|
Contents' List for 1996  Index for 1997
 It's hard to predict precisely where we'll be heading in 1997 with HeRD. I don't look for any changes in format, and the schedule of "three months on, one month off" seems to work well for me. Beginning tomorrow, Philip Hughes will provide us with several HeRDs. After that, we'll continue our comparison of the early church's experience with that of the Thai church for some time. I'll soon begin preparation for the two semester course in Thai church history that I'm scheduled to teach at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology in the coming academic year. That should take us past several new "niches" in Thai church history, including the history of Thai Catholicism. The Office of History is starting up two new major research projects, one among the Karen and another with a cluster of churches in Uttaradit Province. By year's end we should be having research results to reflect on from those two projects. I think you'll find more input from the social sciences throughout the year, as we try to mold social science research approaches into our historical approach. Other topics of interest will come up, I'm sure. As always, I welcome and treasure your participation in the form of critical comments, reflections, questions, and suggestions for new directions in thinking. With Best Wishes for '97, Herb.
Dr. Philip Hughes contributes the next seven HeRDs. Philip is a member of the Christian Research Associates, a church-oriented research group based in Melbourne. He visited Chiang Mai in August-September 1996 and helped me teach two research courses at McGilvary Faculty of Theology. The following HeRDs are based on a small research project he conducted with the students in one of those courses. You'll find them interesting and revealing. My thanks to Philip for his contribution.
What follows are Philip's own HeRDs, but I should mention that they have been edited somewhat.
In September 1996, I took a few sessions with seminary students at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology in research methods. We took, as our focus, the topic of evangelism. The first part of the process was to make some general observations, think about the relevant literature, and then develop some ideas that we might test. From there, the students assisted in developing a questionnaire which was circulated to seminary students asking about their own experiences of becoming Christian and those factors that have been helpful or problematic in being a Christian. Questionnaires were collected from about half the seminary students -- not a good sample, but sufficient for the purpose of learning something about research methods.
One of the questions asked about the various barriers to becoming, or remaining, a Christian in Thailand. We put before the seminary students ten possible barriers and asked them to rate how significant each of one had been for them. The most significant barrier among the students was the fact that Christianity was 'not Thai'. Thirteen percent of the students said that it was the most significant barrier for them. Another 45 percent indicated that it was a very significant barrier. Thus, nearly two-thirds of all the students expressed considerable concern. It is also interesting that although this issue was mentioned by both students who had grown up in Christian families and by those who had grown up in Buddhist families, it was considerably more significant among those who had been Buddhists of whom 100 percent rated it as a significant or very significant barrier to them. The fact that 'Christianity' was Western, or might be seen that way in Thailand, was not such a problem. Some of the students suggested that this was because the seminary students knew that Christianity was not, in fact, originally Western. It was interesting that problems of opposition from family and friends, or problems with the nature of Christian belief itself were not nearly as significant as barriers as the fact Christianity was 'not Thai'.
If this result is indicative of Thai people generally, it means that one focus for Thai Christian apologetics should be to deal with this issue of the alien nature of Christianity. Indeed, it may be something that every part of the church needs to address: in forms of worship, in patterns of faith, in processes of administration. The incarnational principle is deeply rooted in the Christian tradition: that God comes to us in human form, and within specific cultural contexts. Paul put it this way: we should be all things to all people, in order that we might win some!
In the last HeRD, I gave account of a small questionnaire filled in by seminary students at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology in Chiang Mai in September 1996. The sample was small, and in terms of looking at the church in northern Thailand, hardly representative. However, some of the results were quite suggestive, and worth investigating further.
The major barrier to belief for the seminary students was the fact that Christianity was seen as not being 'Thai'. However, another significant barrier for many of the students was that they were aware of many people who claimed to be Christian setting bad examples, or not showing Christian love. Forty-five percent of all students said that this was a very significant or the most significant barrier for them. The problem was not quite as great among the students who had grown up in Buddhist families as it was among those from Christian families. Buddhist families would not be so aware, perhaps, of Christians "setting a bad example". However, with a small sample of students from Buddhist families, the differences were not statistically significant.
The problem of bad examples was given a higher rating among younger students than among older ones. Perhaps, older students, with their wider experience of life, were more accepting of people who did not live up to the standards expected of them. This barrier to belief was rated considerably higher than issues of the nature of Christian belief itself, or opposition from family or friends. It is another reminder that in the processes of evangelism, the example of Christians remains a very significant influence.
The last two HeRDs have been about a questionnaire completed by McGilvary Seminary students in September 1996. One of the questions looked at the barriers to Christian belief in the experience of the students. Another significant barrier, following the fact that Christianity was seen as 'not Thai' and awareness of people who had not been 'good examples', was opposition from friends. This was more important than opposition from family. Two percent of the students said that this had been the most significant barrier, and another 36 percent said it was very significant as a barrier.
Another question asked about the influences on the students in becoming Christian or developing a life of faith. The most widely affirmed influence among the seminary students were personal experiences of God's love. Among the wide range of other experiences to which they pointed were 'friends. Twenty-four per cent of the students said friends were the most significant influence on them becoming Christian or remaining Christian, and another 68 per cent said friends were very significant. One hundred per cent of those students who had grown up in Buddhist families rated 'friends' as a very important or the most important influence, compared with 66 percent of those who had grown up in Christian families. 'Friends' is a major factor in people becoming Christian in northern Thailand -- both positively and negatively. If people find opposition from their friends to becoming Christian, they are far less likely to do so. On the other hand, friendship can be a very positive influence in bringing people into the Christian faith. One of the students recounted in class her own experience. She had grown up in a Buddhist family. One of her friends had a major part in her becoming a Christian. On the other hand, after conversion she lost many of her former friends.
Effective evangelism is not just a matter of teaching about faith. Forming and developing Christian community in which people can build positive friendships is a very important factor. In Australia, my church developed a student accommodation scheme for rural students studying in the city. We find that most of the students form strong friendships with the other students in the four houses we operate. We work hard to maintain a Christian ethos in the scheme. I have seen many students come into the church through that scheme. It has been the most effective evangelistic program the church has had, certainly within the last twelve years. Providing the opportunity and encouragement for the development of appropriate friendships has been the key.
In the last HeRD, we saw that in the survey taken among seminary students, 'friendship' was noted as both a positive and a negative influence in people becoming Christians. We also observed that of 15 items suggested to students as influences on being a Christian, the most important was experiences of God's love. Personal experience appeared in several other parts of the survey. For example, 38 per cent of the students said that an experience in which they had been healed had been the most important influence on them becoming or remaining Christians. Another 23 per cent indicated that the experience of seeing someone else healed had been the most important influence on them. Between 75 and 80 per cent of the students said that experiences of healing were either the 'most important' or 'very important' among the influences on them.
Thai people want to see 'evidence' of the power of God. There is a widespread interest in miracles for a similar reason. They expect God to work in ways which will be evident. Thirty-eight percent of the students said they had an experience of something miraculous happening to them, such as being healed in a way they did not expect, several times. Another 25 per cent of students said it had happened to them once. 34 per cent of students said it had not happened to them.
I believe that a similar interest has grown in Australia, and is part of the reason for the success of the Pentecostal churches. The Pentecostal churches expect miracles and point to them. Twenty-five years ago claims of miracles were often considered to be a barrier to faith, or even an embarrassment. Many theologians and Biblical teachers sought to explain away miracles. But the tide has swung. Even outside the church, there is a widespread interest in para-normal phenomena of all types. Miracles are no longer problematic for many younger people. They want to see, and expect to see, God at work. It is indicative of some very substantial changes in the ways in which people view the world.
In the survey conducted in September 1996 that we've been discussing, seminary students at McGilvary Faculty of Theology indicated that experiences of God's love definitely had the greatest influence on them becoming or remaining Christians. The second most important influence was 'worship', followed by 'Sunday School'. Forty percent of the students said that 'Sunday School' was the most important influence on them, and 36 percent said that 'worship' was. For students who had grown up in a Buddhist background, Sunday School was not so important, although 50 percent of these students still said it was 'the most important' or 'very important' influence on them. Two-thirds of those who had grown up as Buddhists indicated that worship was 'the most important' or 'very important' for them.
It was very interesting that, in comparison, other explicitly evangelistic programs, such as activities in school, or crusades, had little impact. Seventeen percent of students said crusades were the 'most important' influence and 13 percent said 'school' was. Out of a total of 15 influences put before the students in the questionnaire, crusades came in at number 12, and school at number 13 in comparison with other influences. This is despite the fact that school, university, and city-wide crusades are frequently organised by the Thai church. The students were more conscious of the continuing impact of church life, of worship, Sunday School, and Bible studies.
Single events, such as crusades, did not seem to have much importance in their own right. While some denominations place a great deal of emphasis on special 'once in a life-time' conversion experiences, such experiences do not appear to have the same meaning in Thailand. When the students were asked if there had ever been a special time when they had committed their lives to Christ, 68 percent said they had done so several times, 19 percent once, and 13 percent never but had grown gradually in the faith. These results suggest that commitment often is seen as part of the process of deepening one's spiritual life rather than the idea often associated with repentance of 'turning right around'.
Nor is it those events which seek people to 'turn right around' that have the most impact. Rather, greater influence comes from weekly worship, Sunday School and Bible studies, and becoming part of a Christian community. It would be most interesting to know how many people make a commitment at a crusade, but fail to take faith any further. Every person needs on-going support in faith, not least the person who has just made a commitment of faith. The friend who draws another person into the on-going life of the church is probably more successful evangelistically than the large crusade.
In the survey conducted among McGilvary Seminary students in September 1996, one of the most strongly affirmed influences on faith was that of the parents. Seventy percent of the students said that their mothers were the 'most important' influence on their becoming or remaining Christian; and another 17 percent said their mothers were 'very important'. 60 percent claimed that their fathers were 'most important', while another 13 percent said their fathers were 'very important'. The influence of parents was second only to that of the personal experiences of God's love and to the life of the church in worship and Sunday School.
Interestingly, parents were also important among the few students who had grown up as Buddhists and had converted to Christianity. One hundred percent of the students who had been Buddhist said their mothers were very important or the most important influences, and 75 percent of students previously Buddhist said their fathers were most or very important. There are several interpretations we can give to this response. One is that many students became Christian because their parents did so. When they were young, their parents were also Buddhists. The family converted as a family. Another possibility is that parents were seen as influential, perhaps encouraging the children to explore the Christian faith even while remaining Buddhist themselves. A third possibility is that parents converted to Christianity following their children, and thus became a source of encouragement.
Whatever the interpretation, these results confirm that parents do have a great deal of influence on their children. While, in Western countries, it is common for children to go through a time rebellion and develop values and attitudes which are deliberately opposed to those of their parents, they often return to the values and attitudes of their parents in later years. I have recently examined some data collected from a sample of the Australian population in 1993. I was looking particularly at the influences of having been to a Catholic school - at least, the correlations with attendance at Catholic schools. There was a weak but significant correlation between having had one's education at a Catholic school and church attendance (of about .17). However, there were much higher correlations with the parents' patterns of attendance at school and those of their children. Regression analysis showed that when one controlled for parents' behaviour, the independent influence on church attendance of the Catholic school disappeared altogether.
Of all Australian adults 17.2% attended a Catholic primary school, and of those who went to secondary school, 16.7% attended a Catholic secondary school, according to the National Social Science Survey of 1993. About half of all Australian Catholics send their children to Catholic schools, but so also do many non-Catholics. They prize the educational standards, the discipline, and other aspects of Catholic schools, in comparison with many State schools. There are also many non-Catholics who send their children to Catholic schools.
In a simple comparison of the numbers of students who complete year 12 of schooling, the Catholic schools appear to do considerably better than other schools. On average, for the whole population, 42% of students who went to Catholic schools completed year 12 compared with 27% of the population. Even when one takes into account the more intellectual orientation of parents sending their children to Catholic schools, the affects of the schools themselves remain substantial. Controlling for the orientation and background of the parents, still 38% of children attending complete year 12 compared with 27% in the population as a whole.
Catholic schools were established not only to provide a good education in a general sense, but to pass on the Catholic faith to children. The National Social Science Survey allows us to look at this in several ways. We can compare, for example, the church attendance of those who attended Catholic schools to those who did not. We find that those who attended Catholic schools, on average, attend church more frequently than those who did not. While, on average, Australians attend about once or twice a year, those who attended a Catholic school attend more than several times a year. Almost 13% of the variance in church attendance is explained in terms the mother's attendance when the person was growing up. The father's attendance adds a little to the explanation, accounting for a total of 14.6%. The person's own attendance as a child also explains a little of the variation: a total of 15.2%, and attending a Catholic secondary school makes it 15.6%. Having been a student at a Catholic secondary school does have a very small, but statistically significant (at better than .005 level) independent relationship to church attendance as an adult. However, the independent relationship is very small compared with that with the parent's involvement.
The results are similar in relation to belief in God. There is a correlation of .16 between how sure people are in their belief in God and attending a Catholic school. Again, however, most of that relationship can be explained in terms of the fact that the parents with stronger religious practices, and presumably beliefs, were more likely to send their children to Catholic schools. The school is one of several significant influences on the attitudes and opinions of students about religious matters. Alone, it's influence is very limited. Yet, perhaps without it, parents and the parish would also find it more difficult to have a positive influence in the affirmation of Christian faith and practice among their children.
This brings us to the end of Philip's HeRDs, and I'd like to once again express my thanks to him for taking the time to share them with "the HeRD."
There is some question about just when early CHURCH history begins. Some scholars will begin with Jesus himself while others argue that Jesus and his disciples were in no sense the "church" as such. They didn't constitute the organizational embodiment of a separate religion. They were Jews and all understood themselves to be involved in the reformation of Judaism rather than the founding of a new religion. They formed a "Jesus Movement" [see HeRD #139] but they weren't the church. Other scholars propose other starting points, of which Pentecost seems to be the most popular.
At first glance, it would seem that we don't have this problem in Thai church history...or, do we? When did the identifiably "Thai church" begin? The answer is not so obvious as it should be when we consider that the very earliest church in Thailand--founded by the Baptists in 1837--was composed entirely of Chinese immigrants and missionary families. The second congregation--founded by the Presbyterians in 1847--had only missionary families and one Chinese immigrant in it for a number of years. The first ethnic Thai member didn't join until 1860. In Chiang Mai, the "First Presbyterian Church of Cheung Mai" was founded in April 1868 with only two members, Sophia McGilvary and Maria Wilson. The first northern Thai member of the church didn't join until January 1869. So, when then does Thai church history begin? When the missionaries founded formal churches in Thailand? When the first ethnic Thais joined?
In the case of Chiang Mai, there's still another possibility I'd like to propose. The first northern Thai women members of the Chiang Mai church didn't join until 1876. It was only then that the church ceased to be a "native" male and missionary organization and took on a true family and communal life. If we define the church as a "community", First Church only became viable when it included women. Worth a thought.
Jurgen Becker, in an article published in the book CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS, puzzles over Paul's early life and esp. the impact of his Jewish religious training on his later thinking. Becker believes that Paul's Christian thinking bore the marks of that earlier training. He writes, "...Paul still carries Judaism within him as a LATENT PERSONAL CONVICTION that has been replaced but is still present." (emphasis added). Becker specifies Paul's "uncompromising monotheism" as an example. Like all Jews of his day and background, Paul insisted that the gods of other religions were "demons or nothing at all." Becker goes on to note, however, that Paul also moved in new directions that were not implicit in his former religion. He rejected, for example, the Levitical purity laws that comprised a significant barrier to Jewish relations with the "outside" world. This led Paul to a more open attitude about people of other cultures, if not about people of other religions.
This brief rendering of Becker's longer analysis points to that interesting issue that we keep dancing around in HeRD--the relationship of Buddhist culture to the Thai church. Many of the earlier generation of church leaders were converts who had more or less formal religious training. Did their background plant in them a "latent personal conviction" that remained embedded in their new faith? My intuition and personal experience in Thailand assures me that such is the case. The missionary literature also contends that Buddhism and animism continued to influence the converts. Usually the missionaries lamented that influence, but on occasion they noted that earlier Buddhist religious training made church leaders more effective evangelists than the missionaries themselves. The converts could communicate in the language and idiom of the people while the missionaries couldn't.
What we do not have is a clear map of the relationship of Thai Christian thinking to Buddhist and animistic thought. How do these latent personal convictions manifest themselves among Thai Christians? Just how "latent" are they? Do they comprise a distinctive "Thai" approach (or approaches) to Christian faith? In what ways? In what ways are they cultural "baggage" that hinders the appropriation of the "new faith"? In what ways are they doors to new ways of looking at the "old faith" brought from other countries and cultures? These questions are, obviously, highly complex...and fascinating. Any thoughts?
Early Asian church history may not be directly related to Thai church history, but it is still interesting. Tatian the Assyrian (ca. 110-180) is an example. He was the key figure in the church at Arbela, a small kingdom located on the Tigris River on the borders of Persia. Moffet in the first volume of his HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN ASIA states that Tatian was important because he was the first to bring the written Gospels to the Asian church. His harmony of the Gospels in Syriac was probably the first "major" translation of the Gospels into any language and was instrumental in making Syriac the language of the Eastern Church.
Tatian was also a radical ascetic and the "father" of the Encratites, an ascetic sect located in the desert and mountains of Syria. The Encratites did things like chain themselves to rocks, wall themselves up in caves, and engaged in acts of abnormal self-denial. Under Tatian's leadership, Arbela became a major center for missions to eastern Persia and central Asia. Moffet notes that Arbelan missions were marked by their ascetic nature. He writes, "In the very earliest Christian documents of the East, the call to ascetic self-denial is almost always associated with the call to go and preach and serve. This seems to have been the most striking difference between Syrian and Egyptian saint-ascetics. Egypt, more solidly agricultural, valued stability and tended to withdraw from outside contacts and movements. Its saints ignored the world and retreated to their caves and cells. Syria, on the other hand, with its travel and trading traditions, stressed mobility and outreach. Its ascetics became wandering missionaries, healing the sick, feeding the poor, and preaching the gospel as they moved from place to place." (pp.77-78)
Did the "old-time" Presbyterian missionaries hold racist prejudices against Asians? That is a question as difficult to answer as it is volatile. Take the following, for example. In the May 1901 issue of WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN, Katharine Denman made passing reference to her "dark-skinned Laos sisters." ("Laos" here referring to the northern Thai). Is the comment racist? On the one hand, it seems to at the very least indicate "racialist" proclivities. Denman, that is, was conscious of skin-color as a mark that distinguished peoples from each other. She didn't refer to her "rice-eating Laos sisters" or her "short Laos sisters" or to any other traits that might distinguish them. She was race conscious. On the other hand, the remark could be taken as entirely innocent and having no weight. It is, admittedly, taken out of context. There seems, in this case, no compelling reason to assume the remark is racist.
The question revolves around the definition of racism. Michael C. Coleman published an article on the question of Presbyterian missionary racism towards American Indians in the JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY (June 1980) that is helpful here. He concluded that the Presbyterian missionaries working in the last decades of the 19th century were highly ethnocentric but not racist. He argued that they believed that the "problem" of the Indians was their heathenism and their culture. The missionaries held that if Indian children were raised up "properly" they could attain anything white children could. They were not inferior because of race but because of cultural and religious conditions. Coleman's answer may be a little too neat and pat, but on the whole it bears consideration. In the case of the Presbyterians in Thailand, their records are replete with clearly worded ethnocentric statements. There are very few instances where one feels their statements might be racist. My tentative conclusion is that they had little or no racist prejudices against Asians. Their prejudices were ethnocentric.
Sources: Denman, Katharine Andrews, "The Laos Woman's Ordinary Life," WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN 16, 5(May 1901): 131-133; and Michael C. Coleman, "Not Race, but Grace: Presbyterian Missionaries and American Indians, 1837-1893," JOURNAL OF AMERICAN HISTORY 67, 1(June 1980): 41-60.
HeRD #322 posed the question of missionary racism and reached the tentative conclusion that the missionaries weren't racists. I would offer the following as one piece of evidence. Edna Bissell, in a letter published in the October 1901 number of WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN, wrote, "I like the Siamese people very much. I find many good things in them and have come to feel how alike we are after all. Our Father is the same and we are all one great family with the Divine Spark within each soul, only some are waiting to be lighted, and blessed is he who may be used as a taper." One quotation doesn't make the case; but it does lend credence to the argument that the missionaries weren't racists, esp. when we consider the lack of clear, direct evidence indicating they were.
Source: Miss Bissell, letter, 1 May [1901], in WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN 16, 10(October 1901): 287.
On January 20th and 21st, I had the privilege of attending a two-day seminar entitled, "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade," sponsored by the Comparative Religions Curriculum of Mahidol University. It was held at the Royal River Hotel in Bangkok. The seminar was very valuable, and for the next few HeRDs I'd like to share with you all some of the things I learned and insights I gained from it.
There were three keynote addresses. Phra Dhammabidok, one of Thai Buddhism's leading thinkers, presented the first. In it he argued that religious knowledge is a different form of knowing from other forms. It gives answers concerning life itself. It has to do with the acquisition of wisdom. It demands an immediate behavioral response from its students. Unlike other forms of knowledge, religious knowledge can't remain theoretical because it's so intensely involved with the issues of living. He contrasted religious knowledge, which he sees as complete in itself, with scientific knowledge. He argued that the world has learned that it can't trust scientific knowledge to provide one might call "ultimate" answers. Scientific knowledge is unstable, changeable, and therefore unreliable. At one point he went so far as to say that humanity can't wait around for science to finally come up with complete answers.
One might take exception to Phra Dhammabidok's characterizations of both religious as scientific knowledge. The Christian experience points clearly to the constantly changing, never final nature of the Christian understanding of God and the Christian life. Phra Dhammabidok's address, nonetheless, raises crucial issues for the church historian. If religious knowledge is in some sense different from other forms of knowledge, does this mean that the knowledge gained through the historiographical study of the church's past is different from knowledge gained through the study of other histories? Is the knowledge we gain through Thai CHURCH history different in kind from that acquired in the study of Thai history generally? If so, how is it different? Does church historical knowledge demand of its students a response? Or, again, is it illegitimate to apply the methods of the "historical science" to the church's past?
It would seem that a partial answer to these questions requires us to focus on the practitioner of the historical craft rather than the body of knowledge that results from her/his work. If the historian is a person of faith that faith almost inevitably shapes WHAT the historian studies and WHY he/she studies it. This would be equally true, I should think, for a sociologist or a research psychologist. What is truly different about religious knowledge is the knower rather than the knowledge...although knowledge about the ultimate is, admittedly, also different from scientific knowledge in some ways.
Phra Dhammabidok, the first keynote speaker at the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade," is disposed to treat science and technology in all of their various forms as "the enemy" of religion. They pose dangers to religion. He observed that science is Western in origin and based on the premise that Nature has to be conquered. Western scientific thinking assumes that humanity will win its way to a better life when it achieves freedom and independence from Nature. He rejects this world view and argues that it leads not to freedom but to destruction. It makes human life worse, not better. What is particularly important here is that Phra Dhammabidok subsumes the social sciences under the general category of scientific thinking. He argues that they turn human beings into "material things" and, thereby, destroy their humanity. He seems to be suggesting that empirical thinking in all of its guises participates in perpetuating false, destructive values and attitudes.
Phra Dhammabidok's presentation reflects the deep sense of alienation from and resentment of things Western later expressed by several other speakers as well. Few of us will agree with his complete rejection of the empirical method and its world view, but his perspective still requires further serious reflection on the issue raised in our last HeRD. That is the issue of the appropriateness of applying empirical methods to the life of the church. An empirical approach does objectify "things" that aren't objects. It separates things that can't be separated into categories, scales, and bits of data. It quantifies things that aren't quantities. It describes the past through an assemblage of footnotes and reams of ifs, ands, and maybes. Is this the way to a faith-ful knowledge of truth? How much destruction of the very thing we seek is involved? Phra Dhammabidok represents a contemplative tradition, and it behooves us to take his critique of empirical approaches seriously.
The second session of the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade" was a panel discussion on "Religion and the Third Wave." Among the panelists was Dr. Suwanna Sata-anan, a Catholic scholar and professor at Chulalongkorn University. She brought to the issue of the place so religion in contemporary Thai society a quite different perspectives from that of Phra Dhammabidok. She observed that religion has long made substantial use of the revolutions in communications, beginning with the invention of papyrus. Religionists taken advantage of the printing press, of the radio, and of Internet. They've felt very much at home with all of these technological advances. She devoted some time to describing how many different resources there are for religion on Internet and speculated that in the freedom of Internet there is a great opportunity for religion.
It is significant that Dr. Suwanna's examples of the compatibility of changing communications technologies with religion were mostly Western Christian examples. She was one of the few speakers in this seminar who readily embraced contemporary change and saw in it advantages. She was also one of only three Christian speakers. It seems likely that articulate Thai Christians, Protestant as well as Catholic, would feel less alienated towards Westernizing social and technological change. There are those who argue that this compatibility with the West gives Christians an "advantage" in Thailand. They are, so to speak, riding the wave of the future. I don't think so. It is one more example of Christian alienation from Thai society at large.
As an aside, we should note that it was Protestant missionaries who conducted the first modern public relations/evangelistic campaign in northern Thailand. They were the ones to introduce printing and initiated the aborted changes that would have led to the creation of northern Thai as a "modern" language. Among Protestants in Thailand, at least, there is no question that we have long seen Western technology as a friend and ally rather than as an enemy.
Dr. Suwanna, the Catholic scholar featured in HeRD #326, speculated on coming changes in Thai religion. Drawing from global trends, she urged that religion in Thailand was already becoming both more fragmented and more globalized. She had many examples from Thailand, but it was striking that she began with North American Mennonites as almost her "paradigm" for what is coming. She herself has visited Mennonite communities in Pennsylvania, USA, and was deeply impressed by the simplicity and "local-ness" of their lives. Yet they have a global impact through their work in more than 50 nations. They mix "localization" with "globalization". This, she contends, is our future. One of her examples from Thailand is also interesting. She cited the case of the Hope of Bangkok Church, one of the key pillars of Thai Pentecostalism. It is a Bangkok phenomenon founded by Thais, not missionaries that now has a church (or churches?) in Australia. It is, again, both a local and a global phenomenon. We should note here again that Dr. Suwanna greets all of this with no sense of dismay. She appears quite comfortable with the coming order/dis-order she envisions. As we shall see, that is not the case with the second keynote speaker.
Dr. Pridi Kasemsap was the second keynote speaker for the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade." In a meeting that largely featured inter-religious cordiality within a Buddhist context, Dr. Pridi was the one speaker who openly displayed negative feelings towards another religion. The tone and the content of his presentation were decidedly anti-Christian. He began by observing that Thai independence has survived three invading forces, viz. Western diplomats, military forces, and Christian missionaries. He went on to quote with some pleasure the words of King Mongkut in a letter to Anna Leonowens , dated roughly 1861 or 1862. King Mongkut is supposed to have written inviting her to come to Bangkok to teach his children English and the sciences. He specified that he didn't want her to teach them a new religion as Thailand already had one that taught Thais to know science and ethics.
Dr. Pridi took deep and open satisfaction that Thailand has so successfully resisted the inroads of Christianity ("Christian-ism" might be a better term from his perspective). He noted how Christians have attained high political office and/or substantial influence in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But not now...or ever...in Thailand. He gloried in the fact that by law the King must be a Buddhist. He stated that Thailand is a unique country that has preserved its identity and used its religion to preserve its culture. He observed that where Christian institutions formerly dominated education and medicine, now they have much less of a place. Thailand has successfully mastered their subjects and technologies without succumbing to their religion. He concluded his rambling presentation with praise for the strength of Western Christianity by citing the fact that even politically powerful communism couldn't defeat the Christian church. He gave especial praise to Catholic Poland and termed Polish Catholics "religious warriors" in the battle against the communists. He acknowledge that Western Christianity is a powerful religious force but concluded his presentation on a defiant note stating, "But the last country they'll get is Thailand, if they get it at all."
The last HeRD summarized Dr. Pridi Kasemsap's anti-Christian keynote address to the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade" sponsored by Mahidol University. I listened to Dr. Pridi with very mixed feelings. Let us admit from the outset that if Protestants are going to wage aggressive evangelistic campaigns based on the premise that Buddhists are condemned to eternal damnation we have to expect angry, defiant, and nationalistic responses of this type. Dr. Pridi clearly felt himself under attack by Western Christianity. We also have to admit that Western Christians in Thailand have often voiced a derogatory, condescending attitude towards Thai religiosity. Dr. Pridi repays us in the same coin. We can hardly complain about that. At least he does us the honor of acknowledging the impressive forcefulness of our religion.
On the other hand, I personally couldn't help but feel that Dr. Pridi let the worst in us be the definition of us. (We've long done that to Buddhism, of course). There is so much of what it means to be a Christian that was lost in his attack. There was, furthermore, an implied threat to Thai Christians that is worrisome. Being less than one percent of the population leaves them vulnerable, and if a few Dr. Pridi's started attacking Christianity in public this way there could be considerable social "pressure" brought to bear on Christians. I also felt that Dr. Pridi demeaned himself and his own religious faith by plummeting the depths of religious nationalism. Perhaps even more tragic, he has allowed the worst side of Christianity to dominate even how he understands his own religious heritage. Rather than seeing Buddhism as a path beyond the illusions of mundane life he glories in it as a tool for national policy, a bulwark against Western cultural imperialism. His is a religion essentially AGAINST another religion.
The previous HeRD featured a speaker at the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade" who doesn't reflect the best side of Thai Buddhist thinking. The third keynote speaker, Dr. Prawase Wasi, most certainly does. They call him a "social critique," but the speech he delivered to this seminar must be classed as prophetic, in the best Old Testament sense of that word. He raised, from a Buddhist perspective, the troubling question, if Buddhism is so good then why is our supposedly Buddhist society the way it is? Why aren't people living according to the Eight fold Path and other Buddhist precepts? Why are we ranked 2nd in the world in the rate of murders per 100,000? We think Thailand is a good nation, but look at the evil of our political system. Observe how we're destroying our children's futures with our own greed. Ours is a nation filled with the lies of advertising. We can't even distinguish good and evil anymore. Our morals have been destroyed. In this context, we have to ask about Buddhism again.
His powerful critique of Thai society and religion never lapsed into an attack on "the evil West" or on Christianity. It looked, rather, into the roots of Thai social relationships and thinking. What Dr. Prawase found there was the Thai equivalent of racism. Thai society always honors "big shots" whether they are deserving of honor or not. It gives place and power to such people, those who are wealthy or have achieved social status. Thai society condones the misuse of power and has put into a place a justice system that forgives the lapses of the wealthy while punishing those of the poor. He argued that Thai society isn't a "Civil Society." It ignores mutuality and social cooperation. It's a society that doesn't value learning. It's culture has become materialistic to the point that materialism is now embedded in its very structures.
What I found both compelling and humbling from a Western point of view was the parallel between Thai big shot-ism (for want of a better term) and Western racism. Just as racism and sexism lie close to the heart of Western collective sin so big shot-ism lies close to the heart of Thai collective sin. Keeping such a parallel firmly in mind prevents us from taking any superior attitude against Thai society whatsoever.
There was a great deal of meat in Dr. Prawase Wasi's address to the Mahidol University seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade." One passing comment he made is worth pondering. He referred to the Buddha, Mohammed, and Jesus as great religious figures who "banlu dhamma" (attained Dharma). One of the Buddhist participants in the conference interpreted this to mean that Jesus achieved enlightenment. Christians never speak about Jesus that way, not even when we're speaking the Thai language. Is it possible to do so? What would it mean for us to take Dr. Prawase's characterization of Jesus and interpret it from a Christian point of view? Does speaking of him as an "Enlightened One" obscure or even demean the person of Jesus? Or does it open new avenues in communicating the Good News about him in Thai contexts? What does it mean, furthermore, that Dr. Prawase apparently accepts Jesus as having achieved enlightenment? He clearly is granting Jesus a very high place in his religious world. I don't really even know where to start on this one and would love to have your thoughts.
Dr. Prawase Wasi's keynote speech to the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade" articulated what amounts to a "theology of research" that contrasts starkly with Phra Dhammabidok's assault on empirical thinking. Having delivered his prophetic critique of Thai society and religion, he entered into an analysis of how to proceed. Research of various types comprised a significant starting point in his strategy for Thai social and religious change. He observed that currently Buddhist teaching is simply praised for being good. No one is actually studying why it is failing to impress Thai society. We talk about the good, but the good doesn't happen. He then cited specific Buddhist teachings concerning "dhamma wijaya" as the foundation for this type of research. I must confess total ignorance on this subject, but it appears that part of the Buddhist path towards Enlightenment includes "research" into the truth of the human condition. Dr. Prawase urged that we need to engage in just this type of research in order to discover where and why Buddhism is failing Thai society. He specifically mentioned social scientific research.
Having attended the seminar on "Visions for Religious Studies in the Next Decade" on Monday, January 20th, and Tuesday, the 21st, it was fascinating to attend a CCT seminar in the hills near Chiang Mai on Friday, the 24th, and to hear Dr. Prawase speak once again. He presented many of the same ideas to the seminar, attended by over 150 CCT representatives, as he had presented in Bangkok. I found his delivery less compelling this second time around until he came to the end of the presentation. Speaking to the directions the CCT should take in the future, he presented three points. First, he urged the CCT to encourage its members and employees to share in the suffering of others. Suffering is reduced simply in the act of sharing that suffering. Second, he called on the CCT to emphasize attitudes of working together, attitudes and practices that lead to actual cooperation. Good things happen when people cooperate. Third, he told us to "study peace" ("suksa santiphap") and work on creating peace. He called on the CCT to put all of its work into a framework of peace.
Ach. Samran Kuangwaen, the Moderator of the CCT, thanked Dr. Prawase for his presentation with the words, "Dr. Prawase doesn't know the Bible, but he's taught us the Bible. He isn't a Christian, but he brought us teachings from the Bible. I won't soon forget his words." Dr. Prawase spoke as prophetically and relevantly in a Christian context as he does in Buddhist and Thai secular contexts. Anyone who wants to be a truly effective communicator of the Gospel in this culture would do well to study the ways, means, and words of this man. It appears that God went ahead and found a prophet to the Thai people while we Christians have been off dithering and bickering in our own little corners.
Northern Thailand has conducted one of the most effective family planning programs in the world, with the result that the population's average age is rising steadily. The time is coming when a significant portion of the population will be 60 or older. This raises the question of what is the current condition of Christians over the age of 60 in the North. Ach. [VK], an M.Div. student at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology, is exploring this question in his M.Div. Research Project. In a preliminary survey he did last year among a small number (18) of people in Lampang, he discovered an interesting pattern in the relationship between those over 60 and the family members they lived with. Ach. [V] asked if their families took them on trips, encouraged them to socialize, or shared news of various sorts with those over 60. Over 50% responded that their families did little or nothing in these areas. Ach. [V] also asked them if the families looked after and were interested in their health, and here slightly over half the over-60s answered in the affirmative. Ach. [V]'s concludes that family members communicate more interest in their parents'/grandparents' physical well-being than in their mental well-being. He suggested that it appears that family members are more apt to spend time taking their parents or grandparents to the doctor than they are to just sit and chat with them.
Ach. [V], furthermore, compared Christians (10 cases) with non-Christians (8 cases) and found that the Christians tended to show more over all interest in those over 60 in the household. He suggested that part of the reason may be that the Christian seniors themselves were better educated than the non-Christians, while a somewhat higher number of non-Christians were still gainfully employed and thus not seen as needing "special" attention. It must be stressed that all of this is highly tentative because of Ach. [V]'s extremely narrow data base. Yet, it does raise interesting issues, ones that Ach. [V] is pursuing at present in a larger research project.
HeRD #334 reported on Ach. [VK]'s research into the present condition of a group of senior citizens in Lampang. He interviewed 18 individuals, ten of whom are Christians. Ach. [VK]'s data base is much too small to make even tentative conclusions, but his findings do point to avenues for further research.
In terms of actual ministries to or with seniors, it appears that visitation and providing opportunities for socializing among those over 60 may be one approach to explore. Ach. [V] found that 61% of those he interviewed stated that on most days they had no one to talk to during the day. Half said this was absolutely the case while another 11% said it was generally the case. When the Christians were given a list of things they'd like to have and asked to order them from most desirable to least, the two categories most frequently marked as most desired were: "I want to know and be friends with other seniors"; and "I want other seniors and/or the pastor to visit." On the other hand, the statement, "I want the church to establish a seniors' club" met with very little interest. Two-thirds of seniors ranked it next to lowest or lowest on the list. This suggests the possibility that those over the age of 60 would like to have more opportunities for informal socializing. If this data reflects a wider trend, it would appear to also suggest a possible strategy for the pastoral care of this age group in urban northern Thai settings.
HeRD #301 quoted Jonathan Wilson's letter that was published in the May 1905 issue of WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN. I'd like to return to his words here long enough to consider the scriptural reference to Malachi 4:2 contained in the quotation. It is fascinating for what is probably merely a "technical" reason. Wilson quotes Malachi 4:2 as ending with the statement, "ye shall go forth and gambol as calves of the stall." At a time when I was checking a number of biblical references in missionary writings, I was rather startled to find that Wilson wasn't quoting the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The KJV reads, "ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall." It seemed unlikely that Wilson was misquoting the KJV, esp. since the word "gambol" is hardly a common word in missionary or any other literature. The only other version possibly available to Wilson in 1905 that I knew of was the American Revised Version, published in 1900-1901. And sure enough, Wilson was quoting from the American version, which was based on a revision done in Britain in the 1880s.
This is the first example I've encountered of a Presbyterian missionary in Thailand using any English translation of the Bible other than the KJV. It is esp. interesting that it was Wilson, one of the most conservative of the Presbyterians who was in his 70s by 1905. It should be noted that the American version is one of the most literal translations and follows the Greek very closely. Even so, I wouldn't have expected him to favor any translation other than the KJV. We've made the point several times that the turn of the century era was a time of transition in missionary thinking. This is one more small, but perhaps not minor example of that change.
In many ways, Paul and Pauline thinking dominate the New Testament. It isn't surprising, then, that so many people "on the mission field" want to emulate his missionary approach. The following, taken from the second volume of Helmut Koester's INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (page 110), is a succinct description of Paul's missionary model.
"On the whole, a picture emerges which is characteristic for Paul's missionary method. He would settle in the capital of a province, together with a few tested associates, gather any Christians already living in the city, and expand his staff; together with these co-workers he would also found congregations in other cities of the area. During his absence he would maintain contact through messengers and letters in order to influence the further building and development of these churches. Paul's missionary work, therefore, should not be thought of as the humble efforts of a lonely missionary. Rather, it was a well-planned, large-scale organization that included letter-writing as an instrument of ecclesiastical policy.…In his activity in Corinth [50-52 CE] Paul seems to have accomplished the program of missionary work for the first time on a large scale, perhaps using the model which the Antiochian church had developed."
Mabel Gilson related in the Presbyterian missionary publication WOMAN'S WORK (May 1906) her visit to Mae Dok Daeng and told about one of its members Mae [Mother] Yawt. She complimented Mae Yawt for the way she kept her house spotlessly clean, for her hard-working approach to life, and for being a personally well-groomed individual. Gilson avowed that Mae Yawt was doing more to "transform this land than I can ever do.." She was a "constant object lesson" to those around her. Gilson took pleasure in the thought that she might be able to train up a person such as this herself.
In the Presbyterian approach to conversion, the concept of transformation was central and profound. The Presbyterian missionaries didn't seek just a change of religious allegiance. They sought, rather, a total transformation of the individual AND the society and culture in which the individual lived. They esp. sought changes in values, seeing these as the key to changes in behavior. Gilson, thus, pays Mae Yawt the highest compliment possible when she remarks on her cleanliness and willingness to work hard. Those who criticize the Presbyterians for their over-reliance on institutional work in Thailand should do so realizing that they didn't seek to simply "plant" churches in Thailand. They were social and cultural revolutionaries for whom churches were but one more weapon employed in the total Christianization of Thai society.
Source: Mabel Gilson, "A Visit to a Country Church Near Chieng Mai," WOMAN'S WORK 21, 5(May 1906): 111-12.
Last semester Ach. [NP], an M.Div. student at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology, wrote a research paper on the withdrawal of a large group of members from the Thai Tawarntam Church, Mae Chuey, of Uttaradit Province. This congregation is a member of the Fourth District, CCT. A significant portion of the church left in April 1993 to join a congregation belonging to the Rom Klao "faction" of the Thai Pentecostal movement. Among those who left were most of the elders and other key leaders in the church. Ach. [N], with the aid of a friend, conducted a number of interviews with those who left. He reported the reasons they gave for their departure in his paper. They are quite revealing of some of the issues facing local CCT churches in northern Thailand today, issues that I would argue are firmly rooted in the past.
Nang (Mrs.) [BI] gave six reasons why she left the Thai Tawarntam Church. First, she liked the atmosphere and the sense of love she found in the Rom Klao congregation. Second, she liked its forms, esp. the sense of excitement in worship. She felt that its worship helped her know God better and to feel happier. Third, at first she was simply curious, which is why she started going. Fourth, she received financial blessings from God that made her life better. She was able to buy a car, buy land, and build a house. She contrasts this with the house she had started to build and never finished while she was a member of the Thai Tawarntam Church. Fifth, her family life was more loving and the whole family went to church together regularly. Sixth, she went to the Rom Klao Church because the pastor of the Thai Tawarntam Church (Ach. [N] himself) refused to accept Pentecostal-style worship. Nang [B] claimed that she and the others who left thought that when so many members quit together the pastor would have to leave too. Then they could come back. But he didn't leave and so they stayed on permanently at the Rom Klao Church.
Two thoughts. The first is that Nang [B] wanted her own church to change in ways that she felt would make it a more faithful and viable church. She clearly found spiritual nourishment in the Pentecostal movement that she didn't find in the CCT, but she preferred to bring that nourishment into her home church. Second, however, she wasn't willing to work patiently towards that end. When her new and inexperienced pastor proved stubborn, within a matter of months she left. Way back in HeRD #79 we looked at another church split in Uttaradit, and what we found there was this same pattern. A desire for a better way, and an impatience with obstacles to achieving that better way within the life of a "traditional" church. In that pattern, I think we see something of both the strengths and the weaknesses of Thai Pentecostalism.
In HeRD #339 we looked at the loss to the Rom Klao Church of a significant number of members of the CCT's Thai Tawarntam Church in Uttaradit Province. Elder [CS], another one of the members who left, offered the following explanation .
He first went to the Rom Klao Church because he was curious about their forms of worship and their method of healing by the laying on of hands and prayer. He noted that his "original" church, the Thai Tawarntam Church, didn't practice faith healing. When he went, he himself had an experience with the laying on of hands that caused him to fall to the ground. He believed that he had experienced the Holy Spirit and received the power of God. From that time on he's gone to the Rom Klao Church faithfully. He stated, further, that the Rom Klao Church has both morning and afternoon Bible study groups, and these help the members better understand about God. Again, his "original" church didn't have such groups.
In spite of what many claim in the CCT, it usually isn't ignorance that impels its members to leave for "greener pastures." The Office of History's study of several such situations dating from World War II onwards indicates that CCT members have generally left out of a sense of hunger for something deeper. It's frequently stronger, more committed members who leave. It's not unusual for them to make some attempts to bring alternative forms into their local churches before they feel "forced" to leave. It also seems not unusual that both those leaving and those happy to see them go treat each other with considerably less than Christian love and patience. The "reformers" are as stubborn in their insistence on change as the "old guard" are in their defense of the faith of their ancestors. Our research also suggests that the result of such splits is usually two (or more!) churches, both (all) of which are weaker than the original congregation. We have found that it also becomes more difficult to preach about Christian love in the larger communities where these splits take place.
We know Ignatius of Antioch only through a set of 7 letters he wrote to churches in Asia Minor and Rome while he was being escorted to Rome as a prisoner condemned to death for unknown reasons. Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch and wrote his letters early in the second century. According to Virginia Corwin in ST. IGNATIUS AND CHRISTIANITY IN ANTIOCH, Ignatius had two central purposes in writing these letters. She writes, "He wants to thank the churches for what they have done for him, either in sending delegates or in caring for him during his visits. He writes also to warn seriously against the danger of the factions formed around false teachers, and urges unity with the bishop as a practical means of meeting the danger. He is concerned with this, however, for more fundamental reasons than a mere theory of polity...for he believes that the very nature of the Christian life and the relation of man to God is threatened by divisions. It is the quality of life in the churches and the heretical beliefs that threaten it that concern him most, and he urges Christians to hold fast to the essentials of Christian faith and life." (p. 21)
In the Thai Tawarntam Church, Uttaradit, one group embraced Pentecostalism because it brought them a deeper sense of Christian life. It brought them closer to God. Some of those who rejected Pentecostalism did so because it seemed antithetical to the received and cherished traditions of a CCT church. Both sides, it would seem, would have responded favorably to Ignatius' ancient call for Christian unity. They seem, however, to give different weight to his call for holding fast "to the essentials of Christian faith and life." Or, perhaps, the sticking point is on the word "essentials," each seeing the essentials of the faith at a different point. One man's "essentials of faith and life" are another woman's heresies. Therein lies a problem we Christians have wrestled with since Day One and still haven't found our way clear of.
The Uttaradit Split discussed in HeRDs #339 through #341 is but one example of a larger historical phenomenon in the North. Pentecostalism reached Chiang Rai Province in 1956, and very quickly thereafter CCT church members began to leave. Jouko Ruohomäki's thesis, "The Finnish Free Foreign Mission in Thailand 1946-1985," (pp. 84-85) provides us with yet another voice. Siimaa Phromrak was born into a CCT church (District Two) in Chiang Rai and later left his church to help form an FFFM Pentecostal congregation. He remembered his former church as being one that had no Sunday school, no youth work, no Bible study, and no special revival. He never experienced either conversion or new life in his church. The church's members acted no differently from the surrounding society.
Khun Siimaa first experienced conversion when a Pentecostal team visited his church. Their preaching impressed on him the fact of his sinfulness and his need to repent. He felt things that he'd never felt in church before. Some six months afterwards he experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit. After that he and others who were inclined to the Pentecostal way began to meet. The sequence of events isn't clear, but at some point a CCT or District Two representative came and demanded to know whether this group intended to stay with the CCT church. The group affirmed that they wanted to worship in a Pentecostal manner, to which the representative is supposed to have replied that if they stayed in the CCT church they had to worship and behave in a manner acceptable to the CCT. Some two-thirds of the congregation, according to Ruohomäki, then left to form their own FFFM congregation.
Again, we find the same pattern as in Uttaradit. Demands and counter-demands. Little if any willingness to compromise. Impatience. Arrogance mingled with fear. On both sides.
Ignatius of Antioch, featured in HeRD #341, is a voice from the third generation of believers in Jesus. As Corwin in ST. IGNATIUS AND CHRISTIANITY IN ANTIOCH points out, conditions in his own church and others he knew of led him to emphasize the importance of Christian unity.
Corwin writes, "As a basis for interpreting [Ignatius'] concern we may remind ourselves that his view of the predicament of humanity stresses not SIN but DIVISION. Although this does not seem to him an offense against God, its consequences are so dangerous that men must be aware of the nature of their plight and act to change it....the bridging of the separations of life occurs only when appropriate decisions are made. Men are divided, within themselves, from one another, and from God. It is this tragic lack of unity that makes them vulnerable to the temptations of the Prince of this world, temptations evidenced in the conflicts within communities and in the unwillingness of the individual to submit himself to discipline. The greatest danger assailing men arises not from outward acts of persecution but from the tendency toward separateness that undermines them. The core of Ignatius' preaching is that this disunity can be transcended." (pp. 247-48, emphasis in the original)
Ignatius offers us an important insight, one that might well be applicable to the situation in Uttaradit and elsewhere in Thailand. From a theological and ecclesiastical perspective, church splits impede rather than impel the movement of the Spirit. They undermine the church rather than build it up. It is ironic that one side of the Uttaradit split justified their actions as being in response to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Ignatius, at least, would disagree that such could be the case where the result was a church split.
Meeks in THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY surveys the experience of the early church and observes, "One of the most remarkable things about the biblical story is that God, who is represented as being faithful to his covenant, is forever surprising and often dismaying his people. That quality of the story was wonderfully convenient to the first Christians, who were able thus to assert that the crucifixion and resurrection of God's Son, the Messiah, might be the greatest surprise of all, but not out of character. Naturally Christians then liked to presume that it was also the final surprise; henceforth God would act just as the Christian understanding of that revelatory event requires. But that presumption, in light of God's previous record, appears unwarranted." (p. 218)
What dismaying things, one wonders, might a surprising God be doing in Thailand?
Corwin, in her book ST. IGNATIUS AND CHRISTIANITY IN ANTIOCH, introduces Ignatius' ecclesiology with the following observation, "Ignatius' chief concern, as he faced his own death, was to strengthen the church, and this not because he had an overwhelming interest in administrative matters but because he believed that salvation would by most men be achieved, if at all, within the church. It is for this reason that he warns against the teachers of false doctrine, and urges submission to deacons and presbyters and bishops...He saw the church realistically in sober colors, and yet he held that it was a more than human institution." (189)
Corwin's final phrase is striking, the idea that the church is both like and unlike other human institutions. This characteristic makes church history a fascinatingly bewildering enterprise, in that the church's past is both LIKE and UNLIKE the histories of other institutions. It is both the same as and different from. And it is for this reason that the boundaries between the historical study of the church and theological reflection on its nature are so often hazy.
For some years it was fashionable among members of America's Republican Party to refer to the word "liberal" as the "L" word, as if it were too dirty to pronounce in public. In some circles of Protestant Christians the word "institutionalization" might be considered the "I" word, a word too disgusting and despicable to speak of openly. The process by which the early "Jesus Movement" and the "Christian Movement" that grew out of it gradually were transformed into an institution is one we still struggle with. Protestantism itself has been in some ways a heart-felt search to return to the "golden era" of the earliest church.
Manschreck, in his book A HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE WORLD, reflected on just this issue from the perspective of early church history. He describes how the church in the second century created more solid structures of authority for itself in the face of both external persecution and internal theological divisions. As a part of this same process, it also developed more set creeds and initiated the creation of the Christian canon. He writes, "In the process, the church did in fact become a sociological reality, soon to vie with other institutions for status and power. Whether that development was inherent in Christianity or whether some inherent essence in Christianity was lost in the process cannot be easily determined." (p. 37). Any thoughts?
The study of early church history leads one inevitably to the concept of martyrdom. Virginia Corwin, in ST. IGNATIUS AND CHRISTIANITY IN ANTIOCH, describes Ignatius of Antioch's feelings about martyrdom. We will recall that Ignatius wrote a series of letters to churches (ca. 108-117) while being taken in chains by Roman soldiers to Rome for execution. These letters are significant because they provide us with one of the earliest descriptions of martyrdom by one about to experience it.
Ignatius believed that his imprisonment and coming execution were honorable things. He declared that he loved his bonds. Yet, he also saw them as being a temptation, one threatening to lead him to boasting and self-congratulations. This was esp. the case since he received praise and honor from the Christians he met on his way to Rome. Nonetheless, he believed that the martyrs were important to the church, most particularly because they were a means for persuading others to enter the church. He embraced martyrdom willingly, fearing only that he might lose his resolve and try to escape it. Ultimately, he saw martyrdom as the "perfecting" of the meaning of his own life. By it he achieved participation in the suffering of Christ. He wrote, "And why then have I wholly given myself up to death, to fire, to the sword, to wild beasts? But near to the sword, near to God; with wild beasts, with God. Only it is in the name of Jesus Christ that I endure everything, that I may suffer with him." (p. 251, quoting from Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaean Church 4:2)
It would be "nice" to think that this has nothing to do with Thai church history. The fact of the matter is that, aside from the two famous martyrs of 1867 (Nan Chai and Noi Sunya), Thai Christians have long and quietly suffered a variety of non-lethal martyrdoms at the hands of the state, their neighbors, and their families. The Thai church has suffered out and out oppression on a few occasions and ongoing social oppression frequently. In this light, it would be interesting and informative to know how Christians here have experienced oppression and martyrdom.
Marcion was a 2nd century heretic. We don't know much about him other than that he was a Christian from Pontus in Asia Minor and a wealthy man, probably a shipping magnate. In about 140 CE he appeared in Rome to share with the church there his distinctive views on God, Jesus, the Old Testament, and Paul. He considered Paul the only legitimate apostle and created a New Testament composed largely of Paul's writings, edited by Marcion himself. He believed that the god of the Old Testament was vengeful and the source of evil in the world. In contrast, the true good God was a God of love and grace who sent Jesus into the world. Jesus wasn't born but suddenly appeared and only had the appearance of being human. His human experiences, including the crucifixion, were also only apparent and not real.
All of this sounds somewhat bizarre today, but after his excommunication by the church in Rome in 144 CE, Marion set about establishing his own church. He was amazingly successful. "Catholic" Christians in the 2nd century considered his church the greatest danger to the life of their churches. Blackman, in MARCION AND HIS INFLUENCE, writes, "Marcion's success as the founder of a church was remarkable, and must have been largely due to an inspiring and energetic personality. Already in the year A.D. 150 Justin could say that his influence extended all over the Empire. A real rival to the growing Catholic Church had sprung into being, and for a few years it must actually have seemed possible that the Marcionite church would become the dominant church." Blackman states, "This was the first 'protestant' schism, and it has real affinities with the Lutheran schism of 1519." (p. 3) The Marcion churches flourished into the 3rd century and only gradually died out by the 5th century. The Marcionite sect lasted, thus, for over 300 years.
This doesn't have much to do with Thai church history, but it's a fascinating chapter from the history of the church.
HeRD #343 reflected on the institutionalization of the early church. Here are some more thoughts on the same subject, from another perspective.
Blackman's MARCION AND HIS INFLUENCE devotes 5 pages to discussing the term "Catholic" in reference to the early church. There is a tradition among many church historians to use the term Catholic to denote the transformation of the earliest church into a rigid, structured, hierarchical, and Hellenized institution. The implication is that "something" of the essence of the earliest church was sadly lost in this transformation. It led to "...an ignoring of the Spirit, a misunderstanding of Faith, the substitution of a philosophic idea of God for the New Testament apprehension of God as the Father of Jesus Christ, and the development of the Logos doctrine." (p. 18) Blackman himself agrees with those historians who question this division of church history into the "true primitive" and the "corrupted Catholic" eras. He argues that the "essence" of catholicity is the belief that Christ is Lord and that belief was certainly not lost to the later church. He sees the developments of the later church already implied or present in the earliest church.
Blackman wrote in 1948. I suspect that church historians of the last 20 years or so might take a both-and approach. In one sense, it is almost a truism that "what comes after" is already implicit in "what came before." Human institutions don't suddenly change radically in ways not implicit in their histories. Yet, important changes did take place that transformed the early church from a movement into an institution. The churches ceased to seriously wait for the Second Coming, and that was a major change in consciousness. The churches replaced the sexual equality or near-equality of the first generation church with patriarchalism in the second and later generations. The earliest church had only informal structures of leadership, based on the members' perception of the leading of the Holy Spirit. The later church put formal structures into place. Beginnings and What Comes After are not identical. They can differ greatly. Thus, we are left with the question of whether or not the later history of the early church led to the "maturation" of the primitive church or its "ossification". Or was it something in-between?
The relationship of later history to the earlier periods of church history is one of no small interest to the study of Thai church history. The issues we've discussed here serve, perhaps, as a warning that we need to be careful and precise in our conceptualization of that relationship.
One of our HeRD recipients some time ago forwarded to me an item that appears to have bounced around Internet a bit. It's entitled "Signs, Wonders and Church Growth - Bangkok 14-17 November [1996]." It's interesting enough from a historian's perspective that I thought I'd pass excerpts of it on to the rest of you. It's a remarkable study in how things never change.
The item is a report of a training conference cum revival meeting held in Bangkok. It was led by Wesley Campbell and Jim Goll and was held at Christ Church and at the YMCA. The first paragraph of the Internet report on the conference reads, in part, " 'And we rejoice, for the river is here!' The lyrics of the song the 'River is Here' were translated into Thai and this became the theme song of the Bangkok conference, as the participants always added extra emphasis to the line, the River is HERE!. Here, in Bangkok; a city of ten million right in the heart of the 10-40 window, with less than one half of one percent Christian; and certainly a city somewhere in the "top ten'' of spiritual oppression & historical resistance to the light of Jesus Christ. Other David Ruis songs such as 'We will Dance on the Streets that are Golden' and 'We will Break Dividing Walls' were also translated into Thai, and introduced a new dimension of worship to the meetings." The report goes on to express the deep spiritual experience many of those attending experienced. They received new insight, according to the report, into the meaning of holiness and prayer. One person commented, "I believe there was a breakthrough in the spiritual realm over Thailand and people saw something completely new to Thai churches." Others felt they were introduced for the first time to "prophetic ministry." They were impressed and wanted to learn more. Miraculous answers to prayer were also reported. Three people came forward the last evening to receive Christ, and the report states that the meeting ended with a sense of "holy awe." People felt touched by God, and there was a fervent desire born in some for a revival in Thailand. Several people had intense experiences with the Holy Spirit, including visions. Throughout the report is a pervasive sense of something new happening, a sense of a spiritual turning point having been reached.
I'll have some reflections on this report to share in HeRD #351.
The report of the conference in Bangkok reported in HeRD #350 is intriguing for a number of reasons. What particularly impresses me, from a historical perspective, is not the supposed newness of this event, but the way in which it replicates and captures typical themes from Thai church history. First, note the negative attitude concerning the Thai context. It recalls the old-time missionaries' attacks on the "godless heathenism" of the Thai people. Second, observe how the hymns sung are translated and the whole dynamic of the event is foreign in origin and leadership. The "good news" shared at this conference is a foreign good news. Third, and most important here, is the dependence on revivalistic fervency for the renewal of Thai churches and the propagation of the faith in Thailand. Nothing new here at all. Thailand's Presbyterian and Baptist churches went through several phases of fairly intense revivalism between 1924 and 1939, and they experienced much the same feelings as expressed in the above report. The CCT went through another long period of revivalistic emphasis after the War. One of the central lessons of 20th century Thai church history is that this form of revivalism is ineffective in the Thai context. The momentary enthusiasm generated doesn't lead to effective change, and one could make a case that revivalism is actually detrimental to the church. It gives the appearance of "something happening" without anything actually happening.
The Lesson We Should Be but Aren't Learning From the Past: Over the last 70 years we've continued to do the same old things over and over. We've expressed the same negative attitudes about the Thai context, setting it up as "the enemy." We've engaged in constant "revival". We continue to import foreign influences, in ever new guises. The results are minimal at very best.
My favorite heretic is Marcion. He was insightful, capable, and had as deep a personal faith as any of the saints of the "Catholic" church. It just happened that mixed in there were some ideas, ones that seem rather weird now, that the emerging Catholic church couldn't accept. Most of the seminary grads among us undoubtedly remember that the first fixed New Testament isn't the one we have today. It was Marcion, rather, who published the first "authoritative" New Testament.
Once the church in Rome declared him a heretic in 164 CE, he withdrew from the Catholic church and established his own competing "denomination". In the process, he was confronted with the problem of scriptures. The churches generally accepted the Jewish scriptures for their own, and they added to those various Christian writings including Paul's letters and one or more of the gospels then current. There was no uniform set of Christian scriptures in the second century. Marcion was confronted by the problem that he entirely rejected the Jewish scriptures and most other Christian writings as well. What, then, were the scriptures of his Marcionite churches? He solved the problem by creating the first fixed "Christian" canon. His New Testament consisted of ten of Paul's letters plus an edited version of the Gospel of Luke. I'm not sure if it is correct to say that Marcion "invented" the concept of a fixed Christian canon, but he was the first to create one. The Catholic churches didn't finally arrive at a consensus concerning their canon until late in the 4th century, more than 200 years after Marcion.
There's nothing of direct relevance here to Thai church history. Just another one of those interesting tidbits you all might find entertaining.
One example of how church historians are quietly re-writing the history of the early church is their reinterpretation of how the New Testament was formed. Until recently many historians claimed that the Bible emerged in near final form by the end of the second century in response to the challenge posed by the various heresies. The Bible, thus, was something of a "party document" formed for theological reasons. Historians now claim that it wasn't like that at all. The article on "Canon" in the ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY argues that the church created a canon to preserve its understanding of the person of Jesus. Previously, it had relied on oral traditions, but the passing of years made it necessary to preserve some of that oral tradition in written form. During the second century a number of these writings came to have the status of scripture, though what was taken to be scripture wasn't uniform. Churches in different provinces or traditions acknowledged somewhat differing sets of writings as scripture. This situation continued through the third and into the fourth centuries. By the end of the fourth century, the present New Testament had come together in its final form. The ABD article explains, "Those writings that proved, over time, to be most useful in sustaining, informing, and guiding the church in its worship, preaching, and teaching came to be the most highly valued, and gained a special authority in virtue of their usefulness." (v. I, p. 857)
We are in a quite different situation today. The early church fashioned its canon out of what the churches found useful in meeting its needs. It started with the churches' situations and worked towards a scriptures. Today we usually start with the Scriptures and work back to the church's situation. There are times, however, when it is an acute struggle to get those Scriptures into the Thai context. I once heard a missionary lament that the Old Testament had been translated into a tribal language. He felt that it only confused the people. I wonder how true that might not be of much of the New Testament as well. While it seems unlikely that the Thai church will redo the canon to fit its needs, perhaps at least we need to start with the needs of the churches and then work towards a use and an understanding of the Scriptures that fits those needs.
As noted in previous HeRDs, a quiet transformation of our understanding of early church history has been taking place in academic circles for the last two decades or so. One reason, it seems to me, is that sociological analysis focused on the life of the churches has increasingly replaced theological analysis focused on the thought of church thinkers as the main "engine" in studying the history of the early church. Older texts are filled with chapters on the thought of Origen, Clement, Irenaeus, and their cohorts. Far less attention is directed to daily church life. It is hardly surprising, thus, that historians would argue that the New Testament was created in the context of theological disputation with heretics. Nor, is it surprising that the new generation of historians sees the New Testament as a product of the daily needs of the early church's life. Their books focus more on the life of the Christian society, including such topics as social status, charismatic experiences, Christian ethics, the role of women, and numerous other issues.
It would be interesting for someone to survey Thai church historiography and ascertain whether or not there is a central perspective from which most of us in the field are working and how that perspective both aids and limits our current understanding of Thai church history. It is clear that Maen Pongudom (the pioneer professional church historian in Thailand), Prasit Pongudom (his brother & my colleague), and I have emphasized the importance of ideas for understanding the history of the church. To that extent, we may represent the older theological perspective. All three of us, however, have studied general trends in church thought rather than the thought of the "great thinkers." Our tendency, then, is that of moving towards a sociological approach. I don't think we've arrived there, however. As I've argued before, one of the most serious limitations we face in Thai church history is the dearth of historians. Our knowledge is limited to the perspectives and skills of a very few individuals.
Stephen Neill, in A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS (2nd edition), describes several of the significant factors in the expansion of the early church. He places special emphasis on the "God-fearers," Gentiles interested in Judaism but who hadn't undergone adult circumcision. They attended the synagogues and participated in Jewish religious activities, and they were a ready source of converts to Christianity. Neill writes, "It was the presence of this prepared elite that differentiated the missions of the apostolic age from those of every subsequent time, and makes comparison almost impossible. These people, or the best of them, had been well trained in the Old Testament; they had accepted its moral as well as its theological ideas. Many of them brought to their Christian faith a basis of understanding and of disciplined character which made it natural for them to step into positions of leadership in the nascent Christian congregations, and, as it appears, in certain cases they became pioneers in the development of the Church's thought." (pp. 25-26)
Neill is wrong. Northern Thai church history, at least, provides a parallel phenomenon to the "God-fearers". Among its earlier converts were a large group of educated men who had studied in the temples, received there a religious education, and "graduated" from the highest levels of instruction. They were theologically articulate former monks who played a key role in founding and leading of most northern Thai churches prior to World War I. They functioned as a "prepared elite" for the northern Thai church in much the same way as the God-fearers. Just as the God-fearers were trained in the mother-faith of European and early Asian Christians, Greek-influenced Judaism, so too the "nan" and "noi" (honorifics for these former monks) were trained in the mother-faith of Thai Christians, animistic Thai Buddhism.
Stephen Neill, in THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY, makes the following observation, "The contacts between the christian community and the thought-world of its environment were inevitably disturbing. Living as it does by the principle of incarnation, the christian society cannot affect the world around it except by entering into it and undergoing its influence. The history of christian thought is that of the effort, permanently necessary and never finally successful, to stand on the central line of the christian tradition, without being allured away by the aberrations which may result from the admixture of alien types of thought. In the earliest days, when christian doctrine was still largely unformulated, the danger was at its greatest." (pp. 45-46)
The church in its thought, its social life, and in its ministries faces two risks: the risk of incarnation and the risk of failing to be incarnate. The risk of incarnation is in being "of" as well as "in" the world. The opposite risk is of being neither "in" nor "of" the world. It is more than just word games, however, to observe the two other possible combinations of "in" and "of" in juxtaposition to "the world." The ideal the church strives for is to be "in" but not "of" the world. The greatest danger is that it will be "of" but not "in" the world. At the risk of repeating what appears in previous HeRDs, it appears that Thai Protestantism has largely fallen into this last pattern. It is, in many ways, overtly alien to its sociocultural environment and thus not "in" its world, while at the same time thinking and behaving in ways that are frequently "of" the world. Herein lies what should be the central struggle of Thai Protestantism, namely, to extract itself FROM society in some ways while more deeply entering INTO society in other ways.
Research in the history of the early church suggests that the 19th century Protestant missionaries in Thailand shared the attitudes and values of the early church in several significant ways. They shared a dualistic world view by which God and Satan are engaged in a vast cosmic struggle, one that God must necessarily win. Both the early church and the missionaries, consequently, tended to view Christians as "strangers" in this world and to take a negative view of the world around them. Conversion in both eras required converts to deny important elements of their former lives, particularly those related to religious practices. In the process, the churches of both eras experienced being socially ostracized and politically oppressed. Both shared the patron-client of their larger societies, and individual Christians depended upon the protection of patrons to maintain and improve their lives.
There is, however, an important difference as well. The way in which the early church was a "stranger" in the world differed in significant ways from the way in which Thai Protestantism was and is a stranger in its world. Paul, if the church historians have him right, struggled mightily to transform the Palestinian, semi-rural Good News proclaimed by Peter and James into an urban, Greek message. The church, furthermore, constructed itself out of the forms and structures it inherited from its surrounding culture. It took the form of voluntary societies which organized themselves to achieve certain social ends, a social form widely found in the urban centers of the Roman Empire. Converts heard a message couched in familiar thought ways and joined an "organization" familiar to them in form and practice. When the early church called on converts to reject "the world" that didn't mean taking on culturally alien thought ways and forms. There was always, in fact, a strong faction in the earliest church that advocated the transformation of the Jesus-faith into something intelligible to Gentiles. There has been no such comparable faction or movement in Thai Protestantism. In contrast to the early church's single alienation, thus, we remain "double aliens" in Thailand. Strangers not only in conversion but also in culture.
The Presbyterians strongly emphasized education in their missionary work in Thailand. Asked why, they would have given a number of different answers. John A. Eakin wrote an article in the May 1902 edition of WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN that summed up the views of many missionaries on the question of education. He wrote of his male students, "We try to develop in them a healthful, manly spirit, and give them a religion that will do for every day as well as for Sunday."
Source: J. A. Eakin, "The Christian High School at Sumray," WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN 17, 5(May 1902): 134-135.
On a visit to one of the rural churches in Lamphun Province, the Rev. J. H. Freeman found the church in the midst of a feast being held by the Christians. In his report on this event in the May 1902 edition of WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN, Freeman observed, "Feasts and festivals form a very large element in the life of the people, before they become Christians, and we are only beginning to realize how this side of native character can be utilized for the spread of the gospel." We could wish that Freeman would have said more, because his insight into northern Thai society is an extremely important one. Even today, ritual and ceremony play a major part in the life of the people, especially for those still living in older villages in the country-side. A great deal of time is given over to house-warmings, weddings, funerals, the celebration of temple events, and other ritual events. It is the major form of communal socializing. It would be interesting to know how the missionaries acted concretely on their insight into the importance of ritual and ceremony in the North. My own experience suggests that a lively, meaningful worship life is a key, if not they key to church renewal in northern Thailand.
Source: J. H. Freeman, "How the Leve Works in Laos," WOMAN'S WORK FOR WOMAN 17, 5(May 1902): 136-38.
During the course of a class discussion with the M.Div. students taking the Introduction to Church History course I taught first semester at the McGilvary Faculty of Theology, we were reflecting on the early experience of northern Thai churches. The five students and I, together, discovered three major themes that summarize the northern Thai church experience in its early stages. Those themes included, first, LIBERATION. The first generation of northern Thai Christians found in their new faith liberation from various forms of oppression and fear. Second, INDIGENIZATION. The convert community brought values and beliefs from northern Thai culture with them into their new religion. Third, ALIENATION. As we talked about this last point, it was striking to us how much of the early northern Thai church experience could be summed up in the word "moved" (yai, in Thai). They "moved" from one set of patrons to another. They moved from one set of beliefs to another. They frequently moved out of their former homes to live in closer proximity to other Christians. And, in the largest sense, they "moved" societies. They became a distinct and separate social community alienated from the larger society.
These three concepts don't encompass all of the early church experience in the North, but they do go a long way in that direction. The one thing that deeply impressed the students was the impact conversion had on the converts. It was a major step in their lives...and not an easy one.
Back in HeRD #165 we looked briefly at the issue of the role of women in church life, particularly in the early church. That HeRD concluded that it is highly likely that the leadership role of women in the early church was much greater than church historians have recognized. There are at least two issues here, one being the bias and/or ignorance of male historians, and the other being the lack of clarity in the documentary sources.
Elizabeth S. Fiorenza, writing from a feminist perspective, offers us the following observations. She states that the problem historians face in studying the role of women in the early church is the "…scarcity and androcentric character of our sources." She writes that the role of women, "...must be rescued through historical imagination as well as in and through a reconstruction of this movement which fills out and contextualizes the fragmentary information still available to us. The historical texts and information on women's involvement in the beginnings of the Christian missionary movement, therefore, must not be taken as descriptive of the actual situation. Once again, they are the tip of an iceberg in which the most prominent women of the early Christian missionary movement surface, not as exceptions to the rule but as representatives of early Christian women who have survived androcentric redactions and historical silence. Their impact and importance must not be seen as exceptional, but must be understood within the structures of the early Christian missionary movement that allowed for the full participation and leadership of women." (Fiorenza, IN MEMORY OF HER, pp. 167-168)
It is difficult to move beyond all of the rhetoric and feelings generated by women's issues to discover what the actual situation was. Fiorenza's "imaginative reconstructions" of early church history sometimes open doors to new perspectives and at other times appear flimsy and uncertain at best. Even so, historians of the Thai church need to think long and carefully about the issues raised by the above quotation. Although our sources are much richer, they are still discouragingly silent about (and presumably "androcentric") concerning the role of women, esp. Thai women, in the creation and development of the church in Thailand.
Many of our HeRDs in the coming months will be devoted to the Pentecostal movement in Thailand. From the outset, we need to be particularly sensitive to the difficulties involved in reaching a fair-minded appraisal of the role and contribution of that movement in Thailand. This isn't easy because Pentecostalism in Thailand has been divisive and controversial, and the CCT's experience, in particular, with the Pentecostal movement hasn't been a happy one. Churches and families have split because of it. As we've already seen in several HeRDS, however, CCT representatives have frequently only made matters worse. They've treated Pentecostal renewal as a dangerous threat rather than as an exciting opportunity. They've protected older forms of worship that generally don't speak to people's hearts. How, then, do we attain a fair estimation of Pentecostalism?
Fairness is important. Pentecostalism is a judgment on the CCT and other non-Pentecostal churches. It claims that we're unspiritual. It is crucial that we discover the fairness and accuracy of that judgment. In order to assess the Pentecostal judgment we need to discover what has actually happened. Why have there been so many church splits and so much unhappy competition? Is it our closed-minded, un-spiritual defensiveness that is essentially at fault? Or are Pentecostals aggressive sectarian sheep-stealers? Where between these two poles lies the truth of our encounter with Pentecostalism? A defensive, self-justifying attitude towards the past will blind us to the lessons, however painful, our encounter with the Pentecostals has to teach us. On the other hand, a "leaning-over-backwards-to-be-fair" approach could just as well obscure the truth of the past. How then do we find the middle ground and a fair interpretation? These are some of the questions we're going to be seeking to answer.
One of the "sermons" HeRD preaches is that how we look at the past matters. The Rev. Robert (Bobby) Nishimoto provides a case in point in his recently published (in Thai) history of the Pentecostal Movement in Thailand. Nishimoto comes to church history generally and Thai church history in particular with a definite perspective, one that I feel substantially misinterprets the latter, if not the former. He begins his work with a brief sketch of general church history that seeks to demonstrate that Pentecostalism is the true heir to the Christian faith. When he begins his study of Thai church history, however, he ignores the whole history of the church before the Song Revivals of 1938 and 1939. To read Nishimoto, nothing happened before 1938. Dr. John Song was a Chinese revivalist, and his exciting, eccentric preaching style and his straightforward, blunt messages enthused thousands of Thai Christians. He brought a period of meaningful renewal to Thai Protestant churches and left a lingering impact on the lives of many individuals. Nishimoto gives him so much attention because he sees in Song a proto-Pentecostal who facilitated the introduction of Pentecostalism into Thailand. He, thus, claims Song for Pentecostalism and marks in him the beginning of the Pentecostal movement in Thailand.
It's no small matter that Nishimoto's holy history begins with Song rather than the longer history of Thai Protestantism. It creates the impression that all previous work in Thailand was inconsequential to the Pentecostal experience here. Song, in fact, was the culmination of a longer period of revivals that began in Thai Protestant churches in the mid-1920s. That revivalistic movement, in turn, grew out of the longer historical experience of those churches. Pentecostal churches, furthermore, have relied heavily on "converts" from the older churches to build up their own churches Former CCT leaders played key roles in the early stages of Pentecostal work. The point in all of this is that Thai Pentecostalism is itself an expression of the longer and larger Thai Protestant experience. It's part of the larger tapestry. I would hazard the guess that one reason Pentecostalism has been disruptive rather than healing is because both Pentecostals and their opponents have assumed that Pentecostalism was something new in Thailand. In this case the Preacher was right when he said there IS nothing new under the Sun. The successes and failures of the Pentecostals are as much an expression of 19th and earlier 20th century Protestant history as are the successes and failures of the Church of Christ in Thailand also expressions of that history.
|
