Question #7 – Upon what evidential basis does the LTWG feel it necessary to warn about syncretism in the same sentence as it mentions contextualization? Doesn’t this sentence only serve to affirm an unfair prejudice against contextualization by repeating the unproven notion that contextualization and syncretism are especially and intrinsically linked?
Are you still there? Here we are at the end of my 7-part series of reflections on the Lausanne Theology Working Group’s excellent and important paper “The Whole Church taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World.” I love what they’ve done in providing the Church with a fuller definition of these three “wholes.” I strongly commend their paper to you. If you’ve still not had a chance to read it, follow the following link or download the attached PDF:
Regarding the Whole World (continued)
And last (but not least), I want to share a word of appreciation for what is said in this paper regarding world religions and the issue of contextualization. In particular, may the whole Church latch on strongly to this statement:
“We need to repent of approaches to people of other faiths that reject or denounce their existing religion as wholly evil or satanic, with no effort to understand, critique and learn, and to discern through genuine encounter, friendship and patient dialogue where there may be bridges for the gospel” (p. 28, full version).
Let me say directly that I am personally counting very much upon the Nepalese, Indian and Bhutanese delegations to take this statement back to their contexts. As one who has endured much grief as a direct result of just such a prejudice while working in the Hindu context, I need my South Asian brothers to sound this call to the South Asian Church.
Related to that though is my continued concern that while the LTWG paper affirms those who are pursuing contextualization, it still does so in a way that lends credence to the myth that there is some kind of an inherent link between contextualization and syncretism. I reject the notion that such a link exists and would suggest that no evidence can be shown to demonstrate that those theologically orthodox Christians who intentionally pursue contextualization are in any greater danger of syncretism than Christians who do not. On the contrary, I believe that honest and balanced analysis will find even more syncretism (if we are defining this term as a sinful conformity to “pattern of this world”) in local churches that haven’t made any intentional effort to contextualize the Christ-life in their context. The reality is not as the C1-5 scale suggests, that continued pursuit of contextualization inevitably leads to syncretism. Rather, I would contend that, providing the contextualizer begins on theologically solid ground (an unwavering commitment to uphold the Bible), that the pursuit of contextualization actually serves to produce a much more thoughtful and theologically rich expression of Christian faith and practice than otherwise. But alas, I cannot go any further into this right now.
Question #7 – Upon what evidential basis does the LTWG feel it necessary to warn about syncretism in the same sentence as it mentions contextualization? Doesn’t this sentence only serve to affirm an unfair prejudice against contextualization by repeating the unproven notion that contextualization and syncretism are especially and intrinsically linked?
See you in Cape Town!