The world is getting smaller. That appears, at least, to be the consensus among those who weigh the impact of modern communications, media and business. Along with the globalization of commerce, however, it is worth considering the impact of the globalization of culture and religion. Humans from all backgrounds and walks of life are crossing paths and interacting at a volume and in a variety of ways unimaginable mere decades ago.

If we reflect on this interaction from a theological perspective, questions of good and evil are likely to arise. In his 1820 dogmatic work The Christian Faith, Friedrich Schleiermacher speculated that the interaction of separate social groups might exacerbate the spread of sin. Nearly two centuries later, David Jensen suggests in his 2001 book, In the Company of Others: A Dialogical Christology, that in the era of globalization Christians in particular and Christianity as a whole can only benefit from interaction with others. Assuming globalization as a fact of modern life, addressing which understanding is most valid should be a vital concern for Christians seeking how to best respond to the shifting reality.

Schleiermacher understood sin and grace as inextricably tied to human existence. “[T]he consciousness of sin never exists in the soul of the Christian,” he explains, “without the consciousness of the power of redemption.”[i] Both act as forces within the individual, but also within society. Societies improve over time, for instance, as individuals act according to the God-consciousness within and then generation after generation becomes more attuned to the awakening of their consciences. “The true conscience…emerging in a society as the same thing in all and for all, is law,” according to Schleiermacher –“primarily moral law, though ever finding outward expression in civil law.”[ii] In other words, “as sin diminishes, so will evil diminish.”[iii]

This is particularly true in the case of the “regenerate.” In Schleiermacher’s view, “The actual sin of those who have been brought into permanent connexion with the power of redemption is no longer ‘originating’ in themselves, or, through their ill-doing, in others.”[iv]

But such is not the case with the “unregenerate.” As he explains, “the sins of the unregenerate are always ‘originating,’ not only in the individuals themselves, since every sin adds to the force of habit and thus to the vitiation of the God-consciousness, but also beyond themselves, since like instigates like and the vitiated God-consciousness spreads and establishes itself by communication to others.”[v]

This spread travels via evil. Evil is “the derivative and secondary” element in the connection between sin and evil, and it plays itself out in the world as the consequence of sin against individuals and groups.[vi] Therefore, for “every nation, and indeed of every social class in it…the measure of its sin will be also the measure of the evil it suffers.”[vii] Indeed, Schleiermacher goes so far as to assert that one can even determine the sinful predilections of a people by the nature of evil manifested.[viii]

Because social groups can be isolated from one another while individuals within remain impacted by those around them, he does not hold individuals to the same strict “get what’s coming to you” model. Evil affects both the human agent of a particular evil as well as the innocent bystander – and not necessarily at levels that reflect guilt, either particular or cumulative. Therefore, he says that while one might conclude from his observations that “the less in touch with other men and with external nature, the less exposed will he be to the evils that result from such contact,” such a view is contrary to “the spirit of Christianity.”[ix]

Social groups, however, receive no such instruction. Operating on the assumptions that 1) sin and evil are forces that spread in opposition to grace and law; and 2) differing cultures form differing configurations of sin and evil, it would seem that a clash of cultures would provide a fertile breeding ground for the multiplication of sins and the evils that follow on their heels.

Schleiermacher, though, states that he is writing at a time when “the intercourse…of the human race is even yet relatively limited.”[x] Today, we can no longer make such a claim.

Jensen, in contrast, seeks to take Christians far beyond the borders of our own faith and unto the ends of the earth. “We need others not so we can be religiously eclectic,” he argues, “but so that we might become better Christians, better respondents to the new life in Christ” (emphasis original).^[xi]

In Jensen’s view, hermetically sealed communities would not simply prevent exposure to outside sin and evil, but would at the same time cut off the truth others might have to offer. The isolation may also begin to distort what glimpses of truth a social group may have come to understand. As he explains:

If we attempt to absolutize truth according to what we ‘know,’ whether in the form of religious pronouncements or pet philosophical themes, we claim that truth is something we ‘possess.’ If, on the other hand, we acknowledge that we can never attain the truth by ourselves, that we must continually seek it, that we need others in this search, then we will recognize truth as something that emerges in bits and pieces, in practice and solidarity, whenever we empty ourselves of the pride that would claim truth as ours alone, and recognize the call of others in our midst (emphasis original).^[xii]

Rather than fearing the other, then – the “unregenerate”– so-called “regenerate” societies can begin to see that globalization can bring with it benefits not only for those to be saved but to those already claiming salvation. “One of the consequences of recognizing truth as something that emerges along the way with others is that we recognize those others not only as real,” says Jensen, “but also as beautiful in themselves.”^[xiii] Jensen’s words are certainly inspirational, but just as we would lose something in the wholesale rejection of interaction (as Schleiermacher indeed implies), so might we in the wholesale embrace of difference.

As Jensen himself states, “Theology can never begin de novo, but continually draws upon the wisdom of previous voices, learning from their mistakes and acknowledging their shortcomings.”^[xiv] Both authors exhibit elements of wisdom as well as shortcomings. Whereas Schleiermacher may lean too heavily in the direction of flight from potential evil, Jensen perhaps fails to fully account for the force of sin operating in the world.

Schleiermacher’s social analysis, for instance, takes into account the corporate, as well as individual, nature of sin, and therefore takes seriously the concept that sin and evil can inform institutional and cultural outlooks. Such an analysis suggests that while Christians and Christianity as a whole may indeed grow from exposure and interaction with those outside its borders, it may be equally true that uncritical incorporation of external outlooks and understandings will prove detrimental to the operation of grace in the world.

Interaction on the unprecedented scale presented to modern believers offers both promise and pitfall. It is beyond our power to eliminate sin either through sealing ourselves off from those unlike ourselves or through mutually vulnerable dialogue. Resting in our dependence upon God, hopefully we can avoid the arrogance of assuming that we can bring salvation to the world by choosing either extreme. Rather, a full recognition of both human sin and divine grace should form the foundation of a Christian approach to the new paradigm of globalization.

[i] Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2004), 272.

[ii]Ibid., 343-344.

[iii]Ibid., 320-321.

[iv]Ibid., 313.

[v]Ibid.

[vi]Ibid., 318.

[vii]Ibid., 321.

[viii]Ibid.

[ix]Ibid., 322.

[x]Ibid., 321.

[xi] David H. Jensen, In the Company of Others: A Dialogical Christology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2001), 183.

[xii]Ibid., 168-169.

[xiii]Ibid., 169.

[xiv]Ibid., 37.