Why is This Even a Question?
Already with one eye on the job market, I was excited to see something recently posted in my specific discipline: World Christianity. In a new and therefore small field, this was a rare event. Immediately I raced through a reading of the job description until I tripped on one very troubling fact. No one agrees on what global Christianity is.
The job listing I looked at explained the institution was looking for someone who would be able to talk about Christianity in Asia, Africa, and Latin America and “diaspora communities of World Christianity in the global North.” If it was not clear already, the last phrase confirmed it. World Christianity, by this definition, referred to Christian communities in, or originating from, the global South. Christians to the north were, paradoxically, excluded from the all-inclusive title of “World Christianity.”
In other circles, the same fault line exists but the appellations are reversed. Some scholars have begun to probe the global and local dynamics of Christianity. In the studies I am most familiar with (China), the global side of the faith invariably refers to what has been exported from the global North. In descriptions of how local Chinese adopted and adapted the global faith, it becomes obvious that authors are not referring to the Christian faith as practiced by Papua New Guineans, Paraguayans, or Palestinians. The world Christianity referred to invariably comes from North America and Europe. In such cases, the seemingly all-encompassing idea of world Christianity once again excludes rather than includes.
A third definition of world Christianity circulates, though less widely than the first two. It thinks of world Christianity as a theological reality. The one body of Christ, these scholars argue, is ontologically prior to the various histories, theologies, geographies, and social distinctions that divide Christianity into what appears to be a myriad of Christianities. By God’s act, all Christians at all times and in all places are united by one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
None of these definitions of global or world Christianity can be easily collapsed or combined with the others. The rest of the essays submitted on this topic attest to that fact, even as they try to move past it. For the moment, I have to live with at least three competing notions of what I am studying. Obviously, some serious and heavy work lies ahead for the discipline. In the meantime at least being aware of the various definitions is beneficial. If nothing else, that knowledge should help me communicate clearly if I ever make it to an interview.
Daryl Ireland
PhD Candidate in History, School of Theology