The Cape Town Commitment Dismisses the Supposed Link Between Contextualization & Syncretism

I've been stuck on contextualization all week. Which many of you may be happy about. If not, well, seriously, I'm not the only blog in town.

Today, I want to point you to the full statement on contextualization from the Cape Town Commitment. I mentioned yesterday some of its positive elements in light of its definition of "insider movements". Today, I will point to what I believe is an even stronger reason why the statement is so important. You can see my comments in highlighted italics below:


Love respects diversity of discipleship

So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance. This is a complex phenomenon and there is much disagreement over how to respond to it. Some commend such movements. Others warn of the danger of syncretism. Syncretism, however, is a danger found among Christians everywhere as we express our faith within our own cultures. [Here it is. This is such an important thing to point out. There is no inherent connection between contextualization and syncretism. Syncretism is born not out of contextualization but out of poor discipleship or a deficient commitment to God's Word. It thrives most in settings where individuals are not reflective about their faith -- which is rarely the case where contextualization is intentionally pursued by followers of Jesus seeking to incarnate Him in a particular cultural context. As for those who have willfully abandoned a pure and sincere devotion to Christ, whatever they do beyond that should not properly be deemed as contextualization. Contextualization is about the imitation of Christ's incarnation and crucifixion. It is about mission and manifesting the Christ-life to particular peoples in the clearest and most compelling way possible. Any discussion of "how far do you go" is out-of-place and betrays a failure to grasp this essential point. Ask rather, "How far did Jesus go? How human did He become? How Jewish? How Galilean?"] We should avoid the tendency, when we see God at work in unexpected or unfamiliar ways, either (i) hastily to classify it and promote it as a new mission strategy, or (ii) hastily to condemn it without sensitive contextual listening.

A)    In the spirit of Barnabas who, on arrival in Antioch, ‘saw the evidence of the grace of God’ and ‘was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord,’[72] we would appeal to all those who are concerned with this issue to:

1. Take as their primary guiding principle the apostolic decision and practice: ‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.’[73]
2. Exercise humility, patience and graciousness in recognizing the diversity of viewpoints, and conduct conversations without stridency and mutual condemnation.[74]

A Response to James White on Insider Movements in Light of the Cape Town Commitment

I think I've mentioned before that I liked what the Cape Town Commitment had to say about contextualization. In particular, it has defined "insider movements" in a way that is very helpful as you will see below.

"So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance."

A couple important notes on that.

First, IMs are not just something that is the domain of the Muslim world. I praise God for this clarification, because the debate/discussion surrounding contextualization is clouded by it being too associated with Islam and reaching Muslims. There is just much more to it than that. Critics of insider movements often make the mistake of painting them all with the same brush as if all IMs were in the context of Islam and as if they all looked the same and agreed on the same points.

Second, it defines IMs as missional communities of Christ-followers who seek to obey the Bible.  Thus, a so-called IM that isn't following Jesus, seeking to obey Scripture, or seeking to engage its cultural context isn't really what we are talking about.

In this way, the gauntlet is sort of laid out for those who have been so adamant in their opposition to IMs. James White is one of my favorite persons who has spoken out against them. And I mean that. I repost lots of stuff from James and rarely miss his podcasts. However, his blanket condemnations of IMs are, I think, unfair and unhelpful.  I would ask Dr. White to consider the CTC definition below and explain what exactly he opposes. It isn't the Christ-following, small groups, or Bible focus. So it would have to be the continuing connections to birth communities and the idea of maintaining certain religious observances.  Well, it is one thing to oppose the holding over of particular, named observances. It is quite another to throw all IMs under the bus. White ignores the possibility that there exist insider movements who are genuine, theologically orthodox, Christ-followers seeking to obey the Bible and reach their kinsmen.  He ignores the fact that these people are often persecuted just as much as those do not pursue contextualization. So, not that James would likely read this, but I would ask that he pull back a bit on his broad condemnation of IMs.

Tomorrow, I will post the CTC statement in its entirety and tell you another reason why I think it is a good thing.

The Cape Town Commitment: Articulating our Christocentrism

A Christocentric communion should result in discernable corporate commitments of both belief and action. A lack of such commitment betrays a lack of true Christocentrism, for where Christ is present there must be transformation. Knowing this, the historic gatherings of the Lausanne Movement have always produced documents of profound significance in terms of both their theological affirmations as well as their practical, missional commitments. The Lausanne Covenant has stood as the pinnacle of these documents since its writing in 1974, the crowning achievement of a gathering that has been said to have ‘saved the unity of evangelicalism’.[i]

Now, out of CT2010, a third great Lausanne document has been produced that stands in harmony with its predecessors, the Lausanne Covenant and Manila Manifesto, but which engages the burning questions and issues of a new generation. Furthermore, it builds and arguably improves upon the examples of those earlier documents in its representative nature as a truly corporate document, in its skill in marrying theological conviction to practical commitment, and in its value as a confessional and pastoral guide. The Cape Town Commitment is the new banner for Lausanne and models for the global Church what the literature of a movement should look like.

A Corporate Document

The Cape Town Commitment may be said to be a truly corporate document. It is presented in two parts. The first is entitled, ‘For the Lord We Love: Our Confession of Faith’. It consists of an articulation and affirmation of a number of key doctrines including the existence and triune nature of God, the deity and uniqueness of Christ, the inspiration of Scripture and more. The primary work on this section was initiated by a diverse group of theologians from around the world. The longer and second part of the Commitment, ‘For the World We Serve: Our Call to Action’, arose completely out of the content and proceedings of Cape Town 2010, the several hundred remote GlobalLink sites, the Lausanne Global Conversation, and other related sources. This has been called the ‘listening process’ of the Congress[ii] a process that has included a careful and tedious gathering and mining of data from presenters, delegates, observers, and others. The work was entrusted to a small international group of men and women, the Statement Working Group, led by Chris Wright. 

 Chris Wright, chair of the Lausanne LTWG, has served as the principle architect of the Commitment and has testified:

The Cape Town Commitment is not just the memorial of a moment—however significant that moment was, at Cape Town 2010. It is, I think, the conviction of a movement and the voice of a multitude - not only of those who were there at the Congress, but also of those who participated through the Global Link and in the Global Conversation. It distils a vast quantity of input and I am grateful to all who contributed - the team of theologians who began the process, the army of presenters at the Congress, the Cape Town Statement Working Group, and the many unknown friends who emailed helpful comments. We profoundly hope and pray, however, that in this statement we are hearing not just the voice of Cape Town 2010, but to some degree also the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ who walked among us there.[iii]

Literature that Facilitates Movement

Most statements of faith are merely that—statements. They are essentially static recitations of theological convictions. In my denomination, they play an important role at the incorporation of a new church into the broader association but are soon shuffled away into a new member’s orientation packet or posted to an infrequently visited ‘About us’ page on the church website. Even in churches where creeds are utilized regularly in the liturgy, they function only to affirm doctrine. They are, by definition, what we believe. They say very little, if anything, about what we should do. The Lausanne Movement has helped the global Church see its need for a different kind of creedal literature—literature that facilitates movement in Christ. The Cape Town Commitment has modeled this in three primary ways.

First, the commitment has married doctrinal affirmations with missional commitment through the covenant language of love. We do not simply believe in the Trinity; we love him. We do not simply believe the Bible; we love it. And loving leads to concrete action. So for example, the expression of our love for God the Son—his birth, sinless life, ministry and miracles, death on the cross, resurrection, ascension, and return—leads naturally to committing ‘ourselves afresh to bear witness to Jesus Christ and all his teaching in all the world, knowing that we can bear such witness only if we are living in obedience to his teaching ourselves’.[iv] This ‘love language’ facilitates movement by demonstrating that a biblically-based theological foundation that is loved is truly a springboard for gospel living.

Secondly, the Cape Town Commitment recognizes that movement in Christ requires a laying aside of ‘every weight and the sin which clings so closely’ (Heb. 12:1) and has thus made confession and repentance a vital part of the content of the document. Language of confession, lamentation, and repentance appears more than 25 times in the Commitment and includes lamenting the ‘scandal of our shallowness and lack of discipleship’ and calling for ‘explicit repentance where Christians have participated in ethnic violence, injustice or oppression’.[v] Thus humbled before Christ, the forgiven and unentangled Church can move forward in its mission with freedom and grace.

Finally, the Commitment models for the Church the literature of Christocentric movement through its intentional instruction to Christian leaders. It is a kind of modern day, pastoral epistle in that it actually gives clear, specific direction to local church leaders. Pastors, in particular, are encouraged to ‘facilitate more open conversation about sexuality’, to ‘teach and preach the fullness of the biblical gospel’, to equip all Christians apologetically and evangelistically, to ‘teach biblical truth on ethnic diversity’, and more.[vi] Such clear instruction shows the way forward, providing a kind of roadmap for our movement in Christ.

 The design of the Cape Town Commitment is worthy of prayerful study. I believe it stands as one of the great contributions of CT2010. Missiologist and Congress delegate Stanley Green was correct in saying that if embraced by the evangelical community, ‘the Commitment will reshape that community in ways that auger well for the health and unity of the church and for the advance of God’s mission in the world’.[vii] Together, the three historic Lausanne documents have shown us that statements of faith need not be mere static recitations of doctrinal beliefs divorced from action, commitment, worship, and discipleship. The Commitment may even have eclipsed the Lausanne Covenant in its ability to promote movement through theological affirmation and commitment, confession, and instruction.

Go and study the Cape Town Commitment now!

[i] T. Houston, ‘Cooperation in Evangelism and the Lausanne Covenant, online:http://www.strategicnetwork.org/index/php?loc=kb&view=v&id=4651&fto=1701&sfto=lausanne%20covenant&, 1 January 1989 [accessed 5 January 2011].

[ii] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

[iii] C. Wright, Email to Cody C. Lorance, 7 January 2011.

[iv] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

[v] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

[vi] The Lausanne Movement, ‘The Cape Town Commitment’.

[vii] S. W. Green, ‘Report on Cape Town 2010’, International Journal of Missionary Research (35:1, 2011), 7-10.

A Special Year-End Message from the Lausanne Movement

Greetings friends, followers, readers and web crawlers! Many of us involved in the Lausanne Movement received a email message from Doug Birdsall, the Executive Chair of the movement.  Doug has provided a helpful update on where things stand right now and where we're headed, which is great. However, he's also laid out the financial needs that remain in the wake of Cape Town 2010.  I'm reposting Doug's letter below because I'm a poor, lowly little cross-cultural missionary who himself needs all of you to send financial support.

And that's true. We really don't bring it up often, but Trinity International Baptist Mission needs your support. We are doing a tremendous amount of Kingdom work on a shoestring budget -- which is as it should be. However, we could do so much more.  There is so much more to do.  Your financial gifts could go a long way in helping us to bring the hope and wholeness of Christ to the nations here in Chicagoland and beyond.

So, do take time to read Doug's request below and I strongly encourage you to give to the Lausanne Movement.  I am so convinced that the work of Lausanne is important to Christ's mission in the world that I will say this- If you can only give to one ministry this Christmas, don't give to us.  Give to Lausanne.  I really mean that.  Now, on to Doug's letter:

Dear Friends:

Thank you for your investment in advancing God’s Kingdom through your support of The Lausanne Movement and Cape Town 2010: The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization.

This Congress, perhaps the widest and most diverse gathering of Christians ever held in the history of the Church, drew 4,200 selected participants from 198 nations to Cape Town.  Leaders from around the world, unable to be in Cape Town, also participated through GlobaLink sites and the Lausanne Global Conversation.  Many of the participants stated that the Congress provided them with new vision, inspiration and courage for their ministries and businesses—and because of the global nature of the gathering, a little slice of heaven!  By God’s grace and His provision of an excellent technical team, we overcame fierce attacks on our websites by cyber-hackers who did not want the world to see what God was doing in Cape Town.

The first part of the Cape Town Commitment has been well received by the global church (read part one here: http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11544).  The Statement Working Group, led by Dr. Chris Wright, will complete part two in the next few weeks.  The first six months of 2011 are already full for Lindsay Brown, Lausanne International Director, and me as we respond to invitations to participate in consultations and conferences around the world which have been energized by Cape Town 2010.

We are eager to build on the global momentum that was generated by Cape Town 2010.

However, we must quickly resolve one issue before we can lay hold of the opportunities that are on the horizon.  We must raise US$2 million in the next two weeks so that Lausanne can end the year with all bills paid and all financial commitments fulfilled.

Let me offer a word of explanation.  Prior to the Congress, nearly US$15.5 million had been given.  At the time the Congress opened, we needed just US$1.024 million (in addition to pending pledges) for the budget to be fully subscribed.  During the week of the Congress, additional gifts of just over US$200,000 were received leaving us with a balance of approximately US$800,000.  We anticipated that this gap would be covered by additional gifts and by an expected significant refund of the South Africa Valued Added Tax (VAT).

Several factors have contributed to significant additional costs of over US$1 million that we are now facing:

• We were assessed more VAT than anticipated and our VAT refund was reduced by nearly two thirds to just US$175,000.
• Planning a global Congress means that we are also subject to international currency exchanges.  During the month of the Congress the US dollar hit a three-year low against the South African Rand, resulting in a currency exchange loss of US$486,000.  Ouch! 
• We had approximately 300 invited participants come to the Congress who had not completed their registration, so we were not expecting them to attend.  The majority were from very poor countries in Francophone Africa and South Asia where they have limited Internet access (meaning we weren’t able to send and receive regular communication from them) and where their culture does not emphasize long-term planning horizons.  Though we had not anticipated their coming we did accommodate them, paying for hotels and local transportation which added nearly US$300,000 to our costs.  While this was a major increase in expense for Lausanne, it was a great encouragement to these dear brothers and sisters in Christ and a strategic Kingdom investment in the leadership in that part of the world, as well as a significant blessing to the global body of Christ to have them in attendance.
• We also experienced US$500,000 in extra costs to cover additional furniture and meals due to the higher number of participants and the increased technology expenditures incurred in responding to the cyber-attacks on our websites. 

 All of these factors combined have placed us in a situation with a steep financial hill to climb.  However, we have a great community of deeply committed friends around the world.  Rich Stearns, President of World Vision US, when making his emergency gift, had this to say, “[Cape Town 2010] was such an important event for the Church of Jesus Christ and the bills must not go unpaid.”

I am writing to ask you to pray with me about this critical financial need and to consider making a special year-end gift to Lausanne.  Would you please be in prayer that God would provide through His people?  I am sure we will reach the summit in a short time through a concerted global effort.

At this moment in time, I believe it is safe to say that The Lausanne Movement is the most dynamic movement in the world for the future of world evangelization and global Christianity.  We have an opportunity to further strengthen the Church so that it can be a source of hope and reconciliation in the decades to come.  Your gift can help us in this significant opportunity. 

Thank you for considering this request.  I remain

Yours in Christ,

Doug Birdsall

The Lausanne Movement, Executive Chair

The Oslo Coalition's Anti-Contextualization Stance: My Rebuttal

While in Cape Town for the Lausanne Congress, there were numerous individuals and groups that distributed information of different types.  This was a basically unofficial activity that didn't necessarily reflect views being put forth by the Lausanne Movement.  One of those pieces was an 8-page document entitled "Missionary Activity and Human Rights: Recommended Ground Rules for Missionary Activity." The piece was produced by The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.  I excitedly snatched it up because I thought that the idea of a code of ethics for missions was a good one.

I have since gone through the document a few times and have found that while in some places it has value, it ultimately doesn't seek to reflect a Biblical world view and doesn't hold the extension of Christ's Kingdom and fame among the nations as its primary impetus. At best, the document provides something of a starting point upon which to build, but it is major reconstruction that is needed and not just fine tuning.  If anyone knows of a truly Christian document like this, do tell.  Short of that, I feel the Lausanne Covenant and Manila Manifesto, while not seeking to do exactly the same thing, are far superior to the Oslo statement (we are all anxiously awaiting the Cape Town Commitment).

Today, I did want to highlight one article that I found especially objectionable in the Oslo statement.  It comes at part 2.1.2 bullet #2:

"The missionary organization should be careful in adopting terminology, rituals and customs from other religions, so as not to create misunderstandings about its identity. It should not attempt to achieve acceptance through adopting the outward appearance of other religions."

I find this to be a clear anti-contextualization statement that reflects a fundamental ignorance of issues related to culture, contextualization, and missiology in general.  Let me explain a bit.

1. On the notion of "adopting" terms, rituals, and customs "from" other religions -- Here is where the ignorance about culture and religion becomes clear.  The writers seem to be under the impression that certain religions can claim a kind of ownership over terminology, rituals or customs.  But this is utterly false. Whether we're speaking of circumcision or Sanskrit, incense or images, such things must not be considered the domain of any single religious group.  Rather, these are inherently communication tools - signs, symbols, and ceremonies that are designed to carry and express meaning from person to person and person to God. One should not assume that a different understanding of the nature of God requires a different means of communication. That is, perhaps my view changes as to which Scripture is truly divine in origin - from say the Vedas to the Bible. I may nevertheless still find that the use of Sanskrit mantras is the best means of memorizing and meditating upon that scripture.

2. On the notion of creating "misunderstandings about its identity" -- First, this phrase is somewhat demeaning.  It seems to communicate the image of a conniving and cunning Western missionary who sinisterly dupes the uneducated and unsophisticated savages, tricking them into religious conversion.  I have not found my non-Western friends to be so easily confused.  What is more, the pursuit of contextualization, far from being a strategy to confuse, is motivated fundamentally by a desire to improve and clarify communication.  By avoiding the unnecessary and unbiblical introduction of foreign religious externals, missionaries are better able to locate Christian identity where it belongs - in the heart.

3. On adopting the "outward appearance" -- Contextualization is not rooted in an attempt to adopt the outward appearance of another religion.  Rather, it is rooted in the imitation of Christ's incarnation.  That is, the contextualizer seeks, as far as is possible, to dwell among a particular cultural context as a full member of that culture. This has implications for the way one dresses, eats, relates to others, etc.  But it also has tremendous implications for the way one expresses, practices, and communicates the Christian faith.  To the unsophisticated eye, this may look like a missionary is adopting the "outward appearance" of Islam, Hinduism, or whatever. But the true, Christ-imitating contextualizer is rather seeking to adopt a people as his or her own including their means of verbal and non-verbal, spatial, ritual, corporate, individual, and chronological communication. This is done so as to more faithfully and clearly communicate the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ.

Many thanks for reading. I would sincerely enjoy reading your feedback in the comment section. Blessings!