Ortho-Odoratus: Fragrant Evangelism & Critiquing the "Christian System"

Photo by M. Foley

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

For a few minutes, let me reflect a bit about the context from which this statement arose. Some of you have been praying along with us during the past couple weeks for a family that has been dealing with a particularly tragic and shocking death.  The family is Bhutanese-Nepali and from a Hindu traditional background.  I have quite a close relationship to the whole clan and am considered to be a relative in numerous ways (a subject for another time).  Thus, during the past couple weeks, I have been with the family members every day offering help, prayer, and love -- and observing some very interesting things.

There is a whole back-story about how things developed and the decisions the family has made during the past couple weeks, but I will not get into all of that.  Suffice it to say, most of the family members opted to employ a Nepali (Hindu) priest to come and perform a series of ceremonies over a 12-day period designed to (theologically speaking, or rather thaumaturgically or even pneumatologically speaking - the latter with an intentional small "p") benefit the departed soul (see chapter 5 of my book Ethnographic Chicago for a good discussion of folk Hindu understandings of departed spirits).  The Christ-followers among the relatives struggled during the period of mourning to know how to properly participate.  Their perspectives ranged from radical separation -- the desire to depart wholly from all so-called "Hindu" rituals (e.g. fasting from salt and meat, observing the period of mourning, being sad, etc.) -- on the one hand to a much healthier identification. A moment on each of these now:

Photo by Tim Guindon

1. Radical Separation -- from this perspective, it is important for the "Christian" to remove themselves from the Hindus and the Hindu "system" during the period of mourning.  Instead, they want to practice the "Christian System".  According to the separatists, fasting from salt is decidedly antithetical to being a "pure Christian". Likewise, observing 12 or 13 days of mourning is bad because that is in accordance with the "Hindu system".  They proclaim that the Christian system observes only three days of mourning and no fasting.  Moreover, it isn't mourning so much as it is gathering together to pray, listen to preaching, sing hymns, and eat snacks.  A guiding value for the adherents of this system is that ceremonies, rituals and forms are to be discarded solely on the basis of them being practiced by Hindus and not actually for any clear theological rationale.  When asked why a follower of Christ shouldn't do a certain thing, the most common answer is simply, "Because that is a part of the Hindu system".

Distinctives in the "Christian System"

I was able to observe elements of the Separatist praxis during the past couple weeks and have come to the preliminary conclusion that what is distinctive about this so-called "Christian System" does not actually have very much to do with either the Spirit of Jesus Christ or a careful engagement with and appropriation of His Scriptures.  The chief distinctions are as follows:  (a) this system emphasizes the importance of doing something different than what the Hindus do and essentially doing it in a place that is separate from where they are doing their things.  Also (b) this system employs ceremonies and rituals that are basically Western in origin and indistinguishable from the forms and rituals employed during their normal weekly worship gatherings.  Finally, it is (c) decidedly simpler and easier on the practitioners who do not have to fast at all and are finished with their obligations after only a few days.  

Similarities between the "Hindu" and "Christian" Systems

Photo by Josh Lustig

Otherwise, I have not found the customs of what these Bhutanese-Nepalis refer to as the "Christian System" to be altogether different from what I have observed the Hindus practicing during the same period.  Theologically, there is not a genuinely different foundation upon which they are based.  Listening to two sermons last week (one by a Christian pastor and one by a Hindu priest) revealed that at least for these two men (admittedly a small sampling) the central message of their systems was the same.  That is, "bad people go to hell" (called "hell" by the Christian and "the way of death" by the Hindu) and "good people go to heaven" (same word used by both). Both men illustrated and defended this principle with very similar stories and rationale.  What is more, both seemed to be motivated to perform their respective rituals primarily in order to (a) comfort the family of the deceased and (b) comfort the soul of the departed.  I will say that the Christians had less of an emphasis on comforting the soul of the departed, but it was present and there seemed a clear belief among them that the performance of rituals that accorded to the "Christian System" would result in certain (albeit somewhat ineffable) benefits.  For that matter, the Christians did not appear to be less fearful about evil spirits or more confident about how to deal with them.  Ritually and symbolically, the Christians were less elaborate and less concerned about punctuality, cleanliness, and attentiveness.  However, both seemed equally concerned about "orthopraxy".  The Hindus and the Christians alike wanted to know what they had to do and practically no room was given for the exercise of spiritual freedom.  Also, both parties made use of idols (the Christians erected a nativity scene especially during the period; the Hindus made symbolic idols from khoos grass to represent several deities).  

Let me add a note that while the Christians seemed concerned with bringing comfort to the soul of the deceased person, some among them nevertheless were quick to issue an injunction against praying for the dead.  Clearly there was a good deal of inconsistency in this.  This injunction emerges from a response to the popular concept of people being able to affect the condition of the departed soul through the performance of certain prayers, rituals, etc.  Correction in this area seems to be consistent with a Biblical worldview, but I am not convinced that a blunt injunction against praying for the dead is an effective way to communicate this.  

Preliminary Conclusions Regarding the Separatist Model

In the end, I observe the Separatist ("Christian System") approach to be simplistic, unhelpful and perhaps even syncretistic.  The model is extremely effective for bringing about a change of loyalties from the "Hindu Community" to the "Christian Community" but its value for Jesus-centered discipleship is questionable at best.  I do not observe in it that individuals are consequently better educated in Biblical theology nor do I see that from it emerges a greater degree of love, generosity, and sacrificial service towards the mourning family (especially if this family is Hindu).  

What is more, since the various Hindu traditions, rituals, customs, etc. each serve important psycho-social functions for the grieving family and surrounding community (e.g. facilitating closure and healthy mourning, encouraging community involvement and need-meeting, etc.) there is a vital and too-often unasked question regarding how effectively the "Christian Separatist System" has provided rituals and customs that can serve the same purpose.  This isn't the time to discuss liminality in detail, but its value for helping people and communities to cope with transition and tragedy is immense.  We must ask whether the "Christian System's" brief, non-mourning and non-fasting program can effectively create the kind of liminality that is necessary for helping a family deal with the loss of a loved one.  

Finally, if syncretism is to be understood as a "way of thinking that says by performing or participating in a particular religious ceremony or practice, you can alter the essential human spiritual condition in the same way that Jesus does through his death on the cross, burial, and resurrection from the dead, because they are parallel truths" (Richard Twiss) -- if we understand syncretism in this way, then the Christian separatist model may indeed be guilty of the kind of syncretism that its proponents so often accuse others of engaging in.  From a Biblical perspective the unique work of Christ -- the locus of gospel -- is found in His ability to regenerate the one who comes to Jesus in faith and thus to save from sin, shame and Satan through his atoning sacrifice and the power of the Holy Spirit.  In this, Christ is uniquely able to re-position (read: re-create) a fallen and sinful human being into a permanent and right relationship with their Creator in which they enjoy communion with Him forever.  And this, all of grace and by faith.  It is a liberation from our broken condition which cannot be attained by our own personal effort.

But what happens if this central soteriological truth is no longer what we proclaim? What if instead, we proclaim a message like the one I referred to above which essentially says that to attain salvation one must do good things?  The "Christian" preacher and his fellow advocates of the separatist model espoused a soteriology which could be summarized as follows:  If you belong to the Christian community and you obey the rules thereof, you will go to heaven.  If you don't obey the rules or if you don't belong to the community, you are in danger of hell-fire. But, if this is their gospel then it is difficult to assert that they are proclaiming a Christ who is actually offering something unique.  Moreover, they seem to be setting up an apparatus (i.e. joining the Christian community and then obeying the community's rules) that offers salvation in a way other than the one that Jesus actually provided (i.e. regeneration by grace through faith).  From this perspective, it is difficult to see how the separatist model avoids syncretism.

Photo by CIMMYT

2. Radical Identification -- Over against the "Christian System's" emphasis on separation, we may instead speak of identification.  Of course, this is ultimately modeled for us in the incarnation of Jesus and I will not repeat everything that I have said before about this here.  But I was greatly encouraged during this period of mourning to see some followers of Jesus seeking to identify with the mourners.  One of these asked me after a few days, "As a follower of Jesus, what must I do during this time?"  Here, she was seeking a law and a new set of rituals -- a new orthopraxy that could mark her off from the Hindus.  In this, she revealed how strongly influenced she has been by the ideals of the separatists' system.  But I encouraged her by strongly challenging her to continue doing what she was doing.  Be with the family.  Serve them.  Observe their needs and meet them.  Pray for them while being with them.  Grieve with them.  Fast with them.  Hope with them.  Identify with them in this time.  Be Jesus to them. Be Jesus with them.

But is this Radical?

Unfortunately, this concept of identification seems too radical in our days.  It is radical because it tends to eliminate external, visible signs of separation.  This causes a certain amount of fear in our hearts because we have learned a model of "courage" which says that one must stand up in the city square, curse all the idols of that place, and welcome the subsequent stoning.  That to be bold for Jesus is to be obnoxious to everyone else.  But must I wear a huge cross, change my name to Thomas or Peter, and trade my old holidays for the "Biblical" ones like Christmas and Easter in order to be a genuine follower of Jesus?  See, if we seek to identify with the one who mourns during these times, they may think we are Hindus (or Muslims or Buddhists or whatever).  They may not even know we are are "Christians".  But, if done right, they will know with certainty that we are in Jesus.  They will smell Christ all over us.  And given the choice, I would rather people know that I have been with Jesus than that I have been with the "Christians."  

Ponder this.

Now, getting back to my original tweet:

"Pointing out all that I think is wrong with someone else's faith is not the same thing as proclaiming the Gospel."

I sat today in the home of the family who had lost the loved one.  Now that their period of mourning is complete and having seen me daily during that period, they were delighted to offer me salty food again.  We talked and I pondered, "What should I say today to this family about God and the salvation that Christ uniquely offers?" I thought for a moment about going through all the customs that I had observed them performing during the past two weeks and explaining which elements I affirmed and which I felt were antithetical to the truth revealed by Christ.  But, God graciously brought a question to my mind, "Is that the gospel?"  Certainly the gospel of Jesus has implications for these matters, but a tedious picking through of all the things they "got wrong" wasn't really going to commend Christ to them.  It wouldn't have rung as good news.  It wouldn't have smelled right. What would?

As I continued to ponder this, the old man of the house came to me with a plate of food.  He set it before me and pressed his hands together, saying, "Namaskar." This was followed by an explanation by him that in giving this food to me he was seeking to "bow down before the Great Lord, God the Father" (Param Prabhu Parmeshwar Pita). I am not entirely sure what to make of this.  It didn't seem to require a commentary on my part at the time.  My association with the Triune God through Christ is unquestioned by them.  Their desire to draw nearer to this God is really still unquestioned by me.  At that point, it seemed clear to me that their need for the person of Jesus was not going to be satisfied by a lecture on correct doctrine or praxis.  Not that I'm suggesting that a Christ divorced from Biblical truth is either possible or something that we should desire. But there is something undeniably subtle and mysterious at play here.  Perhaps evangelism is less about presenting orthodoxy or orthopraxy and perhaps more about a kind of "ortho-odoratus" --  a correct fragrance.  Paul spoke of the "fragrance of the knowledge of Christ" (2 Cor. 2:14) being spread everywhere through us. He said that to some it would be a fragrance unto death (do not read: an annoying fragrance) and to others a fragrance unto life.  Admittedly, it is something more difficult to put your finger on than the "four spiritual laws", but I doubt that it is therefore untrue. As I pondered what would be the "right" things to say in order to point this family toward the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God was at work, diffusing a fragrance of Christ through my immediate presence and the broader context of my history with that family so much more articulate and distinct than any sermon or verbal presentation I could have made.  This earthen vessel (to mix a little more 2 Corinthians in) sat in their living room radiating something invisible to myself but unmistakable to them.  A fragrance betraying a divine presence that simply couldn't be ignored.

Enough.

My few minutes of reflection has now turned into a few hours and I need to land the plane.  Let me do so with a few questions:

1. To what extent are followers of Jesus called to proclaim "orthopraxy" (i.e. to "correct" and replace their rituals and customs) to the nations?  Do we observe Christ or the Apostles doing this?

2. Is the "radical separation" model described above a legitimate expression of faith in Christ and a valid option for the disciple of Jesus?  Or is it essentially antithetical to a worldview that values devotion to and imitation of Jesus as the unique savior of those from every nation who come to him in faith?  How "un-gospel-like" does a gospel have to be before it can be legitimately labeled "another gospel"?

3. What is to be preferred?  That those without Christ clearly identify you as a Christian but cannot discern the Spirit and fragrance of Jesus in you or rather that they clearly identify you as one who is exclusively devoted to Jesus but are not so sure that you are a "Christian"?  Related to that, does the term "Christian" in our days have the same connotative meaning as it did in the first century?  If not, what name are we to rejoice in bearing as Peter commanded (1 Peter 4:16)?

4. How can we commend Christ to the people -- share the good news of salvation and freedom through Jesus -- in a way that is fragrant, distinctive, and Spirit-filled?  That is, can we articulate definitive principles for "fragrant" evangelism?

Some of what I have offered above reflects some rather blunt and somewhat certain principles of missiology -- that is, ideas about which I am fairly certain.  However, today, so much of what I've written reflects areas where I remain unsettled.  As I get older, I become less and less unsettled about being unsettled.  But, then again, I know I am not home yet.  Looking forward to your feedback!

The Gospel according to Woman

Photo by: Moyan Brenn

In that moment, it seemed like a good thing

to eat the fruit -- plump, beautiful, juicy.

But then her lips started puckering,

her throat felt dry, her stomach empty.

With her face burning and heart pounding,

she tore off branches and hurriedly

covered her raw skin before hiding

as the rustling steps approached, slow and steady.

All she could think was that he knew.  He knew.

The color drained from her pores as the pool

of bright red soaked the dirt beneath the trees.

With wet cheeks and trembling lips, she received

the new work -- the garment, another gift

to replace what she had tattered and ripped.

Years later, through her sweat, pain, blood and tears,

she looked to the day when they'd smile to hear

those slow, soft, measured footsteps on the Earth

and her laughter rang out as she gave birth.

- By Katherine Lorance

Why Contextualize? (Part 5) The Locus of Spiritual Transformation

It has been a long time since I wrote the first four installments of my "Why Contextualize" series.  However, as I spend more and more time in the field engaging the realities of cross-cultural mission and the complaints by some against contextualization, there is another (5th) issue that continues to arise.  Just last week, I was on the road teaching about contextualization and heard the following concern (paraphrasing):

"If new followers of Jesus keep the same customs and cultural forms as they had before they became Christians, won't there be confusion as to who is a Christian and who is not?"

I'm grateful for the question because it brings to light what is a dangerous but nevertheless widely held view among Christians (especially in the West) that being a Christian is something that should result in visible, outward signs which essentially equate to an assimilation with Western cultural forms.  Deep down, far too many of us are still trying to "make a man of our Friday's"-- dressing the "savages" up in suits and ties, handing them black leather Bibles and praising the Lord for the "transformation".

But this is neither desirable nor right.  It certainly isn't the gospel. From a Biblical perspective, the locus of spiritual transformation is not to be found in the external, visible realm of customs, clothing, technology, or dietary habits. Rather, transformation by the Spirit of God is an invisible phenomenon -- the giving of a new heart, the renewal of the mind, a re-born spirit.  To be sure, this all will result in a character conformed to the image of Christ and righteous actions.  But that is not to be equated with Windsor knots, Christmas trees, and Chris Tomlin songs (no offense, Chris).  You simply shouldn't be able to pick out a Christian in a line up and if you can, then you've created a kind of pseudo-Christianity that is just far too easy to fake.  You've created a system in which discipleship is reduced to meaningless attempts to pursue conformity to a set of external social cues and cultural forms.  In which case (and I speak from experience), the label "Christian" becomes little more than a way of saying, "Oh I don't celebrate that festival" or "I don't wear those kinds of bodily adornments".  It is a mockery of the gospel and is simply not the thing for which Christ died.  If cultural change is all you are after, why not become a Muslim or join a biker gang or become a mime?

If instead, we assume that God had something else in mind in the incarnation and sacrifice of His beloved Son,  that becoming a Christian is not tantamount to the abandoning of one's culture and traditions (although they certainly are to be scrutinized by the light of God's revelation), then discipleship also has to become something else.  If a person cannot simply trade in their old holidays for new ones, then true spiritual transformation must be located elsewhere.  The locus of spiritual transformation, we find, thus shifts to the unseen yet unmistakable realm of heart, mind, spirit, and character.  And this is precisely where it should have been all along. Hence:


And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Eze 36:26 ESV)

I leave you today with a lovely and ancient description of what I am talking about.  The following is from a late 2nd Century Christian writing known as the Letter to Diognetus (Trans. by D. Bosch):


Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humankind either in locality or in speech or in customs.  For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practice an extraordinary kind of life . . . While they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians . . . and follow the native custom in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvelous, and confessedly contradicts expectations . . . In a word, what the soul is in a body, this the Christians are in the world.


Amen!  

A Collection of Parables of Lord Sri Jesus

Must the Church Pursue a Global Equilibrium?

I always appreciate it when thinkers carefully examine unstated premises.  I always think about an episode of the West Wing in which one main character is repeatedly advised to handle reporters by "rejecting the premise" of their questions. I believe that Singaporean Church leader Patrick Fung's ability to do this -- to put the premise of his paper's title ("Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium") under the microscope-- is what makes his contribution to the Lausanne Congress so valuable.

Fung's self-conscious article presents a very important question. Should a global equilibrium of power, resources, and influence be pursued at all?  Phillip Jenkins and others have done a good job of pointing out to us that the majority of Christians now live in the global south while most of the power and influence remains in Western countries.  But as I read Fung, I must acknowledge that this fact alone mustn't be the sole reason that we pursue a global equilibrium in the Church.  Rather, our goal is world evangelism, not equilibrium.  Writes Fung, "I am glad that LCWE stands for Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization and not Lausanne Congress for World Equilibrium."  This is an important point. We must not be saying "to the extent to which pursuing global equilibrium in the Church is the nice thing to do, we must do it." Rather we must say "to the extent to which pursuing a global equilibrium in the Church contributes to the extension of God's reign and fame among all peoples and nations, we must do it."

To this point, I want to say three things -- things that I think Fung is also saying.

First, we may speak of a geographic, financial, numerical, or intellectual "center of gravity" in the Church, but the only "center of gravity" that has any real meaning is the theological one -- Christ is the one and only "center of gravity" for the Church.

This, of course, isn't a point original to me, but rather comes from something I read in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper.  Let me provide an extended quote here:

"We rejoice in the phenomenal growth of the church in the majority world of the global south, and for that reason we understand the intention of the statement that the 'centre of gravity' of world Christianity has shifted south.  However, we strongly discourage the further use of this term, for two reasons.  First, Christianity has no centre but Jesus Christ.  We are defined by no geographical centre, but only by our allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, and he is Lord of all the earth.  The 'centre', therefore, is wherever he is worshipped and obeyed. Secondly, any talk of a centre (other than Christ) undermines the fact that Christianity, even since the book of Acts, has always been fundamentally polycentric. Anywhere on earth can be a centre, and any centre can rapidly become peripheral.  The global nature of the church as 'one throughout the whole wide world' subverts the language of a centre--whether geographic, numerical, or missionary. Mission is from everywhere to everywhere."


Second, for the gospel to be the gospel, there is a need for a kind of global equilibrium in the Church.  This is because a full-orbed understanding of the gospel includes the good news that God is creating out of fragmented and broken humanity, one new humanity, the Church.

So there can be no true gospel and no true evangelization unless it includes the presentation of this new reconciled humanity.  And I sense a growing chorus of voices on this point.  It is here in Fung's article, "Christ has destroyed the barrier . . . has brought into being nothing less than a new, united human race . . . the message of reconciliation is to be lived out by God's new community, which the fragmented world needs to see." It is also in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper, "It is important to see how this 'peace-making' work of the cross -- reconciling Jews and Gentiles, and creating on new humanity -- is not just a by-product of the gospel, but is of the essence of the gospel itself." It there in the words of Antoine Rutayisire who, when speaking of factors contributing to the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, mourned the fact that conflicts between missionaries from different denominations "created more divisions and animosities among the people who did not see Christianity as a unifying factor but rather another colonial importation." It is, of course, in the Lausanne Covenant itself which states, "our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation" and the Manila Manifesto which affirms "the urgent need for churches, mission agencies and other Christian organizations to cooperate in evangelism and social action, repudiating competition and avoiding duplication." And more voices besides these could be cited.  Praise the Holy Spirit as He works to move us more and more to this point of common ground.

Third, for a global equilibrium to be built upon an a priori commitment to God's global mission, it will necessarily look different than conceptions of equilibrium that are based on a rather arbitrary sense of niceness, fairness, or democracy.

And I'm not meaning to be cute here, but Fung has raised a critical specific point that alludes to this larger one.  His specific point is this, "although a better state of equilibrium will avoid the tendency of dependency, the biblical concept of partnering in the body of Christ should be interdependence". Now, I can't tell you how tempted I am to chase that rabbit trail, but I will try to exercise a bit of self-control and simply suggest, in agreement with Fung, that it is unbiblical to hold up independence and autonomy as signs of spiritual maturity either for individuals, local churches, or national/regional churches.  The three (to four) self formula is fundamentally flawed if it cannot allow for the kind of permanent interdependence that the Bible calls for.

Now it is this Biblical interdependence that must become what we mean by equilibrium.  It is not that the Holy Spirit distributes the same gifts, history, resources, experiences, and knowledge to every person, church, and region in precisely the same ways so as to facilitate our human conception of fairness.  Rather, it is that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12).  We are all supposed to be strong in some ways and weak in others.  For in this, we cannot but come together.  The real problem may not be that Western churches "have all the power, influence, scholarship and resources", but rather that we in the West have failed to recognize the richness in majority world Churches that we desperately need.  Likewise we fail to recognize value that lies outside our normal categories of assessing value.  So that if we continue to only think of equilibrium in terms of balancing money, influence, information, and the like then we will never achieve Biblical interdependence (i.e. equilibrium) that also calls us to value a whole range of other categories such as prayer, worship, persecutions, powerlessness, poverty, joy, and more.

Benjamin Kwashi's Simple & Potent Reminder

Now on to Benjamin Kwashi's "Bearing Witness to the Love of Christ with People of Other Faiths."  What strikes me first is the simplicity of this brief paper. Kwashi writes practically nothing that I haven't heard and read about a hundred times. And yet, there is something about it. Something stirring.  Something challenging and encouraging.  For example, as one who has been flatly lied to "in the name of Jesus" this week, I rejoice at the statement, "Anyone who receives and believes the gospel must speak the truth at all times, to all people, and must do so in love."

But nothing hit me more powerfully that this simple, true, timeless, crucial . . .

"It takes a determined, cumulative effort to keep teaching the word of God until the truth of how to live and obey God's word is learned, accepted and obeyed.  We are to be channels through which the power of God can work, and such channels must not become blocked by laziness, selfishness, unfaithfulness or any other kind of sin."

I do however question Kwashi's inclusion of the term "etiquette" in a list of things that "must" be changed by the gospel. Everything else on the list makes sense to me--behavior, health, character, etc (etiquette also makes sense if it is understood in a very broad sense).  Since "etiquette" normally refers to cultural conventions, customs, how to fold your napkin, which hand one should eat with, whether or not shoes may be worn inside the house, and the like; I would suggest caution and careful explanation of exactly what is meant by how the gospel impacts this. It is far too easy to create a false gospel around issues of cultural conformity/non-conformity and reduce being a "true" follower of Jesus to a matter of whether or not you wear a hijab, adorn yourself with a bindi, change your name to Mary, eat beef, or preach standing up.

Okay, on to the next article.

A Non-Contextualized Gospel is No Gospel At all: Rwanda Reflections

Today, I read Antoine Rutayisire's compelling article "Rediscovering the Gospel of Reconciliation" which has been submitted in anticipation of his plenary presentation at the 3rd Lausanne Congress in Cape Town.  Let me begin by simply commending Brother Antoine's paper to you. I believe it provides (an all too brief) important recounting of factors leading and contributing to the Rwanda massacre of the 1990s which resulted in the deaths of more than 1 million Tutsis.

Now, understand that I've spent most of my time the past couple days thinking about contextualization in my own setting as a worker among South Asians.  I've been having face-to-face conversations, replying to emails, producing resources, etc.  So I am immersed in certain kind of thinking that predisposes me to read Antoine's article a certain way.  That's my disclaimer.  But, I really do believe that one of the things our brother was saying as a significant factor leading to the Rwandan Church's failure (note: that Rutayisire understands the genocide as a Church failure since Rwanda was 90% Christian at the time). was the failure of the Church to contextualize the message of Christ.

Writes Antoine, "It was very clear that the message that was presented was not contextualized to respond to the needs and problems of the nation." Indeed three of four of the factors mentioned in this paper point to a deficiency of contextualization in Rwanda. Here's my paraphrasing of Antoine's points:

1. The message was partial and didn't speak to the needs of the context.  

Well, this, frankly speaking, is no gospel at all. The gospel is supposed to be the good news, after all.  And for the gospel to be understood as truly good news, it must speak to what the audience already understands to be the bad news.  A non-contextualized gospel doesn't take this into consideration.  It is a non-gospel.

2. The means of presenting the gospel was totally foreign and essentially incomprehensible.

Antoine speaks in Paul Hiebertian echos as he refers to issues of "excluded midde" and "split-level Christianity." The non-contextualized gospel had no power to penetrate hearts.  No power to disciple.  No power to transform.  Since a significant component of the good news is that we can be changed, here again we see that a non-contextualized gospel was no gospel at all.

3. The messengers modeled division rather than unification.

Here Antoine points out that fighting between missionaries of different denominations modeled the kind of Christian against Christian hatred that contributed to the ethnic tensions.  As a result, even more and deeper divisions were created and "people did not see Christianity as a unifying factor but rather another colonial importation." I am fascinated by Antoine's linking together of the concept of divisiveness and the foreignness of the gospel.  Again we see that the failure to incarnate, to contextualize is connected to the presentation of a non-gospel -- since it is the case that the good news included the creation of one reconciled humanity -- the Church.

So, I know it is partly because of my vantage point, but I here in this paper from Brother Antoine Rutayisire, a call to contextualize and a sobering warning for the Church of what happens when we don't.