The global future and the future of globalization - includes bibliography - Cover Story

Christian Century, Feb 2, 1994 by Max L. Stackhouse

THE MOST INTENSE debates in theological education these days are about homosexuality. However, another issue, the issue of globalization, may prove to be of greater consequence in the long run. Shall the church affirm or oppose the new global civilization into which we are being inexorably drawn? We now live in a world in which markets, media, law, corporations, labor, scientific research and advocacy groups are international or multinational. Many people are suspicious of this new world order fearing that it is being built on the triumphs of one or another people or culture or class. Certainly the processes of globalization disrupt fragile societies and disrupt traditional identities. But globalization need not necessarily mean homogeneity. Indeed, in some respects globalization fosters and allows for differences. A trivial example: almost every town of any size in the world now offers residents the choice of French, Italian, Thai, Indian, Mexican, Chinese and Arabic foods. We have multiculturalism not only in cuisine, but in areas of media, education, finance, computer manufacturing, corporate management--and in religion. In the face of so many forms of diversity living in close proximity, one must wonder if there are moral and social commonalities to hold us together--and thereby allow and support diversity. Roland Robertson points out that even a number of the world's tribal peoples have joined an intercontinental association which shares information--by fax.

It is against the backdrop of these large questions that the discussion of globalization in theological education has taken place. The movement originated nearly a decade ago through a commission of the Association of Theological Schools led by Donald Shriver of Union Theological Seminary. The commission did not want churches to withdraw in the face of the emerging global culture into closed enclaves, or to continue in colonialist patterns. It recognized that in many parts of the world the Christian faith is being challenged by a resurgence of other religions. And many Christians are faced with crises in social, political and economic development. At the same time, some of the newer churches around the world are exhibiting exceptional spiritual vitality. They also have a direct pertinence to the postcolonial task of nation building. The ATS not only wanted to alert future leaders of the church to these realities, but to provide the leaders of the churches in other parts of the world wider opportunities to contribute to the common theological task.

The choice of the term "globalization" was debated from the start. It is not a direct translation of a single biblical term or classical doctrine, though it aims to reflect central Christian themes of a creator God, a cosmic Christ and a Spirit that guides the deepest flows of history. The term "international" was rejected because it makes "national" life the unit of reference. "Multinational" seems to echo developments in corporate life more than necessary. "Cross-cultural" tends to set up cultures as impervious, self-conrained units, and "multicultural'' signals theories of learning that are too eager to celebrate moral and intellectual relativity. As for the "world-systems theories" approach, it is too closely bound to economistic views. And "ecumenical" is so identified with certain ecclesio-political stances that it seems to exclude Roman Catholics and evangelicals.

"Globalization" has turned out to be a marvelously apt restatement of the potential universality of theology in an age of an emerging, inclusive, pluralistic civilization. And it implies that the sought-for comprehensive vision requires an ongoing, worldwide conversation that reaches beyond the confines of any church body or confession. After elaborations on the term by Cardinal Francis Arinze of the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Christians and Don Browning of the University of Chicago Divinity School, a practical definition of the term emerged. Globalization meant (with varying degrees of emphasis) the evangelization of the world's populations; cooperation between churches around the world; dialogue with non-Christian world religions; and--especially--the effort to improve the lot of the world's neglected and oppressed peoples.

With the special assistance of the Pew Charitable Trusts, anti working with the educational consulting organization Plowshares, more than 82 million has been spent in the past five years on conferences, publications, travel, total-immersion events, new courses and exploratory conversations. Schools such as United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Georgia, and St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, California, where globalization has been made part of the required curriculum, offer promising models. Having evaluated (with the help of colleagues) the activities of this five-year period, I am convinced that the emphasis on globalization can play a decisive role in theological education, especially insofar as it pushes us to approach the new global situation with greater theological and social-analytical integrity. It can do this, however, only if it overcomes some of the ideological biases that have attended it.