“The 1517 Project and World Christianity: Migration and the Uses of Doctrine.”

This journal article was originally published in the International Bulletin of Mission Research Volume 24, Issue 3, pages 399-426. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396939324124843

Introduction

This article investigates the complex interplay between Christian doctrine, migration, and the varied social circumstances of Christianity’s faith and practice. By framing the Protestant Reformation, and its afterlives, through the metaphorical and interpretive lens of the “1517 Project,” we explore how Christian doctrine has been shaped by and shapes social conditions and structures within Christendom. This exploration contrasts the role of doctrine in the contexts of Anglo-European Christianity and in post-Christendom settings such as Asian Christianity.

We narrate how Christian doctrine, far from being a mere intellectual construct, dynamically interacts with the socio-political circumstances and cultural frameworks of diverse communities across space and time. By analyzing the seismic shifts from the Protestant Reformation to the different social circumstances of Asian and Asian American Christianities, this article seeks to illuminate the multifaceted role of doctrine in being shaped by and shaping religious, cultural, and social conditions across different epochs and geographies.

At the heart of the argument is the contention that we cannot understand the meaning and power of Christian doctrine apart from its encompassing cultural and socio-political landscapes. This article claims that the nature and utility of Christian doctrine are inextricably linked to the dual reality of the church: its universal scope as the body of Christ across space and time and its manifestation within particular regional and social contexts. Challenging the prevailing tendency in modern theology to dichotomize the universal and the particular,¹ this article argues for a nuanced understanding recognizing that both aspects are always operative and deeply intertwined. This approach reframes our theological divisions by enriching our comprehension of doctrine’s capacity to navigate the complex interrelations between faith, cultural belonging, and social identity.

The article traces its roots to the “1517 Project,” a symbolic reference to the Protestant Reformation, which underscores the profound impact of doctrinal innovations on the religious, ethnic, and political landscapes of early modern Europe. By examining the doctrinal divisions that marked the Reformation, the article elucidates how Christian doctrine served as both a theological battleground and a mirror reflecting the burgeoning ethnic and national aspirations within Christendom. This historical inquiry sets the stage for a broader examination of how doctrine continues to function within the complexities of modern religious culture wars and the negotiation of Christian identity amidst the shifting sands of race, migration, and global Christianity.

A significant contribution of this work is its focused attention on Asian and Asian American contexts, where the interaction between Christian identity and ethnic-racial identity² presents unique opportunities for modern Christian theology. By aligning doctrinal analysis with the social-practical realities of Asian and Asian American theology, this article opens new avenues for understanding how Christian doctrine can inform and transform the lived experiences of believers navigating the intersections of faith, ethnicity, and race. This perspective not only enriches the theological discourse but also amplifies the voices and experiences of communities often marginalized within mainstream theological discussions.

Employing a narrative approach grounded in case study analysis, this article weaves together historical episodes, theological debates, and contemporary issues to argue for the dynamic role of doctrine in Christian communities. Through case studies spanning the seismic shifts initiated by Martin Luther in the Protestant Reformation to the modernist-fundamentalist controversies and extending into the role of Christian doctrine in Asian and Asian American Christianities, this article demonstrates how doctrinal developments have always been responsive to and reflective of their social milieus, embodying national and ethnic desires for identity formation. As this article paves the way for future inquiries into the intersections of doctrine, migration, ethnicity, and race, it reaffirms the vitality of doctrinal reflection in navigating the complexities of global Christianity in the twenty-first century.³

Given the historical range, global scope, and interdisciplinary engagement of an article-length argument, one cannot go into the historical and conceptual detail to satisfy all specialists. Moreover, doing so would lose sight of the broader programmatic argument of the article. Rather, I have framed this article as a thought piece emblemized by the “1517 Project” to frame an alternative imagination of the nature and uses of Christian doctrine generated out of post-Christendom contexts. The selection and depth of case studies are illustrative for drawing the relevant conceptual and socio-political differences between Christendom and post-Christendom contexts while not reducing the internal diversities and theological disagreements within these contexts.⁴

Doctrinal Differentiation and the Protestant Reformation

This section explores the intricate relationship between Christian doctrine and the socio-political landscape of early modern Europe. It starts with the Protestant Reformation, a pivotal period marked by profound religious, ethnic, cultural, national, and political changes. This era is emblemized by the term “1517 Project,” highlighting the year Martin Luther, an Augustinian friar, initiated doctrinal reforms that reshaped Christendom.⁵ The Protestant Reformation is often narrated as a doctrinal story involving key theological disagreements over the authority of Scripture, justification, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, and the priesthood of all believers. What often gets left out of the doctrinal stories we tell is how the doctrinal disagreements presuppose a rich and complicated social and political milieu where ethnic identity and cultural-linguistic difference get symbolized doctrinally.⁶ The development and debates over Christian doctrine in the Protestant Reformation were deeply entwined with the era’s social and political dynamics, as doctrinal disputes often reflected and were reflected by ethnic and national identities.

In the aftermath of the Reformation, Luther’s confrontation with the papacy led to the emergence of three principal confessional identities: Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed.⁷ Each group asserted its representation of the universal Christian faith while developing distinct doctrinal statements to define their beliefs and practices.

The controversy between Luther and the papacy created enduring divisions within Christendom, in a particular way. After Luther’s death, religious unity, however notional it may have been, was asserted in three main versions, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed. Each saw itself as “catholic,” that is, as a true expression of a universal Christian faith, the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” of the Nicene Creed. The three confessions came to a de facto, if combative, coexistence in the Holy Roman Empire in the second half of the sixteenth century, and they were recognized by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. No long-term consequence of the religious controversy is more certain than the development of these three distinct European-Christian varieties. They continue to exist as either historical or current state churches in most countries of continental Europe, and they continue to play a role in European cultural identities, alongside, or in spite of, that continent’s varying degrees of secularity, in spite of the many other varieties of Protestants that emerged from the Lutheran and Reformed since the sixteenth century, and in spite of the many Pentecostal churches that are currently overtaking the denominational progeny of European churches in much of the world right now. Yet central to each confession was the conviction that Christian believers formed a unified whole.⁸

This period saw the fragmentation of Christianity into these three confessions, each using catechisms and confessions to formalize their beliefs, achieve political unity for their geographical region, and delineate theological and organizational structures. What is noteworthy of these catechisms and confessions is their emphasis on the intellectual belief system of their distinctive Christian tradition, which they considered universally normative for Christendom (“Christendom” is defined below).

Confessionalization and Ethnic and Political Differentiation

The concept of “confessionalization” played a crucial role in shaping the theological boundaries, ethnic identities, and political authority of different regions of Europe. Foundational texts like the Augsburg Confession, the Council of Trent’s decrees, and the Heidelberg Catechism served not only as theological declarations but also as markers of identity, facilitating unity within each group while emphasizing the divisions among them. These confessional systems mirrored regional, ethnic, and cultural-linguistic differences, playing a crucial role in the formation of distinct regional and national identities.⁹

For instance, the Lutheran confession found a stronghold in German-speaking territories, supported by local rulers seeking independence from papal and imperial control. In contrast, the Reformed tradition, with its decentralized structure, flourished in Switzerland and the Netherlands, reflecting the political and cultural diversity of its adherents. The Catholic Counter-Reformation aimed to reassert papal authority and orthodox Catholic practices across a diverse Europe, showcasing the interplay between religious doctrines and the politics of the time.¹⁰

Confessional identities not only clarified theological differences but also significantly influenced the political landscape of early modern Europe. It was not uncommon for theologians and civic magistrates to coordinate their efforts in confessionalization. The confessionalization process, which intertwined religious identities with political and social belonging, was pivotal in shaping the modern state system. The Peace of Westphalia’s acknowledgment of the three confessions’ coexistence marked a critical recognition of religious plurality as a political reality.¹¹

The confessions’ roles in community identity and cultural practices highlight the lasting impact of the Reformation on European society. Despite efforts to enforce doctrinal uniformity, the diversity of theological opinions and political realities made absolute uniformity elusive. The internal Christian debates over doctrine underscored the complexity of Christian identity in early modern Europe, reflecting the multifaceted relationship between religion, politics, and culture.¹²

Christian doctrine in early modern Europe was much more than a matter of religious belief; it was a critical factor in shaping the socio-political and cultural landscape of the period. The interplay between doctrinal development and social and political circumstances highlights the nuanced role of religious doctrine in the formation of modern Europe.

Christendom: the Intertwining of Christian and European Identities

Christendom represents a model where Christianity is deeply interwoven with Europe’s political and societal fabric, reflecting a symbiotic relationship between the church and the state.¹³ It posits that Christian identity was often perceived as an innate component of one’s societal and national belonging, with membership in certain societies or ethnic groups implicitly equating to Christian adherence. This paradigm was particularly dominant in early modern Europe, preluding the era of secularization, and significantly shaped Christianity’s global engagement during the colonial period.

In this model, state-endorsed churches combine Christian identity with European ethnic identities, setting the stage for the development of modern national identities and ethnic awareness. Jehu Hanciles critically evaluates the evolution of the Christendom model in Europe, illustrating how Christian identity became interlaced with European ethnic, cultural, regional, and linguistic identities. He argues that Christendom emerged as the prevalent Christian form through a protracted and complex evolution, from around the eighth to the early twentieth century. This iteration of Christianity, perceived as a territorial faith, merged religious allegiance with tribal and political loyalties. Hanciles (citing Andrew Walls) highlights how the conversion of Germanic tribes and their leaders, often motivated by the leaders’ Christian conversion and political motives, led to widespread conversion among their people. This model accentuates the influence of ethnic, cultural, and national identities in the diffusion of Christianity across Europe, intertwining Christian identity with membership in a “Christian” nation or tribe.¹⁴

Christianity’s infusion into societal and governance frameworks, particularly underpinned by the feudal system’s emphasis on mutual obligations, propelled its spread. The conversion of Germanic tribes facilitated Christianity’s transition into a religion that was both tribal and territorial, reinforcing the connection between religious, ethnic, and cultural identities within the Christendom construct. Consequently, Christianity took on deeply European expressions and governance structures, linking Christian identity with European ethnicity and culture, and melding the faith with the continent’s linguistic, cultural, and regional character.

Defining the 1517 Project

The Protestant Reformation introduced significant doctrinal controversies within European Christendom, including debates over scriptural authority, justification by faith alone, the sacramental presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, and the priesthood of all believers (to name a few). This period marked a significant departure from the form of European Christianity that had been dominant since Emperor Constantine’s reign in the fourth century. The “1517 Project” is the term I use to symbolize this era, which ushered in an unprecedented practice of doctrinal differentiation. This practice justified and represented competing visions for a Christian society in Europe during the early modern era, particularly the sixteenth century.

The Lutheran and Reformed confessions, alongside the doctrinal formulations from the Council of Trent and Catholic Counter-Reformation, each proposed a systematically coherent yet competing form of Christian belief for European Christendom.¹⁵ These doctrinal systems shared a commitment to the Trinitarian doctrine of God and the person of Christ as established by the early church councils (and further presupposed the continued dominance of Christianity in European society). However, they diverged significantly over other crucial doctrines, including soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), the sacraments, and ecclesiology (the study of the church).

Despite these doctrinal differences, there was unanimous agreement across Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic belief systems regarding the role of Christianity in European society and that society’s divinely sanctioned governance. The concept of a state-sponsored church that set societal norms remained unchallenged. The debate centered then on the specific doctrinal distinctions that would govern various regions, reflecting their emerging national identities. Therefore, the doctrinal differentiation sparked by the Protestant Reformation symbolized more than just theological disagreements. It represented regional, national, social, and ethnic differentiation, highlighting the complex interplay between religious and societal identities during this transformative period in European history.¹⁶ This Christendom model of defining Christian identity through doctrinal confession can be extended to American denominationalism and its analogs.¹⁷

Upon a review of the doctrinal standards presented in major denominational publications from the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic denominations in the United States, one uncovers additional evidence of the sustained link between the European and American models of Christendom, wherein doctrinal divergence serves as a key marker of Christian identity.¹⁸ These documents, which articulate foundational beliefs, reveal their socio-political and historical backdrops to differing extents. Some directly engage with the political and social dilemmas of their times, while others weave contemporary societal issues into discussions on ethics and justice. Despite these variations, they commonly advocate a universal Christian theological perspective (as an inheritance from the European Christendom context), often overlooking the distinct ethnic and socio-political elements that inform doctrinal variations. This discrepancy between the broadly perceived universality of Christian doctrine and its socially embodied conditions of possibility (shaped by varied regional, ethnic, and racial circumstances) underscores a critical challenge facing contemporary Christian theology: the task of reconciling the universal scope of Christian doctrine with the particulars of its diverse circumstances across numerous contexts.

The 1517 Project articulates a critical reevaluation of the historical and theological narratives of Christendom, challenging the conventional wisdom that frames the evolution of Christian doctrine as primarily a sequence of intellectual or doctrinal disagreements without explicit reference to the ethnic and racial circumstances of doctrinal development.¹⁹ This project is rooted in a critical analysis of two significant moments in Christian history: the Protestant Reformation, symbolized by Martin Luther’s publication of the Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, and the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy in the US. When these events are recounted as primarily intellectual disputes, the 1517 Project posits that such histories insufficiently account for the complex interplay of regional, ethnic, racial, and national identities that fundamentally shaped doctrinal development within Christendom.²⁰

At the core of the 1517 Project is the premise that our understanding of Christian doctrinal evolution cannot be divorced from sociological and political contexts (especially ethnic and racial formations) in which these doctrines emerge and evolve. This approach challenges key assumptions prevalent in Christendom contexts often characterized by a state-sponsored or culturally dominant Christian church as well as a lack of religious pluralism. In such contexts, Christianity’s doctrinal expressions are perceived as universally applicable, obscuring the diverse and particular regional, ethnic, and racial conditions underpinning their development. The 1517 Project seeks to make explicit how doctrines emerging from specific historical moments and localities are subsequently positioned as universally valid within a Christendom framework, a process that oversimplifies and homogenizes the rich tapestry of Christian doctrinal history in its proper global context across space and time. In other words, a goal of the 1517 Project is to show that confessionalization claims universal normative authority in early modern Europe but is always grounded within particular regional, ethnic, and political conditions that materially shape the claims for that universal normative authority.

The 1517 Project further critiques the implicit practice within European and American Christendom of normalizing an Anglo-European understanding of Christian doctrine that focuses in particular on intellectual belief without explicit reference to ethnic and racial identity. This critique is grounded in the recognition that such a viewpoint is not easily reconcilable with the conditions of post-Christendom²¹ or majority world contexts, where Christianity exists amidst significant religious pluralism and often without the support of a state-sponsored church. In these environments, the interpretation and significance of Christian doctrines reflect very different social circumstances and necessitate a broader, more inclusive dialogue on Christian identity and the role of doctrine in articulating Christian identity. For post-Christendom communities, the absence of a state-sponsored church and the presence of religious pluralism diminishes the incentive and pressure to present one’s Christian faith as a denominational or confessional identity universally applicable across all regions and eras. Confessional belief systems provide the theological identity for a Christian society in need of such an identity. Post-Christendom societies are not in need of the same kind of theological identity and therefore have different uses of Christian doctrine.

The 1517 Project invites a reexamination of the narrative surrounding Christian doctrinal development and differentiation, advocating an approach that integrates intellectual, social, ethnic, racial, and political dimensions. The project challenges us to theologize the relationship of the universal body of Christ with its concurrent socially embodied expressions in particular regions. It names the tension at the intersection of modern theology and World Christianity where the universal scope of Christian doctrine (coupled with Enlightenment ideals about truth claims) leads one to not make explicit the particular ethnic and racial circumstances served by doctrine.²² By challenging the dominant narrative that has historically marginalized these aspects, the 1517 Project seeks to foster a more comprehensive understanding of Christian doctrine, one that acknowledges the multifaceted influences shaping its development across different historical epochs and socio-political contexts.

Next, we transition to our second case study of the uses of doctrine within another Christendom context.

Doctrinal Differentiation and the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy

Our focus now on the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy, unfolding in the early twentieth century, serves as a pivotal exploration into the claims for doctrinal orthodoxy and the quest for a universal Christian identity. This section contextualizes and analyzes the intricate dynamics at play, drawing upon historical antecedents and their theological implications.²³ It first discusses how US denominations inherited and continued the 1517 Project, where doctrinal differentiation represented significant ethnic, regional, and national identities from Europe. This section discusses how European immigrants brought this Christendom model of religious organization to the US through the continuation and creation of denominations. Then, this section briefly highlights the theological significance of the Civil War for generating a White culture war that deployed Christian doctrinal arguments supporting or rejecting the issue of slavery. This section then examines the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy in light of these developments.

The 1517 Project and Denominationalism

In The Social Sources of Denominationalism, H. Richard Niebuhr critically examines the impact of European ethnic identity and nationalism on Christianity, emphasizing that the proliferation of denominational divisions is not solely due to theological differences but also deeply influenced by socio-political and cultural factors.²⁴ He explores how historical interactions between the church and the state, from the early Christian era through the Reformation and beyond, have led to the establishment of national churches. These churches often reflected the cultural identities of their states, resulting in denominational splits that reflect ethnic and political distinctions alongside theological ones. Providing historical examples, Niebuhr illustrates the complex dynamics between religious institutions and political power, such as the early Christian church’s alliance with the Roman Empire and the Reformation’s alignment with nation-states. He argues that Christian doctrine has been influenced by ethnic identities and predispositions, leading to doctrinal emphases that resonate more within specific ethnic communities. This intertwining of faith with ethnic identity contributes to denominational distinctions, as Christianity aligns with the values and traditions of particular ethnic groups. This adaptation process not only diversifies Christian doctrine and practice but also reinforces ethnic boundaries within the Christian community. Furthermore, the emergence of national churches and denominations during the Protestant Reformation is highlighted as a key example of how regional and cultural-linguistic differences have led to doctrinal divergences.²⁵ These churches aimed to develop a system of Christian doctrine that resonated with emerging national identities, thus creating doctrinal distinctions that mirrored the cultural and political aspirations of their nations. These European denominations were then transplanted in the United States through European immigrants who brought their Christian faith and structures with them. Niebuhr’s analysis presents a nuanced view of Christianity as a faith that reflects national identity as much as it does universal religious principles.²⁶

Theological Crisis of the Civil War

Drawing from Mark A. Noll’s important work, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, the era of the Civil War emerges as a crucial moment of theological and societal upheaval in the United States. Noll meticulously outlines how theological debates over slavery were deeply entangled with the social fabric of the United States, reflecting broader conflicts about regional identity, cultural practices, and racial ideologies. The North–South divide, exacerbated by the Civil War, was not merely a political schism but also a theological one. Northern theologians, influenced by industrialization and the social reforms of the Second Great Awakening, condemned slavery on moral grounds. Conversely, the Southern economy’s dependence on slavery fostered a theological justification for the institution, intertwined with the region’s social hierarchies and economic interests. Noll further illuminates the role of ethnic and racial dynamics in shaping theological debates, highlighting how Protestant evangelicalism was influenced by the British-descended majority. This backdrop contributed to a religious landscape where differing theological views on slavery reflected broader societal divisions.²⁷

Regional Culture Wars Between North and South

As the twentieth century began, the American theological landscape witnessed a pivotal shift, notably encapsulated in the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy. This period marked a significant clash between J. Gresham Machen and emerging liberal theological trends at Princeton Theological Seminary, revisiting issues of doctrinal purity while confronting modernity’s challenges. Theologians found themselves in a complex dialogue, attempting to reconcile enduring beliefs with modernity’s scientific and philosophical advancements. Modernists and fundamentalists took up opposing sides on any number of doctrinal issues relating for example to the authority of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, and questions of doctrinal orthodoxy. George Marsden’s Fundamentalism and American Culture examines this theological dichotomy, framing the controversy within wider debates on morality, societal order, and the character of American existence.²⁸

Within the Presbyterian church, the schism between modernist and fundamentalist ideologies provoked a profound doctrinal and identity crisis. Figures such as J. Gresham Machen symbolize this internal conflict, illustrating the struggle to preserve doctrinal orthodoxy while transitioning towards a more encompassing evangelical identity. This discord underscores the perennial tension between doctrinal fidelity and the imperative for a Christian testimony relevant to an evolving world.

In The Presbyterian Controversy, Bradley Longfield’s analysis provides insightful context for understanding the interplay between regional cultural disparities, particularly between the North and South, and doctrinal diversification during this period.²⁹ Machen’s association with Princeton Theological Seminary situates him in the Northern academic milieu, yet his Southern heritage profoundly influenced his theological disposition. The South’s cultural ethos, emphasizing individual liberty, skepticism towards centralized power, and a deep-seated traditionalism, significantly molded his theological perspectives. Such cultural characteristics, intertwined with the South’s unique historical narrative, including the Civil War and its legacy, forged a collective identity cautious of modernist inclinations perceived as antithetical to traditional values.³⁰

Southern Presbyterianism, represented by theologians such as James Henley Thornwell, staunchly defended doctrinal purity and a Calvinistic interpretation of Christianity, countering liberal theological currents. This stance reflected not merely theological convictions but also the Southern cultural penchant for preserving core truths amid modernity’s upheavals. Conversely, the North, particularly its urban areas, underwent rapid industrialization, urbanization, and saw a surge in diverse immigrant influxes, cultivating a more pluralistic and secular cultural environment. This milieu nurtured theological liberalism, aiming to reconcile Christian doctrine with modern societal challenges and values, thereby fostering a doctrinal dichotomy with traditionalist perspectives like Machen’s.³¹

While not being reducible to his social circumstances, Machen’s theological engagements cannot be divorced from these broader cultural and regional dynamics. His advocacy for orthodox Presbyterianism and critique of modernism were deeply colored by his Southern upbringing, which esteemed the safeguarding of established truths. This orientation rendered him particularly attuned to perceived declines in Christian orthodoxy and the encroachments of modernist theology on fundamental Christian doctrines. Furthermore, the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy, with Machen as a key participant, mirrors not only a theological schism but also a cultural and regional divide within American Protestantism. This dispute illuminated divergences in religious understanding and practice across the United States, with significant social and political ramifications.³²

Exploring Machen’s life and contributions, Longfield highlights the complex nexus between regional cultural identities and theological doctrinal differentiation in early twentieth-century America. Machen’s Southern legacy, infused with specific values and historical experiences, critically shaped his anti-modernist theological stance, reflecting wider patterns of cultural and theological divergence within American Protestantism. The defense of orthodox doctrine against liberal, modernizing influences entailed more than an intellectual or doctrinal disagreement; it represented a contestation over competing visions for Christian society in the United States. Similar to the above case study on the Protestant Reformation, this case study underscores the importance of considering cultural, regional, and political contexts in comprehending the evolution and narration of theological doctrines and controversies.³³

Next, we transition our discussion to the uses of Christian doctrine in majority world contexts through the theme of migration.

Migration and Global Christianity

Jehu Hanciles’s seminal work, Migration and the Making of Global Christianity, sheds light on the pivotal role of migration in extending Christianity beyond its traditional European confines.³⁴ This phenomenon underscores a major shift in Christianity’s global presence from the minority world to the majority world.³⁵

Christendom was bankrupted as a universal ideal by expanding colonial interests and the missionary encounter with the immutable diversity of non-Western societies. . . . No single development in the last fifty years demonstrates this united consequence more definitively than the reshaping of global Christianity that has seen Africa, Latin America, and Asia emerge as the new heartlands of the faith. . . . Among other things, the claim that the non-Western experience and expressions of the faith represent the ‘next Christendom’ is roundly rejected as an example of a wide-spread tendency to imprison understanding of the new global Christian realities within Western intellectual categories.³⁶

Through both historical and contemporary lenses, Hanciles reveals how migration has not only expanded Christianity’s geographical reach but has also fundamentally altered its basic character. This alteration challenges the conventional perception of Christianity as an inherently Western tradition.

At the heart of Christianity’s proliferation and evolution lies the phenomenon of migration. Hanciles presents migration as a conduit for theological and cultural exchange, significantly redefining Christianity as a whole. As migrants settle in new regions, they bring their religious convictions, practices, and interpretations, thereby cultivating dynamic Christian communities. These communities, especially notable in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, defy the traditional Eurocentric model of Christianity, introducing novel theological perspectives and worship styles deeply influenced by their unique experiences of colonialism, economic inequality, and cultural heritage.

Hanciles’s exploration into the interplay between migration, conversion, and the adaptation of Christian doctrine within diverse cultural frameworks marks a paradigm shift. Christianity is increasingly centered in the Global South and majority world, gaining numerical growth and a renewed expression of vitality. This evolution reflects the inherently dynamic and pluralistic nature of global Christianity, shaped by ongoing migrations and cultural interactions.

In contrasting Christendom and post-Christendom contexts, Hanciles differentiates the traditional European model of a state-sponsored church with the post-Christendom scenario, characterized by religious pluralism and conversion from non-Christian backgrounds. This distinction underlines the transformative impact of Christian doctrine in facilitating conversions and cultivating varied Christian expressions globally.³⁷ The 1517 Project draws upon migration and global Christianity to help us see, by comparison, the different and thus particular (non-universal) social circumstances that created Christendom models of doctrine and Christian identity.

Through ethnographic studies, particularly focusing on Asian Christianity, we next present alternative interpretations of Christian doctrine. These interpretations, while distinctly Christian, deviate from traditional Christendom models that privileged confessionalization and denominationalism, thus enriching our comprehension of Christianity’s global diversity.³⁸ Case studies from India and the Taiwanese diaspora illustrate the divergent functions of Christian doctrine in post-Christendom contexts.³⁹ At the risk of oversimplification, in these scenarios, Christian doctrine enables conversion and fosters new religious identities, in contrast to Christendom contexts where it often buttresses existing identities. By scrutinizing Christianity’s varied manifestations through the lens of migration, Hanciles invites a reevaluation of the faith as a fluid and evolving tradition. This reimagining champions a pluralistic, decentralized, and transformative global Christianity, celebrating its rich, cross-cultural embodiments beyond the historical predominance of European narratives.

Uses of Doctrine in Indian Dalit Communities

In his insightful book, To Be Cared For: The Power of Conversion and Foreignness of Belonging in an Indian Slum, Nathaniel Roberts⁴⁰ offers a profound exploration of the experiences of Dalits who convert to Christianity in search of solace and dignity within a society that has historically marginalized them.⁴¹ Through meticulous ethnographic research in a Chennai slum, Roberts examines how conversion is not merely a change in religious affiliation for these individuals but a transformative process that endows them with a new sense of identity, community, and hope. The book delves into the complexities of how Dalit converts navigate their newfound faith amidst the persistent realities of caste discrimination and poverty. Roberts highlights the paradoxical nature of their conversion experience, where embracing Christianity enables them to assert their worth and humanity in a context that often denies them both. This work critically engages with themes of social exclusion, belonging, and the transformative power of faith, providing insightful perspectives on the socio-religious dynamics of conversion among India’s most disenfranchised communities.

The landscape of Christianity in India presents a stark contrast to its European counterpart, primarily due to Christianity’s minority status and the lack of state sponsorship. Unlike Europe, where Christianity often merges with state and regional identities, Indian Christianity exists within a rich tapestry of religious diversity, with Hinduism being the dominant faith. This religious plurality and the absence of governmental backing mean that Christianity in India lacks the socio-political influence and cultural dominance found in Europe. This different position profoundly shapes the role and significance of Christianity and its doctrines within Indian society.

The Ethnic and Political Significance of Christian Conversion

The conversion to Christianity among India’s Dalits and tribal communities unveils a complex interplay of ethnicity, politics, and religious identity within the framework of Indian society.⁴² The embrace of Christianity by these marginalized communities dates back to the nineteenth century. Conversion to Christianity has not only been a quest for spiritual fulfillment but also a profound form of resistance against the entrenched caste-based discrimination in Hindu society. Despite constituting a relatively small percentage of the national population, the conversion of Dalits and tribals to Christianity has been perceived as a significant political and national concern, indicative of the tensions between the constitutional secular ethos of India and the socio-political realities of caste and religious identities. This dynamic is further complicated by the portrayal of Christianity and Islam as “foreign” religions, juxtaposing the indigenous identity of Hinduism, thus framing conversion as a contestation over the very soul of Indian national identity.

The political repercussions of Dalit conversions, exemplified by events such as the mass conversion of 180 Dalit families to Islam in Meenakshipuram in 1981 and the subsequent nationwide uproar, underscore the intricate connections between religious identity and national unity.⁴³ The governmental and societal responses to such conversions, including the enactment of anti-conversion laws by several Indian states, reflect an underlying anxiety about the cohesion of the Hindu majority and its implications for national integrity. Gandhi’s stance, as depicted through his vehement opposition to the conversion of Dalits and his emphasis on their integral role within the Hindu fold, highlights the contested terrain of religious freedom, social equality, and national identity.⁴⁴ Through the lens of conversion, we explore the broader themes of power, marginality, and the struggle for recognition, revealing how religious conversion among Dalits and tribals is not merely a matter of personal faith but a significant act of political and social assertion within the complex tapestry of Indian society.

Conversion, Plural Identities, and the Logic of Slum Religion

Dalit conversions to Christianity in the area of Anbu Nagar reflect not just a change in religious belief but also a complex negotiation of identity, morality, and communal relationships within a constrained social environment.⁴⁵ The conversion process, as detailed by Roberts, reveals the nuanced ways in which Dalits navigate their social realities, seeking respect, dignity, and divine favor in the face of systemic marginalization. Roberts examines the complex interplay between Hinduism and Christianity within Anbu Nagar, a slum community, revealing a nuanced tapestry of religious coexistence and identity fluidity.⁴⁶ Roberts challenges the monolithic portrayal of religious affiliations as inherent and immutable, showcasing instead the pragmatic and individualistic nature of faith among the slum’s residents. The concept of “slum religion” emerges as a pivotal theme, highlighting a shared understanding that transcends doctrinal differences, and emphasizing the practical engagement with divinity for protection, blessings, and moral guidance. Such a perspective on religion, deeply rooted in the existential realities of slum life, underscores a collective inquiry into religious truth, mediated by the material and moral exigencies faced by the community.

Moreover, Roberts delves into the universalist notions of morality prevalent among residents, contesting the relativist moral frameworks often associated with distinct religious traditions. This shared moral universe, where deities across religions are expected to uphold similar moral standards, challenges prevailing narratives about the moral ambivalence of gods in popular Hinduism and the exclusivist moral claims in Christianity. The dynamics of worship, characterized by a transactional deity–devotee relationship and the fluidity of religious affiliations, further illuminate the contingent nature of faith in Anbu Nagar. This highlights how the immediate efficacy of divine intervention in addressing worldly challenges often supersedes doctrinal loyalty.⁴⁷ The emphasis on faith as a lived experience, requiring existential commitment and tangible acts of trust, adds depth to our understanding of religious practice, revealing the intricate balance between fear, hope, and faith in navigating the uncertainties of life in the slum.

Community-building, Empowerment, and Liberation

Roberts provides a multifaceted exploration of Dalit conversion to Christianity, revealing themes of community-building, empowerment, and liberation that are central to understanding the appeal and impact of Christianity among Dalit communities.⁴⁸ The formation of women’s prayer teams illustrates a tangible manifestation of communal solidarity and support, where the act of praying emerges as a powerful tool for social networking and mutual care. This collective religious practice transcends the confines of individual struggle, fostering a shared responsibility for one another’s wellbeing and transforming personal hardships into communal concerns. This redefinition of social relationships reflects a radical departure from the isolation and individualism experienced within the caste system, offering a new paradigm of communal identity and support.⁴⁹

The transformative knowledge gained through participation in Christian worship signifies a profound awakening among converts, who describe their experience as gaining arivu or enlightenment. This newfound knowledge, embodied in the figure of Christ, marks a departure from a state of ignorance and oppression to one of awareness and empowerment. The emphasis on knowledge not only underscores the personal transformation experienced by converts but also signifies a collective enlightenment that challenges the social and spiritual status quo.⁵⁰

Christianity’s unique appeal to Dalit converts lies in its responsiveness to their specific social grievances and aspirations for justice. The Christian narrative offers a compelling vision of liberation from societal oppression and personal mistreatment, directly addressing the lived realities of Dalit slum dwellers. This resonance is further amplified through the identification with biblical verses that echo themes of justice, equality, and divine intervention in the struggles of the oppressed. Such identification fosters a sense of divine solidarity with the marginalized, offering a theological validation of their quest for dignity and justice.⁵¹

The revolutionary potential of Christianity, as perceived by Dalit converts, aligns with the aspirations for a radical societal transformation. The confluence of Christian teachings with the ideals of social justice and equality reflects a unique synthesis of religious and political liberation. This perception of Christianity as a force for moral revolution, capable of bringing about a sudden and total transformation through divine agency, encapsulates the profound hope and aspiration for change among Dalit converts. It signifies a rejection of the status quo and an embrace of a future where the chains of caste oppression are broken, and a new social order of equality and dignity is established.

The conversion of Dalits to Christianity, as described in these texts, is not merely a change of religious affiliation but represents a profound shift in identity, community, and consciousness. It encapsulates a collective yearning for dignity, solidarity, and liberation from the systemic injustices of caste oppression. Christianity emerges as a beacon of hope and a catalyst for an envisioned moral and social revolution, redefining the contours of Dalit identity and community in the process.

This exploration of Christian doctrine within the Dalit context, in distinction from the confessionalization and denominationalism evident in Anglo-European Christendom, elucidates an alternative trajectory of faith intersecting with social identity and political agency in the majority world context. The narratives of Dalit conversions, vividly captured in Roberts’s ethnography, reveal a profound departure from the socio-political structures that intertwine regional, ethnic, and religious identities where Christianity is dominant in society. Instead, in the Indian Dalit context, Christianity serves as a conduit for asserting human dignity, forging new communities, and challenging entrenched Indian social hierarchies. Unlike European experiences, where Christianity has often reinforced ethnic and national boundaries through confessionalization and denominationalism, the adoption of Christianity by India’s Dalits represents a radical reconfiguration of identity, transcending traditional social stratifications. This transformative power of faith not only highlights the distinct socio-political landscapes in which Christian doctrine facilitates religious conversions but also underscores the universal quest for belonging, dignity, and justice.

Uses of Doctrine in Taiwanese American Context

In Getting Saved in America: Taiwanese Immigration and Religious Experience, Carolyn Chen⁵² delves into the multifaceted religious transformations experienced by Taiwanese immigrants in the United States While the book treats both Buddhists and Christians, I focus particularly on those Taiwanese who convert to Christianity. Through a nuanced ethnographic study, Chen explores how these immigrants navigate the complexities of their new lives in America, where converting to Christianity often serves not just as a spiritual choice but as a strategic adaptation to their new environment. She argues that for many Taiwanese immigrants, adopting Christianity goes beyond seeking spiritual fulfillment; it becomes a means to assimilate into American society, access social networks, and cope with the challenges of immigration. Chen’s work illuminates the intersection of religion, migration, and identity, highlighting how religious conversion is closely linked with the desires for belonging and success in the diaspora.

This section analyzes the intricate relationship between Christian doctrine and its social contexts among Taiwanese American Christians. It questions whether the theological beliefs of Taiwanese Christians can be fully understood without considering the social settings in which these beliefs are practiced. What becomes clear in this case study is that the significance and influence of Christian doctrine are deeply rooted in specific social circumstances, especially the racial and ethnic contexts of Asian immigration in the United States.

The Sociological Context of Conversion

Chen explores the sociology of religion, employing adaptation theories, religious marketplace theories, and symbolic-meaning theories to explain the attraction of Taiwanese immigrants to Christianity in the United States.⁵³ These theories collectively argue that conversion is motivated by immigrants’ needs for community, strategies of evangelism to draw new members, and the quest for new meaning amidst modern challenges.

In this chapter, I illustrate how Taiwanese immigrants reconstruct community and form new bonds of kinship through the process of Christian conversion in the United States. Religious conversion, I argue, involves a shift in the locus of their communities of tradition from the family to the church. Taiwanese immigrants are drawn to Grace Evangelical Church because it offers solutions to the practical struggles that they encounter as middle-class immigrants in the United States. Those challenges require more than the discrete services of social agencies; they required communities of solidarity.⁵⁴

Chen posits that conversion is both a symbolic reimagining of reality and a reorganization of social relationships, shifting the focus of community from the family to the church. Moreover, conversion cannot be reduced to intellectual assent to cognitive beliefs.

The example of Dr. Liu illustrates the typical experience for most Christians. He is drawn to the church because it is a place where he and his family can be part of the Taiwanese community. But the consequences of his involvement with the church have gone beyond his original concerns. In joining the community he has adopted the behaviors and worldviews of Christians. His socialization into the Christian community preceded his actual commitment to Christian belief. And before becoming Christian, he was already acting Christian.⁵⁵

Impact of Conversion

Conversion among Taiwanese immigrants is a profound transformation, affecting their identities, community formation, moral orientation, and integration into American society. This process goes beyond personal faith, offering a comprehensive framework that reshapes the immigrant experience. Conversion to the Christian faith makes sense to Taiwanese immigrants in need of social support structures while navigating a new land.

[M]ost Chinese immigrants are initially attracted to Christianity for nonreligious reasons. They are drawn to the religion by the friendship networks and the ethnic community that they find in the church. Practical concerns such as parenting, finances, and social belonging dominate their personal religious agenda, not the problem of meaning. Indeed, those without family in Southern California convert to Christianity more quickly than those with family in the area, suggesting that the presence of local kinship influences openness to Christianity. This is not to say that religious conversion involves no religious seeking, but rather that soul searching and religious questioning frequently are byproducts of the search for solutions to concrete everyday problems.⁵⁶

Churches play a critical role in this transformation by providing social support, moral guidance, and assistance with cultural adaptation. Christianity of an evangelical character, in particular, offers a space where immigrants can forge new identities, distinct from both mainstream American and traditional Taiwanese cultures.

Doctrine and Moral Formation

For Taiwanese immigrants, Christianity offers moral guidance, a sense of community, and a way to navigate the challenges of immigration. Christian doctrines such as original sin and the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ provide a new foundation for identity and moral decision-making. Christianity and its doctrines are not just intellectual commitments:

But religions are not just intellectual commitments to abstract theories; they are commitments to communities that hold social consequences for practical life. As such, religious choices are rarely made on the basis of intellectual factors alone, but on factors such as social identity, belonging, and status. Religious conversion may be about finding solutions less to the problem of meaning than to the practical problems of everyday life.⁵⁷

According to Chen, this marks a significant departure from the communal and ritual-focused morality of Taiwan, emphasizing individual moral vigilance and self-regulation.⁵⁸

Role of the Evangelical Church

The evangelical church is instrumental in facilitating conversion through welcoming environments, evangelism strategies, and the ritualization of conversion. These strategies address the social and emotional needs of immigrants, fostering a sense of familial belonging. Given the geographical and relational displacement associated with migration, the loss of familial and kinship relationships means that the church for immigrant people becomes like an extended family. “With their own extended families geographically dispersed, Grace Church members come to rely upon one another as they would rely upon family in Taiwan for emotional, material, social, and spiritual support. . . . In the absence of their own families, immigrants turned to the church.”⁵⁹ Moreover, the outward orientation of the church that emphasizes evangelism and conversion is a salient feature for these immigrant communities. “Part of the reason immigrants turn to evangelical Christianity lies in the nature of the churches themselves, particularly how theological notions of salvation translate into institutional strategies of growth and community development.”⁶⁰ The church becomes a vital support system, offering a tightly-knit community that reinforces a new moral framework through worship, Bible study, and mutual accountability.

These observations are significant for this article in part because Christian doctrine is not simply about intellectual assent to abstract universal beliefs. Rather, intellectual assent to these Christian beliefs takes on its particular meaning and power within a socially-embodied context. Christian doctrinal beliefs and social embodiment have a symbiotic relationship:

Here I would like to suggest an approach toward conversion that recognizes religions as living traditions of meaning grounded in institutionalized communities. Traditions and communities have a symbiotic relationship. The religious world of symbols, beliefs, and rituals becomes concrete only when practiced in a communal context, and communities are possible only through the sharing of symbols. By living traditions of meaning, I mean that religions are not intellectual abstractions but grounded in human communities where “word becomes flesh” and powerfully influence human action. As institutionalized communities, religions are concerned with creating structures where traditions of meaning are regular, natural, and sustained.⁶¹

In the immigrant Taiwanese context, this social embodiment crucially takes form in the church.

The relationship between Christian doctrine and the lives of Taiwanese Americans is interactive and dynamic. This tradition is not just about adopting foreign religious beliefs but engaging in a dialogic process that makes these beliefs relevant and meaningful. Chen’s work provides a comprehensive examination of the complex processes of religious conversion, community formation, and identity negotiation among Taiwanese immigrants, highlighting the possibilities of the transformative role of faith and doctrine in the Taiwanese immigrant experience.

Notably gone are the regional, White culture war politics that preoccupied J. Gresham Machen’s concern for orthodoxy in the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy. While Machen’s form of Christian fundamentalism is distinct from contemporary American evangelicalism in the latter half of the twentieth century, there is a historical continuity between the two. Whatever “evangelical” means in the context of Chen’s study of Taiwanese American Christians, it has little reference or direct relation to the generative social and political conditions of Christian fundamentalism and its successor in contemporary evangelicalism in the United States.

Chen’s exploration of the religious conversion of Taiwanese immigrants in the United States reveals a particular intersection of faith, identity, and social adaptation that markedly diverges from the confessionalization process and denominational structures described in Anglo-European Christendom. Unlike the amalgamation of ethnic and national identities within the regions of Christendom, the Taiwanese American’s embrace of Christianity represents a strategic and communal adaptation to the exigencies of immigration and the search for belonging in a new land. Through the lens of Taiwanese American experience, Christian doctrine transcends intellectual assent and claims to doctrinal orthodoxy,⁶² intertwining deeply with the social and practical realities of life in the diaspora. The adoption of Christianity among Taiwanese immigrants is not solely a quest for spiritual fulfillment but a multifaceted strategy for navigating and thriving within the racial politics of American society. This adaptation involves the reconstitution of community, the reimagining of identity, and the reshaping of moral frameworks, illustrating the dynamic role of Christian doctrine in this immigrant narrative. Thus, the uses of Christian doctrine within the Taiwanese diaspora offer profound insights into the complex ways in which faith, culture, and social adaptation interact, providing a contrast to historical models of religious confessionalization and denominationalism within Christendom.⁶³ This analysis underscores the necessity of viewing Christian conversion not just as a matter of intellectual faith, but as a deeply social phenomenon, where doctrine is lived and experienced within the unique socio-political contours of immigrant experience.

Conclusion: Catholicity and Social Embodiment

In conclusion, this article has traversed a vast and complex landscape, engaging with the intricate interplay between Christian doctrine, social identity, and the diverse contexts within which Christianity is practiced and lived. Through the lens of the 1517 Project, we have journeyed from the seismic doctrinal shifts of the Protestant Reformation to the different social conditions of Christianity within Asian and Asian American communities. The 1517 Project represents the uses of doctrine that serve confessionalization and denominationalism characteristic of state-sponsored churches in the absence of religious pluralism across Anglo-European lands. This journey underscores the dynamic and mutually influencing relationship between faith, culture, and socio-political structures.

The exploration of the uses of Christian doctrine within both Christendom and post-Christendom contexts—spanning Europe, India, and the United States—reveals the multifaceted role doctrine plays in shaping and being shaped by regional, social, and political circumstances. This journey illuminates how doctrine serves not only as a theological foundation but also as a reflective and formative agent in the interaction between the church and its surrounding social circumstances. The case studies of Indian Christianity and Taiwanese Christian communities in the US in particular exemplify the transformative power of Christian doctrine to confer a new identity when engaged in dialogue with the specific challenges, aspirations, and cultural backgrounds of these communities.

The narrative of the 1517 Project extends beyond mere historical recounting, inviting us to reconsider the nature and uses of Christian doctrine as a relation between the universal claims of Christian faith and the particular conditions of its practice. It challenges us to reflect on the catholicity of the body of Christ—a community that transcends temporal and spatial boundaries, yet is deeply rooted in specific regional, historical, and socio-political contexts. This necessitates a thoughtful engagement with the ways in which racial, ethnic, and socio-political conditions intersect with and inform our understanding of Christian faith and practice.

The impetus for this article stems from theological reasoning, with a particular emphasis on the catholicity of the body of Christ. Catholicity denotes the widespread existence of Christ’s body throughout diverse eras and regions, unified by the common confession that “Jesus is Lord.” While this universality exists across space and time, it simultaneously takes on distinctive characteristics within various contexts, especially informed by the racial and ethnic conditions of those communities. Our examination investigates the ways in which the catholic church—the universal body of Christ—articulates itself within these manifold racial and ethnic settings, thus embodying its ubiquitous yet contextually resonant presence.

As we contemplate the future of global Christianity, this article calls for a nuanced appreciation of the ways in which Christian doctrine continues to be shaped by and shape the ever-evolving tapestry of human society. It underscores the need for theological reflection that is attentive to the diverse expressions of Christian identity and community, particularly in the face of migration, globalization, and the ongoing challenges of social justice and inclusion.

In this endeavor, scholarship in World Christianity and Asian American Christianity serves as a vital resource, offering insights into the complex dynamics of Christianity in a post-Christendom world. Their contributions highlight the resilience and adaptability of Christian faith, encouraging a more expansive and dialogical approach to understanding the role of doctrine in contemporary religious life.

Ultimately, this article, through examining the relation between the 1517 Project and World Christianity, affirms the vibrancy and diversity of the Christian tradition. It invites us to embrace a vision of the church that is both catholic and contextual, universal and particular, bound by shared faith yet enriched by the manifold expressions of that faith across different cultures and communities. In doing so, it offers a hopeful perspective for the ongoing journey of Christianity in the twenty-first century, marked by a commitment to unity in diversity and a deepened understanding of the gospel’s power to speak to the varied realities of human experience.⁶⁴

Footnotes

1. Some modern theologies draw explicit attention to their social identity (whether, for example, feminist, Black, or queer) and others do not and claim, by default, a general or universal character. Often these options in modern theology are theorized or practiced in exclusion of each other.

2. In this article, I do not draw a hard and fast difference between ethnicity and race and at times use the terms interchangeably. I do this because the politics of racial identity in the US do not extend universally across the world. See Denise Buell who says something similar with respect to her study of race and ethnicity in early Christianity. “By using the terms race and ethnicity interchangeably I signal my view that neither term has a one-to-one counterpart in antiquity; moreover, this choice indicates that these terms cannot be neatly distinguished even in modern parlance. I also want to keep modern readers alert to the contemporary stakes of historical work.” Denise Buell, Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 21. Buell uses the concepts of “race” and “ethnicity” interchangeably in her examination of early Christianity to challenge and expand contemporary understandings of these categories within ancient religious contexts the same could be said for the majority world. Moreover, I take race and ethnicity to be concepts of social identity grounded in material histories, especially political economy. See Jonathan Tran for a comprehensive theological account of racialization explained by political economy. Jonathan Tran, Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021).

3. A note on my own social location, academic training, and research interests: I am a systematic theologian trained in Protestant theology who does Asian American theology. One of the primary theoretical tasks I have set for myself in doing Asian American Christian theology is to inquire into the conceptual coordination of Christian identity and Asian American identity.

4. The following case studies focus on two interconnected themes that distinguish Christendom and post-Christendom contexts: the presence of state-sponsored churches (or their analog) and the degree of religious pluralism. I will elaborate further below, but the main point is that state-sponsored churches are more prevalent in Christendom contexts and less so in post-Christendom contexts and that religious pluralism is not as prominent in Christendom contexts as it is in post-Christendom contexts. These two criteria can help us differentiate Christendom and post-Christendom contexts in non-essentializing ways. By employing Alan Patten’s social lineage approach to culture, these two factors—state sponsorship of Christianity (or its functional equivalent in the US context where church and state are separated) and religious pluralism—enable us to appreciate the internal diversity within each context while acknowledging social differences with other groups, by not assuming any relevant overlap across Christendom and post-Christendom contexts. See Alan Patten, “Rethinking Culture: The Social Lineage Account,” American Political Science Review 105, no. 4 (November 2011): 736, 742.

5. “The matter of Martin Luther began in the autumn of 1517, when Luther, a friar in the Order of Augustinian Hermits and a university master, prepared a set of propositions for a university disputatio, a formal debate, in the Saxon city of Wittenberg. . . . Alarmed at reports of the preaching of an indulgence. . . Luther registered his concern by sending these propositions, later to be called the ‘ninety-five theses,’ to [Albrecht of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Mainz and the Bishop of Brandenburg]. . . . These famous theses treated the sacrament of penance, long a favorite subject among theologians who wanted to apply scholastic rigor to daily life and to the everyday work of priests.” Christopher Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom: Reformation Europe and Christianity in the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 22–23. “The publication of the Ninety-Five Theses turned Luther into a public figure.” Brad S. Gregory, Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World (New York: HarperOne, 2017), 45.

6. Symbolics in Protestant dogmatics is the study of the symbols or creeds of the Christian church. “In what follows, we shall be dealing with the branch of theology which used to be called Symbolics, a term still used in technical theological discussion. It acquired this name on Lutheran soil. . . . Embedded in the title Symbolics is the world symbolum. In the language of the early Church the symbol meant, in effect, the recognizable sign of the Christians. The confession of faith in which Christians were instructed before their baptism and which they then had to profess, was regarded as this ‘password’.” Wilhelm Niesel, Reformed Symbolics: A Comparison of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, trans. David Lewis (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962), 1. See also the Lutheran usage of symbols in reference to Lutheran church teaching. “From the second century on Christians have expressed the biblical faith in summaries that served to identify the church’s public message. The Greek word symbol—a technical word for creed—identified the function of such summaries of the church’s teaching as its identifying statement of belief, purpose, and mission.” Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 1.

7. In Anglo-European contexts (and beyond), note how the Protestant Reformation has shaped our public and academic theological discourse on Christianity, even up to this day, as a discourse between two major options: Protestant and Roman Catholic. “‘Protestantism’ is an umbrella designation of groups, churches, movements, and individuals whose only common feature is a rejection of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.” Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 94.

8. Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 272–73. Emphasis added.

9. This section engages themes in Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 272–81.

10. See Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 274–77.

11. Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 275, 277, 273; “Ideally, each confession was to be endorsed by a polity that acculturated its subjects and enforced the confession’s doctrine accordingly—a confessional state.” Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 281.

12. See for example how different sacramental theologies were used to organize various Protestant lands. “The resistance of ‘gnesio-Lutherans,’ the success of their polemic against ‘Philippists,’ is what fixed the distinction between Lutherans of German-speaking lands and Scandinavia and the Reformed in Switzerland, Germany, France, Britain, the Dutch Republic, Poland, and the Dutch Republic. The identity of this basic Protestant division owed much to Lutherans resisting the mid-century rise and breadth of sacramentarian influence.” Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 280.

13. “The identification of a particular religious system with the state created an intimate link between the extension of political authority (over vast territories and a multiplicity of peoples and nations) and religious expansion.” Jehu Hanciles, Migration and the Making of Global Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 45.

14. Jehu Hanciles, Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration, and the Transformation of the West (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), 84, 86–87.

15. See again the quote above which states that the Lutheran, Reformed, and Roman Catholic confessional systems each claimed catholicity over Europe. “Each saw itself as ‘catholic,’ that is, as a true expression of a universal Christian faith, the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic church’ of the Nicene Creed.” Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 273.

16. “Many recent historians have stressed how the rise of Protestantism encouraged the growth of centralized, hierarchically organized state bureaucracies and ideologies—the rise of confessional states. Some have thought that theological differences were incidental to politics. The first option may make too much of the Reformation. The last makes too little of it. The truth lies somewhere in between.” Ocker, Luther, Conflict, and Christendom, 124.

17. See below our discussion of Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism. With the slow and ongoing demise of American denominationalism since the latter half of the twentieth century (see Robert Wuthnow, The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989]), I consider American evangelicalism to inherit a de facto denominational significance given its shared beliefs, institutional structures, and social influence in shaping American religious life, while not being a formal denomination.

18. See these published denominational doctrinal standards: Kolb and Wengert, eds., The Book of Concord; Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Book of Confessions: Study Edition (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1999); and Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000).

19. It is important to underscore the incentive structure for telling stories about doctrine as primarily an intellectual history (without explicit reference to regional, ethnic, and racial circumstances). If one were to ground doctrinal differentiation within a particular social history and set of social conditions, the worry is that these doctrines would lose universal normative authority. And in the Christendom context, it would not make sense to lose a claim to catholicity. (In part because the catholicity of the church is something that all Nicene Christians claim, but also in part because confessionalization in the Christendom context was not seen as an ethnicizing process.) The intellectualizing narrative is served in part by the shared Christendom context (with its catholic and state sponsored orientation) and vice versa.

20. The 1517 Project makes explicit how ethnic identity and Christian identity were coterminous in the process of confessionalization within the European Christendom context (that continued to have impact on US Christian denominational and institutional life as well as Anglo-European global missions). “Within a Christendom framework, European peoples conceived of their culture or civilization as Christian: which also meant that Christianity was coterminous with European territories. In its crudest expression this conception linked the spread of Christianity with the territorial expansion of European control and culture. . . . Efforts at the global expansion of Christendom—the spread of European culture as a normative expression of the Christian faith—represents [sic] the most comprehensive attempt in the history of the world to impose the civilization of one race or people on all others.” Hanciles, Beyond Christendom, 3.

21. My use of “post-Christendom” is not merely temporal (as implied by the prefix “post” or “subsequent to”) but also spatial and is the equivalent to the idea of “beyond Christendom” to capture both the temporal and spatial sense that Christianity has always been a global religion from its inception. See for example Vince L. Bantu, A Multitude of All Peoples: Engaging Ancient Christianity’s Global Identity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic, 2020).

22. Denise Buell’s book has helped me think through the relationship of Christianity’s universal as well as ethnic character within the early Christian setting. I seek to do something similar with respect to the role of Christian doctrine at the intersection of modern theology and World Christianity. See Buell, Why This New Race. In chapter 5, Buell argues that early Christian universalism did not exclude ethnic or racial identity formulations. Instead, Buell posits that early Christian texts often construct a form of Christian universalism through ethnic reasoning. Buell suggests that early Christians did not see a contradiction between proclaiming a universal message accessible to all and conceptualizing themselves as a distinct ethnic or racial group. Such a stance allowed them to navigate the complexities of identity, belonging, and difference in the ancient world. For me, the question is: How do we theorize the nature and uses of Christian doctrine consistent with both the catholicity of a Christian discursive tradition and ethnic reasoning? On the notion of a “discursive tradition” see Talal Asad, “The Idea of an Anthropology of Islam,” Qui Parle 17, no. 2 (2009): 1–30. Asad defines a “discursive tradition” as an ongoing, transformative conversation among community members about how to understand and enact their religious texts and tenets, influenced by historical circumstances and power relations. This concept underscores the active role of practitioners in continuously forming and reforming their tradition, challenging the notion of religion as a collection of static, unchanging doctrines.

23. It is helpful to note that the modernist-fundamentalist religious culture war had a direct impact on the formation of twentieth-century US evangelicalism which continues today in contemporary US society. The liberal vs. conservative Christian divide (often expressed in contemporary public and academic discourse as the binary between mainline vs. evangelical Protestantism) is a direct inheritor of the 1920s Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy.

24. Niebuhr helpfully identifies the limits of focusing exclusively or purely upon Christian doctrine as explanatory of Christian identity and difference. “The following discussion of the social character of the Christian churches is intended to be a practical contribution to the ethical problem of denominationalism. . . . The present work is the outcome of a course in ‘Symbolics’ which the author was called upon to teach some years ago. The effort to distinguish churches primarily by reference to their doctrine and to approach the problem of church unity from a purely theological point of view appeared to him to be a procedure so artificial and fruitless that he found himself compelled to turn from theology to history, sociology, and ethics for a more satisfactory account of denominational differences and a more significant approach to the question of union.” H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New York: Henry Holt, 1929), vii.

25. It is also important to highlight the political economic features that shaped these denominational distinctives. The rise of the printing press and selling of tracts and books coupled with the land-based tax systems that financed regional and national churches all contributed to the development of doctrinally differentiated denominations within the Christendom context.

26. See especially Niebuhr, “Nationalism and the Churches,” chapter 5 in The Social Sources of Denominationalism.

27. “This crisis reflected a greater difficulty than when a large Protestant population drew incommensurate theological conclusions from a commonly exalted sacred text that it approached with common hermeneutical principles.” Mark A. Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 52. Noll points out that the theological crisis emerged from an inability to address the racial prejudices underlying the slavery debate, suggesting that the challenge was not merely one of differing interpretations of Scripture but of addressing deeper, ingrained racial attitudes and racial capitalism.

28. “Two worlds have crashed, the world of tradition and the world of modernism. One is scholastic, static, authoritarian, individualistic; the other is vital, dynamic, free and social.” George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 220. This encapsulates the cultural and social dimensions of the controversy, presenting it as not merely a theological or doctrinal conflict but as part of a larger struggle between traditional and modernist worldviews within American society.

29. Bradley J. Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Longfield helpfully situates the doctrinal controversies between modernists and fundamentalists within the regional politics and culture wars of the US.

30. “J. Gresham Machen, a militant conservative who eventually became the focus of much of the controversy, was born in Baltimore, Maryland, to parents devoutly loyal to the South. Raised in the Southern Presbyterian Church, he attended Princeton Seminary, concentrating in New Testament. A year’s study in Germany precipitated a profound spiritual crisis for Machen, which was ultimately resolved in his adoption of the Princeton Theology and its philosophical foundation of Scottish Common Sense Realism. He received ordination into the Northern Presbyterian Church in 1914.” Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy, 5. Regional and cultural backgrounds shaped the perspectives and roles of key figures in the Modernist-Fundamentalist Controversy.

31. Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy, 32ff.

32. “Machen’s role as a leader of the militant conservatives or fundamentalists in the Presbyterian conflict, though determined primarily by his dedication to the Princeton tradition, was also influenced by his Southern heritage. As heir of a tradition that looked back to an earlier day of spirituality and high culture, Machen abhorred the secularizing tendencies working their way in the Northern United States. In the course of the conflict Machen fought doggedly to preserve orthodox Calvinist doctrine, first because he believed it was true but also because he was convinced that only orthodox ideas could provide the basis for a new Reformation, which would restore the culture to its former glory.” Longfield, The Presbyterian Controversy, 5–6. Longfield underscores the importance of regional identity and its influence on the doctrinal stances individuals took during the controversy.

33. The multiple reasons for doctrinal differentiation and development (which include justifications for different doctrinal confessions, national affiliations, and ethnic identities) explain why doctrinal debates can become deeply entrenched. For instance, the role of doctrinal disputes in the US religious culture wars of the twentieth century highlights this complexity: choosing a stance on doctrinal matters, ranging from the inerrancy of Scripture to the divinity of Christ, transcends mere intellectual choice. It is often closely related to one’s ethnic and cultural background and regional identity. Therefore, changing one’s doctrinal position within the Christian discursive tradition reflects not merely an intellectual concern for religious truth but often also one’s broader regional, racial, and ethnic formation and commitments.

34. Jehu Hanciles, Migration and the Making of Global Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 420.

35. Hanciles, Beyond Christendom, 110.

36. Hanciles, Beyond Christendom, 3.

37. See Hanciles, Beyond Christendom, chapter 5. While conversion exists in Christendom (especially in contexts of religious revival), this fact does not diminish the overall claim about the uses of Christian doctrine serving confessionalization and denominationalism in Christendom contexts.

38. I employ ethnographies focusing on Asian Christianity to highlight the distinct ways in which Christian doctrines are utilized across various Christian communities. Specifically, the 1517 Project gets off the ground conceptually by setting Anglo-European Christendom in relief through examining the diverse roles and applications of Christian teachings within majority world contexts. In this article, we explore how Indian and Taiwanese Christians adapt and apply Christian doctrine to their particular social situations, especially with respect to conversion. My goal is to place these practices on equal footing with the uses of doctrine in Christendom. This endeavor is driven by a theological imperative emphasizing the catholicity of the body of Christ across space and time. The selection of these case studies is heuristic, to help draw the distinction between Christendom and post-Christendom contexts. A plethora of alternative ethnographies of Asian Christianities could have been employed to achieve similar results.

39. Note that in setting up a contrast between Christendom and post-Christendom uses of Christian doctrine, my goal is to level the theoretical playing field by showing the social-practical utility of doctrine in different social circumstances. To be clear, and to state the matter rather crassly, it would be essentializing to label Christendom confessional systems of doctrine to be inherently bad and post-Christendom uses of doctrine to be necessarily good (or vice versa). But if we do not explicitly place Christendom and post-Christendom uses of doctrine on equal theoretical footing (by highlighting for instance the ethnic and racial formations at work in the development of doctrine), we are in danger of privileging one region’s development of Christian doctrine over another, which I take to betray the meaning and power of the Spirit of Christ at work across space and time.

40. I select Nathaniel Roberts’s ethnography of Dalit Christians in the Chennai region of India to illustrate how Christian doctrine functions differently in a context outside of Anglo-European Christendom. In a context where there is religious pluralism and where the church is not sponsored by the ethnic state and where conversion is a distinctive mark of one’s Christian faith, the nature and uses of doctrine take on different meaning and power than in Christendom contexts. Nathaniel Roberts, To Be Cared For: The Power of Conversion and Foreignness of Belonging in an Indian Slum (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016). I do not take Roberts’ case of Dalit Christians to be representative of Asian Christians nor of Indian Christianity, but I use the case to highlight the different ends of the uses of doctrine in a post-Christendom context.

41. “Christians have been living continuously in India for longer than in much of northern Europe. The widespread embrace of Christianity by India’s Dalits and its so-called tribals (another ‘outsider’ population) is a more recent development, however, dating only to the nineteenth century. It is also a relatively small-scale phenomenon in absolute terms. Christians, after all, constitute just 2.6 percent of the national population, and while a majority of India’s Christians are Dalits or tribals, only a small minority of Dalits and tribals (outside the northeast) are Christian.” Roberts, To Be Cared For, 111.

42. This section draws upon Roberts, “Religion, Conversion, and the National Frame,” chapter 4 in To Be Cared For.

43. Roberts, To Be Cared For, 111.

44. See Roberts, To Be Cared For, 131ff. Gandhi’s critique of conversion highlights the tension between religious freedom and national identity, reflecting the broader complexities of navigating faith in a religiously pluralistic society. His stance on religious harmony and opposition to proselytism, while advocating for spiritual growth within one’s ancestral faith, underscores the intricate dynamics of religion, identity, and politics in India. See also Sunder John Boopalan, Memory, Grief, and Agency: A Political Theological Account of Wrongs and Rites (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), chapter 2.

45. For this section, see Roberts, “The Logic of Slum Religion,” chapter 5 in To Be Cared For.

46. “Despite this sort of talk, collective hostilities between religious groups—called ‘communal conflict’ in India—did not exist in Anbu Nagar and the five surrounding slums. They could not, because Christians and Hindus were not distinct communities there. Slum dwellers identified individually as following one or the other of these mutually exclusive faiths, but they lived within households in which, more often than not, someone else followed a different religion than they did. And all slum dwellers had close kin whose religious identity was different from theirs. Even parents and children could not be assumed to follow the same religion. Often one or more children worshipped different gods than at least one of their parents. . . . Religious identity in the slum, in other words, did not map onto any other social division around which collective interests could mobilize.” Roberts, To Be Cared For, 152–53.

47. See Roberts, To Be Cared For, 163.

48. For this section, see Roberts, “Pastoral Power and the Miracles of Christ” and “Salvation, Knowledge, and Suffering,” chapters 6 and 7, respectively, in To Be Cared For.

49. “Women’s prayer teams, in short, created and continuously maintained a dense web of knowledge, sympathy, and prayer that joined each and every one of the congregation’s households—as well as a dozen or so nonmember households—to every other. And in each of these households there was someone who stopped what she was doing three times a day to recall and concentratedly pray upon the problems of (at least some of) her counterparts, knowing that all over Kashtappattinam others would be doing the same exact thing for her. The organization of mutual concern over dispersed social networks was the practical expression of what the sermons of the slum church exhorted: the Christ-like adoption of others’ suffering as one’s own spiritual responsibility.” Roberts, To Be Cared For, 211. This passage illustrates the community-building aspect of Christian conversion, where prayer becomes a means of creating a supportive network that extends beyond the immediate religious community.

50. “For participants, however, these weekly productions [Sunday services] were endlessly novel, witty, and replete with important and often startling insights. As many churchgoers described it, for the first time in their lives they were gaining genuine ‘knowledge’ (arivu). ‘Before we had nothing, we knew nothing. . . only now have we begun to learn. What is Christ? Knowledge! [ēcū nā arivu tān!]’.” Roberts, To Be Cared For, 217.

51.

“To encounter the Bible in Anbu Nagar was to discover a book that reverberated with the drums of revolutionary justice and the promise of human equality. Consider the following biblical verses, common among those quoted from memory and strung together by slum Christians during church services as a kind of ecstatic battle cry.

He who raises the poor and weak from the dust [Ps 113:7], we praise you! . . . He who rescues the oppressed, and brings down those with haughty glares [Ps. 18:27], we praise you! . . . He who has saved us from our enemies, and has humiliated those who hated us [Ps 44:7], we praise you! . . . He who punishes caste folk [Ps 94:10], we praise you! Oh Refuge of those who are disgraced [Ps. 9:9], we praise you! . . . He who has broken our chains [Lev 26:13], we praise you! He who has made us walk with our heads held high [Lev 26:13], we praise you! . . . He who stands against the proud [1 Pet 5:5], we praise you! . . . He who raises the strength of those who have none [Isa 40:29], we praise you! . . . He who rescues the weak from the hands of the strong [Ps 35:10], we praise you! . . . He who hears the pleas of those who suffer [Ps 10:17], we praise you! . . . He who hears the appeals of the poor [Ps 69:33], we praise you! . . . He who pursues justice for the poor [Ps 140:12], we praise you! . . . “I will deliver you from the hands of the wicked, and I will wrest you from the grip of the terrible” [Jer 15:21]—for this promise, we praise you!

It was no accident that many slum Christians believed, as one pastor affirmed, that ‘the aims of Karl Marx and the aims of Jesus Christ are identical.’ The only problem with Marxism, according to slum Christians, was that it mistakenly believed humans could transform the world without God’s help. But while no credible communist party existed in Tamil Nadu, many slum Christians indicated that if one did they would gladly vote for it—just as Dalit Pentecostals in the neighboring state of Kerala often do.” Roberts, To Be Cared For, 221–22.

52. Carolyn Chen, Getting Saved in America: Taiwanese Immigration and Religious Experience (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014).

53. Chen, Getting Saved, 40.

54. Chen, Getting Saved, 39.

55. Chen, Getting Saved, 63.

56. Chen, Getting Saved, 61.

57. Chen, Getting Saved, 42.

58. See Chen, Getting Saved, 170–73.

59. Chen, Getting Saved, 47, 48.

60. Chen, Getting Saved, 53.

61. Chen, Getting Saved, 42.

62. In Asian or Asian American contexts, individuals who convert to Christianity may often uphold doctrinal orthodoxy by endorsing the fundamental truths of such doctrines. This endorsement can happen independent of the cultural and political conflicts that shape debates over doctrinal orthodoxy within Anglo-European Christendom contexts.

63. While something analogous can be claimed regarding conversion within religious revivals in Anglo-European contexts as well as for European immigrants in the nineteenth through early twentieth centuries whose Christian faith assisted their assimilation to American society, many of these European immigrants presupposed the Christendom structures of confessionalization and denominationalism not shared in the Asian diasporic context.

64. I express gratitude to my colleague Dr. Easten Law for many conversations we have had on related topics. I also want to thank the Asian American Theology Working Group for providing a space to develop Asian American research projects and share ideas and resources. All insufficiencies and limitations of my arguments are of course my own.