![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldFernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
Commentary No. 119, Aug. 15 2003
"Anglicans, North and South"
by Immannuel Wallerstein
Debates about the ordination of Anglican bishops are seldom of great interest to those who are not Anglicans. Yet, the debate about the ordination of an openly gay priest, Canon V. Gene Robinson, to become the Bishop of New Hampshire of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has been front page news in the United States this month and has had repercussions throughout the world. When the appointment was approved by a majority of the bishops as well as of lay delegates of the Episcopalian Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was moved to convene a special meeting of the primates of all the Anglican churches throughout the world to discuss the consequences of this action.
For those who voted in favor of Robinson, the issue was simple. It was God's way to make the church inclusive. Today people understood, in ways that earlier generations did not, that inclusion meant the acceptance of gays and lesbians as practicing an alternative method of human love, and therefore the sexuality of a priest was irrelevant to his/her consecration as bishop. For those opposed to this idea, it seemed clear that the scriptures indicated that homosexuality was a sin, and that therefore it was inconceivable that someone who was in unapologetic commission of sin could be consecrated as a bishop of the church.
I do not propose here to discuss the theological debate. I leave that to those who are members of the Anglican Communion. But we should notice that the two sides in the debate are not randomly distributed. In the Anglican churches in the North (that is, primarily the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), there is a division between those who are in favor of inclusiveness (who seem to be today a majority) and a smaller but very strong group of so-called "conservatives" who are loudly opposed to these developments. On the other hand, the Anglican communions in the South (Latin America, Africa, Asia) seem to be very strongly on the side of the "conservatives" on this issue, with the sole exception of South Africa. The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, has openly threatened the ending of communion with any Anglican church that tolerates homosexuality. This, and similar threats, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has convened his meeting, to see if he can head off a possible formal split within the Anglican Communion.
We should ask ourselves why there is this geographical difference in attitude, what are its roots, and what it portends for the future. Among all world religions, it is only Christianity that has a rough balance today between adherents in the North and adherents in the South. This is no doubt the consequence of European colonization of the world-system in the last five centuries, but it constitutes nonetheless a social reality of the twenty-first century. In the case of the Anglican version of Christianity, adherents are almost all to be found in whatever was at one time part of the British Empire which, however, of all the European empires, was the
most geographically widespread.
In the North, the divisions among Anglicans on this issue are an old, old story. For several hundred years now, some Christians within all the various churches, have struggled for a more "modern" understanding of faith and morals. In the second half of the twentieth century, the main issues have revolved around gender and sexuality: celibacy, the role of women in the church, accession of women to clerical posts, and most recently homosexuality. In the last century, almost all Christian churches in the North have seen an erosion of their membership, largely the result of more secular individuals withdrawing from active membership. Despite this
erosion, the majority of those who have remained active have steadily sought to intrude new interpretations of faith and morality into their practice. The nineteenth century saw the development of a vast movement known as "liberal Protestantism." And Pope John XXIII implemented an "aggiornamento" (a bringing up to the present) of the Roman Catholic Church through the Council known as Vatican II. (Similar tendencies have been seen in most other world religions, of course.)
There has been a reaction to such revisions of theology and practice, which has taken the form of evangelical movements or of insistence on a return to "orthodoxy." In many cases, these reacting groups have set up their own religious institutions. But many have remained within the so-called "mainstream" Christian churches, and have continued to struggle from within. The Anglican "conservatives" are thus simply a variant on a theme which is a commonplace view, even if (in many churches and many countries) a minority view. But why has the "conservative" view been a minority movement within so many Christian churches in the North? The answer no doubt is the joint impact of secular modernity and affluence. The reformists within the churches see themselves as seeking to have Christianity adapt to and survive in the modern world. The conservatives see the reformists as diluting, if not fundamentally offending, Christianity.
The issue looks somewhat different in the South. Who are active in the Christian churches in the South? In Asia and Africa, they are for the most part converts or descendants of converts who defined Christianity in ancient ways, as the rejection of "pagan" ways. The Christianity to which they were converted was the Christianity of the missionaries, and it was hardly presented in the garb of secularist modernism. For such Christians, their religious life is a constant struggle against pagan practices, and they see decisions such as those concerning Canon Robinson as a betrayal of their struggle. This is reinforced by a sense of latter-day nationalism, in which they feel that the churches of the North are condescending to them, saying to them that, one day (when they are more "developed"), they will
"understand" the wisdom of the new inclusiveness.
There is a third element. In the North, mainstream Christian churches (and this is particularly true of Anglicans) draw their membership for the most part from elite elements - economically, politically, and socially. These people are sure of themselves. They are "respectable" people who feel strongly the need to be gracious and accepting of fellow Christians. In Asia and Africa, quite often, Christians are a minority in countries with Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu majorities. Or the majority of the population are de facto practicing local religions. Christian churches find themselves in a defensive position, and their members are perhaps less sure of themselves. While Christians in the North may fear the encroachment of secular withdrawal, Christians in the South may fear the encroachment of other religious movements more "traditional" in their social practices.
The situation is a bit different in Latin America. There, the minority Protestant churches have made headway by pulling people away from the Catholic Church, using tonalities of the Reformation and the rejection of the powerful and wealthy whose multiple saints are "idols." Here too, however, the reforms advocated within Protestant churches in the North seem both irrelevant to their needs and a betrayal of their religious struggles. Finally, South Africa has been a very special case within the South, where a multiracial struggle against an apartheid regime founded on a very conservative version of Protestantism, encouraged an openness to religious reformism not operative in most other countries of the South.
There may well be a split in the Anglican Communion. And even if there is not, there will be a continuing tension, and probably a continuing geographical lopsidedness. This may also be occurring within the Roman Catholic Church. What does this portend for the future? Will the churches of the South evolve in the same direction as the churches of the North, as the reformers in the North hope and expect? Quite possibly not at all. Actually, the same division can be seen within the North, where old-line dominant White ethnic groups are far more open to the "reformism" of mores than those active in the churches who belong to "minority" communities.
What it does demonstrate is that "reformism" in matters of sexuality among the powerful and "identity politics" among those who are less powerful are not at all necessarily doctrines that bring the two groups together. And if one extrapolates this to other issues, one can see that those who in some broad sense are, or could be, part of the family of the spirit of Porto Alegre, have some way to go before they can understand and accommodate the needs of each other.
Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post
this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay
remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text,
publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet
sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax:
1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the
immediate headlines but of the long term.]
I believe that Wallerstein's argument--echoing arguments
Commentary No. 119, Aug. 15 2003
"Anglicans, North and South"
by Immannuel Wallerstein
Debates about the ordination of Anglican bishops are seldom of great interest to those who are not Anglicans. Yet, the debate about the ordination of an openly gay priest, Canon V. Gene Robinson, to become the Bishop of New Hampshire of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has been front page news in the United States this month and has had repercussions throughout the world. When the appointment was approved by a majority of the bishops as well as of lay delegates of the Episcopalian Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was moved to convene a special meeting of the primates of all the Anglican churches throughout the world to discuss the consequences of this action.
For those who voted in favor of Robinson, the issue was simple. It was God's way to make the church inclusive. Today people understood, in ways that earlier generations did not, that inclusion meant the acceptance of gays and lesbians as practicing an alternative method of human love, and therefore the sexuality of a priest was irrelevant to his/her consecration as bishop. For those opposed to this idea, it seemed clear that the scriptures indicated that homosexuality was a sin, and that therefore it was inconceivable that someone who was in unapologetic commission of sin could be consecrated as a bishop of the church.
I do not propose here to discuss the theological debate. I leave that to those who are members of the Anglican Communion. But we should notice that the two sides in the debate are not randomly distributed. In the Anglican churches in the North (that is, primarily the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), there is a division between those who are in favor of inclusiveness (who seem to be today a majority) and a smaller but very strong group of so-called "conservatives" who are loudly opposed to these developments. On the other hand, the Anglican communions in the South (Latin America, Africa, Asia) seem to be very strongly on the side of the "conservatives" on this issue, with the sole exception of South Africa. The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, has openly threatened the ending of communion with any Anglican church that tolerates homosexuality. This, and similar threats, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has convened his meeting, to see if he can head off a possible formal split within the Anglican Communion.
We should ask ourselves why there is this geographical difference in attitude, what are its roots, and what it portends for the future. Among all world religions, it is only Christianity that has a rough balance today between adherents in the North and adherents in the South. This is no doubt the consequence of European colonization of the world-system in the last five centuries, but it constitutes nonetheless a social reality of the twenty-first century. In the case of the Anglican version of Christianity, adherents are almost all to be found in whatever was at one time part of the British Empire which, however, of all the European empires, was the
most geographically widespread.
In the North, the divisions among Anglicans on this issue are an old, old story. For several hundred years now, some Christians within all the various churches, have struggled for a more "modern" understanding of faith and morals. In the second half of the twentieth century, the main issues have revolved around gender and sexuality: celibacy, the role of women in the church, accession of women to clerical posts, and most recently homosexuality. In the last century, almost all Christian churches in the North have seen an erosion of their membership, largely the result of more secular individuals withdrawing from active membership. Despite this
erosion, the majority of those who have remained active have steadily sought to intrude new interpretations of faith and morality into their practice. The nineteenth century saw the development of a vast movement known as "liberal Protestantism." And Pope John XXIII implemented an "aggiornamento" (a bringing up to the present) of the Roman Catholic Church through the Council known as Vatican II. (Similar tendencies have been seen in most other world religions, of course.)
There has been a reaction to such revisions of theology and practice, which has taken the form of evangelical movements or of insistence on a return to "orthodoxy." In many cases, these reacting groups have set up their own religious institutions. But many have remained within the so-called "mainstream" Christian churches, and have continued to struggle from within. The Anglican "conservatives" are thus simply a variant on a theme which is a commonplace view, even if (in many churches and many countries) a minority view. But why has the "conservative" view been a minority movement within so many Christian churches in the North? The answer no doubt is the joint impact of secular modernity and affluence. The reformists within the churches see themselves as seeking to have Christianity adapt to and survive in the modern world. The conservatives see the reformists as diluting, if not fundamentally offending, Christianity.
The issue looks somewhat different in the South. Who are active in the Christian churches in the South? In Asia and Africa, they are for the most part converts or descendants of converts who defined Christianity in ancient ways, as the rejection of "pagan" ways. The Christianity to which they were converted was the Christianity of the missionaries, and it was hardly presented in the garb of secularist modernism. For such Christians, their religious life is a constant struggle against pagan practices, and they see decisions such as those concerning Canon Robinson as a betrayal of their struggle. This is reinforced by a sense of latter-day nationalism, in which they feel that the churches of the North are condescending to them, saying to them that, one day (when they are more "developed"), they will
"understand" the wisdom of the new inclusiveness.
There is a third element. In the North, mainstream Christian churches (and this is particularly true of Anglicans) draw their membership for the most part from elite elements - economically, politically, and socially. These people are sure of themselves. They are "respectable" people who feel strongly the need to be gracious and accepting of fellow Christians. In Asia and Africa, quite often, Christians are a minority in countries with Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu majorities. Or the majority of the population are de facto practicing local religions. Christian churches find themselves in a defensive position, and their members are perhaps less sure of themselves. While Christians in the North may fear the encroachment of secular withdrawal, Christians in the South may fear the encroachment of other religious movements more "traditional" in their social practices.
The situation is a bit different in Latin America. There, the minority Protestant churches have made headway by pulling people away from the Catholic Church, using tonalities of the Reformation and the rejection of the powerful and wealthy whose multiple saints are "idols." Here too, however, the reforms advocated within Protestant churches in the North seem both irrelevant to their needs and a betrayal of their religious struggles. Finally, South Africa has been a very special case within the South, where a multiracial struggle against an apartheid regime founded on a very conservative version of Protestantism, encouraged an openness to religious reformism not operative in most other countries of the South.
There may well be a split in the Anglican Communion. And even if there is not, there will be a continuing tension, and probably a continuing geographical lopsidedness. This may also be occurring within the Roman Catholic Church. What does this portend for the future? Will the churches of the South evolve in the same direction as the churches of the North, as the reformers in the North hope and expect? Quite possibly not at all. Actually, the same division can be seen within the North, where old-line dominant White ethnic groups are far more open to the "reformism" of mores than those active in the churches who belong to "minority" communities.
What it does demonstrate is that "reformism" in matters of sexuality among the powerful and "identity politics" among those who are less powerful are not at all necessarily doctrines that bring the two groups together. And if one extrapolates this to other issues, one can see that those who in some broad sense are, or could be, part of the family of the spirit of Porto Alegre, have some way to go before they can understand and accommodate the needs of each other.
Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post
this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay
remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text,
publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet
sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax:
1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the
immediate headlines but of the long term.]
I believe that Wallerstein's argument--echoing arguments
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University
Commentary No. 119, Aug. 15 2003
<a href="http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm">"Anglicans, North and South"</a>
by Immannuel Wallerstein
Debates about the ordination of Anglican bishops are seldom of great interest to those who are not Anglicans. Yet, the debate about the ordination of an openly gay priest, Canon V. Gene Robinson, to become the Bishop of New Hampshire of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has been front page news in the United States this month and has had repercussions throughout the world. When the appointment was approved by a majority of the bishops as well as of lay delegates of the Episcopalian Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was moved to convene a special meeting of the primates of all the Anglican churches throughout the world to discuss the consequences of this action.
<lj-cut>
For those who voted in favor of Robinson, the issue was simple. It was God's way to make the church inclusive. Today people understood, in ways that earlier generations did not, that inclusion meant the acceptance of gays and lesbians as practicing an alternative method of human love, and therefore the sexuality of a priest was irrelevant to his/her consecration as bishop. For those opposed to this idea, it seemed clear that the scriptures indicated that homosexuality was a sin, and that therefore it was inconceivable that someone who was in unapologetic commission of sin could be consecrated as a bishop of the church.
I do not propose here to discuss the theological debate. I leave that to those who are members of the Anglican Communion. But we should notice that the two sides in the debate are not randomly distributed. In the Anglican churches in the North (that is, primarily the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), there is a division between those who are in favor of inclusiveness (who seem to be today a majority) and a smaller but very strong group of so-called "conservatives" who are loudly opposed to these developments. On the other hand, the Anglican communions in the South (Latin America, Africa, Asia) seem to be very strongly on the side of the "conservatives" on this issue, with the sole exception of South Africa. The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, has openly threatened the ending of communion with any Anglican church that tolerates homosexuality. This, and similar threats, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has convened his meeting, to see if he can head off a possible formal split within the Anglican Communion.
We should ask ourselves why there is this geographical difference in attitude, what are its roots, and what it portends for the future. Among all world religions, it is only Christianity that has a rough balance today between adherents in the North and adherents in the South. This is no doubt the consequence of European colonization of the world-system in the last five centuries, but it constitutes nonetheless a social reality of the twenty-first century. In the case of the Anglican version of Christianity, adherents are almost all to be found in whatever was at one time part of the British Empire which, however, of all the European empires, was the
most geographically widespread.
In the North, the divisions among Anglicans on this issue are an old, old story. For several hundred years now, some Christians within all the various churches, have struggled for a more "modern" understanding of faith and morals. In the second half of the twentieth century, the main issues have revolved around gender and sexuality: celibacy, the role of women in the church, accession of women to clerical posts, and most recently homosexuality. In the last century, almost all Christian churches in the North have seen an erosion of their membership, largely the result of more secular individuals withdrawing from active membership. Despite this
erosion, the majority of those who have remained active have steadily sought to intrude new interpretations of faith and morality into their practice. The nineteenth century saw the development of a vast movement known as "liberal Protestantism." And Pope John XXIII implemented an "aggiornamento" (a bringing up to the present) of the Roman Catholic Church through the Council known as Vatican II. (Similar tendencies have been seen in most other world religions, of course.)
There has been a reaction to such revisions of theology and practice, which has taken the form of evangelical movements or of insistence on a return to "orthodoxy." In many cases, these reacting groups have set up their own religious institutions. But many have remained within the so-called "mainstream" Christian churches, and have continued to struggle from within. The Anglican "conservatives" are thus simply a variant on a theme which is a commonplace view, even if (in many churches and many countries) a minority view. But why has the "conservative" view been a minority movement within so many Christian churches in the North? The answer no doubt is the joint impact of secular modernity and affluence. The reformists within the churches see themselves as seeking to have Christianity adapt to and survive in the modern world. The conservatives see the reformists as diluting, if not fundamentally offending, Christianity.
The issue looks somewhat different in the South. Who are active in the Christian churches in the South? In Asia and Africa, they are for the most part converts or descendants of converts who defined Christianity in ancient ways, as the rejection of "pagan" ways. The Christianity to which they were converted was the Christianity of the missionaries, and it was hardly presented in the garb of secularist modernism. For such Christians, their religious life is a constant struggle against pagan practices, and they see decisions such as those concerning Canon Robinson as a betrayal of their struggle. This is reinforced by a sense of latter-day nationalism, in which they feel that the churches of the North are condescending to them, saying to them that, one day (when they are more "developed"), they will
"understand" the wisdom of the new inclusiveness.
There is a third element. In the North, mainstream Christian churches (and this is particularly true of Anglicans) draw their membership for the most part from elite elements - economically, politically, and socially. These people are sure of themselves. They are "respectable" people who feel strongly the need to be gracious and accepting of fellow Christians. In Asia and Africa, quite often, Christians are a minority in countries with Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu majorities. Or the majority of the population are de facto practicing local religions. Christian churches find themselves in a defensive position, and their members are perhaps less sure of themselves. While Christians in the North may fear the encroachment of secular withdrawal, Christians in the South may fear the encroachment of other religious movements more "traditional" in their social practices.
The situation is a bit different in Latin America. There, the minority Protestant churches have made headway by pulling people away from the Catholic Church, using tonalities of the Reformation and the rejection of the powerful and wealthy whose multiple saints are "idols." Here too, however, the reforms advocated within Protestant churches in the North seem both irrelevant to their needs and a betrayal of their religious struggles. Finally, South Africa has been a very special case within the South, where a multiracial struggle against an apartheid regime founded on a very conservative version of Protestantism, encouraged an openness to religious reformism not operative in most other countries of the South.
There may well be a split in the Anglican Communion. And even if there is not, there will be a continuing tension, and probably a continuing geographical lopsidedness. This may also be occurring within the Roman Catholic Church. What does this portend for the future? Will the churches of the South evolve in the same direction as the churches of the North, as the reformers in the North hope and expect? Quite possibly not at all. Actually, the same division can be seen within the North, where old-line dominant White ethnic groups are far more open to the "reformism" of mores than those active in the churches who belong to "minority" communities.
What it does demonstrate is that "reformism" in matters of sexuality among the powerful and "identity politics" among those who are less powerful are not at all necessarily doctrines that bring the two groups together. And if one extrapolates this to other issues, one can see that those who in some broad sense are, or could be, part of the family of the spirit of Porto Alegre, have some way to go before they can understand and accommodate the needs of each other.
Immanuel Wallerstein
<i>[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post
this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay
remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text,
publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet
sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax:
1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the
immediate headlines but of the long term.]</i>
</lj-cut>
I believe that Wallerstein's argument--echoing <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-12.htm">arguments</a> <a href="<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm">made originally</a> in <i>The Atlantic</i>--might well be accurate to describe short- and medium-term events, but I reject his argument that Northern and Southern Christianity must diverge, not least because of the pluralities in North and South and because Southern countries going through industrialization and urbanization like the North seem to tend towards some sort of relative secularism. We'll see wider disparities in theological and social matters in the medium-term, but convergence of at least parts of the South to the North (and, perhaps, vice versa) is likely. After all, liberation theology in Roman Catholicism began in the South
Commentary No. 119, Aug. 15 2003
<a href="http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm">"Anglicans, North and South"</a>
by Immannuel Wallerstein
Debates about the ordination of Anglican bishops are seldom of great interest to those who are not Anglicans. Yet, the debate about the ordination of an openly gay priest, Canon V. Gene Robinson, to become the Bishop of New Hampshire of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has been front page news in the United States this month and has had repercussions throughout the world. When the appointment was approved by a majority of the bishops as well as of lay delegates of the Episcopalian Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was moved to convene a special meeting of the primates of all the Anglican churches throughout the world to discuss the consequences of this action.
<lj-cut>
For those who voted in favor of Robinson, the issue was simple. It was God's way to make the church inclusive. Today people understood, in ways that earlier generations did not, that inclusion meant the acceptance of gays and lesbians as practicing an alternative method of human love, and therefore the sexuality of a priest was irrelevant to his/her consecration as bishop. For those opposed to this idea, it seemed clear that the scriptures indicated that homosexuality was a sin, and that therefore it was inconceivable that someone who was in unapologetic commission of sin could be consecrated as a bishop of the church.
I do not propose here to discuss the theological debate. I leave that to those who are members of the Anglican Communion. But we should notice that the two sides in the debate are not randomly distributed. In the Anglican churches in the North (that is, primarily the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), there is a division between those who are in favor of inclusiveness (who seem to be today a majority) and a smaller but very strong group of so-called "conservatives" who are loudly opposed to these developments. On the other hand, the Anglican communions in the South (Latin America, Africa, Asia) seem to be very strongly on the side of the "conservatives" on this issue, with the sole exception of South Africa. The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, has openly threatened the ending of communion with any Anglican church that tolerates homosexuality. This, and similar threats, is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has convened his meeting, to see if he can head off a possible formal split within the Anglican Communion.
We should ask ourselves why there is this geographical difference in attitude, what are its roots, and what it portends for the future. Among all world religions, it is only Christianity that has a rough balance today between adherents in the North and adherents in the South. This is no doubt the consequence of European colonization of the world-system in the last five centuries, but it constitutes nonetheless a social reality of the twenty-first century. In the case of the Anglican version of Christianity, adherents are almost all to be found in whatever was at one time part of the British Empire which, however, of all the European empires, was the
most geographically widespread.
In the North, the divisions among Anglicans on this issue are an old, old story. For several hundred years now, some Christians within all the various churches, have struggled for a more "modern" understanding of faith and morals. In the second half of the twentieth century, the main issues have revolved around gender and sexuality: celibacy, the role of women in the church, accession of women to clerical posts, and most recently homosexuality. In the last century, almost all Christian churches in the North have seen an erosion of their membership, largely the result of more secular individuals withdrawing from active membership. Despite this
erosion, the majority of those who have remained active have steadily sought to intrude new interpretations of faith and morality into their practice. The nineteenth century saw the development of a vast movement known as "liberal Protestantism." And Pope John XXIII implemented an "aggiornamento" (a bringing up to the present) of the Roman Catholic Church through the Council known as Vatican II. (Similar tendencies have been seen in most other world religions, of course.)
There has been a reaction to such revisions of theology and practice, which has taken the form of evangelical movements or of insistence on a return to "orthodoxy." In many cases, these reacting groups have set up their own religious institutions. But many have remained within the so-called "mainstream" Christian churches, and have continued to struggle from within. The Anglican "conservatives" are thus simply a variant on a theme which is a commonplace view, even if (in many churches and many countries) a minority view. But why has the "conservative" view been a minority movement within so many Christian churches in the North? The answer no doubt is the joint impact of secular modernity and affluence. The reformists within the churches see themselves as seeking to have Christianity adapt to and survive in the modern world. The conservatives see the reformists as diluting, if not fundamentally offending, Christianity.
The issue looks somewhat different in the South. Who are active in the Christian churches in the South? In Asia and Africa, they are for the most part converts or descendants of converts who defined Christianity in ancient ways, as the rejection of "pagan" ways. The Christianity to which they were converted was the Christianity of the missionaries, and it was hardly presented in the garb of secularist modernism. For such Christians, their religious life is a constant struggle against pagan practices, and they see decisions such as those concerning Canon Robinson as a betrayal of their struggle. This is reinforced by a sense of latter-day nationalism, in which they feel that the churches of the North are condescending to them, saying to them that, one day (when they are more "developed"), they will
"understand" the wisdom of the new inclusiveness.
There is a third element. In the North, mainstream Christian churches (and this is particularly true of Anglicans) draw their membership for the most part from elite elements - economically, politically, and socially. These people are sure of themselves. They are "respectable" people who feel strongly the need to be gracious and accepting of fellow Christians. In Asia and Africa, quite often, Christians are a minority in countries with Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu majorities. Or the majority of the population are de facto practicing local religions. Christian churches find themselves in a defensive position, and their members are perhaps less sure of themselves. While Christians in the North may fear the encroachment of secular withdrawal, Christians in the South may fear the encroachment of other religious movements more "traditional" in their social practices.
The situation is a bit different in Latin America. There, the minority Protestant churches have made headway by pulling people away from the Catholic Church, using tonalities of the Reformation and the rejection of the powerful and wealthy whose multiple saints are "idols." Here too, however, the reforms advocated within Protestant churches in the North seem both irrelevant to their needs and a betrayal of their religious struggles. Finally, South Africa has been a very special case within the South, where a multiracial struggle against an apartheid regime founded on a very conservative version of Protestantism, encouraged an openness to religious reformism not operative in most other countries of the South.
There may well be a split in the Anglican Communion. And even if there is not, there will be a continuing tension, and probably a continuing geographical lopsidedness. This may also be occurring within the Roman Catholic Church. What does this portend for the future? Will the churches of the South evolve in the same direction as the churches of the North, as the reformers in the North hope and expect? Quite possibly not at all. Actually, the same division can be seen within the North, where old-line dominant White ethnic groups are far more open to the "reformism" of mores than those active in the churches who belong to "minority" communities.
What it does demonstrate is that "reformism" in matters of sexuality among the powerful and "identity politics" among those who are less powerful are not at all necessarily doctrines that bring the two groups together. And if one extrapolates this to other issues, one can see that those who in some broad sense are, or could be, part of the family of the spirit of Porto Alegre, have some way to go before they can understand and accommodate the needs of each other.
Immanuel Wallerstein
<i>[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post
this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay
remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text,
publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet
sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax:
1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections
on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the
immediate headlines but of the long term.]</i>
</lj-cut>
I believe that Wallerstein's argument--echoing <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-12.htm">arguments</a> <a href="<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/jenkins.htm">made originally</a> in <i>The Atlantic</i>--might well be accurate to describe short- and medium-term events, but I reject his argument that Northern and Southern Christianity must diverge, not least because of the pluralities in North and South and because Southern countries going through industrialization and urbanization like the North seem to tend towards some sort of relative secularism. We'll see wider disparities in theological and social matters in the medium-term, but convergence of at least parts of the South to the North (and, perhaps, vice versa) is likely. After all, liberation theology in Roman Catholicism began in the South
