The New Faces of Christianity

TL:DR – Hey, Philip Jenkins, your conservative bias is showing.

I had to read this for a seminary course and interact briefly with each chapter. So here is what I wrote:

Chapter 1: What stood out to me in this chapter was that Jenkins' seemed to be praising the “conservative themes” running through African and Asian Christianity: “These include a much greater respect for the authority of scripture, especially in matters of morality; a willingness to accept the Bible as an inspired text and a tendency to literalism; a special interest in supernatural elements of scripture, such as miracles, visions, and healings; a belief in the continuing power of prophecy; and a veneration for the Old Testament, which is considered as authoritative as the New” (4). And Jenkins seems to be dismissive of “liberals” who would take issue with that kind of literalism when he writes, “Liberals might indeed discern all the elements of that unholy trinity identified by Peter Gomes—bibliolatry, culturism, and literalism—a religion of the letter rather than the Spirit, one that worships the text rather than God” (10). But I think I would fall into the so-called “liberal” camp here because I am extremely wary of bibliolatry and literalism at this point.

Chapter 2: I do like the emphasis on hearing scripture read aloud in a communal setting and not being relegated to a private, individual task all of the time. (page 25)

Chapter 3: There was an interesting example about people in Uganda who loved the story of Solomon and all of his wives pushing back on what the missionaries were telling them about polygamy being wrong. The people said “didn't you tell me everything in the Bible was true?” and then the missionary had to explain “that words in the Bible, while all true and divinely inspired, are true to varying degrees” (Jenkins, 42). But I agree that we have to understand that “true” doesn't always mean “fact”. So we have to dig deep into what do we mean by “Is the Bible true?” We cannot and should not put the Old Testament on the same level as the New Testament. Doing so contributes to a flat reading of the text that is not helpful, at best, and leads to really bad theology, at worst.

Chapter 4: I think this is an important takeaway from this chapter: “What the North reads in moral or individualistic terms remains for the South social and communal. (79). I think those of us in North America could learn a great deal and be impacted a great deal from learning how to think and read the Bible in less individualistic ways and move towards more communal ways of living and understanding the Bible.

Chapter 5: I think there can be a tendency for some people to see the work of Satan where it's just sinful people or it's just a natural disaster that may or may not be the result of the way we humans have treated our planet. An example is given about the tsunami in 2004. The leader of one Nigerian independent church said: “the Holy Bible shows that Satan is responsible for the troubles that afflict the world” (99). But I just don't think I buy that explanation.

Chapter 6: I liked the commentary on applying Psalm 23 – “Global South Christians use Psalm 23 in familiar devotional ways, but they also understand it as a stark rejection of unjust secular authority” (127).

Chapter 7: I feel very strongly about women's rights and women's equality. I was raised in the conservative Christian Church (Restoration Movement) where women were not allowed to preach/teach/lead men. I wrestled with that teaching and pushed back against it until I finally came to understand that it was NOT, in fact, the only way to interpret those key passages in the New Testament. So when I read about how in the global South, women are still viewed as objects or possessions with no rights, it infuriates me. And I am glad that Christianity is actually opening the door to giving them freedom and power to speak up: “It is especially from the texts dealing with women that readers discover the full radicalism of the Christian message” (177).

Chapter 8: I'm really tired of seeing/hearing people, including Jenkins, use “liberal” and “liberalism” as a negative descriptor: “The contrast seems worrying: new orthodox churches hew to authentic scripture; old churches fall prey to liberalism and succumb to fiction and speculation” (186). Part of the problem with tossing around the word “liberal” and “liberalism” comes down to defining our terms. Is someone a liberal Christian if they don't believe the worldwide flood actually happened? What if they don't believe God really told the Israelites to commit genocide, or that the battle of Jericho might not have actually happened the way it is recorded in the Old Testament? These things come down to different interpretations of scripture and I would argue that this does not equate someone not being faithful to God's word.