insights, the Dao De Jing of Laozi:

A man is supple and weak when living, but hard and stiff when dead. Grass and trees are pliant and fragile when living but dried and shriveled when dead. Thus the hard and strong are the comrades of death; the supple and the weak are the comrades of life.
(Ch. 76, translated by D. C. Lau)

As the companions of life, of course newer churches remain flexible and bend our familiar dividing lines. Perhaps by observing how they do this, we can find our way back from a faith that has been, on occasion, too hard and strong to flourish.

Posted on March 21, 2007

[Scowl]

Hey jook, are you bluejives?

[jook]

Hey jook, are you bluejives?

Who's bluejives?

[kwak76]

man?!! can we get back on topic? this has been pretty interesting so far.

[Scowl]

Who's bluejives?

A Korean Christian forum member who talks a lot about the same things you do.

man?!! can we get back on topic? this has been pretty interesting so far.

Sure, let's.

What's your take on this, jook? I assume that you agree with the article, correct? I'm curious, though - is the line about "Exploding the myth of Christianity as a white religion" your line or the author's? How about you, kwak?

I still say that Christianity is a white religion. I don't think that white people being a minority in the Christian population (if that is indeed the case) makes it any less of a white religion.

[nskripchun]

Christianity is a religion born in Africa and Asia, and in our lifetimes, it is going home.

I look forward to the day that modern Christianity is finally stripped of the evils of Western colonialism and imperialism... the fact that Christianity's "center of mass" is moving toward Africa, Asian, and South America will no doubt speed the process.

[lycheng]

Interesting thread... perhaps a good analogy of the evolution of a religion is Buddhism. How long did it take for Buddhism to spread from India into East Asia and basically became more of an East Asian religion than an Indian religion?

I'm being overly simplistic of course, but I think its quite surprising how quickly East Asians adopted Buddhism and called it their own. I'm thinking, given the ethnocentrism of China, isn't surprising how thoroughly Buddhism spread in China.

Maybe I'm wrong as I'm not a Buddhist, Chinese Buddhism really doesn't pay homage to the India roots of the religion. I mean even the face of Buddha has been transformed into a Chinese looking one in China.

Could Christianity change in that way in the non-white world?

[kwak76]

I think so. I think as chrisitianity moves from the west to other parts of the world they may take an ownership type role to chrisitianity. Just like the article stress in the coming future you will have more South American's and non-white people who will follow the religion.

[atlasien]

I'm not really an expert on either Chinese history or Buddhism, but I have read the complete translation of Journey to the West (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_west), which is structured around going to India to get superior knowledge of Buddhism. In the book China is constantly referred to as benighted and ignorant in comparison with the purity of India.

I think the situation in China then was somewhat similar to Christianity in the Middle Ages... Europeans were ethnocentric, of course, but thought of the center of Christianity as being in the Middle East, not Europe. They centered their world maps on Jerusalem. The Europeans had an idealized vision of Jerusalem that had very little to do with reality... much like the Chinese Buddhist idealized vision of India.

I doubt Chinese Buddhists really felt a need to deny the Indian roots of Buddhism. And I think the explanation for the rapid spread into China is that Buddhists were aggressive as hell back then. They proselytized, sent out missionaries everywhere, worked on converting powerful rulers, and on occasion fought violently against other religions.

[nottyboy]

Could Christianity change in that way in the non-white world?

In different Latin American countries, at least in Catholicism, they have different representations of the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus, supposedly based on apparitions, or miracles, etc.

I know in at least one place in P.R., the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus are definitely black, and so are some of the patron saints of some towns. If I'm not mistaken, in Mexico, the Virgin of Guadalupe's appeareance is Native American (http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/guadalupe.html).

I don't know what all this means as far as whether the religion would change enough to not be considered culturally "White", but I suppose with enough time people could adapt any religion to their own flavor, their own needs, and worldview. To what extent they would change it is another question.

[Heli]

No matter how much the core moves around the globe, you can't really argue that where Christianity plants its roots, it displaces the local culture and replaces it with a culture that is essentially western-centric.

Example of some of the changes that come about when you adopt Christianity

1)
When it takes over your traditional religion, your spiritual leader shifts immediately from 20-30 miles to 3000 miles over in Italy where the pope lives if you are catholic.

2)
You have to build a church, and I have yet to see a church that doesn't exhibit signs of western architecture (granted its moot in this modern age where everything architecture is westernized).

3)
If you become a priest of a nun, you have to adopt westernized style of clothing. Because those orders are all based in Europe.

4)
Your sole primary source for the religion, the bible, comes from the perspective of a white man. Think about why I put this last.

There is no point in trying to take a non-westerncentric view of Christianity because it is inherently Western. And as such you must view it not as a religion but as a vector by which western civilization uses to displace or dominate other civilizations that it comes across.

[nskripchun]

No matter how much the core moves around the globe, you can't really argue that where Christianity plants its roots, it displaces the local culture and replaces it with a culture that is essentially western-centric.

Example of some of the changes that come about when you adopt Christianity

1)
When it takes over your traditional religion, your spiritual leader shifts immediately from 20-30 miles to 3000 miles over in Italy where the pope lives if you are catholic.

2)
You have to build a church, and I have yet to see a church that doesn't exhibit signs of western architecture (granted its moot in this modern age where everything architecture is westernized).

3)
If you become a priest of a nun, you have to adopt westernized style of clothing. Because those orders are all based in Europe.

4)
Your sole primary source for the religion, the bible, comes from the perspective of a white man. Think about why I put this last.

There is no point in trying to take a non-westerncentric view of Christianity because it is inherently Western. And as such you must view it not as a religion but as a vector by which western civilization uses to displace or dominate other civilizations that it comes across.

1 and 3 only really apply if you're Catholic. The Pope is an important figure for Catholic Christians, but he's not very relevant if you're not Catholic... though granted, Catholic Christians are still a significant part of modern Christianity. Same thing for the monastic orders of the Catholic faith, who actually occupy only a small percentage of the total Catholic population. Surprise! Living as a monk, nun, or priest isn't very popular for most Westerners... a recent article (don't remember the exact source at the moment) on trends in the Catholic Church showed that a growing proportion of new priests are actually Asian (predominantly Vietnamese and Filipino) and Latino.

In regards to 2 - you haven't traveled around a lot, then. ;) I've seen churches started in someone's house, out in the park, in old warehouses, etc. Ancient Christian churches such as those of the Coptic faith in Egypt also have a decidedly un-Western feel and pre-date most European ones.

4 - I'm not sure what you're referring to here... maybe the English translation of the Bible? The predominant original writers of the Bible weren't white - they were the Hebrew peoples who spoke mostly Hebrew (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament), though there is speculation some parts of the New Testament were written originally also in Hebrew or Aramaic.

[minbo]

To no small degree, the power structure of a religion influences how long a religion will retain an imprinting of ethnic and cultural identity. Catholicism, with the power structure centered in Rome, having only in the past two Popes had a leader who was not Italian, is decidedly a "European" flavour. Anglicism and Eastern Orthodox with their decentralized power structure are less "European" than Catholicism. Islam does not have a distinct power structure which allows it to change and be interpreted more freely, but due to it's text firmly anchoring the core of the religious experience upon holy places within the Mid East, will retain a very "Mid Eastern" feel.

Buddhism lost it's "Indian" identity because the command structure for the religion didn't anchor itself in India, and there was no special reverence placed upon any physical location required of anyone to make a pilgrimage, so each region was able to assimilate and adapt it to their own culture and thus make it less "Indian". Tibetan Buddhism is very "Tibetan" and will be as long as the command structure is dominated by Tibetan lamas. Japanese and Chinese Buddhism with a different power structure, if adopted by other cultures will be assimilated into the new culture much faster than Tibetan Buddhism.

[jook]

I look forward to the day that modern Christianity is finally stripped of the evils of Western colonialism and imperialism... the fact that Christianity's "center of mass" is moving toward Africa, Asian, and South America will no doubt speed the process.

There were many things done in the name of God by human beings.

European colonialism and imperialism was one. African-American struggle for equality and civil rights is another. Which is it then? Is Christianity schizophrenic, or does oppression have more to do with the fallen, sinful human nature?

Meanwhile the gospel itself says things like the "meek and humble shall inherit the earth", "the last shall be the first and the first shall be the last", and "lion will coexist peacefully with the lamb".

If the argument of "it being a white people's religion, philosophy, invention" is a valid critique, then we should all be prepared to reject capitalism, vast portions of science, democracy, etc.

Let us not also not forget that outside of Joseph and Mary, three wise men of the East were the first to pay homage to baby Jesus. There are vast untold areas of early church history. To say that "Christianity is a white religion" is to fall into the very trap of Euro-centricity that one may purport to be against.

[Scowl]

European colonialism and imperialism was one. African-American struggle for equality and civil rights is another. Which is it then? Is Christianity schizophrenic, or does oppression have more to do with the fallen, sinful human nature?

Sure, oppression isn't specific to religion, but Christianity still bears the taint of its role in colonialism and imperialism. Just as white people still benefit to this day from ownership of slaves in the distant past, so too does Christianity still carry the weight of its own history. It can't be divided as easily as Christianity good, people bad, because those bad people were responsible for spreading and interpreting the faith, and creating the institution of power that now exists.

We all know how often Christianity has been twisted to suit the purposes of people, but with all the twisting that has happened over the last two thousand years, what do we have that remains pure and true?

If the argument of "it being a white people's religion, philosophy, invention" is a valid critique, then we should all be prepared to reject capitalism, vast portions of science, democracy, etc.

The problem with this argument is that the practical necessity of these other things is not up for debate. Of course you could argue that Christianity is a practical necessity, but that is very much open for debate unless you are Christian.

To say that "Christianity is a white religion" is to fall into the very trap of Euro-centricity that one may purport to be against.

Again, you are using the argument of Christianity as an independent entity that is for everyone. You cannot separate Christianity from Europe's depravations on the world. One day, maybe, but not in our lifetime.

You know, I honestly do believe that the faith started out as pure, and that truth can still be found within it. However, what we have today is an institution of power dedicated to preserving its power like any government or any other system of control. My problem is with the institution and the church rather than the faith itself, but at the same time I understand that much of modern Christianity serves that institution.

Faith in God? I can dig that. Living a good life and loving your fellow man? That's cool, too. Nothing wrong with prayer, either. You don't need an institution, a church, or a book for those things. You do need such things to expand, convert, conquer, and subjugate.

[Heli]

1 and 3 only really apply if you're Catholic. The Pope is an important figure for Catholic Christians, but he's not very relevant if you're not Catholic... though granted, Catholic Christians are still a significant part of modern Christianity. Same thing for the monastic orders of the Catholic faith, who actually occupy only a small percentage of the total Catholic population. Surprise! Living as a monk, nun, or priest isn't very popular for most Westerners... a recent article (don't remember the exact source at the moment) on trends in the Catholic Church showed that a growing proportion of new priests are actually Asian (predominantly Vietnamese and Filipino) and Latino.

In regards to 2 - you haven't traveled around a lot, then. ;) I've seen churches started in someone's house, out in the park, in old warehouses, etc. Ancient Christian churches such as those of the Coptic faith in Egypt also have a decidedly un-Western feel and pre-date most European ones.

4 - I'm not sure what you're referring to here... maybe the English translation of the Bible? The predominant original writers of the Bible weren't white - they were the Hebrew peoples who spoke mostly Hebrew (Old Testament) and Koine Greek (New Testament), though there is speculation some parts of the New Testament were written originally also in Hebrew or Aramaic.

1)Your first point speaks for itself and I see no reason to add anything it.

2)Your second point:
I am not sure what you are going for. It is true that you can all any building a cathedral in a functional sense. But I hope you see that the argument is moot, as most people think of churches and cathedrals in the western sense.

Of course we can always hope that as the core of Christianity shifts, the perception of what a church should look architecturally would change. But in my opinion it would not. Because a church is a functional structure, and its architecture reflects its purpose, as a place where rituals and sermons are performed.

This actually brings me to the fourth point. I don't distinguish between Jews, Middle East or Whites when discussing Christianity because the key point here is that Asians were not involved in the construction of this religion.
The rituals, sermons and primary sources ( if you believe god exists ) came from non-Asians. Therefore when you become a priest, build a church or reading from a Bible, you are and always will be acting with reference to the perspective of a non-Asian. I only use the term white man only to sharpen my point that Christianity as it is transmitted to Asians came mostly from former colonial powers.

[atlasien]

I saw a big religious festival in the main square of a heavily indigenous Peruvian town in the Andes. The festival had lots of enormous papier mache floats. The largest represented St. James. St. James is known as Santiago Matamoros in Spain. Matamoros means "Moor-Killer". He was the patron saint of the Reconquista. He is often depicted on a horse with a sword in the act of slaughtering a prostrate Moor (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=santiago%20matamoros). The conquistadors who brought down the Incan empire were also very fond of Santiago.

The float in Peru depicted the Moor as a black guy. So what I saw was a 20-foot white man on a white horse about to crush and kill a black man, all surrounded by worshipful brown men.

I don't have a position on whether Christianity is irredeemably colonialist, I just wanted to mention that that float was one of the most racially disturbing things I've ever seen.

[Heli]

There were many things done in the name of God by human beings. European colonialism and imperialism was one. African-American struggle for equality and civil rights is another. Which is it then? Is Christianity schizophrenic, or does oppression have more to do with the fallen, sinful human nature?

I have no problems with sinful human nature. But what I am saying is one culture is trying to get another culture to adopt its perspective on explaining sinful human nature.

For instance, I am Chinese, and the traditional belief of Chinese people relating to sin is that there will always be retribution. If you commit murder, the victim's ghost will come and haunt you while you are alive until you are driven insane.

Now say I starting believing in Christianity, suddenly the concept of sin changes. If I commit murder, the victim either goes to heaven or hell, but he will not come and haunt me. Instead, God will deal with me and send me to hell when I die. Unless of course I repent, then I might not have to go to hell.

But you can't believe in both. So in many cases a culture's traditional beliefs (in this case sinful behavior) are supplanted by Christianity.


If the argument of "it being a white people's religion, philosophy, invention" is a valid critique, then we should all be prepared to reject capitalism, vast portions of science, democracy, etc.


I don't know about other Asian countries, but Capitalism have been practiced for centuries in China. Western civilization simply gave it a name.

I think part of being Chinese is about sacrificing individual rights for the family structure, so I do reject democracy as it is described in the western sense as it puts no emphasis on family structure.

True science is the discussion of the physical world and thus there really is no concrete basis for an argument over which culture's perspective is correct.
An observation that a rock falling to the ground is just as valid as an observation that the earth is pulling the rock down.

The problem with Asians adopting Christianity as their religion is thus ( provided God does exist )

You have a primary source that has a decidedly non-Asian origin.

All of the main figures of worship are decidedly non-Asian.

All of the rituals described are of decidedly non-Asian origin.

All this is very important because Christianity has decidedly Non-ambiguous and greatly emphasized power structure.

It is interesting that you brought up science because the paradox with Christians is that it is self-evident to them that the Christian God exist. In such cases, there is no concrete argument against Christianity because his existence is fundamental and it is a unfortunate thing the only primary source for his religion is the western Bible but it cannot be helped.

I think that is why the first thing Christians do when they try to convert people is to convince them that God exists.

Let us not also not forget that outside of Joseph and Mary, three wise men of the East were the first to pay homage to baby Jesus. There are vast untold areas of early church history. To say that "Christianity is a white religion" is to fall into the very trap of Euro-centricity that one may purport to be against.

I think by East they meant Asia minor, which is in the middle east.....

[nskripchun]

You know, I honestly do believe that the faith started out as pure, and that truth can still be found within it. However, what we have today is an institution of power dedicated to preserving its power like any government or any other system of control. My problem is with the institution and the church rather than the faith itself, but at the same time I understand that much of modern Christianity serves that institution.

Faith in God? I can dig that. Living a good life and loving your fellow man? That's cool, too. Nothing wrong with prayer, either. You don't need an institution, a church, or a book for those things. You do need such things to expand, convert, conquer, and subjugate.

These are good points, Scowl... so would it be a correct interpretation to say that you're more opposed to organized Christianity versus unorganized Christianity?

[nskripchun]

The problem with Asians adopting Christianity as their religion is thus ( provided God does exist )

You have a primary source that has a decidedly non-Asian origin.

All of the main figures of worship are decidedly non-Asian.

All of the rituals described are of decidedly non-Asian origin.

All this is very important because Christianity has decidedly Non-ambiguous and greatly emphasized power structure.


So I take it, you don't consider the Middle East to be Asian? And along the lines of your thinking, do you also oppose Asians being Jewish or Muslim (since both faiths also originate from the ME)?

Just asking some questions for clarifications as to your viewpoints.

[Scowl]

These are good points, Scowl... so would it be a correct interpretation to say that you're more opposed to organized Christianity versus unorganized Christianity?

I would say organized religion in general, not just Christianity. Although I don't know if I would say that I'm necessarily opposed to organized religion; however, in it I do see a strong tendency towards corruption in the spiritual sense as well as monetary.

That, and pretty much what the preacher you quoted on that other thread said.

[Heli]

So I take it, you don't consider the Middle East to be Asian? And along the lines of your thinking, do you also oppose Asians being Jewish or Muslim (since both faiths also originate from the ME)?

Just asking some questions for clarifications as to your viewpoints.

When I speak of Asian I mean culturally not racially. So yes Asian cultures are distinctly different from Middle Eastern cultures.

I don't oppose Asians becoming Muslims and Jewish because there really isn't that many of them. On the other hand, the amounts of recent Asian converts to Christianity have been staggering.

1 out of every 5 Koreans is now a Christian. In South Korea you are more likely to be a Christian now then you are likely to be a Buddhist.

3 percent of the Chinese population is now Christian but as the government relaxes its grip on religious freedom and continues to engage in free market policies we shall no doubt see a sharp increase in the number of Christians.

Japan seems to have the best record at 0.8 percent. I am curious as to why Japan has been able to resist Christianity despite being exposed to it for over half a millennium. Japan today is still strong Buddhist/Shinto.

In the US, however, almost half of all Japanese people are Christians.

You might wonder why I consider a culture's religion to be so important. It is because people are often very uncritical and yet serious about their religion. They are willing to make a lot changes for their religion, especially culturally that puts the traditional culture in a hugely disadvantageous position.

[minbo]

If you are curious as to why Japan has resisted Christianity even though they have been exposed to it for half a millennium then you really need to read up about Japanese history. The whole late Tokugawa Shogunate isolationism thing and gunboat Perry. You might also what to see what structure the Atomic bomb exploded over (500 meters south of actually) in Nagasaki Not exactly the best way to win converts.

As for not that many Asians are Muslim, what about Indonesia, the most populous Muslim majority country in the world?

As for Judaism, it's a little harder to convert to get into that club...

[Fossil]

Might point out the world oldest Christian county is not in Europe but Africa.
Ethiopia was Christian way before any of the present countries in Europe even existed . And you have to respect the Ethiopians as they where able to fight off attempts by Arab, English and Italy to conquer them , only losing when Italy used tanks and poison gas in 1935