CHAPTER 83
The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization
Excerpts from the Willowbank Report. Used by permission of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, 1978.
“The Willowbank report” is the product of a January 1978 consultation on “Gospel and Culture,” sponsored by the Lausanne Committee for World evangelization and conducted in Willowbank, Somerset Bridge, Bermuda. Some thirty-three theologians, anthropologists, linguists, missionaries, and pastors attended. The report reflects the content of seventeen written papers circulated in advance, summaries of them and reactions to them made during the consultation, and viewpoints expressed in plenary and group discussions. The full report is available online.
1. The Biblical Basis of Culture
“Because man is God’s creature, some of his culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because he is fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is demonic.” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 10)
God created mankind, male and female, in his own likeness by endowing them with distinctive human faculties—rational, moral, social, creative and spiritual. He also told them to have children, to fill the earth and to subdue it (Gen 1:26–28). These divine commands are the origin of human culture. For basic to culture are our control of nature (that is, of our environment) and our development of forms of social organization. Insofar as we use our creative powers to obey God’s commands, we glorify God, serve others and fulfill an important part of our destiny on earth.
Now, however, we are fallen. All our work is accompanied by sweat and struggle (Gen 3:17–19), and is disfigured by selfishness. So none of our culture is perfect in truth, beauty or goodness. At the heart of every culture—whether we identify this heart as religion or worldview—is an element of self-centeredness, of man’s worship of himself. Therefore a culture cannot be brought under the Lordship of Christ without a radical change of allegiance.
For all that, the affirmation that we are made in God’s image still stands (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9), though the divine likeness has been distorted by sin. And still God expects us to exercise stewardship of the earth and of its creatures (Gen 9:1–3, 7), and in his common grace makes all persons inventive, resourceful and fruitful in their endeavors. Thus, although Genesis 3 records the fall of humanity, and Genesis 4 Cain’s murder of Abel, it is Cain’s descendants who are described as the cultural innovators, building cities, breeding livestock and making musical instruments and metal tools (Gen 4:17–22).
Many of us evangelical Christians have in the past been too negative towards culture. We do not forget the human fallenness and lostness which call for salvation in Christ. Yet we wish to begin this Report with a positive affirmation of human dignity and human cultural achievement. Wherever human beings develop their social organization, art and science, agriculture and technology, their creativity reflects that of their Creator.
5. The Content and Communication of the Gospel
Having thought about God’s communication of the gospel to us in Scripture, we now come to the very heart of our concern, our responsibility to communicate it to others, that is, to evangelize. But before we consider the communication of the gospel, we have to consider the content of the gospel which is to be communicated. For “to evangelize is to spread the good news . . .” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 4). Therefore, there can be no evangelism without the evangel.
The Bible and the Gospel
The gospel is to be found in the Bible. In fact, there is a sense in which the whole Bible is gospel, from Genesis to Revelation. For its overriding purpose throughout is to bear witness to Christ, to proclaim the good news that he is Lifegiver and Lord and to persuade people to trust in him (e.g., John 5:39–40; 20:31; 2 Tim 3:15).
The Bible proclaims the gospel story in many forms. The gospel is like a multi-faceted diamond, with different aspects that appeal to different people in different cultures. It has depths we have not fathomed. It defies every attempt to reduce it to a neat formulation.
The Heart of the Gospel
Nevertheless, it is important to identify what is at the heart of the gospel. We recognize as central the themes of God as Creator, the universality of sin, Jesus Christ as Son of God, Lord of all, and Savior through his atoning death and risen life, the necessity of conversion, the coming of the Holy Spirit and his transforming power, the fellow-ship and mission of the Christian Church and the hope of Christ’s return.
While these are basic elements of the gospel, it is necessary to add that no theological statement is culture-free. Therefore, all theological formulations must be judged by the Bible itself, which stands above them all. Their value must be judged by their faithfulness to it as well as by the relevance with which they apply its message to their own culture.
In our desire to communicate the gospel effectively, we are often made aware of those elements in it which people dislike. For example, the cross has always been both an offense to the proud and folly to the wise. But Paul did not on that account eliminate it from his message. On the contrary, he continued to proclaim it, with faithfulness and at the risk of persecution, confident that Christ crucified is the wisdom and the power of God. We too, although concerned to contextualize our message and remove from it all unnecessary offense, must resist the temptation to accommodate it to human pride or prejudice. It has been given to us. Our responsibility is not to edit it but to proclaim it.
Cultural Barriers to the Communication of the Gospel
No Christian witness can hope to communicate the gospel if he or she ignores the cultural factor. This is particularly true in the case of missionaries. For they are themselves the product of one culture and go to people who are the products of another. So inevitably they are involved in cross-cultural communication, with all its exciting challenge and exacting demand. Two main problems face them.
Sometimes people resist the gospel not because they think it false but because they perceive it as a threat to their culture, especially the fabric of their society, and their national or tribal solidarity. To some extent this cannot be avoided. Jesus Christ is a disturber as well as a peacemaker. He is Lord, and demands our total allegiance. Thus, some first-century Jews saw the gospel as undermining Judaism and accused Paul of “teaching men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place,” i.e., the temple (Acts 21:28). Similarly, some first-century Romans feared for the stability of the state, since in their view the Christian missionaries, by saying that “there is another King, Jesus,” were being disloyal to Caesar and advocating customs which were not lawful for Romans to practice (Acts 16:21; 17:7). Still today Jesus challenges many of the cherished beliefs and customs of every culture and society.
At the same time, there are features of every culture which are not incompatible with the lordship of Christ, and which therefore need not be threatened or discarded, but rather preserved and transformed. Messengers of the gospel need to develop a deep understanding of the local culture, and a genuine appreciation of it. Only then will they be able to perceive whether the resistance is to some unavoidable challenge of Jesus Christ or to some threat to the culture which, whether imaginary or real, is not necessary.
The other problem is that the gospel is often presented to people in alien cultural forms. Then the missionaries are resented and their message rejected because their work is seen not as an attempt to evangelize but as an attempt to impose their own customs and way of life. Where missionaries bring with them foreign ways of thinking and behaving, or attitudes of racial superiority, paternalism, or preoccupation with material things, effective communication will be precluded.
All theological formulations must be judged by the Bible itself, which stands above them all.
Sometimes these two cultural blunders are committed together, and messengers of the gospel are guilty of a cultural imperialism which both undermines the local culture unnecessarily and seeks to impose an alien culture instead. Some of the missionaries who accompanied the Catholic conquistadores of Latin America and the Protestant colonizers of Africa and Asia are historical examples of this double mistake. By contrast, the apostle Paul remains the supreme example of one whom Jesus Christ first stripped of pride in his own cultural privileges (Phil 3:4–9) and then taught to adapt to the cultures of others, making himself their slave and becoming “all things to all men” in order by all means to save some (1 Cor 9:19–23).
RETURN TO LESSON 10: How Shall They Hear?
Cultural Sensitivity in Communicating the Gospel
Sensitive cross-cultural witnesses will not arrive at their sphere of service with a pre-packaged gospel. They must have a clear grasp of the “given” truth of the gospel. But they will fail to communicate successfully if they try to impose this on people without reference to their own cultural situation and that of the people to whom they go. It is only by active, loving engagement with the local people, thinking in their thought patterns, understanding their worldview, listening to their questions, and feeling their burdens, that the whole believing community (of which the missionary is a part) will be able to respond to their need. By common prayer, thought and heart-searching, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, expatriate and local believers may learn together how to present Christ and contextualize the gospel with an equal degree of faithfulness and relevance. We are not claiming that it will be easy, although some Third World cultures have a natural affinity to biblical culture. But we believe that fresh creative understandings do emerge when the Spirit-led believing community is listening and reacting sensitively to both the truth of Scripture and the needs of the world.
RETURN TO LESSON 10: How Shall They Hear?
Christian Witness in the Islamic World
Concern was expressed that insufficient attention had been given at our Consultation to the distinctive problems of the Christian mission in the Islamic world, though there are approximately 600 million Muslims today [ed. note: over 1.9 billion in 2021]. On the one hand, a resurgence of Islamic faith and mission is taking place in many lands; on the other hand, there is a new openness to the gospel in a number of communities which are weakening their ties to traditional Islamic culture.
There is a need to recognize the distinctive features of Islam which provide a unique opportunity for Christian witness. Although there are in Islam elements which are incompatible with the gospel, there are also elements with a degree of what has been called “convertibility.” For instance, our Christian understanding of God, expressed in Luther’s great cry related to justification, “Let God be God,” might well serve as an inclusive definition of Islam. The Islamic faith in divine unity, the emphasis on man’s obligation to render God a right worship, and the utter rejection of idolatry could also be regarded as being in line with God’s purpose for human life as revealed in Jesus Christ. Contemporary Christian witnesses should learn humbly and expectantly to identify, appreciate and illuminate these and other values. They should also wrestle for the transformation—and, where possible, integration—of all that is relevant in Islamic worship, prayer, fasting, art, architecture, and calligraphy.
All this proceeds only within a realistic appreciation of the present situation of the Islamic countries characterized by technological development and secularization. The social liabilities of new wealth and traditional poverty, the tensions of political independence, and the tragic Palestinian dispersion and frustration—all of these afford areas of relevant Christian witness. The last has given birth to much passionate poetry, one note in which is the paradigm of the suffering Jesus. These and other elements call for a new Christian sensitivity and a real awareness of the habits of introversion under which the Church has for so long labored in the Middle East. Elsewhere, not least in sub-Sahara Africa, attitudes are more flexible and possibilities more fluid.
In order to fulfill more adequately the missionary challenge, fresh attempts are needed to develop ways of association of believers and seekers, if need be outside the traditional church forms. The crux of a lively, evangelizing sense of responsibility towards Muslims will always be the quality of Christian personal and corporate discipleship and the constraining love of Christ.
An Expectation of Results
Messengers of the gospel who have proved in their own experience that it is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16) rightly expect it to be so in the experience of others also. We confess that sometimes, just as a Gentile centurion’s faith put to shame the unbelief of Israel in Jesus’ day (Matt 8:10), so today the believing expectancy of Christians in other cultures sometimes shows up the missionary’s lack of faith. So we remind ourselves of God’s promises through Abraham’s posterity to bless all the families of the earth and through the gospel to save those who believe (Gen 12:1–4; 1 Cor 1:21). It is on the basis of these and many other promises that we remind all messengers of the gospel, including ourselves, to look to God to save people and to build his Church.
At the same time, we do not forget our Lord’s warnings of opposition and suffering. Human hearts are hard. People do not always embrace the gospel, even when the communication is blameless in technique and the communicator in character. Our Lord himself was fully at home in the culture in which he preached, yet he and his message were despised and rejected, and his Parable of the Sower seems to warn us that most of the good seed we sow will not bear fruit. There is a mystery here we cannot fathom. “The Spirit blows where he wills” (John 3:8). While seeking to communicate the gospel with care, faithfulness and zeal, we leave the results to God in humility.
6. Wanted: Humble Messengers of the Gospel!
We believe that the principal key to persuasive Christian communication is to be found in the communicators themselves and what kind of people they are. It should go without saying that they need to be people of Christian faith, love and holiness. That is, they must have a personal and growing experience of the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, so that the image of Jesus Christ is ever more clearly seen in their character and attitudes.
Above all else we desire to see in them, and especially in ourselves, “the meekness and gentleness of Christ” (2 Cor 10:1); in other words, the humble sensitivity of Christ’s love. So important do we believe this to be that we are devoting the whole of this section of our Report to it. Moreover, since, we have no wish to point the finger at anybody but ourselves, we shall use the first person plural throughout. First, we give an analysis of Christian humility in a missionary situation; and secondly, we turn to the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ as the model we desire by his grace to follow.
An Analysis of Missionary Humility
First, there is the humility to acknowledge the problem which culture presents, and not to avoid or oversimplify it. As we have seen, different cultures have strongly influenced the biblical revelation, ourselves, and the people to whom we go. As a result, we have several personal limitations in communicating the gospel. For we are prisoners (consciously or unconsciously) of our own culture, and our grasp of the cultures, both of the Bible and of the country in which we serve, is very imperfect. It is the interaction between all these cultures which constitutes the problem of communication; it humbles all who wrestle with it.
Secondly, there is the humility to take the trouble to understand and appreciate the culture of those to whom we go. It is this desire which leads naturally into that true dialogue “whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 4). We repent of the ignorance which assumes that we have all the answers and that our only role is to teach. We have very much to learn. We repent also of judgmental attitudes. We know we should never condemn or despise another culture, but rather respect it. We advocate neither the arrogance which imposes our culture on others, nor the syncretism which mixes the gospel with cultural elements incompatible with it, but rather a humble sharing of the good news—made possible by the mutual respect of a genuine friendship.
Thirdly, there is the humility to begin our communication where people actually are and not where we would like them to be. This is what we see Jesus doing, and we desire to follow his example. Too often we have ignored people’s fears and frustrations, their pains and preoccupations, and their hunger, poverty, deprivation or oppression, in fact their “felt needs,” and have been too slow to rejoice or to weep with them. We acknowledge that these “felt needs” may sometimes be symptoms of deeper needs which are not immediately felt or recognized by the people. A doctor does not necessarily accept a patient’s self-diagnosis. Nevertheless, we see the need to begin where people are, but not to stop there. We accept our responsibility to gently and patiently lead them on to see themselves, as we see ourselves, as rebels to whom the gospel directly speaks with a message of pardon and hope. To begin where people are not is to share an irrelevant message; to stay where people are and never lead them on to the fulness of God’s good news, is to share a truncated gospel. The humble sensitivity of love will avoid both errors.
Fourthly, there is the humility to recognize that even the most gifted, dedicated and experienced missionary can seldom communicate the gospel in another language or culture as effectively as a trained local Christian. This fact has been acknowledged in recent years by the Bible Societies, whose policy has changed from publishing translations by missionaries (with help from local people) to training mother-tongue specialists to do the translating. Only local Christians can answer the questions, “God, how would you say this in our language?” and “God, what will obedience to you mean in our culture?” Therefore, whether we are translating the Bible or communicating the gospel, local Christians are indispensable. It is they who must assume the responsibility to contextualize the gospel in their own languages and cultures. Would-be cross-cultural witnesses are not on that account necessarily superfluous; but we shall be welcome only if we are humble enough to see good communication as a team enterprise, in which all believers collaborate as partners.
Fifthly, there is the humility to trust in the Holy Spirit of God, who is always the chief communicator, who alone opens the eyes of the blind and brings people to new birth. “Without his witness, ours is futile” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 14).
Incarnation as Model for Christian Witness
We have met for our Consultation within a few days of Christmas, which might be called the most spectacular instance of cultural identification in the history of mankind, since by his Incarnation the Son became a first-century Galilean Jew.
We have also remembered that Jesus intended his people’s mission in the world to be modeled on his own. “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you,” he said (John 20:21; cf. 17:18). We have asked ourselves, therefore, about the implications of the Incarnation for all of us. The question is of special concern to cross-cultural witnesses, whatever country they go to, although we have thought particularly of those from the West who serve in the Third World.
Meditating on Philippians 2, we have seen that the self-humbling of Christ began in his mind: “he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” So we are commanded to let his mind be in us, and in humility of mind to “count” others better or more important than ourselves. This “mind” or “perspective” of Christ is a recognition of the infinite worth of human beings and of the privilege it is to serve them. Those witnesses who have the mind of Christ will have a profound respect for the people they serve, and for their cultures.
Two verbs then indicate the action to which the mind of Christ led him: “he emptied himself . . . he humbled himself “ The first speaks of sacrifice (what he renounced) and the second of service, even slavery (how he identified himself with us and put himself at our disposal). We have tried to think what these two actions meant for him, and might mean for cross-cultural witnesses.
We began with his renunciation. First, the renunciation of status. “Mild he laid his glory by,” we have been singing at Christmas. Because we cannot conceive what his eternal glory was like, it is impossible to grasp the greatness of his self-emptying. But certainly he surrendered the rights, privileges and powers which he enjoyed as God’s Son. “Status” and “status symbols” mean much in the modern world, but are incongruous in missionaries. We believe that wherever missionaries are they should not be in control or work alone, but always with—and preferably under—local Christians who can advise and even direct them. And whatever the missionaries’ responsibility may be, they should express attitudes “not of domination but of service” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 11).
Next the renunciation of independence. We have looked at Jesus—asking a Samaritan woman for water, living in other people’s homes and on other people’s money because he had none of his own, being lent a boat, a donkey, an upper room, and even being buried in a borrowed tomb. Similarly, cross-cultural messengers, especially during their first years of service, need to learn dependence on others.
Thirdly, the renunciation of immunity. Jesus exposed himself to temptation, sorrow, limitation, economic need and pain. So the missionary should expect to become vulnerable to new temptations, dangers and diseases, a strange climate, an unaccustomed loneliness and possibly death.
Turning from the theme of renunciation to that of identification, we have marvelled afresh at the completeness of our Saviour’s identification with us, particularly as this is taught in the Letter to the Hebrews. He shared our “flesh and blood,” was tempted as we are, learned obedience through his suffering and tasted death for us (Heb 2:14–18; 4:15; 5:8). During his public ministry Jesus befriended the poor and the powerless, healed the sick, fed the hungry, touched untouchables and risked his reputation by associating with those whom society rejected.
The extent to which we identify ourselves with the people to whom we go is a matter of controversy. Certainly it must include mastering their language, immersing ourselves in their culture, learning to think as they think, feel as they feel, do as they do. At the socio-economic level we do not believe that we should “go native,” principally because a foreigner’s attempt to do this may not be seen as authentic but as play-acting. But neither do we think there should be a conspicuous disparity between our life style and that of the people around us. In between these extremes, we see the possibility of developing a standard of living which expresses the kind of love which cares and shares, and which finds it natural to exchange hospitality with others on a basis of reciprocity, without embarrassment. A searching test of identification is how far we feel that we belong to the people, and still more—how far they feel that we belong to them. Do we participate naturally in days of national or tribal thanksgiving or sorrow? Do we groan with them in the oppression which they suffer and join them in their quest for justice and freedom? If the country is struck by earthquake or engulfed in civil war, is our instinct to stay and suffer with the people we love, or to fly home?
Although Jesus identified himself completely with us, he did not lose his own identity. He remained himself. “He came down from heaven . . . and was made man” (Nicene Creed); yet in becoming one of us he did not cease to be God. Just so, “Christ’s evangelists must humbly seek to empty themselves of all but their personal authenticity” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 10). The Incarnation teaches identification without loss of identity. We believe that true self-sacrifice leads to true self-discovery. In humble service there is abundant joy.
RETURN TO LESSON 11: Building Bridges of Love
7. Conversion and Culture
We have thought of the relation between conversion and culture in two ways. First, what effect does conversion have on the cultural situation of converts, the ways they think and act, and their attitudes to their social environment? Secondly, what effect has our culture had on our own understanding of conversion? Both questions are important. But we want to say at once that elements in our traditional evangelical view of conversion are more cultural than biblical and need to be challenged. Too often we have thought of conversion as a crisis, instead of as a process as well; or we have viewed conversion as a largely private experience, forgetting its consequent public and social responsibilities.
The Radical Nature of Conversion
We are convinced that the radical nature of conversion to Jesus Christ needs to be reaffirmed in the contemporary church, for we are always in danger of trivializing it, as if it were no more than a surface change, and a self-reformation at that. But the New Testament authors write of it as the outward expression of a regeneration or new birth by God’s Spirit, a recreation, and resurrection from spiritual death. The concept of resurrection seems to be particularly important. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was the beginning of the new creation of God, and by God’s grace through union with Christ we have shared in this resurrection. We have therefore entered the new age and have already tasted its powers and its joys. This is the eschatological dimension of Christian conversion. Conversion is an integral part of the Great Renewal which God has begun, and which will be brought to a triumphant climax when Christ comes in his glory.
Conversion involves as well a break with the past so complete that it is spoken of in terms of death. We have been crucified with Christ. Through his cross we have died to the godless world, its outlook, and its standards. We have also “put off “ like a soiled garment the old Adam, our former and fallen humanity. Jesus warned us that this turning away from the past may involve painful sacrifices, even the loss of family and possessions (e.g., Luke 14:25ff). It is vital to keep together these negative and positive aspects of conversion, the death and the resurrection, the putting off of the old and the putting on of the new. For we who died are alive again, but alive now with a new life lived in, for and under Christ.
The Lordship of Jesus Christ
We are clear that the fundamental meaning of conversion is a change of allegiance. Other gods and lords—idolatries every one—previously ruled over us. But now Jesus Christ is Lord. The governing principle of the converted life is that it is lived under the lordship of Christ or (for it comes to the same thing) in the Kingdom of God. His authority over us is total. So this new and liberating allegiance leads inevitably to a reappraisal of every aspect of our lives and in particular of our world view, our behavior, and our relationships.
First, our world view. We are agreed that the heart of every culture is a “religion” of some kind, even if it is an irreligious religion like Marxism. “Culture is religion made visible” (J. H. Bavinck). And “religion” is a whole cluster of basic beliefs and values, which is the reason why for our purposes we are using “world view” as an equivalent expression. True conversion to Christ is bound, therefore, to strike at the heart of our cultural inheritance. Jesus Christ insists on dislodging from the center of our world whatever idol previously reigned there, and occupying the throne himself. This is the radical change of allegiance which constitutes conversion, or at least its beginning. Then once Christ has taken his rightful place, everything else starts shifting. The shock waves flow from the center to the circumference. The convert has to rethink his or her fundamental convictions. This is metanoia, “repentance” viewed as a change of mind, the replacement of “the mind of the flesh” by “the mind of Christ.” Of course, the development of an integrated, Christian world view may take a lifetime, but it is there in essence from the start. If it does grow, the explosive consequences cannot be predicted.
Secondly, our behavior. The lordship of Jesus challenges our moral standards and whole ethical lifestyle. Strictly speaking, this is not “repentance” but rather the “fruit that befits repentance” (Matt 3:8), the change of conduct which issues from a change of outlook. Both our minds and our wills must submit to the obedience of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 10:5; Matt 11:29–30; John 13:13).
Listening to case studies of conversion we have been impressed by the primacy of love in the new convert’s experience. Conversion delivers both from the inversion which is too preoccupied with self to bother about other people and from the fatalism which considers it impossible to help them. Conversion is spurious if it does not liberate us to love.
Thirdly, our relationships. Although the convert should do his utmost to avoid a break with nation, tribe and family, sometimes painful conflicts arise. It is clear also that conversion involves a transfer from one community to another, that is, from fallen humanity to God’s new humanity. It happened from the very beginning on the Day of Pentecost: “Save yourselves from this crooked generation,” Peter appealed. So those who received his message were baptized into the new society, devoted themselves to the new fellowship, and found that the Lord continued to add to their numbers daily (Acts 2:40–47). At the same time, their “transfer” from one group to another meant that they were spiritually distinct rather than that they were socially segregated. They did not abandon the world. On the contrary, they gained a new commitment to it, and went out into it to witness and to serve.
All of us should cherish great expectations of such radical conversions in our day, involving converts in a new mind, a new way of life, a new community, and a new mission, all under the lordship of Christ. Yet now we feel the need to make several qualifications.
The Convert and His Culture
Conversion should not “deculturize” a convert. True, as we have seen, the Lord Jesus now holds his or her allegiance, and everything in the cultural context must come under his Lord’s scrutiny. This applies to every culture, not just to those of Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, or animistic cultures but also to the increasingly materialistic culture of the West. The critique may lead to a collision, as elements of the culture come under the judgment of Christ and have to be rejected. At this point, on the rebound, the convert may try to adopt the evangelist’s culture instead; the attempt should be firmly but gently resisted.
The convert should be encouraged to see his or her relation to the past as a combination of rupture and continuity. However much new converts feel they need to renounce for the sake of Christ, they are still the same people with the same heritage and the same family. “Conversion does not unmake; it remakes.” It is always tragic, though in some situations it is unavoidable, when a person’s conversion to Christ is interpreted by others as treachery to his or her own cultural origins. If possible, in spite of the conflicts with their own culture, new converts should seek to identify with their culture’s joys, hopes, pains and struggles.
RETURN TO LESSON 10: How Shall They Hear?
Case histories show that converts often pass through three stages: (1) “rejection” (when they see themselves as “new persons in Christ” and repudiate everything associated with their past); (2) “accommodation” (when they discover their ethnic and cultural heritage, with the temptation to compromise the new-found Christian faith in relation to their heritage); and (3) “the reestablishment of identity” (when either the rejection of the past or the accommodation to it may increase, or preferably, they may grow into a balanced self-awareness in Christ and in culture).
The Power Encounter
“Jesus is Lord” means more than that he is Lord of the individual convert’s world view, standards and relationships, and more even than that he is Lord of culture. It means that he is Lord of the powers, having been exalted by the Father to universal sovereignty; principalities and powers having been made subject to him (1 Pet 3:22). A number of us, especially those from Asia, Africa and Latin America, have spoken both of the reality of evil powers and of the necessity to demonstrate the supremacy of Jesus over them. For conversion involves a power encounter. People give their allegiance to Christ when they see that his power is superior to magic and voodoo, the curses and blessings of witch doctors, and the malevolence of evil spirits, and that his salvation is a real liberation from the power of evil and death.
Of course, some are questioning today whether a belief in spirits is compatible with our modern scientific understanding of the universe. We wish to affirm, therefore, against the mechanistic myth on which the typical Western worldview rests, the reality of demonic intelligences which are concerned by all means, overt and covert, to discredit Jesus Christ and keep people from coming to him. We think it vital in evangelism in all cultures to teach the reality and hostility of demonic powers, and to proclaim that God has exalted Christ as Lord of all and that Christ, who really does possess all power, however we may fail to acknowledge this, can (as we proclaim him) break through any worldview in any mind to make his lordship known and bring about a radical change of heart and outlook.
We wish to emphasize that the power belongs to Christ. Power in human hands is always dangerous. We have called to mind the recurring theme of Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians—that God’s power, which is clearly seen in the cross of Christ, operates through human weakness (e.g., 1 Cor 1:18–2:5; 2 Cor 4:7; 12:9–10). Worldly people worship power; Christians who have it know its perils. It is better to be weak, for then we are strong. We specially honor the Christian martyrs of recent days (e.g., in East Africa) who have renounced the way of power, and followed the way of the cross.
Individual and Group Conversions
Conversion should not be conceived as being invariably and only an individual experience, although that has been the pattern of Western expectation for many years. On the contrary, the covenant theme of the Old Testament and the household baptisms of the New should lead us to desire, work for and expect both family and group conversions. Much important research has been undertaken in recent years into “people movements” from both theological and sociological perspectives. Theologically, we recognize the biblical emphasis on the solidarity of each ethnos, i.e., nation or people. Sociologically, we recognize that each society is composed of a variety of subgroups, subcultures or homogeneous units. It is evident that people receive the gospel most readily when it is presented to them in a manner which is appropriate—and not alien—to their culture, and when they can respond to it with and among their own people. Different societies have different procedures for making group decisions, e.g., by consensus, by the head of the family or by a group of elders. We recognize the validity of the corporate dimension of conversion as part of the total process, as well as the necessity for each member of the group ultimately to share in it personally.
Is Conversion Sudden or Gradual?
Conversion is often more gradual than traditional evangelical teaching has allowed. True, this may be only a dispute about words. Justification and regeneration, the one conveying a new status and the other a new life, are works of God and instantaneous, although we are not necessarily aware when they take place. Conversion, on the other hand, is our own action (moved by God’s grace) of turning to God in penitence and faith. Although it may include a conscious crisis, it is often slow and sometimes laborious. Seen against the background of the Hebrew and Greek vocabulary, conversion is in essence a turning to God, which continues as all areas of life are brought in increasingly radical ways under the lordship of Christ. Conversion involves the Christian’s complete transformation and total renewal in mind and character according to the likeness of Christ (Rom 12:1–2).
However, this progress does not always take place. We have given some thought to the sad phenomena called “backsliding” (a quiet slipping away from Christ) and “apostasy” (an open repudiation of him). These have a variety of causes. Some people turn away from Christ when they become disenchanted with the Church; others capitulate to the pressures of secularism or of their former culture. These facts challenge us both to proclaim a full gospel and to be more conscientious in nurturing converts in the faith and in training them for service.
One member of our Consultation has described his experience in terms of turning first to Christ (receiving his salvation and acknowledging his lordship), secondly to culture (rediscovering his natural origins and identity), and thirdly to the world (accepting the mission on which Christ sends him). We agree that conversion is often a complex experience, and that the biblical language of “turning” is used in different ways and contexts. At the same time, we all emphasize that personal commitment to Jesus Christ is foundational. In him alone we find salvation, new life, and personal identity. Conversion must also result in new attitudes and relationships, and lead to a responsible involvement in our church, our culture and our world. Finally, conversion is a journey, a pilgrimage, with ever-new challenges, decisions, and returnings to the Lord as the constant point of reference, until he comes.
8. Church and Culture
In the process of church formation, as in the communication and reception of the gospel, the question of culture is vital. If the gospel must be contextualized, so must the church. Indeed, the subtitle of our Consultation has been “The Contextualization of Word and Church in a Missionary Situation.”
The Church’s Influence on Culture
We deplore the pessimism which leads some Christians to disapprove of active cultural engagement in the world, and the defeatism which persuades others that they could do no good there anyway and should therefore wait in inactivity for Christ to put things right when he comes. Many historical examples could be given, drawn from different ages and countries, of the powerful influence which—under God—the Church has exerted on a prevailing culture, purging, claiming and beautifying it for Christ. Though all such attempts have had defects, they do not prove the enterprise mistaken.
We prefer, however, to base the Church’s cultural responsibility on Scripture rather than on history. We have reminded ourselves that our fellow men and women are made in God’s image, and that we are commanded to honor, love and serve them in every sphere of life. To this argument from God’s creation we add another from his kingdom which broke into the world through Jesus Christ. All authority belongs to Christ. He is Lord of both universe and Church. And he has sent us into the world to be its salt and light. As his new community, he expects us to permeate society.
Thus we are to challenge what is evil and affirm what is good; to welcome and seek to promote all that is wholesome and enriching in art, science, technology, agriculture, industry, education, community development and social welfare; to denounce injustice and support the powerless and the oppressed; to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, which is the most liberating and humanizing force in the world; and to actively engage in good works of love. Although, in social and cultural activity as in evangelism, we must leave the results to God, we are confident that he will bless our endeavors and use them to develop in our community a new consciousness of what is “true, noble, right, pure, lovely and honorable” (Phil 4:8 TEV). Of course, the Church cannot impose Christian standards on an unwilling society, but it can commend them by both argument and example. All this will bring glory to God and greater opportunities of humanness to our fellow human being whom he made and loves. As the Lausanne Covenant put it, “churches must seek to transform and enrich culture, all for the glory of God” (para. 10).
Nevertheless, naive optimism is as foolish as dark pessimism. In place of both, we seek a sober Christian realism. On the one hand, Jesus Christ reigns. On the other, he has not yet destroyed the forces of evil; they still rampage. So in every culture Christians find themselves in a situation of conflict and often of suffering. We are called to fight against the “cosmic powers of this dark age” (Eph 6:12 TEV). So we need each other. We must put on all God’s armor, and especially the mighty weapon of believing prayer. We also remember the warnings of Christ and his apostles that before the end there will be an unprecedented outbreak of wickedness and violence. Some events and developments in our contemporary world indicate that the spirit of the coming Antichrist is already at work not only in the non-Christian world, but both in our own partially Christianized societies and even in the churches themselves. “We therefore reject as a proud, self-confident dream the notion that man can ever build a utopia on earth” (Lausanne Covenant, para. 15), and as a groundless fantasy that society is going to evolve into perfection.
Instead, while energetically laboring on earth, we look forward with joyful anticipation to the return of Christ, and to the new heavens and new earth in which righteousness will dwell. For then not only will culture be transformed, as the nations bring their glory into the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:24–26), but the whole creation will be liberated from its present bondage of futility, decay and pain, so as to share the glorious freedom of God’s children (Rom 8:18–25 TEV). Then at last, every knee will bow to Christ and every tongue openly proclaim that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:9–11).
Conclusion
Our Consultation has left us in no doubt of the pervasive importance of culture. The writing and the reading of the Bible, the presentation of the gospel, conversion, church and conduct—all these are influenced by culture. It is essential, therefore, that all churches contextualize the gospel in order to share it effectively in their own culture. For this task of evangelization, we all know our urgent need of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He is the Spirit of truth who can teach each church how to relate to the culture which envelops it. He is also the Spirit of love, and love is “the language—which is understood in every culture of man.” So may God fill us with his Spirit! Then, speaking the truth in love, we shall grow up into Christ who is the head of the Body, to the everlasting glory of God (Eph 4:15). 