Skip to main content

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s). 

Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years.

Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture.


For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They feel they cannot simply abandon their deceased relatives to some unknown fate without an alternative in place. And that brings me to my main point...

It is no good telling people that they have to stop their ancestor practices (or whatever the unscriptural practice is), we need to make sure they have replaced those practices with something that can be relied on that is from God the Father and mediated by God the Son and the Holy Spirit. Not only that, they need the support of fellow believers, who need to replace the comradery lost as they move into new koinonia fellowship, that is, the fellowship of believers.

We saw this worked out in Central Asia when people came to faith. At first they were afraid to lose the support of their family. But then they realised they would have all the support they needed from their new family - the family of God, that is, the gathering of local believers. 

Not only that, God himself is emet, reliable, trustworthy, dependable. The great statements of faith in the First Testament or Hebrew Bible remind us of that. 

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.
Exod 34:6-7

Praise the LORD (יהוה), what a Saviour! 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more