Volume 7, Issue 1

THE COLUMBIA

spring 2020 vol. 7 | no. 1

A JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN PERSPEC TIVES

A Korean Christianity | p. 04

The Denominational Crisis | p. 22

our vision A campus that recognizes the subversive character of Jesus and witnesses the reality of the Gospel.

our mission To proclaim the life and power of God’s truth to the Columbia community and beyond through diverse Christian voices and ideas.

IN THIS ISSUE

04

20

A Korean Christianity

One Purpose, Just One

Sean Kim

Keith James

08

22

Beyond Forbidden Fruit

The Denominational Crisis

Nathan Santos

Timothy Kinnamon

12

27

The Diversity of Heaven

The Immigrant’s Worship

Chase Chumchal

Michael Manasseh

16

Diversity: Indispensible to Theological Beauty Jonathan Tanaka

31 Let There Be Kyra Dawkins

editor in chief

Sean Kim blog head

Jade Thompson design head

Sean Kim business manager

Canwen Xu print

Kyra Dawkins | Sunny Chen Tony Kim | Sean Kim blog

Jade Thompson | Karis Cha Michael Manasseh design

Blake Jones | Sandra Song Sunny Chen | Tony Kim contributors

Timothy Kinnamon | Nathan Santos Jonathan Tanaka | Keith James special thanks to

Christian Union

Dear Reader,

T

he year of 2020 will long live in our collective memory as one filled with difficulty. All at once, the coronavirus pandemic upended many of the institutions and rituals we had taken for granted: graduations were cancelled or moved online, classes were made pass/fail, and performances that were meant to celebrate the work of an entire season became, in their absence, reminders of a particularly tragic sort of futility.

The Witness was not spared from this mass interruption. While plans had been made to print this particular issue back in March, once students were ordered to leave campus and return home it became clear that distributing physical copies would not be practical. Thus the Spring 2020 issue remained in limbo, another uncertainty in a year that seemed to have no shortage of them. Until now.

We present this issue to you at a more hopeful time.

We hope for a speedy end to the pandemic and for a return to the places and people we love. We hope that this issue can be a reflection of ideas that transcend pandemic-adjacent concerns as well as a reminder of His grace. The theme of this issue is diversity; we hope you enjoy it.

God Bless, THE EDITORIAL TEAM Spring 2020

4 | vol. 7, no. 1

A Korean Christianity Sean Kim

T

here is a statistic I often like to cite when I want to demonstrate the influence of Christianity on the Korean-American community. In South Korea, a majority of the citizenry has no formal affiliation with any religion and only 27.6% of Koreans are Christian — either Protestant or Catholic.1 However, within the Korean-American population a staggering 71% are Christian; moreover, 40% of these believers only started to identify as Christians after they had immigrated to the States.2 It is hard to deny that for a large majority of Korean-Americans, Christianity holds a special appeal.

For the Korean immigrant, a major aspect of the church’s appeal is cultural.

With few exceptions, first-generation Korean immigrants attend Korean churches, within which they are able to practice Korean cultural traditions and maintain social networks with fellow Koreans. Because Koreans are often ethnic minorities in their workspaces and schools, the Korean church has become the primary locus of cultural preservation; its status as a hierarchical institution enhances its appeal as a stable platform on which Korean culture can flourish.

Here it must be noted that there is a crucial distinction between first-generation and younger-generation Korean-American churches.

Although younger-generation congregations — which mostly consist of Korean-Americans who grew up in the States — are often located within first-generation churches and are financially supported 1 “Population by Gender, Age, and Religion,” kosis.

kr, (January 5, 2017).

2 “Asian Americans: A Mosaic of Faiths,” pewforum.org, (July 19, 2012).

by them, much of the Korean culture that is carefully preserved by first-generation churches is simply not practiced by younger-generation churches. Services in younger-generation churches are predominantly held in English rather than Korean, and traditional Korean holidays that are celebrated in first-generation churches are not celebrated in younger-generation churches.3 Of course, this is not to say that younger Korean-Americans have given up on Korean culture entirely; a sense of Korean identity is still seen as important for many. However, Korean identity is increasingly seen by the younger generations as something to be practiced outside of the church.

Why is this the case? A common opinion held by younger Korean-American Christians is that the church should primarily be a spiritual and not a cultural community.4 Whereas first-generation Korean-Americans see little problem with an explicitly Korean churchgoing practice, younger generations perceive tensions between some aspects of Korean culture and their Christian faith.

In addition, younger Korean-Americans are more likely to identify themselves as Christians first and Koreans second, while the reverse is true for the older generation.5 All of these attitudes result in a younger-generation Korean-American church that bears little cultural connection to first-generation churches 3 Pyong Gap Min, “Intergenerational Transmission

of Religion and Culture: Korean Protestants in the U.S.,” Sociology of Religion 66, no. 3 (2005): 263–282.

4 ibid.

5 Pyong Gap Min, Preserving Ethnicity through Religion in America: Korean Protestants and Indian Hindus across Generations, (New York: NYU Press, 2010).

and that grows ever-more apathetic with regards to preserving its cultural appeal.

Although I sympathize with many of the concerns expressed by younger Korean-American Christians, being one myself, I want to push back against the notion that there should be no space within younger-generation churches for the transmission of Korean culture. On the contrary, younger-generation Korean-American churches should take advantage of the shared cultural identity of their congregations to promote and preserve a uniquely Korean Christianity.

So long as the values of Christianity are not made subservient to Korean cultural norms, this Korean Christianity may demonstrate the resonance of Christianity for all peoples and in all times.

One of the first questions that arises when conceiving of such a thing as a Korean Christianity is of what happens when Korean culture and Christian values contradict each other. This problem of contradiction largely stems from the fact that Korea has always been a religious nation. Christianity is only the latest in a long succession of belief systems to have taken root in Korean society; Buddhism, Confucianism, and shamanism can all lay claim to being the dominant religious framework throughout swaths of Korea’s history.

Elements of these older faiths persist in Korean culture: great Buddhist temples adorn the Korean landscape and serve as powerful representatives of Korean classicism; neo-confucian beliefs are commonly held by the public, though they are not as all-encompassing as western stereotypes may lead

The Witness | 5

one to believe. The veneration of ancestors through food offerings and burnt incense still occurs today. To remove non-Christian religious influences from Korean culture would be akin to removing Christianity from European culture: almost unimaginable.

When the Korean Christian is confronted with a cultural practice that directly competes with Christian beliefs, such as ancestor worship, he or she can do two things. The first would be to strip the old practice entirely from daily life.

The second would be to recontextualize the old practice as a tradition rather than a ritual, with the tradition serving the same function of preserving a long-established culture without a ritual’s religious implications. Indeed, that is how many Korean Christians view ancestor

worship today: they may present offerings and burn incense as before, but only out of respect, not deification. The absence of any sort of overtly religious meaning in Korean traditional culture allows for Christianity to serve as one’s sole moral framework.

However, there exists a potential for de-ritualized cultural values to conflict with Christianity in other ways. These conflicts are mostly problems of emphasis and not of outright discordance; for example, the heavy focus on educational attainment and subsequent material wealth in Korean and Korean-American society may be seen as potentially overriding the Christian priority of maintaining the spiritual self above all else.

Here generational differences come strongly into play: older Koreans may

insist on the value of attaining a college degree and maintaining good grades while their younger sons or daughters may feel that their academic pursuits intrude on their spiritual lives.

And this I believe is at the heart of why younger Korean-American congregations are more likely than older congregations to distance themselves from Korean culture. Younger Korean Christians tend to see Korean culture as an intrusion on genuine Christian practice.

As one pastor from a study on the Korean-American church explains: It is important we Korean Americans maintain Korean cultural traditions. I am very ethnic. I teach my children the Korean language and customs at home. But I try to separate the spiritual community from the family. It is the job of the family to teach Korean traditions. But our spiritual community should focus on the gospel. No particular culture should be emphasized and no politics should be involved in a congregation.6

The pastor in this instance believes

6 Min, “Intergenerational Transmission of

Religion and Culture.”

6 | vol. 7, no. 1

that any inclusion of Korean culture in church detracts from “focusing on the gospel,” even for congregations that are entirely or almost entirely Korean-American. The church is where matters of the spirit are attended to, whereas cultural practices or values not specific to Christianity are best left at home. The implications of this notion are that Korean culture does not have any spiritual bearing on Korean-American people, that Korean culture as it exists in the church is inherently problematic, and that the exclusion of said culture allows the Korean-American church to exist free of secular influences.

Although I have no doubt about the good intentions behind these attitudes, I wonder if it really is possible to have a de-cultured and de-secularized church. After all, the majority of younger Korean-American congregations practice Christianity in a manner that is not universal but rather constrained by the cultural norms of American evangelicalism. The music that congregants use to worship, the positions they take on how worship should be done, even the style of dress worn on Sundays — these are all fundamentally cultural aspects that are independent of Christian belief. In fact, the supposition that the younger Korean-American church is devoid of cultural emphasis is itself a reflection of American cultural hegemony.

This is not to say that Ameri-

can-style Christianity is harmful to the Korean-American church — younger Korean-American Christians are just as likely as their parents to go to church regularly.7 However, I am suggesting that a more critical examination of culture’s role in the church may be in order.

Christian practices have always unproblematically incorporated elements of secular culture — the way that music is approached in the African-American church is a great example of this — and just because a particular culture is seen

sion six days of the week and censor it on the seventh simply does not hold water.

Rather than distracting congregants from the gospel, the inclusion of Korean culture in church life would actually strengthen the church community if done correctly. Examples of this can be found in first-generation churches: they often serve Korean food on Sundays, have Korean-language classes on the weekend, celebrate major Korean holidays together, and so on. Of course, it goes without saying that these activi-

A “default” or standardized Christian culture does not exist; it is up to each congregation or denomination to decide what kind of culture to promote. as the mainstream does not mean it should be elevated above others.

A “default” or standardized Christian culture does not exist; therefore, it is up to each congregation or denomination to decide what kind of culture to promote. And this is especially relevant for the Korean-American church.

It makes little sense to remove Korean culture from a Korean-American church if it is only replaced by a monoculture that is not inherently any more de-secularized.

Part of what makes the church important to so many people is that it serves not only as a space for individual worship but also a space for Christians to live life together; it is this latter function of the church that is tied up with secular culture. Within a Korean-American congregation, if a desire to express one’s Korean heritage and culture is present, to encourage such an expres-

ties should never detract from the spiritual functions of the church. However, their continued popularity within the first-generation church suggests that they do facilitate a sense of solidarity without diluting the gospel message.

Christianity has never been unified by a single culture; regional variations on how it is practiced have existed out of preference or necessity since its beginnings. Indeed, many of these variations have allowed Christianity to flourish in unforeseen places and should be celebrated, not diminished. Allowing the Korean-American church to practice the faith in a way that reflects the unique cultural identity of its members would be a powerful sign of Christianity’s relevance in all places. The followers of Jesus spoke in many languages to advance His ministry.8 Who knew that someday they would be speaking Korean?

7 ibid.

8 Acts 2.

Sean Kim (CC ’20) is a biology major and the editor-in-chief of the Witness.

The Witness | 7

Beyond Forbidden Fruit Augustine and the Quran on the Problem of Evil Nathan Rubene dos Santos

8 | vol. 7, no. 1

D

asdf espite being exalted by medieval scholastics and modern poets alike as the “queen of the sciences,” theology has often had to contend with a number of perennial dilemmas of ethical importance that are not easily answered through recourse to a nicely-packaged verse in the Gospels. Of those opponents who seem unwilling to die and be subsumed into the framework of a new metaphysics, the most fearsome has been the problem of evil. The thorn of Christianity since it was first articulated by Paul in relation to the nature of original sin, culminating into doctrine through Augustine’s writings, the identity of evil has nevertheless taken aim at all the great Abrahamic religions with varying degrees of intensity.

In this article I would like to give particular attention to Islam’s approach, which sees evil not as an incongruity of Creation that is in opposition to God’s original plan for humanity but as an active, positive force wielded as a weapon of judgment by God that therefore both cannot be properly titled as “evildoing” and is also meant to test us for the hereafter, falling in line with the Quran’s call of submission to God from which the very words “Islam” and “Muslim” derive from. Out of this detachment of evil from any sort of primordial culpability on the part of humans to its legitimization as a divine force comes a radical reshaping of God’s relationship to His creation, the extent of His goodwill and love, and the manner in which man may exert his freedom and destiny — if it is truly up to man at all. Besides encouraging a greater appreciation for the mosaic of religious thought that makes up our world, the comparative theological analysis of Islam and Christianity reveals the uniqueness of the latter’s promise of salvation. The Christian narrative is one that goes to the heart of human weakness to lift us up by His selfless sacrifice made not as a reward for human merit, but as an ever-bountiful wellspring of love — inconceivable in any other religious

tradition.

Our examination of the problem of evil necessitates as its first principle an understanding of God’s sovereignty and its associated offices in the Quran. One does not have to look far for an answer, for the purpose of the Opening Surah’s prayer is not only to petition God for His blessing and intervention in the compiling of the Holy Book, but to delineate what are the attributes by which God is known to His followers.1 Many can be

Man, who follows “the straight path” in humble pursuit of God’s gifts. The Opening Surah ends by making clear that humanity’s desire for the good can only be achieved through divine mediation and requires adherence to His exact will; thus does the good require our submission and avoidance of incurring divine wrath.

So, what does this characterization of God entail for the problem of evil?

First, it demands that we separate what

We engage God in violent rebellion through our choices and likewise enter in conflict with ourselves. categorized under the umbrella term of omnipotence, with such epithets as “Lord of the Worlds” and “Master of the Day of Judgment” establishing His power not as an inert potentiality but the living bedrock upon which all existence bows in present and future reverence.

Likewise, God also assumes the titles of “Lord” and “Giver of Mercy,” or rahman, which aligns mercy to God’s supreme authority and, most notably, His discretion.

While this is not enough evidence to determine the exact nature of God’s benevolence in any sense, it is enough to provoke doubt as to whether the Quran provides the proper conditions for a omni-benevolent God in the same manner as Christianity, epitomized in the historical arc of humanity’s redemption across the Old and New Testaments. The Quran does not rely on this interplay between the creator God and humanity’s constantly evolving state between good and evil, but instead presupposes stern lordship and the selective giving of mercy as alreadyknown qualities that introduce to the reader the two parties involved in the active revelation-dialogue that is the Quran: God, who commands, and

we may typically generalize as evil, being the undoing of human happiness in the current life or in eternity, into the categories of natural cause, induced by man himself upon himself or another, and supernatural cause, representing the spectrum of spirits (jinn) that can compel mankind to err and the perceived “evils” that God unleashes as test and punishment. From these possibilities, the Quran argues that natural cause is the true source of evil, for jinns can only persuade one to evil but cannot be the agent themselves, while God is excluded from evildoing since He is the ultimate arbiter of justice and cannot be condemned by the standards of man. In turn, the tendency to evil is shown to be an essentially human fault; in the Women Surah, for example, the placing of blame is made obvious by the statement that “anything good that happens to you is from God; anything bad is from yourself”.2 The Quran’s parameters here give evil positive form and substance unlike Augustine’s famous depiction of evil as purely negative and existing only in its non-existence, a corruption of the good and therefore originating from it.3 As to how the Quranic tendency

1 Quran 1:1-7.

2 Quran 4:79 3 Augustine, City of God, (426), 440.

to evil manifests in our behavior, God warns the devout not to fall to the predilection of pursuing the ephemeral and deceiving, or dunya, for it is false growth that will eventually “wither away, turn yellow, and become stubble”.4 Mankind’s imbalanced attention to what is divinely deemed to be valuable makes them insolent to God and subsequently open to reprimand; this insolence is a crime of passivity that brushes shoulders against Paul’s more general and action-oriented locating of evil in Romans 3:10–12. Paul claims that it is in the very act of turning towards worldly delights that we also turn away from God and propagate evil attitudes by our lack of compassion.5 We engage God in violent rebellion through our choices and likewise enter in conflict with ourselves; as Augustine parallels in the fall of certain angels, we bring ourselves down to “a lower degree of existence” that undermines the very reason why we mistakenly preferred our own will over God’s — to achieve happiness.6 Paul and Augustine focus on how the movement towards evildoing — that is, the decision in movement — is evil itself and a threat to one’s salvation, instead of the Quran’s tallying-up of evil ends as a result of seemingly inherent human imperfection.

If man’s penchant for evil preceded any action on his part that would make him susceptible to it, what does the Quran have to say about the Garden of Eden? Looking into the Heights Surah, one finds that Adam and Eve’s expulsion is treated with less permanent, emotional gravity than in the Bible. Their punishment was temporary for a specific misdeed and is limited to those directly involved; in a similar way, evil’s impact on the state of humanity is considered by the Quran as restricted to a single generation. Since we have established that from the Christian perspective evil is found in the movement of the soul towards sinful acts, it is no wonder why Adam and Eve’s disobedience in eating

4 Quran 57:20 5 Romans 3:10-12.

6 Augustine, City of God, (426), 477.

The Witness | 9

the forbidden fruit on Satan’s cue would carry such long-lasting consequences in the eyes of the Church Fathers: it was the first instance of man’s turning away from God’s protection through the most insulting repudiation of His edicts, in effect setting the stage for every sin to follow.

In Romans 6:23, Paul has no hesitation stipulating the outcome of sin as a sure “death” both physical and spiritual, an extreme binary between enslavement to the transgression of their first ancestor and the chance at liberation through faith in Christ.7 The Quran, on the other hand, avoids the question of original sin entirely, instead focusing on the role of God’s judiciousness: He grants verdicts of expulsion, enmity, shelter, or future freedom that are non-negotiable.8 In sum, God wields His sovereignty to combat human offenses and responds to the unfortunate couple’s pleas of mercy as a judge does in striking out offenses in court — they are quantifiable, containable, and can be righted within a reasonable and limited timeframe. After all, Adam and Eve are granted a “place of settlement” after banishment with no further retribution.

While the Qur’an is vehement in shifting culpability on the part of man, it does allow for debate as to why God would purposely commit seemingly evil deeds, at least from the point of view of vulnerable mortals, against that which He so lovingly took infinite care and time to bring into the light of being.

The accountability question resists capitulation, so the Qur’an delivers through parables. Probably some of the most memorable are those involving the legendary mystical figure Al-Khidr, the Green One, who features prominently in a Cave Surah story about Moses travelling throughout the world to gain knowledge of God. Incensed by Moses’ objection over Al-Khidr’s inexplicable decision to destroy boats, kill an innocent child, and fix a wall for free, the sage explains

7 Romans 6:7-8, 23 8 Quran 7:23-25

10 | vol. 7, no. 1

that he “did not do these things of [his] own accord,” but rather in order to fulfill a greater, if unknown, good.9 This parable reflects how God’s wisdom might not be understood at first glance and may appear contradictory to the appearance of the good, but it always has a greater reason than commonly thought. By wrecking the boats, Al-Khidr saved a people from invasion; by killing the child as a sacrifice to God for one “purer and more compassionate in his place,” he consoled the parents’ fears that the deviant child “would trouble them through wickedness and disbelief;” by fixing the wall, he preserved buried treasure meant for two young orphans once they came of age. Given the “good” ends of these abhorrent acts, the Quran implies that evil cannot be pinpointed to discrete, isolated cases, nor be judged in itself, and must be placed in the greater context of God’s providence. Otherwise, it can be easily misunderstood. Paul’s position similarly acknowledges the ultimate mystery of God’s plan from the fractured comprehension of a mortal, temporal being but rebukes the Khidrian notion that even out of evil good can emerge and declares such twisting of teachings slanderous.10 It appears that Paul, while recognizing how God works his will through the multiplicity of human lives and interactions, does not confuse providence with objectively wicked deeds such as murder.

The last unknown territory on our investigative checklist reaches at the heart of evil’s purpose in God’s plan according to the Quran, to which I propose the hypothesis that what is perceived as evil is actually a test of faith and worthiness of receiving the prizes of Paradise. Much of the backing for this legalistic deduction is centered on the Cow Surah, which proposes suffering as a prerequisite to entering heaven.

Suffering is portrayed as stitching together all cycles of civilization through commonly shared experiences; throughout history, the community

9 Quran 18:78-82 10 Romans 3: 5-8

of the faithful have been “afflicted by misfortune and hardship . . . so shaken that [they] cried, ‘When will God’s help arrive?’” and with consistency, God delivered His people to freedom. Evil is channeled to fulfill our meaning on earth through trial and tribulation, but one should not despair in the challenge of enduring life due to such “sanctioned” torment; not so much later, it is mentioned that God arbitrates from a source of love and does not push the yoke past the point one can endure.11 The phrasing of the prayer implicates fear of abandonment as an undying element, but through the strength transferred from God to His children as from father to son, one can be assured that all will end well. The vagueness of the Quran’s final remarks on evil is at odds with Paul’s firmer stance; in Romans 6:11, the apostle throws humanity in an apocalyptic battle of good against evil, outright rejecting evil’s overall right to exist despite its possible advantages, and argues that in conquering evil through a conquering of death humanity is reborn in Christ.

Suffering is valuable insofar as it hones one’s spiritual character towards hope, but to dare claim that God promotes suffering to our benefit invalidates Christianity’s defining of God as omnibenevolent.12 And so we come full circle to the realization that while the push and pull between the Quran and the Christian sources is not akin to a battle of outright polarities, the divide remains on the basis of the first principles that introduced this study: is God’s love allencompassing to the point that He will always grant entry into his Kingdom for those that, in pursuing the summum bonum in life, strove to one day be united with Him? The Quran remains fickle in this respect, promising a more materialistic Paradise only after a litany of painful tests. This obfuscates the direct, reciprocal exchange of love between God and man that is so 11

Quran 2:214, 286

12 Romans 5:1-5, 6:11

intrinsic to the Christian conception of the Trinity, and is all the more reason to relinquish our doubts to Him that came into a world sinking the mires of sin and made it anew not through retributive anger, but a merciful love.

Saint Thomas Aquinas praised God’s caritas and its mirroring in humans as the greatest of all virtues, and countless scholars have written about it since. But for our purposes, the Gospel is sufficient to drive the point home: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him”.13 It was a revolutionary message 2,000 years ago, and remains so today.

13 1 John 4:16

Nathan (CC’20) is a senior at Columbia College studying Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Dividing his time between Brazil and the United States, Nathan is interested in the emergence of a transoceanic Lusophone identity during the early modern era and the nebulous image of India/the Indies as a representation of alterity. He is looking forward to researching ethnoreligious collaboration between Christian and Muslim Arab communities in Brazil as part of a master’s program later this year. In his spare time Nathan dances with Ballet Folklórico, a traditional Mexican ensemble committed to raising awareness of border violence and the journey of Central American caravans seeking asylum.

The Witness | 11

Art by Hamed Gatsby

12 | vol. 7, no. 1

The Diversity of Heaven Chase Chumchal

F

or Christians, the hope of heaven is not for some Platonic tropical island; rather, biblical hope is in a Person — a Person seen in a manger, seen with scars, seen nailed to a cross, seen leaving a grave. This hope-filled Person is Jesus of Nazareth, and according to him, heaven is much closer than we think.1 The biblical heaven, at its basis, is God’s presence.2 Without God, there is no heaven.3 The Bible claims that one day heaven and earth will be united, and a people of different locations, languages, ethnicities, personalities, and times in which they lived, having different purposes, desires, and motivations, will fill a renewed earth that once held them all.4

EXPERIENCE After Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, he went to find his followers. He showed them his scars, the piercings in his hands and feet. And as they marveled at this miracle of life, Jesus asked, “Have you anything here to eat?” Receiving a piece of broiled fish, Jesus — in his resurrected glory — ate in front of them.5 The Bible presents a reality where our universe of matter and beloved bodies of substance will not be thrown away but will experience renewal to prosper forever. The resurrection is the biblical view of heaven — not floating spirits, nor 1 Matthew 3:2, 4:17, 10:7; Revelations 22:20.

2 Genesis 3:8; Psalms 27:4, 140:13; Isaiah 64:1;

Hebrews 9:24; Revelations 21:22.

3 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

4 Revelations 7:9, 21:2.

5 Luke 24:40-43.

only indestructible physical bodies, but transformed bodies that are both physical and metaphysical.6 The Creation Narrative outlined in Genesis 1 and 2 suggests that we are vessels designed to navigate and delegate both the physical and the spiritual.

To further this claim of the human experience, Christian theologian Richard Foster writes in his novel Streams of Living Water: “We are created so as to receive life from God, who is Spirit, and to express that life through our bodies and in the physical world in which we live. The material world is created, in part, so as to make visible and manifest the realm of the invisible spirit.”7 Here, Foster claims that the earth is a realm where the physical can materialize or symbolize the spiritual. If this is so, and humans are both physical and spiritual beings, then we are specifically made for an environment like earth, while also being connected to a reality like heaven.

And the biblical narrative reveals that God’s space (heaven) and humanity’s place (earth) will soon come together. The British theologian N.T. Wright comments on this unification, writing: “Jesus’s resurrection is the beginning of God’s new project not to snatch people away from earth to heaven but to

6 See also: 1 Corinthians 15.

7 Foster, Richard, Streams of Living Water, (San

Francisco: Harper, 2001), 260.

colonize earth with the life of heaven.”8 Therefore, the earth — in all of its ill and depraved nature — will be resurrected,9 and those who place their hope in God through the Person of Jesus will continue to exercise dominion. Jesus stepped out of the grave and into eternal wonder with the same body that once laid in a manger,10 and according to the New Testament, reconciled humanity — along with the entire cosmos — will also leave the grave and enter into a boundless home. Yet, during this rule, people cannot be used as vessels of evil, manifesting death over all that is good.11 There will be a new order, one without tears and the gruesome aching of death.12 The resurrection entails that for the past two millennia, Christ has been gathering a Church for himself and that from generation to generation, people are being awakened to this reality of the resurrected life. The timespan of this world, however linear it may seem, will one day be laid bare without the perception that conceals its mystery, while those who make up Christ’s body, enduring different times for different reasons, will rise together at the same time for the same reason. And their Christ — the common thread that weaves each soul together — will 8 N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, (New York:

HarperOne, 2008), 293.

9 Romans 8:21; Revelations 21:1, 21:5.

10 Luke 24:1-7.

11 Genesis 1:31; Ephesians 6:12.

12 Revelations 21:4.

The Witness | 13

live among them.13 In this case, heaven could never become boring, because an infinite God — full of infinite attributes like compassion, joy, creativity — will infinitely provide for his children. But, for Christians, heaven is not heaven for what we will get from God; rather, heaven is heaven because God is there. Yes, that is eternal life: knowing the God who knows us perfectly and knowing Jesus, the one whom he sent.14

Yet, the story of the New Testament is that a perfect God loves his imperfect creatures so much that he came down through the Person of Jesus to restore humanity’s standing and that by having faith in Jesus brings a reconciled relationship with God.17 As Albert Barnes writes in his biblical commentary:

Heaven is heaven because God is there.

PEOPLES Throughout history, humans have used identity as an indicator of inferiority, creating corrupt social structures in which one party can easily abuse, demean, and dehumanize another. But followers of Jesus are commanded to embrace and share the message of the Gospel to all of creation.15 Through Jesus, our physical and cultural differences, while not neglected, are not used as tools of interpersonal abuse. Instead, ethnic identity is a beautiful attribute of who we are, as it should be.

As Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”16 In Christ, inclusion is not based on culture, race, or gender. Inclusion is based on faith, and the heavenly privileges are open to all.

Regardless of identity, the biblical heaven is not a place where good, average, or okay people go. In fact, it is full of formerly twisted and corrupt people who know that they do not deserve what — or more accurately, Who — is given to them.

13 Matthew 28:20; John 17:3; Philippians 3:20-21.

14 John 17:3.

15 Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16.

16 Galatians 3:28.

14 | vol. 7, no. 1

All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation,18 and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood...19

The Cross of Christ — where the glorious Word of God was made low to be mocked, beaten, and crucified — displays Jesus’ determination to fix those who are broken, no matter how mean or cruel or messed up they are. The need for relationship, the power of forgiveness, and the ability to love and be loved are universal needs. Therefore, Jesus — who promises to meet all — is a universal figure. And the universality of Jesus’ message and invitation reveals that God’s plan of salvation by faith is for everyone, everywhere.

17 John 3:16.

18 See also: Isaiah 61:10.

19 Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical,

on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians, (New York: Harper, 1847), 351.

This desire for global salvation springs forth from the Bible as a whole — promised in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament. From the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, to the prophetic poetry in Psalm 86:9, to Isaiah’s anointed message in Isaiah 2:2, to the New Testament’s description of a Church from every tribe and language and people and nation in Revelation 5:9, repeatedly, the Old and New Testament does not settle for the hope of a monotonous community.

Rather, the Bible envisions a reality where all people groups are redeemed by the same blood and who live together worshipping the same Name.

PERSONALITY To me, heaven is like a collection of different colors in an ever-increasing array of tints — each person, a stitch in a magnificent tapestry. We each have a particular shade — a personality — that defines our being as well as a depth unexplorable by others. The surface of this vast ocean of character can always be skimmed but never understood, chartered, but never entirely traveled.

There is an image in the book of Revelation of a victorious saint receiving a stone with a new name engraved on it, known only by the recipient and the one who provides the tablet, God.20 Names are sacred and heavy. We are named by family, teased with names by others, nicknamed by friends, maybe personally renamed. Regardless, each title we are called or call ourselves speaks to an attribute, a kind of state noticed or appreciated within ourselves. The idea of receiving a new name shows that each person in heaven is recognized as having their own unique character. And as finite beings imaging an infinite Being, we 20 Revelations 2:17.

mirror a part of God that no one else can.

C.S. Lewis describes this idea of heaven in The Problem of Pain, writing: “Heaven is a city, and a Body, because the blessed remain eternally different: a society, because each has something to tell all the others — fresh and ever fresh news of the ‘My God’ whom each finds in Him whom all praise as ‘Our God.’”21 A piece of the Christian’s hope is to know who they are in entirety when they see God face-to-face. And this difference, not just in external appearance, but in inward existence will continuously keep each Christian on their toes — the difference in relationship with God, and the lens in which each perceive their forever.

Paul recognizes this in his letter to the Corinthians, saying: “Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”22 According to Paul, on the day when God’s hiddenness scatters like 21 C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, (New York:

HarperOne, 2001), 155.

22 1 Corinthians 13:12.

the morning fog, each person will see who they are in reality, and this revelation will fill our souls with either awe or shame.

INVITATION “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field,” Jesus said. “When a man found it he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.”23 A renewed creation is already in progress, but even Jesus admits its camouflage. But the hiddenness of heaven does not contradict its reality.

Heaven must be given and found; it must be offered and received. And that is exactly what Jesus came to do.

Jesus spoke words of blessings and in return got words of mockery and spit. He sat still and in return got whips lashed against his back. He opened his arms wide in love and in return got nails hammered through them and onto a 23 Matthew 13:44.

filthy cross. Why? So that we may experience the all-embracing awe of life with God — a life of which words stumble and collapse trying to express.

Jesus stood on this earth over 2,000 years ago with an invitation: “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”24 And he still stands here today, calling out: “Leave the draining work in Butler. Ignore the harassing need for significance. Come to me. Believe in me. Trade Alma Mater’s yoke for mine.

There is more to life than you could ever imagine.” And when one does finally come to him, the same invitation is returned, praying: “Come, Lord Jesus.”25 24 Matthew 11:28.

25 Revelations 22:20.

Chase Chumchal (CC ‘23) is studying English and is fascinated by people, laughter, and trees. One of his favorite trees is the one planted by Kent Hall (although, he has no idea what kind it is). If you would like to talk with him about his essay, help identify his favorite tree, or just chat about life over a cup of coffee, you can contact him at cac2311@columbia.edu.

The Witness | 15

Diversity: Indispensable to Theological Beauty Jonathan Tanaka

I

magine being captivated by a majestic landscape, marveling at an illustrious painting, or being overcome by a harmonious melody?

What follows in such instances is quite mysterious. The very essence of one’s body falls away from one’s own purview, and one experiences a transcendental sensation which one wishes will never end. All else seems incomparable and that which remains is an adamant gratitude that one could experience such an encounter. It is quite impossible to fully detail the essence of such experiences with the limitations of human terms and language. Indeed, as the great 20th Century Theologian Hans Urs Von Balthasar put it, “Every experience with beauty points to the infinite.”1 Every experience of beauty is ultimately a foretaste of that infinite beauty. If the 1 Hans Urs von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord,

1984.

16 | vol. 7, no. 1

perfect arbiter of beauty is God Himself, then to experience any amount of beauty is to look into the splendor of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Father above. This is the purpose of beauty, to compel us to the infinite.

Undoubtably, beauty plays a major role in the relationship between finite beings and a maximal creator.

For more than two millennia, Christians have contended that the very substance of existence, of reality and eternity, can be summarized by the three interconnected transcendentals: truth, goodness, and beauty, with beauty often taking the leading role.

Von Balthazar famously spoke to the importance of beauty in his work, Glory of the Lord. “Beauty demands for itself at least as much courage and decision as do truth and goodness, and she will not allow herself to be separated and

banned from her two sisters without taking them along with herself in an act of mysterious vengeance. We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past — whether he admits it or not — can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.” If beauty is so important to the Christian life, then surely, we should consider in what it consists.

The Socratic philosophers were divided on how to describe the essence of beauty, but the Roman philosopher Plotinus asserted that beauty existed in a perfect mean between two extremes. He argued that perfection could not be found in the fringes of attributes, but rather in perfect combinations that allowed for moderation. Specifically, beauty existed in moderation between the virtues of unity and diversity. Certain Christian theologians may disagree with this definition on the

grounds that if God is the perfect arbiter of beauty, it would seem counterintuitive to restrict Him to moderation of virtues.

On the contrary, God, being the maximal being, has the ability to be both perfectly unified and perfectly diverse. Other

found between unity and diversity, then the more it conforms to God, or the more it becomes like perfect beauty, the more it is able to incorporate both unity and diversity into its essence in an ordered manner. In the perfect

If the perfect arbiter of beauty is God Himself, then to experience any amount of beauty is to look into the splendor of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Father above. definitions of beauty have emerged, notably from theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Dubay, but this brief article will only investigate the role that unity and diversity play in Plotinus’ conception of beauty. All such definitions, however, agree that a perfect sense of order, as opposed to a component of chaos, exists within beauty. Of course, there will always be a certain mystery in beauty, and perhaps this is why it is so compelling. G. K. Chesterton writes, When we worship something, we not only love its clearness but its obscurity. We exult in its very invisibility.” It is only natural that a virtue which shares in the essence of God should share this characteristic with God.2

If earthly beauty is only sufficiently ordered so that a moderation can be 2 Gilbert K. Chesterton, All Things Considered,

1908.

conception of beauty, unity and diversity no longer work in an inverse fashion.

The concept of negative correlation between unity and diversity is relatively intuitive to us. The more diverse a set is in properties, accidents, or essence, the more difficult it is to argue that they are unified by some transcendent purpose or property. Conversely, if in a hypothetical set all members were completely homogeneous in terms of properties, accidents, and essence, then it would be difficult to even find a point of disunity between them. Before proceeding, it is necessary to get a better grasp on why both unity and diversity are necessary for beauty with a couple of practical examples. Recall once again an experience in which one wondered at the beauty of a majestic landscape or colorful sunset. When one looks to the extent of their vision, they do not exult in

identifying each and every component of the landscape. They most likely do not look at each individual tree and rock and exult in the same way as when the landscape as a whole was perceived.

Even more fundamentally, one does not look at each individual leaf or blade of grass. Instead, they look at the entirety of the sum of all visible and invisible parts, assigning a property to all seen and unseen parts, namely that they belonged to a comprehensive whole: the landscape. When that landscape gifted a transcendental experience, it was assigned a purpose in relation to the viewer. Thus, all possible parts, perceivable and imperceptible, are unified in the teleological property of pointing to the infinite. Hence, unity is required for a perception of beauty.

In the same way, diversity is equally responsible for the essence of that which compels one to the infinite. If the landscape was not composed of distinct parts at all, then the experience would fundamentally change. For instance, consider the hypothetical scenario in which the landscape was absolutely devoid of diversity. All parts within the whole would be exactly identical in terms of all properties, accidents, and essence.

Beauty would be significantly reduced, to the point of most likely not existing at all. It is almost inconceivable to imagine a scenario such at this, most likely because

The Witness | 17

it is impossible to think of an entity that is completely devoid of diversity. Indeed, if spatial and temporal descriptors are added to the Aristotelian properties or accidents of a concept (Aristotelian properties are characteristics of an entity that flow specifically from its essence but are non-

essence of beauty, but it is also a necessary component of the very foundation of how the world works.

As one looks across over the landscape, they experience beauty not only containing various colors, shapes, and proportions, but also exemplifying

Thus, all possible parts, perceivable and imperceptible, are unified in the teleological property of pointing to the infinite. essence, while Aristotelian accidents are simply common characteristics of an entity), then the parts of a whole no longer become distinct at all. It is therefore logically impossible to claim that such an entity is composed of a number of parts at all. It is impossible for us to conceive of any entity that cannot be broken down into some sort of component entities.

This would be some sort of concept that exists in ultimate singularity spatially, temporally, and formally. Thus, diversity is not only exceptionally necessary for the

18 | vol. 7, no. 1

transcendent unity between all such components.

It is important to note that an increase in diversity is not always beneficial unless it is proportionally accompanied by an increase in unity. This is why as limited beings it has historically been difficult to reconcile diversity with the aims and wellness of society. This is not to say that diversity is in any way inferior to

homogeneity, but rather to assert that increasing diversity is arduous process that also requires careful measures to retain unity. However, because God as the maximal being exists as a beauty of both perfect unity and diversity, then to increase diversity properly is certainly teleologically beneficial. Historically, mankind has been more disposed to prioritize unity over diversity if only one could be chosen. Extreme nationalism and Social Darwinism have conformed to the thesis that unity should never even be in a position of possible compromise, and thus it has generally been correlated with racism and genocide. Strong exclusive group identities typically have led to immoral action and ideology because of a fear of diversity displacing social unity.

However, certain modern movements

have sought to push the converse — that diversity should take precedence over unity. This is equally dangerous for society because it inevitably leads to the fragmentation of component parts. Such are some of the dilemmas that arise when the theological nature of imperfect beauty is applied to human societies.

While previous examples have all referred to diversity in an ontological light, economical diversity is equally important in beauty. The theological use of the word economical means justified actions, roles, or responsibilities. Church doctrine is heavily built on the idea of the diversity of calling and responsibility. There is no doubt that there exist differences in properties between individual humans from birth. Naturally, differences in properties of skills and passions result in differences in economical ability and calling. If God, in the light of the principle of sufficient goodness, created each and every one of us in an extremely calculated manner, then he also ordered the world such that diversity of economical attributes prevail as well. Christian tradition has stressed that economical

diversity is crucial for the functioning of the kingdom of God as a whole. This is the basis for metaphors made by the Apostle Paul in comparing the church to a body. Different parts of the body function naturally in very different manners with various comparative advantages, and yet they are all teleologically important. Thus, to cut one piece of the body off would be to harm the whole. This is of great comfort for those who may struggle with finding their calling, in knowing that although it may be difficult for finite minds to grasp how meaningful their work and economical passions are, their undying meaning within the church still exists.

Furthermore, the church would be far worse off without it.

The next time you encounter something that leaves you in genuine wonder, remember that you have tapped

into a pervading transcendental that extends to all nature and time, ontology and action, material and immaterial.

The mysterious fusion of the necessary components of diversity and unity bring rise to an experience which compels you to the infinite. Indeed, there is not much else that can bring us closer emotionally, spiritually, and metaphysically to God Himself.

Jonathan Tanaka (CC ‘23) is a first year student at Columbia College interested in studying philosophy and economics.

He is very tall, standing at a looming 6 feet 6 inches. Contact him at jmt2233@columbia.edu.

The Witness | 19

20 | vol. 7, no. 1

One Purpose, Just One Keith James

The Lord formed us all from the same earth Yes, He created us all from the same dirt And we all have great worth Because the Lord formed us, from His earth He fashioned us with His fingers We took no thought, For the Lord knew how He wanted us to look from the start In — His — image One Holy Breath He breathed into us One Breath filled our lungs One Breath caused the blood to flow One Breath caused our love to grow One Breath gives life to all His Breath is insatiable It never stalls He blessed us with His talent Graced us with His beauty Ha, we even reflect Him when we’re moody He lavished us with love It was He who sent Christ to rest upon our soul like a dove All so that we would be made in His image A mystery that is Because our minds could never think like His Shades and tones and accents Millions and billions of people All to reflect one God While we are so unique Only one God we seek The words He speak Let us make man in Our Image So that the world can see Yes, they can have a front row seat To my greatest creation Me

The Witness | 21

22 | vol.

22 7,| no. vol.16, no. 1

The Denominational Crisis Timothy Kinnamon

F

our years ago, in January of 2016, my father, a Baptist pastor for years, decided to begin a nondenominational church plant. By then, he had experienced bristling relationships with the leadership in two congregations in Michigan but still wanted to serve God and his community. At the time, I hardly questioned the distinction between the Baptist churches I had grown up in and the nondenominational church we were pioneering; in fact, I had hardly questioned the distinctions between any of the churches I had ever experienced.

But I now recognize a greater trend in the events that were transpiring around me, a trend that gets to the core of modern traditional denominations and the growing phenomenon of the nondenominational church. The causes and conditions under which Christian society presently finds itself constitute, in my eyes, a denominational crisis not unlike the various splits Christianity has experienced in its 2000-year history.

Despite my own loose ties to the idea of a denomination, I could trust that my father knew what made him a Baptist as opposed to a Lutheran, a Catholic, a Methodist, et cetera. As a pastor, he was far from the common lay person. This key difference is what made me realize the significance in his dedication to a nondenominational plant. Was it a theological conversion or was there a strategy in not establishing another Baptist

church in a small Michigan village?

The first error of my ignorance was not understanding what a nondenominational church is.

Nondenominationalism is closer to an ideology than a denomination, but in the general sense of being a collection of like-minded individuals, nondenominational Protestantism is a denomination, however counterintuitive that may seem.

Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute for Religious Research indicates the defining element that a nondenominational church does “not claim a singular connection with a formal denomination.”1 This does not preclude the church from having a concrete theology, however, like a traditional denomination. What makes a church nondenominational is a structural independence, not necessarily a theological one.

While nondenominational Protestantism claims a relatively small number of Americans compared to Baptists (just under three times as many) and Catholics (just under four times as many), it is the third largest Christian denomination in America as of 2014. The more interesting fact, however, is the rate of growth of the nondenominational church. According to the Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Survey, only three

denominations express more adherents than were raised in that denomination: nondenominational with 4.2% entering, Pentecostal with 0.6%, and non-specific Protestant also with 0.6%.2 Every other denomination showed more people leaving than entering.

Clearly, America’s religious landscape is changing (not to mention a net decrease in Christianity) and the nondenominational church is at the center of that shift. But how do we explain why this is happening and whether or not it’s something desirable?

Based on my father’s personal explanation for his transition to nondenominationalism, I glean three main reasons for the growth of nondenominationalism and the decline of traditional denominations. First, cultural and societal trends have made a modern, nontraditional approach to Christianity a more appealing option (what I call the Technological effect). Second, traditional denominations have increasingly shifted to operate according to secular society while nondenominational churches take evangelistic risks (what I call the Third Great Awakening effect). Finally, traditional denominations have become increasingly dependent on passing on tradition than passing on faith (what I

1 Thumma, Scott, “A Report on the 2010 National

2 Pew Research Center. “America’s Changing

Profile of U.S. Nondenominational and Independent Churches.” Hartford Institute for Religion Research. Hartford Seminary, 2010, http://www. hartfordinstitute.org/cong/nondenominational-churches-national-profile-2010.html.

Religious Landscape Chapter 2: Religious Switching and Intermarriage.” Pew Research Center, 12 May 2015, https://www.pewforum. org/2015/05/12/chapter-2-religious-switching-and-intermarriage/.

The Witness | 23

call the Second Reformation effect).

While I admit that these three phenomena are not the only factors at play and are not universally prevalent across every congregation, I do believe they are the most influential on a general sociological level. I can neither explain nor examine individual churches but can only consider larger trends present in society.

First, the Technological effect. But of course, this title is misleading, because the change is not so much a result of technology as it is the intermingling of societies and cultures through, namely technology, but also immigration.

In the last thirty years, the world has experienced a massive shift in how ideas permeate through civilization. Even within the past fifteen years, that shift has outdone the previous fifteen years.

The great new mobilizers of information connect more people to each other indirectly, but American immigration has also grown at the same time, bringing cultures into direct contact.

In 2014, Mark Chaves of Duke University and Shawna Anderson of the University of Chicago published findings from the third round of a National Congregations Study. They highlight “more ethnic diversity, more acceptance of gays and lesbians, increasingly informal worship styles, declining size,…and declining denominational affiliation” as the most important shifts represented by the 2012 data.3 The first three of these trends align with trends expected from alignment with modern culture. Increasing numbers of immigrants and more time for immigrants to assimilate means that churches become a mixing pot for various individuals and families. Increased societal acceptance of diverse sexualities likewise translates into the church.

Finally, informal worship styles mostly demonstrates the shift from organs and choirs to worship bands, the use of audio and visual accompaniments, and a more active and responsive congregation. This

is the field where technology mostly comes into play.

These changes correlate with the growth of nondenominationalism, and to explain why I turn to a rather obscure 1992 article published in The Atlantic.

Written by Benjamin Barber of Fordham University, the article eerily predicts the society we find ourselves in, “Jihad vs.

McWorld.” Barber identifies these two forces in society: “a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality” and “one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce.”4 The idea of a traditional denomination in the eyes of the common modern individual fits neatly with this idea of Jihad, while the sound of nondenominational panders to a McWorld theme. Of course, the reality is that both systems engage in and experience both forces, but when we consider the basic preconceptions of non-Christians, it quickly becomes clear which bracket one would prefer to associate with.

Nondenominational churches, by appearing and presenting a more inviting and accepting communal presence through generalized, faith-based names; modern, experiential music forms; and preconception-free Christian association, are simply more appealing to today’s secular, global-minded youth.

This accusation bears no ill-will towards denominationalism in itself. Rather, it seems to be an unfortunate reality that denominational churches are less likely to appeal to specifically non-Christian individuals.

However, some of these highlighted reasons seem counterintuitive to the Third Great Awakening effect. After all, if traditional denominations pander to secular society, how then do they receive a negative reputation according to the Technological effect? This conundrum is resolved by considering that I

3 Chaves, Mark, and Anderson, Shawna L. “Chang-

4 Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The

ing American Congregations: Findings from the Third Wave of the National Congregations Study.”

Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion, 53: 676–686, doi: 10.1111/jssr.12151, Last revised 14 October 2014, http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/ Docs/Changing_American_Congs.pdf.

24 | vol. 7, no. 1

Atlantic, March 1992, https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vsmcworld/303882/.

am talking about two different appeals.

Nondenominational churches are more likely to appeal according to their operation, but traditional churches appeal to a secular notion of a church’s function.

Modern secular society places a negative association with evangelism. Indeed, it almost feels as though freedom of religion has become freedom from religion. My father accuses traditional denominations of failing to confront this society and instead adopting a motivational message that is unlikely to offend individuals who don’t want to hear the Gospel.

Darrell Guder of the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary makes a similar case about evangelism in the 1960s, when he says many churches listened to the world and began removing explicit references to Christianity and Christ.5 I would argue that in a period of equal, if not greater, social turmoil, traditional denominations have adopted this mentality of reduced communal outreach. I rationalize this especially considering the recent trends in the politicization of religion and a tendency for secular Americans to associate Christianity with a political tyranny they utterly disfavor.

In checking the webpages of the three largest Protestant denominations, excluding nondenominational—the American Baptist Churches USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church—I have noticed a pattern that explains where evangelical resources are committed, if not within the United States. The ABCUSA, in their definition for evangelism, mentions “The world is as much a mission field ‘ripe unto harvest’ now as it was when Christ sent forth his earliest followers” and speaks on low numbers of church attendance among believers, but hardly mentions domestic evangelism.6 The ELCA defines a domestic mission, but puts much more emphasis and clarity into a global mission, even stating 5 Guder, Darrell L. “Evangelism and the Debate

over Church Growth.” Union Seminary Review, 48: 145-155, doi: 10.1177/002096430004800204, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ pdf/10.1177/002096430004800204.

6 American Baptist Churches USA. “Evangelism.”

ABCUSA, accessed 6 November 2019, https://www. abc-usa.org/what-we-believe/mission/evangelism/.

that “We are a church that believes God is calling us into the world.”7 The UMC, largely non-evangelical, still emphasizes discipleship, but specifically “for the transformation of the world.”8 Of course, I also consider the global mission field more important than the domestic one, but not at the sacrifice of domestic evangelism. Global missionary aid is considered a benign Christian ideal to a secular world that cares about the betterment of the needy, which is why traditional denominations readily support that aspect while putting less effort into evangelism in their services.

My father spoke about his own experiences with the ABCUSA, citing that it—and, as far as he could discern, the other traditional denominations—had become too bureaucratic, that they were concerned about pleasing society and were not willing to take risks on strong, evangelical pastors. He says the strategy is not working in Michigan, and the numbers recount a similar story.

Nondenominational churches, on the other hand, tend to operate within a far more revivalist mindset. Their pastors incorporate evangelism into their sermons regularly, oftentimes tying every sermon back to the Crucifixion and our Salvation through Jesus Christ. These messages may seem radical in a secular society, but they are the messages that bring non-Christians into the faith and that motivate believers to spread the Gospel in their daily lives.

Theologians have been debating the rise of a Third Great Awakening for years, and I certainly will not be the one to say the nondenominational movement is it.

But I do believe the rise of nondenominational churches can be partially accredited to a revivalist evangelistic spirit adopted by their pastors and carried out by ordinary laypersons. For traditional denominations to survive, they must recognize a greater need to evangelize at home while continuing to support efforts abroad.

But the most disheartening of all the causes for nondenominationalism, the Second Reformation effect, is what I think may also be the most influential.

We all know the story of the Reformation, how Martin Luther invented Protestantism in response to what he considered non-theological traditional practices in the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic Church. The modern story is similar, but also very different.

I don’t think nondenominationalism is responding to a lack of theological foundation among traditional denominations, but it is adopting a new theological root for what it means to be Christian. Since 1517, Christians have defined themselves by their denominational affiliation. It was a symbol of their preferential theological interpretations.

Nondenominational churches do not lack this theological distinction.

While it is intuitive that any theological background is accepted into a nondenominational church, it would be a fallacy to assume that the church itself does not have a preferential theological interpretation. Again, this stresses the organizational difference between the traditional and nondenominational churches. The new system merely refuses to conform to traditional interpretations and adopts whatever theology it considers best. Over time, individuals who share this theology will find that church comfortable and settle into it, while those who disagree might continue searching or end up shifting their beliefs. In the end, it is a silent denominationalization, but still without the titles.

What the nondenominational church is responding to is a dedication to the conveyance of tradition over the conveyance of faith. This ties into the evangelism mentioned previously, but it touches more fundamentally on the members of the church rather than nonbelievers. While denominations have theological traditions, these are not doctrinally passed down. In other words,

7 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. “Glob-

al Mission.” ELCA, accessed 6 November 2019, https://www.elca.org/About/Churchwide/Global-Mission.

8 “The People of the United Methodist Church.

“Book of Discipline Section 1: The Churches.”

UMC, accessed 6 November 2019, http://www. umc.org/what-we-believe/section-1-the-churches.

The Witness | 25

denominations no longer care about teaching why they believe what they believe, and modern society doesn’t promote a public supplement for that ignorance. The situation I found myself in as a Baptist with no clue why is a situation many Americans find themselves in.

In many ways, this has blurred the lines between denominations, as individuals become loosely tied to the theology of their particular branch and more to the tradition of belonging to it and acting according to how it acts.

When a denomination arises that also blurs theological lines, those hazy individuals find a more suitable church.

But Reformation language touches at a more intentional, fundamental misalignment with the mission of the church. As with Martin Luther, I believe the traditional denominations have formed a focus on religion, not on faith. Our Great Commission is found in Matthew 28: Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”9 The only word related to tradition in this passage is “teaching,” and as it’s used in reference to obeying God’s commands then it certainly functions in the realm of theological disputes, but as modern denominations do not teach and simply indoctrinate, there does not appear to be a faith-based directive for what exactly the modern denominations seem to be doing.

Of course, I do not believe that denominations do not belong in society. I’ve already explained how the nondenominational church itself could become denominationalized, but there’s an important reasoning behind why we need every theological background: diversity breeds innovation. And, if “There is one body, but it has many parts,” then we must also believe that “God has placed each part in the body just as he wanted it to be.”10 Nondenominational or denominational, every Christian has an imperative to go make disciples, regardless of theological background. We should debate our theology. But our modern ignorance has made us sedentary. The church has never had such a powerful opportunity to make disciples in a secular, globalized world. It’s time to do so.

9 Matthew 28:18-20.

10 1 Corinthians 12:12, 18.

26 | vol. 7, no. 1

The Immigrant’s Worship Michael Manasseh

I am an Indian born in America.

I am part of the first generation in my family to have been born here.

English is my first language.

I am a Christian.

The Witness | 27

There are other people who would match this description, and some of them might attend an Indian church.

These churches may be further characterized by ethnicity. For example, my ethnicity is Tamil, which originates from the southern region of India as well as Sri Lanka and is one of the national languages of India. When you have a church where the majority of the population is of a single ethnicity, generational and cultural differences are bound to arise. I would know, I attended a Tamil church for nearly a decade. What I don’t know, however, is how the church overcomes these differences within the congregation. I decided to tackle this question from the perspective of worship.

As a disclaimer, my only frames of reference are my own experiences and the experiences of my family members.

28 | vol. 7, no. 1

Nevertheless, let this be a glimpse into my reflections…

For about ten years, my Sundays would look like the following: I would wake up at around nine in the morning, sometimes earlier. My family would drive fifteen minutes to our local (predominantly white) Assemblies of God church at 10:30 in the morning. The service would end a little after noon, and afterward, my parents would chat with some other members of the congregation. We would return home around 12:30 in the afternoon. The next hour would be a mad rush. We would speed through lunch, some weeks packing up our keyboard and electronic drum kit, and drive 45 minutes north to our Tamil church. Since my father, mother, and I were on the worship team, we would arrive there by 2:30 in the after-

noon even though the service started at four for rehearsal. This service would end at six and would always be followed by a rather elaborate dinner held in the church’s fellowship hall. We would typically spend 30 to 45 minutes at dinner, and only after that would we pack up all of our gear, and only after that would we return home. I would end up going to bed after ten every Sunday night, which at this point in my life would have been well past my bedtime. And we would go through those same motions every single week.

Being so young, I never questioned why my family had to be involved in two churches. I did question, however, the worship music that I was hearing. The Indian church services began with a

time of worship in English, and then it was followed by worship in Tamil. Since I only played for the English worship, I usually just listened to the worship in Tamil, and I couldn’t help but notice how different it was. The keyboard propelled each song with its strong and syncopated rhythms. The instrument managed to fulfill the role of a bassist and guitarist as well as its own. The drummer hypnotically maintained the same bouncy groove. The songs themselves seemed to last forever with verse upon verse with choruses in between each own. And all of these songs were in a different language than what I spoke.

Tamil hymns are called keerthanais.

The compositions are heavily inspired

by Carnatic music, a subgenre of Indian classical music typically found in southern India. Most of these hymns

follow a similar structure. There is usually no bridge in these songs but rather a verse and then a refrain — sometimes the song is solely comprised of refrains.

The hymns can also have extended interludes without lyrics. Finally, all of the keerthanai’s original lyrics are written in Tamil. The keerthanai is a method of worship specific to one region, and when Christians from southern India emigrated to the United States, they brought their church traditions with them. It is an intuitive yet significant connection. I have realized that I cannot write a story about an Indian church without writing a story about immigration.

Many people in the Indian church, including my grandparents, are immigrants. Eventually, their kids are born into the church, and eventually, the percentage of first-generation immigrants in the church decreases. For many of these kids, English is their first language. The church needed a way to keep them engaged in the service during the

Tamil worship. One measure taken in Indian churches across the country was to include the phonetic pronunciation of Tamil lyrics in the worship slides.

Those who didn’t speak the language could still sing along even if they did not understand what they were singing. I clumsily attempted to sing these songs, but words were hard to pronounce, and I was left frustrated not knowing what the words meant. My frustration and confusion translated into apathy towards the music. Instead of making more of an effort to learn the language, I defaulted to indifference. On many Sundays, this portion of the service became a glorified nap time. Thus, I arrived at the central question that I started with: how does the church handle these generational disparities?

In order to understand why people benefit from worshipping in their native language, I decided to find someone whose native language was not English, so that I get a different perspective than

The Witness | 29

my own. My grandfather, who was born and raised in India, said that singing in Tamil gives him a “soul satisfaction.” He experiences a deeper connection to the words and therefore with God when he sings in the language he grew up with.

Whenever either of my grandparents prays, they usually begin with a keerthanai. The song unifies worship and prayer into one act.

Many years ago, there was a “praisea-thon” at my Indian church, which was six hours of nonstop worship in Tamil.

Everyone there who spoke the language maintained their stamina for the entire night. Tamil worship can become very spirited. I have seen people sweating from just their singing. It is this level of intensity that the congregation maintained the entire night. I had never experienced anything like that at either my other home church or any other church.

The tangible energy from that night validates the necessity to keep the native language in services.

I’ve already discussed one solution that did not fix the problem of trying to create a church experience that allows the coexistence between the older and newer generations: writing the lyrics with the English pronunciation.

Churches also began to play covers of popular Western Christian songs. When discussing this essay with my grandparents, they mentioned that they had just heard a Tamil translation of “10,000 Reasons” by Matt Redman, one of the most popular Christian songs of this decade, being sung during worship. There is also a growing shift towards translating English songs into Tamil. A quick search on Youtube yields covers of various English Christian songs such as “What a Beautiful Name” by Hillsong Worship

30 | vol. 7, no. 1

and “No Longer Slaves” by Bethel Music. Churches that perform these covers typically have a full band, including a keyboard player, guitarist, bassist, and drummers. Since keerthanais were composed for Indian classical instruments that are not widely available in the United States, many churches like mine used one keyboard to function as all the instruments. These covers enabled the transition from one keyboard to a complete band.

Over time, some Tamil churches have started two services: one in English and one in Tamil. While the Tamil service attracts more of the older generation, the English service is geared towards the younger generation and families who have fully adopted English as their main language. By having two services, it embraces the divide. In a more general sense, it appears that more and more Indian churches understand the diminished presence of the native language in America. According to my grandparents, there is actually only one Tamil church left in NYC that does not have at least a portion of its service in English.

On one hand, it appears that Indian churches are gradually adapting to their changing population and keeping the younger generation engaged by including English services. On the other hand, are these differences an indication of something greater, like the transformation of ethnically Indian churches into something completely new? My grandparents expect Indian churches to disappear in the future. Without their generation, all that’s left are the generations that have grown up with English as their primary language. The church, having been a place where immigrants

could worship with the language of their home, would seem to be simply a placeholder for people of the same ethnic background to meet.

I don’t mean to be controversial, and I’m not advocating for or against an ethnic church. There are so many factors that I have yet to address. There are still families emigrating from India to the US who are not well versed in English and are in need of a space where they can not only worship comfortably but also find community. The Indian church sufficiently fulfills this need. For example, communal dinners that would conclude every service were not exclusive to my church. Almost every Indian church that I have visited has ended with some kind of meal. The act of fellowshipping through the sharing of food is a powerful display of community. Not only is everyone eating together, but the preparation of the food is a collaborative effort. It creates the feeling that to enter the church is to enter a family. The immigrant family and the church meet at the intersection of worship and community which becomes the backbone of their new life in America.

And yet, it is so easy to miss the bigger picture. When all is said and done, no matter the ethnicity of the church, the Gospel message of salvation must remain the same. Across all cultures, generations, and languages. No matter where you’ve been or where you’re from, you have access to the unconditional love of God. Perhaps, language or genre doesn’t matter. Maybe the Tamil church will still exist in 50 years, and maybe it won’t. But as long as our worship remains focused on God and all that He has done for us and is going to do, then that’s the only solution that matters.

Let There Be Kyra Dawkins

A five-year-old me once asked, “When God said, ‘Let there be light,’ what language did He speak?”

Maybe it was a language beyond words One without gaps in meaning One before the prideful Fall and brokenness of Babel A today-old me now marvels, “When Jesus declared, ‘It is finished,’ His triumph resounded in every language.”

Now He speaks to us in mending shards of meaning, reconciling us to Him and ourselves to each other in His Word He calls us to be still to make sense of life’s motion to work against the world’s inertia to know Him in the quiet He shows us His glory through the crown of rubied blood on Jesus’ brow through the gentle grooves of fingerprints through the multiplicity of His crafted light He cherishes us and all creation

by His pure and redemptive grace by fashioned diversity in unity by day, night, and beyond time God is life He reveals Himself in ways We may not know on this side of heaven

Kyra Dawkins, CC’20, is studying Medicine, Literature, and Society. When she is not writing poetry or doing something pertaining to school, you can find her binge watching a lot of cooking shows, even though she just recently learned how to successfully boil water.

But by an unfathomable miracle He, the One beyond words and infinity, is the One who loves us now and into the forevermore when He will say, “Let there be peace,” and every tongue will confess “Amen.”

The Witness | 31

Join the Witness!

Get editorial experience.

Write something that matters.

32 | vol. 7, no. 1

columbiawitness@gmail.com fb.com/columbiawitness

The Witness | 33

For More Information columbiawitness@gmail.com | columbiawitness.org | fb.com/columbiawitness 2020 The Columbia Witness All rights reserved.