Inculturation and
Evangelization:
“And the Word Became
Flesh”*
I want to
thank Father Jason Hage for the invitation to be with you for the Catholic
Conversation here at Colgate University and briefly to reflect on the notion of
inculturation in the context of evangelization.
When the topic of “inculturation” comes
up, the discussion usually follows the line that the Gospel is able to take root
in any culture such as China, Africa or even America. A safe way to approach
the issue of inculturation would be to examine the various cultures in which
Christianity exists. This would be safe,
satisfy a bit of our curiosity, but really would not challenge us in any
way. Therefore, I would like to reflect
on different—fundamental—aspects of inculturation.
This year we are celebrating the
500th anniversary of Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses on the door
of the Cathedral of Wurtenburg. We must
admit that Luther had some valid points, but that the reform brought many
unforeseen and even tragic consequences for society and the Body of
Christ. In any case, I am going to adopt
his methodology and just present a few “theses” or “bullet points” for your
consideration.
1. There is no uninculturated Gospel. From the moment of the conception of Jesus,
the Gospel has been inculturated.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the Gospel message can be
adapted. Like a lot of conventional
wisdom, this assertion is true, but a bit misleading. It gives the impression that there is a
neutral “Gospel” that is not inculturated. We are all familiar with the scripture
quotation, “and the Word became flesh.” (John 1:14). On the front of the altar in Nazareth, there
is a plaque that says (in Latin) “and the Word became flesh here.” Jesus became flesh at a certain time and in
a certain place, in the context of a specific culture. He was a Jew who was conceived in a
backwater province of the Roman Empire in Nazareth, a village of 120
inhabitants. He spoke Hebrew, and
probably knew Greek since Galilee was quite pagan and some Latin since the
country was occupied. This is the
cultural origin of Christianity. And the
Gospel continues to “take flesh” as it finds expression in different cultures.
2.
During his
earthly ministry, Jesus was apparently not so concerned about inculturation.
We must remember that Jesus was proclaiming the “end
times.” He spoke of the “Kingdom of God”
or the “Kingdom of Heaven” often, but only rarely (three times in Matthew) is
the word “Church” recorded as coming from his lips. Time was short and the issue of inculturation
was a long-term concern.
Jesus’ conversation with the Syro-Phoenician woman manifests
a strong antipathy for anyone who was not a Jew:
But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean
spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a
Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of
her daughter. And he said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not
right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.” (Mark 7:25-27)
(In a spirit of full disclosure, this woman was perhaps a
grandmother in the 10th degree to Father Jason or me—this
conversation was taking place in what is now modern Lebanon.)
We find Jesus rejecting the woman, arguing that his message
was intended exclusively for a specific people and culture, that of the Jews. Consistent with all of salvation history, the
Good News was to be given to the world through the Jews, God’s chosen people.
3.
After the
resurrection, the “exclusivity” of the Gospel message disappeared.
After the resurrection, we find Jesus breaking down the
barriers of culture:
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the
gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark
16:15)
No longer was the Good News to be restricted to the Jews,
but was to be taken to all peoples. Such
a program of evangelization required
linguistic and eventually cultural adaptations.
4.
The
earliest crisis in the Church addressed inculturation.
Even though Paul of Tarsus was not present to hear the
command of Jesus to go into all the world, this is exactly what he did. Consequently, a crisis arose: Did the pagans,
e. g., the Greeks and the Romans, need to become Jews in order to be
Christians? The decision taken in
Jerusalem in 52 AD was that they did not need to do so. This was the first cultural adaptation of the
Gospel message.
This willingness to inculturate finds expression in Saint
Paul’s claim, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is
there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians
3:28)
5.
Inculturation
presumes openness towards the world.
We live in what many describe as a post-Christian
society. The response of some to this
situation is to erect fortresses, safe spaces in which we can live out our Christian
lives. While Rod Dreher offers many good
points (e.g., the support of fellowship), his book The Benedict Option is a defensive reaction to what some describe
as a “post-Christian” society, contra
mudndum. What if the apostles had
taken this approach? The Gospel message
would have expired in a small room in southwestern Jerusalem.
The evangelist Luke took another approach, one that was
positive about the “pre-Christian” world they were called upon to evangelize. Looking at both the Gospel of Luke and the
Acts of Apostles, written by the same author, we find that the ministry of
Jesus is essentially a journey directed to Jerusalem and the mission of the
apostles was directed away from Jerusalem to the farthest corners of the world. There are strong indications that the apostle
Thomas (“Doubting Thomas”) took the Gospel to southern India. By the sixth century, the Good News had
reached Mongolia. This presumes a courageous,
open attitude toward the world.
6.
Not every
culture and cultural value is suitable for the Gospel.
We are tempted to say that the Gospel has no cultural
boundaries, but that would not be true.
There are boundaries There are some cultures and cultural values that
need to be rejected by Christianity. Nazi
Germany is an easy example. The
nationalism, racism and aggressive stance could never been incorporated into
Christianity. South Africa’s apartheid could never find a place in the Gospel
message or the authentic life of the Church.
But these are easy examples, perhaps too easy. As Christians in North America, we need to
examine what qualities would be appropriate for Christianity and what qualities
would not. This is not any easy task. We
need to make a distinction between what is an issue of faith and what is an
issue of culture and custom
7.
Through
inculturation, the Gospel is transformed and also transformative.
Taking the bulb of a certain flower from Europe or the Far
East and planting it in North America will eventually result in a different
flower because of the climate and the soil.
The flower is different. A Gospel
planted here is different than in its lands of origins. But this place is also different because it
now has a new beautiful flower. The
flower has been transformed by its surroundings and has transformed its
surroundings. The same is true for the
Gospel. Inculturation must take place in
order for the Gospel to transform societies.
In closing, it is pleasant and easy to examine the capacity
of the Gospel to be inculturated by examining different external qualities such
as language, music and garb. It is a challenge to examine our own culture—and
perhaps the cultures of others—to decide what cultural values can be
incorporated into Christianity and what cultural values must be rejected.
