Abstract
As a missionary among the aboriginals in Taiwan, I wondered why this people’s response to the gospel was so open, compared with that of the Chinese of my youth and the Taiwanese majority population. This question became almost an obsession for me. After sixteen happy years in service in Taiwan still holding my question, I began another stage in my pilgrimage in mission in graduate school seeking for answers. I continued my ministry in America, writing articles and then a series of books trying to answer my question regarding receptivity or nonreceptivity to outside religions, especially Christianity.
Keywords
I was born in 1929 to missionary parents in Huaian, in northern Jiangsu, China. 1 I was the youngest of five children. After a childhood that included two years in America, two years in Korea, six years in China, ending with two more years in Japanese-occupied China, my parents and I returned to America on the exchange ship Gripsholm in 1942. (My four siblings had earlier returned to America.) Despite all the turmoil in China, my memories of missionary family life were very happy ones. I watched my parents live very fulfilled lives they enjoyed. I remember asking my mother why Jesus had to die. Her answer helped me understand my parent’s goal to witness to God’s love, as well as provided the foundation of my life. Later, when going to Rhodes College (Memphis, TN), I could understand my parent’s word to me that no matter what new knowledge I gained, my relationship to Jesus Christ would not be broken. I spent summers in Montreat, North Carolina, where I heard great preachers, including many missionaries. By the time I went to seminary, at Columbia and then Princeton, I had decided I should apply to go to Taiwan. In 1956 Polly Harrop joined me as my wife in my pilgrimage in mission, which had already begun in my mind. After arriving in Taiwan, we were told that we were needed on the east coast of the island, where there was a large new Christian aboriginal population. 2
Raising the question
I was told to work among the Amis language group, who had approximately one hundred villages, while my older colleague, Edward Currie, whom I had known in China as a boy as “Uncle Ed,” worked primarily with the Taroko (Sediq) people. Chi Wong, a Taroko woman, along with her disciple, Wiran Takoh, had led the Taroko movement to Christ. The Amis movement was led initially by a lay preacher from one of assimilated aboriginal groups to the north. Almost every one of the Amis approximately one hundred villages had a church the people had built themselves. I was bowled over by how the gospel had spread among the aboriginals. I felt little prepared in my seminary training to understand such a movement. There followed sixteen years of very happy and rewarding work in visiting village churches, leadership training, literature preparation, and teaching in the theological institute established for training aboriginal ministers. Polly, being a trained musician, prepared an Amis song book. We were blessed that there were Bible translators for at least four of the language groups, including the Amis. I also had many friends and colleagues among the Taiwanese Christians, who were very helpful and encouraging to the aboriginal Christian movement and people by helping them organize their own presbyteries. I must add that the east coast of Taiwan was the most beautiful place we ever lived.
Another step in my pilgrimage in mission began in 1968, when, encouraged by church leaders, I was accepted in a PhD program at Emory University (Atlanta, GA) in “Social Scientific Studies of Religion” and began studying the rural-to-urban migration of the aboriginals. There was a strong Taiwan Presbyterian Church initiated by English and Canadian Presbyterians (1865 and 1871), but they made up less than 3 or 4 percent of the population, whereas Christian aboriginals made up perhaps two-thirds to three-fourths of the aboriginal population. Furthermore, aboriginals, though less than 2 percent of Taiwan’s population, made up about 40 percent of the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan’s membership. There were many aboriginal Roman Catholic Christians and some True Jesus Church Christians, a church founded in China. As I looked beyond Taiwan, I realized there were also other indigenous minority peoples in Asia, such as in India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and China, who had been receptive to Christianity. You could add Koreans as a “minority” people in Asia. The Pacific Island people were also an interesting case of receptivity to Christianity. I felt that these variations in receptivity/nonreceptivity to Christianity needed some explanation.
Beginning to look for answers
Returning to America and Emory University in 1972, my pilgrimage in mission took on special focus in seeking answers to my question about receptivity/nonreceptivity. This question also meant considering what affected the perceptions of the many other peoples in the world that caused their receptivity/nonreceptivity to Christianity over the last two thousand years. One thing I liked about sociology was that, like the natural sciences, it sought to find explanations (“theories”), and I was looking for explanations. In regard to “religions” and “Christianity,” I was aware that I did not believe in “a religion” or even “Christianity” but in Jesus Christ and sought to grow in that personal relationship to him. However, I came to feel that humility required me and other Christians to recognize that Christianity was a human social phenomenon and a religion comparable in its human aspects to other religions.
Almost every one of the approximately 100 Amis villages had a church the people had built themselves. Over sixteen years of “very happy and rewarding work,” Bob Montgomery visited many village churches. Reprinted with permission of the author.
While not denigrating mission studies or missiology, I thought that the social sciences would take a more objective look at the spread of Christianity and prevent me from unnecessarily injecting theological explanations. I later came to feel that when looking at the irregular spread of Christianity, it was almost necessary to consider evil, although it was not a typical sociological term. I did notice that as I entered social scientific studies, I was in a different world from my previous theological studies in seminary. I found that my studies were focused on the observable and experienced characteristics of religions, not on God’s revelation as in theology. I cut my teeth on statistics in classes and in writing my dissertation on the rural-to-urban migration of the aboriginal people. In the new urban settings in western Taiwan, most reaffirmed their faith in forming congregations, but this fact did not explain their open receptivity to Christianity in the first place.
After receiving my degree in 1976, I did not enter academia (which made it harder to get published!) but entered various ministries in New York City and New Jersey. My first work, beginning in 1977, at the Research Division of the Presbyterian Church USA did not work out by mutual agreement, which was to the good because my basic interest was in World Christianity. I was also not prepared to manage the denomination’s research activity. Thus, I had to take another step in my pilgrimage in mission as I began a series of ministries that lasted until my retirement in 1994. These ministries included working as liaison to churches for the Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies in New York City, assistant minister for English ministries at the First Chinese Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, and chaplain at the Seamen’s Church Institute of New York and New Jersey (they wanted a ministry to Chinese seamen). After retirement, I entered another stage in my pilgrimage in mission as I carried on research (in my obsession) and at the same time served a number of local churches in New Jersey. I was glad my wife and family of five children (as long as they were with us) flourished in New Jersey while I enjoyed and was fulfilled in the various ministries.
Finding and putting down some answers
During my mostly nonacademic career, I wrote some articles using a social scientific approach, 3 but I did not produce a book on the spread of religions until after retiring. 4 It dealt with basic reasons for the variations in receptivity to the three most widespread religions. Subsequently, I found that “spread” was more useful than “diffusion” when applied to religions, primarily because of the lack of theorizing in relation to ideologies and religion. I also became more acquainted with the writings of Rodney Stark, who argued strongly that religion itself should be regarded as a causative factor (i.e., an independent variable) in history. 5 Before trying again to examine the spread of religions, I tried to draw others into creating a subfield of sociology of missions in the sociology of religion. 6 I also tried to attract scholars of missions by calling attention to how Christianity had not spread out evenly in an ever-widening circle as, in principle, one would expect. 7 Some of the reasons for this uneven spread were similar to what I had written about, particularly in my 1984 article in Missiology and my 1996 book on the diffusion of religions.
I continued to wonder then and still now as to why the variations in receptivity/nonreceptivity did not seem to be an important question for missiologists to investigate, as one might expect. On the social science side, variation is a basic question that the social sciences seek to explain, but I was also not able to interest sociologists of religion in this question.
An organized answer to why religions spread unevenly
After the first writings using the social sciences, I returned to my initial efforts to develop an overall theory on the spread of religions. 8 A friend recommended reorganizing it to make it clearer, which I did in writing a second edition in which I summarized as clearly as possible the major causes for the spread and failure to spread of the three religions I studied. 9 I added applications of the analysis to look at (1) the spread of irreligion, (2) potential future world developments, and (3) implications for Christian missions. The look at implications for Christian missions led me specifically into missiology.
There is not space to set forth fully the seven causes that I identified as important for creating receptivity/nonreceptivity to Christianity, as well as to Buddhism and Islam. They are best described in the second edition of Why Religions Spread (2012). I will give only a brief summary of my findings and add some of my additional thoughts. I hope others will continue investigations. Elaborations and additions are certainly possible.
I divided the seven causes for variations in receptivity/nonreceptivity into two types: three primarily religious and four primarily secular social causes. (In this essay I am adding an additional religious cause to the three, making four.) There is an actual overlap between these causes because religions incorporate social-secular factors, and because macro and micro causes are interrelated.
Religious causes
The first major religious cause I found strongly supported my mission pilgrimage. When I looked at the three religions Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam (their historical order), I noticed that they had a distinctive characteristic: a central founder who was not only a founder but offered a means of access to the divine or the transcendent. Although other religions have single founders, they did not function in the same way as Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad in giving access to God or the transcendent. Neither Hinduism nor Judaism, each a mother religion (respectively, to Buddhism and to Christianity and Islam), have a single founder. Later, as I reviewed more literature on religions, I was impressed with the importance of a special person in almost all religions, but the uniqueness of the founders of the three most widely spreading religions stood out, as Jesus Christ did for me. 10
A second religious factor I found, which also supports the single founder and was especially strong in the three religions, was their ability not only to give moral guidance but to create moral energy to follow the moral principles they set forth. We also see from their history that though each religion has been clearly linked to cruel actions, sometimes against large numbers of people, the founders expressed and carried out acts of compassion. Furthermore, we now see each religion extending organized aid to the sick and needy in impressive ways.
The third important religious cause that I identified for the spread of the three religions was their ability to gather and organize their followers. We all can picture the large gatherings of Christians and of Muslims. Buddhism also was, and is, able to gather followers in many sanghas with supporting communities, made up of monks and other followers. Some secular ideologies, such as fascism and communism, have found that creating large gatherings of people is a great aid to their power. All peoples have gatherings and carry out “rites of intensification,” showing a natural human propensity and need for such gatherings, but this has been a special strength of the three most widely spreading religions.
More recently I added a fourth religious cause for the spread of the three religions: sacred scriptures. The Hebrew Scriptures alone did not make Judaism a missionary religion, but both Testaments of the Bible were a major influence in the spread of Christianity. I would say the same for the Qur’an, believed to be dictated by God, in the spread of Islam. The scriptures associated with Buddhism (and Hinduism) are not as well-known as a unit as the scriptures for Christianity and Islam, although they are very useful in teaching Buddhism. Lamin Sanneh, a scholar of missions, makes a very strong case for the importance of translation of the Bible in Christian missions. 11 The emphasis on the respective scriptures has been a major factor in the spread of Christianity and Islam, especially in the elevation of the central figures, Jesus Christ and Muhammad, which I saw as the first religious cause in the spread of the religions.
Secular social causes
After struggling with distinguishing the religious characteristics that made it possible for the three religions to spread more widely than any other religions, I turned to secular social causes for the spread or the failure to spread of religions. (I believed God worked through the secular world, but to describe this factor would be to enter the field of theology.) I was able to identify four causes, two on the macro level and two on the micro level. (I encourage readers of this Pilgrimage article to look for more such causes.)
The first macro-level cause that I looked at was the internal conditions of the societies to which the religions spread. I knew that the aboriginal societies in Taiwan were in a state of disorder after having been intruded upon by both the majority society and by the Japanese occupation (not white colonialists), and they were facing the uncertainties of the conditions after World War II. In fact, almost all minority societies face the condition of disorder caused by the pressures and mistreatments of the majority society, denigrating them, even thinking of them as a lower type human. In contrast, if a society was fairly stable and felt affirmed and supported by a traditional religion, there would be little felt need for a new religion.
The second macro secular social effect on receptivity/nonreceptivity was intersocietal relationships. Domination of one society over another made the dominated society often receptive to a religion from another source that would strengthen their opposition to and distinction from the dominant society. Thus, intersocietal relationships seemed an even stronger cause explaining receptivity/nonreceptivity than internal disorder. Being able to resist outside domination and to assert identities (ethnic or national) that were distinct from the dominant society seemed an important cause for accepting a new outside religion from a third source. Not incidentally, helping to explain Taiwanese resistance (and aboriginal nonresistance) to Christianity was the fact that the major import to Taiwan in the latter half of the nineteenth century, when Christianity was being introduced, was opium. The aboriginals were not involved in this foreign commerce and did not know the foreigners as oppressors.
Turning to the micro secular social causes, I noticed the importance of influential people called “opinion leaders.” I learned from “network analysis” that opinion leaders usually affected a set of people who were linked to each other. Opinion leaders could be receptive or resistant to an outside religion, depending on whether they saw it as a benefit or as a threat to their people and the traditional religion.
The second micro secular social cause that attracted me from the beginning was how individual social identities were affected by a new religion. A proposition made by Henri Tajfel, a social identity theorist, seemed to fit what I saw in Taiwan: “It can be assumed that an individual will tend to remain a member of a group [but will] seek membership of new groups if these groups have some contribution to make to the positive aspects of his social identity; i.e. to those aspects of it from which he derives some satisfaction.” 12 Christianity clearly enhanced aboriginal ethnic identity, adding to self-esteem. It has been pointed out that Christianity contributed in both the Roman Empire and recently in Africa to strengthening the self-esteem of women by enhancing female identity.
Implications for Christian missions
The strongest implication for missions, which surprised and delighted me, was the importance of a central human figure in the religions that spread most widely. (Because of this factor, I later wrote a book about the most important person in history and to me.) 13 This implication shows the central importance of representing Jesus Christ in Christian missions. The additional religious factor of moral guidance and energy shows that Christian missions need to lift up Jesus Christ as providing both the pattern of life for believers and the grace of forgiveness and renewal to enable believers to follow him. Moral sensibilities are pervasive among human beings, but Christ provides a unique example in his death and life, if not necessarily in his teachings. Nevertheless, “amazing grace” forms the motivation for following Christ. Then that walk is guided by the Bible’s emphasis on “doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). The implication for missions of the third religious cause of being able to gather and organize people points very strongly to the importance of the faith community that worships and gives loving service and witness to the world. In this effort, interpretation and application of the Bible have a central place.
Turning to the secular social causes for receptivity/nonreceptivity, the first two are largely beyond individual control, but the latter two can have missionary effects. All are in the area of mission strategy needing missionary awareness. Missionaries should be especially aware of the effects of geopolitical events and relationships, particularly of their own country’s relationship to the receiving country. On a more individual level, missionaries need to develop skills in network analysis in which they identify local leaders and those in their networks, together with their attitudes toward outsiders. Regarding personal and social identities, a basic question for Christian missionaries is, Do people feel personal and social enhancement in Christianity? The importance of people being able to gain self-respect through their Christian faith has an important place in missions.
Conclusion
I am still on my pilgrimage in mission, trying to understand why receptivity/nonreceptivity has varied so greatly over time and in different places over the last two thousand years. The social sciences are a helpful methodology, but they need to be both carefully distinguished from and yet incorporated in theology and missions. 14 I believe this is best done by using scientific findings as offering implications for theology and missions, here viewing missions as applied theology. I find myself thinking more about Christian relations to non-Christian religions in light of what Peter first said at Cornelius’s home (Acts 10:34–35) and what Paul said to the Athenians (Acts 17:22–31). It is instructive how courteous, respectful, and open the apostles were.
As a Christian, I believe that the church at times has yielded to evil forces, though often unconsciously, which is consistent with what the Bible teaches about evil (not a term used in the social sciences). I wrote about what I believe was the place of missions in God’s plan and the way evil action by Christians is able to hinder the work of missions. 15 The Bible, before the social science discovery of culture and social forces, speaks of invisible powers above the individual that influence human life and history. Walter Wink saw this connection of the social sciences to the Bible, particularly in relation to “the powers.” 16 The collapse of Western dominating powers has had an effect, for example, in Africa and China, where there has been great growth in Christianity.
I believe God so loved the world that Jesus Christ invaded the world to carry out a redemption of the cosmos, God’s creation, including humanity. The invisible sociocultural forces of evil, recognized in the Bible, oppose God’s force of love in the world, but the evil powers were defeated by Christ, and we have the privilege of seeing the defeat continued in history, even though we also continue to see manifestations of evil. The major hindrance to the spread of the gospel has been the failure of Christians to demonstrate the love of God. This failure is seen in the yielding of Christians as individuals and in groups to powerful sociocultural forces in the form of unjust dominating and destroying powers. My pilgrimage in mission is really a personal wrestling with these forces by seeking to wear Christ’s armor (Eph. 6:10–17) and seeking to follow Christ, who defeated them. I rejoice that I have the supporting community of the people of God, which exists throughout the world.
Footnotes
Notes
Author biography