What do you think?
Rate this book
The Protestant Community of Modern Taiwan: Mission, Seminary, and Church
Book by
250 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1991
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 7, 2017
The argument of this book is rather straightforward but I remain unconvinced by some of the analyses and thesis put forward. In short, Murray Rubinstein draws on extensive ethnographic fieldwork and historical research to show that the Taiwanese Protestant community exists on a continuum, what he calls mission-centred, bridge and indigenous paradigms or mission, seminary and church where the Southern Baptist Convention in Taiwan, the China Evangelical Seminary and True Jesus Church are representative of these 3 paradigms which are also seen as evolutionary stages whereby the Taiwanese churches can develop into. Whilst his argument for the first stage -- that is, the SBC remaining like a Western-type conservative evangelical church that has found it hard to attract Taiwanese in the recent years because of the turn towards materialism or popular folk religion since the 1970s/80s and the lack of adaptation of the SBC's mission-centred model to meet the needs of the Taiwanese environ -- is quite adequate on most counts, the other two paradigms fail to really convince.
Although his point that the CES represents a bridge between Western evangelicalism and independent Chinese churches in Taiwan is well taken, it is hard to really see what is so "Chinese" about them other than the fact that CES promotes issues like indigenous leadership, learning of Taiwanese, ensuring that most subjects are taught in Chinese, ensuring that the Chinese faculty make up the greater balance of the staff, and the promotion of Chinese Christian thinking by CES. To my mind, the CES still falls more under the conventional mission-centred paradigm taken over and reworked by the Chinese. Though it may serve as a bridge towards Western evangelicalism because of the close ties shared, it is less of a bridge to the Chinese religious and cultural environs (what is arguably the more important of the bridges to my mind) because CES, while important for the Western and Taiwanese Protestant churches, does not seem to have really made a wider impact on Taiwanese society. This is in contrast to the Presbyterian church in Taiwan which has served as a bridge by becoming a political voice for the oppressed against the KMT (an example which he also quotes). In this analysis, probably a more nuanced definition and exposition (as well as a better selection of or analyses of case studies) of the bridge paradigm is needed.
His final example for the TJC as an indigenous church -- while a good example -- does not really convince on many counts because while he tries demonstrate that the TJC theologians and leaders have consciously tried to link their ideas and practice of True Jesus Christianity with Chinese precedence (what he calls congruence), the continuity he suggests appears strained at many points. For example, his argument that speaking in tongues for the TJC adherents is like a TJC form of Taiwanese spirit mediumship or tang-ki fails to recognise that the two experiences while superficially similar, are quite different in theological, spiritual and functional terms. While the possession of the Taiwanese tang-ki evokes fear amongst people and is for the purpose of hearing the voice of the gods to answer a particular request, Pentecostal speaking in tongues is far from possession but, rather, typically understood as an overflowing (or filling) of the Holy Spirit and is primarily a show that the Holy Spirit is acting directly or personally through the individual, demonstrating that he/she is a Christian and able to communicate directly with God in a language unintelligible. To argue that speaking in tongues becomes in effect like the tang-ki reduces the influence and power of the Christian tradition which the TJC adherents draw on and unnecessarily conflates Chinese popular religion with Pentecostalism without really demonstrating that the TJC adherents are drawing from the tang-ki tradition and/or the Pentecostal traditions. To me, it would be odd for a TJC adherent to draw on the tang-ki tradition if that is precisely the tradition they would like to battle with; moreover, would drawing from the tang-ki tradition be considered more of demon possession rather than that of being filled by the Holy Spirit - something in which a skilled Christian practitioner can discern?
That said, my comments should not be taken to mean that I have a low opinion of the book; whilst I do not agree with the way the author has made his arguments, his book has still been very helpful in two ways: (1) his very extensive discussion of the history of Taiwan and the role of the churches there served to clarify and expand my understanding of Protestantism in Taiwan and, (2) the conceptual framing of the monograph serves as a useful model for my own consideration.
Although his point that the CES represents a bridge between Western evangelicalism and independent Chinese churches in Taiwan is well taken, it is hard to really see what is so "Chinese" about them other than the fact that CES promotes issues like indigenous leadership, learning of Taiwanese, ensuring that most subjects are taught in Chinese, ensuring that the Chinese faculty make up the greater balance of the staff, and the promotion of Chinese Christian thinking by CES. To my mind, the CES still falls more under the conventional mission-centred paradigm taken over and reworked by the Chinese. Though it may serve as a bridge towards Western evangelicalism because of the close ties shared, it is less of a bridge to the Chinese religious and cultural environs (what is arguably the more important of the bridges to my mind) because CES, while important for the Western and Taiwanese Protestant churches, does not seem to have really made a wider impact on Taiwanese society. This is in contrast to the Presbyterian church in Taiwan which has served as a bridge by becoming a political voice for the oppressed against the KMT (an example which he also quotes). In this analysis, probably a more nuanced definition and exposition (as well as a better selection of or analyses of case studies) of the bridge paradigm is needed.
His final example for the TJC as an indigenous church -- while a good example -- does not really convince on many counts because while he tries demonstrate that the TJC theologians and leaders have consciously tried to link their ideas and practice of True Jesus Christianity with Chinese precedence (what he calls congruence), the continuity he suggests appears strained at many points. For example, his argument that speaking in tongues for the TJC adherents is like a TJC form of Taiwanese spirit mediumship or tang-ki fails to recognise that the two experiences while superficially similar, are quite different in theological, spiritual and functional terms. While the possession of the Taiwanese tang-ki evokes fear amongst people and is for the purpose of hearing the voice of the gods to answer a particular request, Pentecostal speaking in tongues is far from possession but, rather, typically understood as an overflowing (or filling) of the Holy Spirit and is primarily a show that the Holy Spirit is acting directly or personally through the individual, demonstrating that he/she is a Christian and able to communicate directly with God in a language unintelligible. To argue that speaking in tongues becomes in effect like the tang-ki reduces the influence and power of the Christian tradition which the TJC adherents draw on and unnecessarily conflates Chinese popular religion with Pentecostalism without really demonstrating that the TJC adherents are drawing from the tang-ki tradition and/or the Pentecostal traditions. To me, it would be odd for a TJC adherent to draw on the tang-ki tradition if that is precisely the tradition they would like to battle with; moreover, would drawing from the tang-ki tradition be considered more of demon possession rather than that of being filled by the Holy Spirit - something in which a skilled Christian practitioner can discern?
That said, my comments should not be taken to mean that I have a low opinion of the book; whilst I do not agree with the way the author has made his arguments, his book has still been very helpful in two ways: (1) his very extensive discussion of the history of Taiwan and the role of the churches there served to clarify and expand my understanding of Protestantism in Taiwan and, (2) the conceptual framing of the monograph serves as a useful model for my own consideration.
Displaying 1 of 1 review