“The Majority world has a Christianity that was not shaped by Christendom or the sword, but by the Word and the Spirit.”
Hmmm… are we sure about that?

now, i’ll be the first to admit that i’m no expert on the majority world as a whole. i have served as a missionary both in china and (currently) in tanzania, east africa.
i’d be interested to know what evidence these authors offer to show that the majority world’s “brand” of christianity is doing so much better than ours in america. after all we were the ones who took the gospel to many of those areas, usually (and possibly unknowingly) forcing on these new christians and churches our own culture and doctrinal beliefs.
i know that here in tanzania, these doctrinal issues have only been magnified since those times. christians are forced out of the local “body of Christ” for not giving the right percentage of their income, while the “apostle” takes a 20% cut of all giving because “his blessings are worth that much.” authority is constantly abused, people are taught to listen to man and not to read God’s word for themselves to understand it, and morality within many of these churches is extremely low.
i know east africa isn’t representative of the entire world, but i’d be very surprised if the gospel we americans have passed on to others has proven much better in other places.

Based on my limited experience, the three characteristics that Scot notes for the majority world are also true of at least some of the minority churches here in the US. I see this as something we can learn from.
1. The Majority World is less concerned with the doctrinal specifics than we are.
2. The Majority World is less concerned with academic credentials and more shaped by spiritual transformation.
3. The Majority World is more influential through the fringes than through seats of power.
Peace,
Randy G.

This is a good reminder. Soong-Chan Rah’s book, The Next Evangelicalism, is a good place to start. When critiquing evangelicalism, I try always to specify which evangelicalism I’m talking about, usually the American church. But this is a good reminder, Scot. God’s always doing infinitely more than we realize.

Is it accurate to call Anglicans from the Global South “evangelicals”? I’m just wondering…since so much Christian growth, especially in Africa, is driven by Anglican churches…

Nice to read someone recognizing that the West isn’t the centre of the evangelical universe

I want to quibble with point 1: The Majority World is less concerned with the doctrinal specifics than we are.
Again, I am assuming that Anglicans in Africa are evangelicals, but that can be disputed. At least within Anglicanism, the African church, and some of the church in America, is the only group left that really cares very much about doctrine at all. Canterbury, along with the Episcopal leadership, is determined to keep the liberals, atheists, and conervatives together under one Anglican banner. It is only some American churches, and the African church generally, that are threatening schism over doctrinal matters. As an outsider it appears that they care about doctrine very much.

I accept your main point, which is that evangelicalism in other parts of the world look nothing like it does in the U.S. But if that’s the case, doesn’t that mean that the term has become useless? I think when people criticize evangelicalism, they’re almost always referring to American Evangelicalism. For example, when Mark Noll writes of the “Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,” he does not have Africa, Asia, or South America in mind.
As to the Christians who are wringing their hands over “the demise of evangelicalism,” I dare say your point would be of little comfort to them, since what they are really upset about is the demise of American evangelicalism, which is often egocentric, consumeristic, anti-science, and arrogant.

I echo Nitika.
I addition, I think what is quite incredible about the church around the world is that despite colonization, the backside of the Western Missionary movement, among other variables – the church continues to grow. This is true for the global church – labels of evangelical aside. The Spirit has been deeply at work around the world, and the rise of the church is despite “our” failures.
Kyle small

If these three points are accurate, then it’s refreshing to see. The west needs to focus more on spiritual transformation. We’ve lost our way regarding this important issue of discipleship.

“Now a major point: global Christianity is evangelical and it is poor…” In my experience, global Christianity is poor — but it is also wealthy. That is, it is economically diverse. There are lots of wealthy people in Asia following Christ. There are lots of people who have through lifestyle change and refocus generated significant wealth. We need to avoid narrowly niching the global church one way or the other.

Brad,
Thanks for that one. I think Wilkens and Thorsen are saying something like “by and large” or the “majority” and I suspect if one starts running numbers, esp when compared with the West and N America, “poor” would be a fair way of describing the majority of evangelicals in the world. They don’t offer hard-core numbers …

OK Scot, you and Anne Rice have convinced me. I’m leaving the church.

OK, sometimes I’m the very last post in a subject, in fact, more often than not, so I never get any feedback. Am I the only person out there on the verge of losing their faith because of (but not solely) these posts? Help me!

muse,
Why? What about these posts do you find particularly challenging?