Christ in Thai Culture

by S J Batchelor, Version 1, 12/93, circulation to Prey Veng NGO staff & associates only please.

John Davis has written a brilliant book. The book helped me no end to begin to grasp how to put the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the context of Thai and Khmer culture. Written for Thailand, I believe it has tremendous application to Cambodia. A new church, a new move of God. If we LEARN from the Thai church we might yet see Christ wholehearted accepted by the Khmer people.

If the book is so good, why write this summary? Several reasons. For many people the business of the day erodes good intentions. Johns book is a little heavy reading in places and needs a focused mind to cope with it. I might recommend it to people and they may have good intentions; but even the well intentioned sometimes don't find the time to read a book in a focused way. If you do read books, and if you want to read John's book, then put this down and read it. It is much much better than this. But I hope that it is better to have this summary than nothing, and so if you are well intentioned but know your weakness then start with this summary.

A second reason for writing this, is to simplify some of the ideas. John is a theologian. He is writing to prove his ideas to the theological community. So every point he makes, he backs it up with reference to people that I had never heard of! I have tried to put his ideas on paper without his proofs. If you finish this summary but worry about the proof of his proposals, then read the book.

Finally as an introduction to the summary I need to say two things. Johns book is written to an audience of evangelical Protestants. From reading it I respectfully suggest that he assumes his audience is unfamiliar with the value of Pentecostalism, and even early church history. He therefore spends a considerable part of the book on "power encounters" as entry points for evangelism in people who believe in folk religions, and is very tentative and apologetic when talking early history and spirituality. I have tried to stay faithful to his original text, but perhaps have assumed a slightly wider audience who are comfortable with both aspects of Christian life. Finally I have attempted to stay with the text from Johns book and effectively lifted passages and left behind others. I have tried to stay with his wording, his logic, his view. I have left chapter headings as the original so reference to the book is possible for the given section. (I think chapter 9 is out of place but have left it where it is) I learnt a lot from the book, but as a layman I might have needed a little more on the practice of contextualisation. I have refrained from adding my own personal bits as much as possible, and put a small section at the end to add my own thoughts.

I am probably breaking all copyright and I apologise to John and the publishers, I will be sending them a copy for comment and permission but as at this time this document is unauthorised!

The Foreword and the Introduction stand by them selves. A photocopy is included.

"A theologian once said, 'Theological ideas are created in Europe, corrected in England, and corrupted in America'. I would add 'and crammed into Asia'. Shoving 'Westerners Christianity' upon Asians is no longer acceptable".

We still 'colonise' the Third World churches by sending books and hymns, written from a Western theology. Few people admit that ALL theology are by nature culturally conditioned. John argues that this perpetuation of a Western view is often irrelevant to other cultures. For instance, much Christian evangelistic literature is focused on proving that a God exists, that there is a supernatural. Rural Thais and Khmers already know this. Yet very few books deal with questions that Thai's do ask - about reincarnation, ancestor veneration, spirit possession. We develop new theology all the time, like the current debate about Aids. In Europe this is an issue, and the gospel must address issues relevant to the people. Yet Calvin says little about Aids. So we develop our theology.

In Asia, this process of addressing the real concerns of the people is eroded by the fact that the centre of Christianity is seen to be in the west.

We need to set the gospel in the context of the people. Only in this way is the Good News communicated effectively.

Syncretism is when the gospel gets mixed with the old religion. Best known example would be voodoo. Some Christians reject contextualisation because they see it as syncretism. John spends a considerable part of his book showing how the two are different, what the process is to prevent syncretism, and some helpful hints on where to draw the line. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Casual contextualisation can lead to syncretism. The "hope" contained in the book is an effective gospel in context, that points people clearly to our Lord Jesus Christ.

So this chapter distinguishes the two, context and syncretism. Missionaries often rejected traditional cultures. They linked morality (often immorality), culture and religion together. They asked new believers to reject the whole. In some cases we talk about "darkness over there", pagan, primitive, animistic, uncivilised. We exhort the believers to reject the whole, because nothing is good.

Yet our Western Christianity has this adoption of culture built in. Consider Easter sunrise services. Ralph Winter says "I grew up without realising that Easter sunrise services could easily revert to their original paganism if Christians attending them do not see and sense a Christian meaning in them. The very word Easter comes from a teutonic spring goddess of fertility called Eostra. The same is true of Christmas. We have all fought to maintain Christ in Christmas, since Christmas is also originally pagan holiday that was TAKEN OVER by the early church. Romans gave gifts to each other on 25th December long before Jesus was born ......"

Using, or redeeming the pagan service of spring rise to illustrate the rising of Christ is not the same as syncretising (mixing) Christ with the pagan religion. Few if any of us now get them mixed up. We shall see later why this can be so.

One of the key elements to choosing which bits of a culture can be used in Christianity to illustrate truth, and which bits would confuse people is how the choosing is done. It must be from within the culture not from the outside. Even John, who has worked for twenty years in Thailand, cannot contextualise the gospel. Only Thai converts can. Another key to context not mixing is the use of scripture. Many who get mixed up and end up with "fruit cocktail of religions" (Stott), have lost essential elements of the gospel as clearly explained in scripture. The uniqueness of the gospel must burst through as it did in Hebrew and Roman cultures, but to do this it must be "incarnated in the milieu" (Christ in context).

The Old Testament is full of the Israelites mixing God's message with the neighbouring idols. Syncretism. And it brought the wrath of God on them (although these statements are tempered by the last chapter). But in contrast when the Gospel of the Jews (which seemed to have circumcision as part of it) was preach to Gentiles the role of circumcision was challenged and dropped. Why; because circumcision was cultural, not essential to salvation. We need to encourage surgery for those elements which are Western culture attached to the gospel which can cause stumbling in Asia.

John suggests that three non negotiables are Idolatry, Immorality and Injustice. However to define the gospel core is more difficult. Even the apostolic creed was declared to answer the question of syncretism in a certain culture. John returns to this question of a core gospel later.

A world view is the view we have of the basic makeup of the world. This may be conscious or unconscious. World views are not normally judged right or wrong. Some things however are beyond culture. The Nazi world view is definitely nasty.

Many Western people find it hard to distinguish between the bits of their world view that are biblical and those they have picked up because of Greek, Roman, etc. influences. Within the Bible there are transferable customs and non transferable. We see washing each others feet as optional. It was good in the context of dusty roads, but a pain if you normally wear shoes and socks/stockings. However some customs have inward meaning as well as outward sign. Those are transferable, such as the bread and the wine. Yet we eat leavened bread, when it was originally unleavened. We look therefore for a culturally appropriate expression of the inward truth. Consider the Thai greeting. The placing of hands in front of one is an acceptable expression of "greet one another with a holy kiss", just as shaking hands is in Western churches. And yet the hands in front of you was originally a Hindu sign of obeisance to the gods! Yet few Thai's know this, just as few Westerners know about Christmas being a Roman festival.

Our conclusion is thus that World views change. One of the strongest influences in Western Christianity is the "enlightenment". This philosophy has gradually eroded our supernatural world view and replaced God with fixed laws of nature. We have taken on board this world view and adapted the gospel to it (not always helpfully). One of the biggest results is that we separate religion from the rest. Science and religion are not taught together in schools, even Christian ones. No other religion in the world does this. In so doing Western Christianity has left huge gaps which do not cover all the possibilities of experience. Hence we have Christian health workers who only deal with Western medicines, and we leave the prayer for healing to the few with "special" faith or the local traditional doctors.

"The unseen all-pervading world of spirits and ancestors, so real to the average Thai, does not fit into Western world view categories, and is therefore often relegated to imaginary or superstition. How then can a Westerner who denies the existence of such a world bring answers........ Is it any wonder that the gospel has been largely ineffectual in Thailand"

Buddhism syncretised with animism includes these answers. The ceremonies address these problems and give people a handle on which to hold when their world becomes dizzy. The resulting customs and social structure is part of the answer. Take away these customs, and you take away the answer. You can only afford to do this if the new world view includes new answers.

John reiterates that all theological statements are local. The answer must fit the question. Its true to say that Paracetamol stops a headache, but its not very helpful if the question is how do I start my car. The creed was written because people had questions about the nature of Christ, the relationship with the father and the spirit. For Calvin the sovereignty of God was central, for Luther Justification by faith.

If however a creed were developed for Muslims it would assert slightly different truths about Christ. And for Thai's it needs to assert other truths. John suggests a preliminary tentative example of a Thai creed. This is copied at the back.

He goes on to list some issues that are central to Buddhism and therefore must be clarified by a local theology of Christ. He then tackles these in turn. This is the meat of his text! I doubt I can do justice but here goes:-

Buddhist Denominations :- One has to recognise that Thai Buddhism is not one stream and that just as in Christianity there are different emphases so too in Thai Buddhism. John identifies four main streams - Orthodox with its principal monastic order and legislative, administrative and judicial structures, Suan Mok focused on Puttatat the Martin Luther of Buddhism, with its emphasis on the intellect (good brains, not gullible, deny materialism, have the mind of Buddha), Thamakai focused on the existential (experience) response, proof of development is mystical experiences, and Santi Asoke distinctive for its ascetic (hardship) life style. Strangely, the non shaving of eyebrows in the latter angers the orthodox! Thus there are identifiable; the orthodox, the reformer, the charismatic and the ascetic. Just as in Christianity it is not easy to say, this is what a Christian is like and believes, so too in Thai Buddhism. No one as far as I know has documented Khmer Buddhism, yet.

At the same time the Theravada Buddhist worldview is syncretised with enlightenment. Of 300 Thai scientists surveyed 60% rejected Nirvana and reincarnation in the name of science. But only 2% would reject Buddhism in toto. 73% maintained that religion was important.

So the moral of the above is to be aware of sub groups and that the following is after all said only a generalisation.

In these sections we deal inevitably with Thai words, as John Davis was primarily writing about Thailand.

Nature of God :- Its a basic problem trying to find common ground in the word God. The West often accuses TB of being transpolytheistic, i.e. lots of gods seem to get involved with Buddha at the end of his life. At the same time, the idea of the Christian personal God is strange to the Buddhist since personality is linked to feelings and feelings to pain, always trying for enlightenment but never attaining it! The heart of Buddhism is that personality is not permanent.

There is no reference to GOD in the Buddhist scriptures, but they sometimes reinterpret Christian words to take away the personality, i.e. righteousness becomes rightness, the law (force) of nature, the law of the inevitable (Karma). Since the world view is that the world is impermanent, meaningless and leads to suffering and death - what sort of "intelligence" would have created such unmitigated chaos!!.

The Buddhist then wishes to call "God" Avijaa, "ignorance" or "nature that is unknowable".

To the subsequent argument John makes two points:- 1)The Christian should not compromise the personality of God, since he is unknowable except that he choose to reveal himself (I AM THAT I AM). 2) In saying God is personal many Christian have trivialised God, and made him smaller than he is. He is not ONLY a person. He transcends his creation. John then suggests that we can bridge our discussion to the Buddhist with speaking first about God's "non-relational" attributes. [The orthodox Christian calls these the essence of God as opposed to his energies]. His bigness.

A second level at which to discuss god is to use the term Pra In, or in Khmer, Prea. This refers to the hierarchy of Gods that are in the understanding of people not because of the teachings of Buddha but because of the mixing in of other religions. They pray to a whole "host of heaven" for blessings. Thus Preah becomes the highest most powerful God. This is similar to the use of the term "High God" when working with the Maasais in Tanzania, an example of effective Christ in context.

Genesis is quoted as a good starting point for showing how God is all powerful and yet not the cause of suffering. As rust comes from iron and yet iron is not the cause of rust. So disobedience led inevitably (Karma) to the bad the suffering, enlightenment is promised but ignorance (Avija) is the outcome. Ignorance has prevailed separating man from man and man from God. Thus Avija is the cause of all ills but Avija is not God. For God comes and tells them the cause of the suffering (disobedience) and promises that he, through a saviour, can make a path away from it.

John suggests a slightly radical thing to do might be to try and find another Buddhist being with the attributes of God and use His name. This is what Abraham did when he easily accepted the most High (non Jewish) God of Melchizedek. The LOGOS had many meanings for Greek readers of Apostle John's letters since the term was used by Heraclitus in 560BC to be a pantheistical rational principle under girding all existence. Christians use the term freely now? Indeed Theos, the Greek for God sprang from Zeus and Deus!

Words become important because of their hidden meaning. Prawata the word used for logos in the Thai New Testament is not in common use and just means Word. If the translators had used Dharma (Teaching) they might have enclosed all that John meant when he used the Heraclitus Logos?

There are both benefits and dangers in "reloading" a word. It may communicate better the inner intention of the word, or it may fog the understanding. We need to explore which words in Khmer more accurately sum up the Gospel.

The Nature of Man :- this apparently is more difficult to bring together than the concept of God. In Buddhism, man is a coagulation of material particles round a centre of karmic force evolving and dissolving into the world process. In Christ, man is the crown of God's creation, the very Imago Deo. We are a person, and will be in the future. To the Christian this is the hope, the joy. To the Buddhist this seems very strange.

However, this Buddhism is mixed with animism, and has added to it the idea that man has a spirit. This becomes difficult to define because there is a lack of clarity by it not coming from one source. However at least the Buddhist world view includes some idea of the spirit. One must be careful not to fall into dualism, as the Buddhist talks (as did early heretics) about the body and spirit as separate entities.

The good news though is that Buddhists and Christians agree on the problem. That is mans selfhood (Attama). And salvation is found in resolving this selfhood. Paul cries "Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?" A cry wholeheartedly endorsed from the Buddhist. So far so good, but now Salvation is very different matter!

The Nature of Sin - John Davies finds it helpful to use a theory proposed by Benedict in 1934, that divide cultures into "Shame" or "Guilt" cultures. The west is guilt oriented, while the east is shame oriented. In Guilt cultures behaviour controls are primarily internal, to the "powers" above. Guilt is breaking the rules and offending a spirit being. Folk religions tend to have these built in controls. In Shame cultures the restraints are only towards other significant persons in the world.

John then suggests 1) that all people have a sense of wrong doing whether or not they call it sin. 2) that guilt cultures emphasise personal sin, and that the Bible speaks as much about corporate sin as it does about personal. 1 Samuel chp 15 illustrates shame guilt, anxiety, fear of loss of face. Compare Psalm 31 and 32. Consider 1 Cor 5, 1-2.

While Buddhists do not have a very defined "theology" of sin, they KNOW what evil is and the consequences of doing evil. Intensity of sin is in the different Thai words Bab (sin), and Khwam chua (evil). Since they have rules, ten for laity and 227 for monks, and it is possible to break these rules without anyone knowing (i.e. not shame) they have a sense of guilt.. This sense of guilt may be fatalistically interpreted as "suffering" however the mechanisms of guilt and shame are common to Buddhism and Christianity. However the Buddhists only response is to have ceremonies that reduce "anxiety", but may not produce "forgiveness".

Remember we are not comparing the two religions in order that they compliment each other or support each other. NO, we compare so that a Buddhist may understand clearly the Gospel, in words and concepts that he is at least slightly familiar with, and that by understanding the Gospel of Christ may then be able to make a right response to its uniqueness.

The Nature of Suffering - The Bible states man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards. The Buddhist states the "truth of suffering with pessimism and unattractive escape mechanisms. BUT they are not the same. In Christ suffering is transformed. The Buddha uses suffering on the path to Enlightenment.

In Buddhism there is no innocent suffering. All suffering is a result of misdeeds in previous lives. In Christianity it rains on the just and unjust. Sin is a result of mans fall but is not built into his nature. If the diagnosis for a disease is different, then logically the prescription for its alleviation will be different. Also suffering in Buddhism means more than just the bad things of life. It is built into life itself. Life is impermanence, non-substance and suffering. This dis-ease of life is the second noble truth, the three poisons, Ignorance, Attachment and Hatred. Enlightenment will banish Ignorance, by seeing that suffering ceases when desire ceases. The "Good News" of Buddhism is the third noble truth that those who really believe the first two truths can be released from suffering. This is attained by the fourth truth, the eightfold path, the Middle Way. See photocopied section.

John talks then about the pessimism of this belief system. Attempting to meet the standards of this system results in despondency and fatalism, because not only has the adherent been walking the treadmill of eternity in the past (and seemingly got nowhere) but ahead of him too are seeming endless existence's to which Karma has predestined him(or her). And it all leads to "THE fundamental root of mans misery is his existence as a personalised individual. The fall of man was his fall into individualised sentient being.

While Ecclesiastes seems to echo the Buddhist worldview (all is meaningless), the writer ends on a positive note - remember your Creator. And the rest of the Bible paints a different picture. The Christian sees the world as essentially good. Creation is good. True fallen, but originally good.

The Nature of Deliverance - For some Buddhists it is "ignorance" that leads to attachment, which leads to evil, and deliverance is by meditation, detachment, enlightenment. This is very much a mental process with a mystical experience. Others see "desire" as the root of suffering and therefore deliverance is through extinguishing the fires of desire. ALL Buddhists quote from Gotama "A man can depend upon no-one except himself".

The Means of Deliverance - Sticking to the eightfold path should clean the "soiled cloth". Add to it "teaching" which is like a "dye" that makes the cloth a new colour. For the monk that means adhering to two hundred and twenty seven regulations. These have an ascending order of difficulty, in ten stages. First stage, giving alms (things - money, land possessions), second stage giving part of the body, third is to give ones life for another.

At this point there can be confusion, because the Buddhist will say this is the stage Jesus reached, and it is still far short of Buddha. We come back to this. Buddhists don't agree on all the stages and how far up one has to get to get "deliverance". What they agree on is that its beyond the reach of the many. Women for instance have to be reincarnated before they can start the stages. Without a clear definition of deliverance, Buddhism tends to create a fatalism, indifference and passivism, since although deliverance is attainable, few know really how to get there.

Do good get good, do bad get bad. The general population just build up merit and hope for that the good outweighs the bad, and that will move them nearer to deliverance. Most important is the emphasis on self sufficiency. Man alone can do something to work out his own destiny. (The Bible states the opposite).

The Agent of Deliverance - Having clearly stated above the emphasis on the self delivering the self by right behaviour and thought, T Buddhism has "BODHISATTVAS". These are enlightened beings who remain on earth to help others, can give aid and merit to those who pray to them and follow their teachings. Emphasis is not on ones own merit but on the self sacrifice of the Bodhisattvas.

Some Christians have tried to liken Jesus to a Bodhisattvas. The problem is that Jesus is not the end of an evolution of reincarnations toward enlightenment, but is different in very nature. Many Thai's may see Christ as a Bodhisattvas who hears and answers prayers - a saviour.

While the Buddha pointed the way, he remained detached. Christ on the other hand got very involved. In fact he gave up his glory to get involved. His redemption fulfils a person's personhood, not takes him to a nothingness. The deliverance of Christ was for the whole world not just one man. Jesus taught his followers to be salt and light in the world, Buddha taught his to escape from the world. Involvement or detachment. Christ's deliverance is not annihilation of self but freedom from selfishness, self centredness.

So we must be very careful when using Bodhisattvas as a word for Christ, since it points the hearer toward annihilation and detachment rather than fulfilment and involvement. On the other hand self does indeed need a liberation, a transformation. The "Humpty Dumpty" of self is broken and man cannot put him back together. We need the King to put us back together again. Buddhism does have a prophecy about a "Liberator", which will be dealt with later. [On the other hand John later points to the ultimate Saviour predicted in Thai Buddhist scriptures]

In Mahayana Buddhism there is a clearer use of Bodhisattvas as a "saviour" who takes on other suffering, than in Theravada. "I believe in him as the highest being; because of the sinfulness of men and because of their suffering, Amida Buddha was incarnate and came to earth to save men: and only in his suffering love is hope to be found for me and for the world. He became human to become its saviour, and no one but he can help. He watches over all who trust in him and helps them." Sounds remarkably like a description of Christ.

There is then a tentative use of the term to convey the idea that the guilty one can transfer guilt to another by means of ritual substitution. However this idea is very weak in Theravadism. It is difficult then to convey Christs redeeming work to a Theravadist Buddhist. The more likely interpretation for them is that since he suffered a horrible death, he must have had horrible Karma, which meant he did bad things in previous lives.

However while T Buddhism does not recognise sacrificial substitution, there are a number of Thai folk stories that do. Therefore Thai people do understand the idea of dying for another.

Another way of presenting it is to suggest that Christ became the incarnation of the cause of all suffering, the transitory nature of impermanence and non selfhood. These can be shown from scripture drawing upon the fact that he was "in the likeness of man", "transformed suffering into glory", "emptied himself of all". This effectively short circuits Karma, and is attractive to the Buddhist.

John then spend two pages on the nature of Karma. Karma is a good or bad that is a result of what was previously sown. He points out that it has a few problems trying to explain things like the "killing fields", since Karma would say that none were innocent and that the accumulation of such bad was inevitable. Such a black picture of Karma is painted that if short circuiting the process is possible then no wonder its attractive.

However, he also draws our attention to good Karma. (He notes as a side line the question "How does an animal gain merit to add good Karma, by making good moral choices?) Good Karma may be seen at three levels, material prosperity and health, good character i.e. peacefulness, and good spirit. Transference of good Karma is more than possible. In Thailand children are encouraged to become priests not for them selves but for the sake of their parents who will gain good merit from it. It is possible to gain good Karma from those dead and in the past, between the living, and from living to the dead. It is easy then to explain Christ's transference of merit to all of us without fear of being misunderstood.

Thai folk Buddhism also believes another way to short circuit Karma. Ahosi-Karma means to ask "forgiveness". Although it is sometimes asked of another human it is more often asked "into the air" in the hope that Someone will hear.

His last comments on Karma reason that Karma need an Agent to keep it in place. This Agent is "ignorance" or "Nature". Thus the directing hand is an impersonal law. He rightfully contrasts this with the Christian hope, the Agent is our God.

Enlightenment and Nirvana:- Enlightenment is the foundation of Buddhism. Gotama sat under a tree until his became unaware of all physical sensations, had heightened spiritual perceptions, and understood - was "enlightened". Some Christians suggest conversion is similar to enlightenment. This draws close to the heresy of Gnosticism where the man Jesus became through "enlightenment" the divine Christ.

To use the word "enlightenment" for conversion still falls far short of what the Bible means by conversion, since the Buddhist word means detachment, while conversion includes involvement.

The Nature of Nirvana : To compare Nirvana with Heaven is equally difficult. Nirvana is not a place but a state of being or even a state of non being. And anyway most people cannot get there.

However in folk religion there is a "heaven". This is a halfway stage between death and Nirvana which has various levels of bliss. The path to both "heaven" or "hell" is as unclear to most folk Buddhists as anything else. They "hope" that merit and grace from the Buddha will take them to the right place. Again the Christian hope has so much to offer - a place, to be with Christ, joy, peace, involvement - a far more attractive prospect that a drop of dew dissolving into an ocean of nothingness.

So, having ploughed our way through a potted comparison of Buddhist terminology with Christian words, we can now look at what this means practically.

John suggests that the church has always debated how much one should adjust the message to fit the recipient culture. Evangelicals have over the last 100 years been some of the first to resist incorporating acceptable substitutes in case the gospel gets corrupted. He suggests that this is not always a theological stance, but is sometimes imperialism. The missionary not only believes his theology is superior but also his culture.

In the early days culture was so linked to "idolatry" that it was always thought to be destroyable. There was no theology of culture. But this can be counterproductive as the package of gospel and Western culture link to become one "foreign" idea, unacceptable. Certainly this seems to be the case in Thailand.

An example - Matteo Ricci in the fifteenth century. He appreciated that Chinese culture was more advanced than the west, and sought to adapt the gospel so that it would grow in that culture. He suggested that new converts should continue with two duties, the veneration of Confucius and the dead embers of their family. Veneration can be variously interpreted and continues to be a subject of debate. Ricci felt there was a case for filial piety and respect. He rejected "worship" of ancestors. (Remember that Hebrews respected the dead by talking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, etc. as a God of the living. Westerners are not aware of the "clouds of witnesses surrounding them"). Ricci had approx. 300,000 converts. Although he approved of filial piety he disapproved of idolatry. When he was sent idols as a gift he used the wooden ones to melt down the metal ones. So he avoided syncretism. However, he tried to fill social vacuums by keeping certain social structures.

When Franciscans and Dominicans came to China theirs was a confrontational approach. They proclaimed the dead to be burning in hell, and that the Jesuits had introduced tainted Christianity. The controversy raged for 70 years. Ricci has some documents from his converts, even the emperor, that show they in no way considered themselves worshipping the dead or even asking help from them; they were just showing respect (like laying flowers on a grave?). In 1704, nine cardinal, all Italian, all monocultural, all never having been to China, issued a church decree that the Chinese Christians stop venerating Confucius. "Integrity must precede charity" they declared. When the emperor heard he changed his opinion of Christianity from being a universal religion to being a "swashbuckling narrow prejudiced cult". He threw out missionaries and the few that remained changed from being trusted advisors to being gardeners.

Before he analyses Riccis action, John offers some anthropological insights to culture. It is said to be like a spiders web, so tightly knit as a whole that if you change one thing it affects a number of other items. Some people suggest that if one thing is taken away, it should be replaced by a "functional substitute". For instance a pagan practice of having sex with any woman available is substituted with sex within marriage. Seems simple, but in practice few functional substitutes function! Why? Because, the ritual which has been changed is so closely linked with the rest of culture.

John argues that there are three responses. 1) that the substitute be suggested by the missionary (which experience shows doesn't work because they don't know all the links) 2) to keep the ritual but endow it with new meaning or 3) allow new believers who know their own culture so well to adjust old forms or eliminate them.

John summarises, all societies have extensive ritual systems, which cannot be disregarded without destabilising the culture. If no substitutes are found then the lack of a previously held ritual can be a cultural void, and this can often lead to syncretism. To leave a hole is to invite trouble, perhaps seven times as much trouble as the original!

In the New Testament, we see that they discontinued some of the rites and rituals, e.g. blood sacrifice, but continued with others, e.g. going to the temple. Circumcision and not eating pork continued in the Hebrew church, but ceased in the Gentile church. The early church worked in a dynamic in each new culture. If we seek to copy the outward form of the New Testament church we end up with a static and culturally irrelevant model.

The Thai church has apparently been slow to use the dynamic to welcome and use rituals relevant to the culture but that can be legitimately used in the Christian setting. This is mainly due to the missionaries, who set out cultural guidelines. John does not mention it, but I am reminded of the mission in Kenya, that will not allow people to come to church in animal skins (their daily wear) but insist in the baking sun for them to wear Western clothes. An extreme but illustrative of the worst type of cultural imperialism.

John quotes more subtle examples, like the fact that the order of service in the Church of Christ Thailand follows exactly its parent worship book of the Presbyterian Church USA. Out of 247 hymns only 11 have been written by Thai's, and then only 7 of these have tunes written by Thai's (after 150 years of Christianity!). In 40 churches in Chiang Mai only one Thai traditional instrument is used. So on the surface the Thai church looks Western. The rejection of Thai culture was linked to rejection of the old religion. But are traditional instruments only to be used by Buddhists? Who first used the guitar?

Recently it has become the "in" thing to acknowledge that all cultures are equal in the sight of God as are all peoples. It is said that God is reflected in Man and so He must be reflected in Man's culture. This means there are social institutions within a culture that can be a vehicle for the Gospel message without distorting it. Thus we come back to the idea of local people expressing the Gospel in local ways.

In Thailand many Christians had to put aside their culture to become Christians. It became that you had to reject "Thai ness" to accept Christ.

Some argue that we should learn about the culture first including Buddhism. Some argue this only leads to syncretism. Over the years Thai missionaries have been polarised. In one case a Buddhist monk was invited to speak to a Christian audience about Christianity and Buddhism. The paper was published with a cross on top of a bo leaf. This to conservatives seemed to compromise the uniqueness of the gospel. Gustafson speaks of two groups "dialogue and presence" (Liberals!) and "encounter" (Conservatives). Gustafson himself would like to walk in the middle "dialogue with encounter".

"Even the lovely ceremony of Thai wedding has not been Christianised into the church. There are other Thai customs that are very dear to Thai people, e.g. Loi Krathong (floating banana leaf boats, Songkran (New Year sprinkling of water), Sukhwan (summoning the spirit essence). There is no evidence of any missionaries attempt to seek their meanings in their depth so as to adopt them for indigenizing Christianity. The forms of worship, music, liturgy, were almost wholly Western" So wrote a mission evaluation in 1971.

Not a single missionary has really been criticised of having "Siamised or Buddhistised Christianity as the early church apologists were of having "Hellenised" it"

So what can be explored in Thai culture? John says that a complete examination is beyond the scope of his book and should be done by a Thai who knows all the significance of all the rituals. However, he quotes a books by a Thai Pastor, Seth Chansong, who attempts to explain some 27 religious rituals and 13 cultural rituals, the latter being important to being a Thai.

These ritual could be put into three categories - those that if neglected society would regard as a sin, those that society holds as tradition, and those that society can choose to celebrate as and when it feels appropriate.. Or the categories could be customs according to age, personal customs, everyday Buddhist rituals. Even the "cultural Thai rituals contain Buddhist practices. (The spider web, everything interwoven). E.g. funerals are both religious and cultural. (Western Christians continued to wear black, originally to escape the animist demons, even though it had pagan background).

The Thai pastor acknowledges that customs are rarely static, and meanings often dim to the point where no one knows the meaning (like bridesmaids at Western weddings? another pagan handover, as they were to decoy the demons). (Most bridesmaids would be shocked today to discover the meaning, especially evangelical conservative bridesmaids!) In Thailand, a young girl often refers to herself as a rat. This too was to confuse the evil spirits, who then would not want to attack such an obnoxious vermin. Today few Thai's realise the original meaning.

Many Thai rituals had religious meaning which is now lost.. Even pressing hands together to "wai" was originally Hindu and was a personal act of obeisance in honouring and acknowledging one's own protector gods.

Pastor Seth proposes to reject any custom which is contaminated by sin, and opposes the Bible. But does this mean Christians should never "wai" since it is effectively idolatry in its meaning?

John argues that any ritual or ceremony is in itself null and void, if it is divorced from inner meaning. Even Christian rituals are "an outward sign of an inward spiritual grace". John the Baptist regarded baptism in this way. He refused to give it to Pharisees whose attitude was wrong. John interprets Seth as saying all rituals are contaminated, and suggests that if this were true then baptism, originally a Jewish rite was also contaminated. Jesus invested the ceremony with new meaning. Reloaded. Same outward form, new inner meaning.

Seth attempts to divide into three categories, with examples from a wedding ceremony. 1) Elements contrary to Christianity, e.g. Astrological predictions, fortune telling, the use of "magic" water in dousing the couple, obeisance to Buddhist idols. 2) those elements that need neither rejecting nor reloading e.g. taking a collection, placing flowers round the neck. 3) elements introduced to be functional substitutes, e.g. praying with hands laid on the head to be a blessing, anointing with oil to substitute the "magic" water. He then goes on to apply the three categories to all the rituals described in his book. He sees no problem in Christians joining in with Songkran the water festival. This is an opportunity to bless and honour ones living parents by having a water fight!!!

However with the Lotus Flower ceremony Seth has a problem. This is one which has become a time of holiday and fun in Thailand. It is a spring cleaning, forgetting the past, asking forgiveness and doing merit. A small float is sent down the river with a candle, with all the sins of the year. He suggests Christians should shun the ceremony, and offers no substitute. John recognises that he is an outsider, and Seth a Thai, but he tentatively suggests that the ceremony could be reinvested and reloaded, not with a prayer to a River God but with a prayer to the God of the Universe. This ceremony has a certain redemptive analogy built in to it.

It may be argued that to participate in the ceremony would cause confusion. Yet Paul took a big risk when he used the unknown God as a starting point for the Gospel.

The burial ceremony, Seth takes apart piece by piece, like the wedding ceremony. Washing the body, flowers and wreaths, sitting in silence. John feels that Seth makes a good start but that the analysis should be a bit more rigorous.

Another evangelical suggests reloading a rite called Sukhwan. Sukwhan is summoning the essence of the spirit. It is used when things go wrong, or when a blessing is required. While laying hands on the sick, or anointing with oil are substitutes, they are not social substitutes. Non believers are not invited to join in. Yet coming together in times of trouble are a good thing in Thailand. So is there a way of reloading Sukhwan, to make it Christian while still functioning to benefit the whole community. A chap called Van der Weele suggests a new rite called "A Christian Tranquillity Rite, Shalom Sharing". This takes the Hebrew part of the gospel and equates it to the idea of wholeness in the Sukhwan. It is an innovative approach and needs investigation.

An example from Muslim Indonesia.

Proposed by Octavianus, the idea is to break the rites down to:-

Neutral Features - national dress, the white cap, sarong and kebaya for women, sitting on the floor, ways of greeting another, taking shoes off in a house or church, indigenous musical instruments, use of Arabic language when talking to educated Muslims, circumcision which is good for the health.

Features endorsed by Scripture - respect to parents, respect to husband, strict sex regulations, giving alms to the poor, abstinence from alcohol.

Features opposed to biblical revelation - polygamy, prayer ceremonies for the deceased, animistic and occult practices.

As an outsider the same chap makes some similar comments on Shintoism and Buddhism. They are not as helpful as the insight to Islam in Indonesia.

On the other hand if you believe that man is Totally Depraved and can do no good in God's eyes then his culture too would be "no good in God's eyes". However Romans 4 seems to indicate that God has left himself a witness.

John introduces the term Possessio, "to take possession". The Christian does not accommodate or adapt to heathen forms of life, it takes them in possession and makes them new........ it is in essence the legitimate taking possession of something by Him to whom all power is given.

He uses this thought to suggest that even veneration of ancestors could be possessed. Instead of just cutting out all the social gatherings in China which worship ancestors, Christians could create a new social gathering. In this new gathering the life and accomplishments of the dead are noted and spoken of with respect, scriptures are read, prayers offered and hymns sung. In such a way the dead are remembered but without worship. Retain the old customs in such a way by enlisting them in the service of Jesus Christ...

Thus John brings us to the point of choosing a ritual to be "accommodated, possessed, continued or discontinued.

This chapter tackles a delicate subject. Delicate because many Western Christians have been seduced by the lies of the devil, and mythologised, turned into myths, angels and demons. The rural Thai and Khmer have a keen sense of the evil spirits. Yet many Western Christians do not. They think in terms of "primitive" explanations for scientific phenomena.

To some the language of the "powers", as in the principalities and powers of Ephesians, is a term to be applied by "primitive" intellects to the unexplainable physical laws. To others it is a convenient term to apply to the "spirit" which comes from the corporate dynamics of institutions. And to other it applies to "real spiritual forces" who play with mens lives. John proposes using the term as a combination of the second and third. He presents a treatise that argues that while demonic beings are accepted in the Bible, there is also a clear use of the term Exousia, powers, to mean any concentration of power in any authorised agent or actor. The spiritual beings do not exhaust all the meanings of the words used in the new and Old Testament.

"For the Ancients, heaven and earth were a seamless robe, a single interacting and continuous reality.......We are fascinated with the supernatural forces the ancients describe, They seem to have taken them for granted and to have been more preoccupied with that more amorphous intangible, indefinable something that makes it possible for a king to command subjects to voluntary death in war, or for a priest to utter words that send a king to his knees."

"The Powers rule over human life outside Christ. They are manifest in the traditions of men (Colossians 2,8)"

"Paul speaks, once, of the Powers as related to the creative will of God. But we do not know them in this divinely intended role. We know them....bound up with sin,.....where the invisible side of the cosmos functions in diametric opposition to its divinely fixed purpose. When Paul writes that nothing can separate us from Christ, not even the Powers, he presupposes that they are trying to do so. ....they have become gods (Gal 4,8) behaving as though they were the ultimate ground of being and demanding men worship.

Example - "When Hitler took the helm of Germany in 1933, the Powers of Volk, Race and State took a new grip on the hearts of men. Thousands were grateful after the confusion of the years before, to find their lives again protected from chaos, order and security restored. No one could withhold himself, without the outmost effort, from the grasp of these powers on mens inner and outer life. While studying in Berlin (1937) I myself (Berkhof) experienced almost literally how such Powers may be "in the air". At the same time one had to see how they intruded as a barrier between God's Word and men. They acted as if they were ultimate values, calling for loyalty as if they were gods of the cosmos."

These expressions appear archaic, outdated and even simplistic to the modern Western Christian. And yet this worldview is a New Testament cosmology and is more closely akin to the folk Buddhist cosmology.

To the folk Buddhist, the world is not divided into natural and supernatural. The universe is seen as a whole. using the above mechanistic or organic analogies is a helpful model. The mechanistic model describes the Power as analogous to electricity, it can be used for good or bad, and manipulated. The organic talks of the Power as a spirit being, or living dead. Such beings should be humoured, placated, manipulated and deceived.

All cosmologies have variations on the theme but are often broken down into mechanistic or organic. John proposes that when the Gospel comes it is not just a substitute of one "magic" for another. The gospel is the challenge of the Kingdom of light on the darkness. And a power encounter is as natural a result as the climate. When a cold front meets and warm front, the violence occurs with thunder and lightning. Even tornadoes and hurricanes.

The ultimate power encounter was at the cross. However, while the war was won on that day, the battles continue. In World War II, most experts agree, that the victory for the allies was assured on D-Day (9th June 1944), when the allies invaded the Normandy beaches. The war continued for another 11 months and thousands lost their lives. He likens this to our battle against the principalities and powers, especially in religions like folk Buddhism.

He discusses how the manifold wisdom of God is to be made known to the "rulers and authorities in heavenly realms". John suggests that the public celebration of communion might be as a proclamation to the powers, the clouds of witnesses, both good and evil, which seem to people from a folk religion to be so real, yet for Western minds are so remote and unreal. He goes on to show how Third World theologians are making their voice heard. The Lausanne "Willowbank report" states "we wish to affirm against the mechanistic myth on which the typical Western world view rests, the reality of demonic intelligence's which are concerned by all means, overt and covert, to discredit Jesus Christ and keep people from coming to Him".

Church history supports a world view with "powers" intervening in mens lives and therefore the "power encounter".

Example :- St Boniface who went to Europe to preach to the Saxons in the eighth century. At Geismar the people worshipped a sacred oak believed to be a symbol of Thor's power and presence. Boniface publicly began to chop the tree down. As he started a great wind shook the tree over, and as it landed on the ground it split into the shape of the cross. The response of the people when they saw that Boniface received no retribution was to acknowledge that God was the all powerful One and they turned en-masse to Christ.

John notes the phenomenal growth of the Pentecostal Church across the world. He notes that demographic studies link its growth less to class, temperament or environment, than it does to cosmology. In other words where the people have a cosmology of "principalities and powers" then the power encounter demonstrated in the Pentecostal presentation of the Gospel breaks through. He reaffirms that power encounters (healings, exorcisms, and miracles, or dreams and visions) linked to the proclamation of the Gospel happen today and are a source of entry, a "contextualised medium for communication", where folk religions are dominant. (I note that John dislikes the "prosperity gospel" and in one paragraph clarifies that his recommendation of "power encounters" should not be confused with "Christ will always heal")

Example:- Twenty five years ago John was hosted by a Yao headman in Thailand. He explained the Gospel including in response to questions, that Christ can heal today. He was taken to a house where he saw a coffin. The headman's father was sick and the local shaman had said there was no hope of recovery, so his sons had prepared the coffin. Challenged to prove Christs healing power, a young John prayed with "very little faith". The following morning the man was walking around! Twenty five years later John visited the village again, and found most in the village Christian. The wife of the sick man gave him a very uncultural hug, affirmed her husband's full recovery and explained that the coffin had been disassembled and made into a small bridge over a stream. The bridge is regarded by the community as a statement ("sign") that Jesus is alive and does heal the sick.

The Use of Drama - there is no single method of communication for all people. Each culture has ways in which a message is most effectively communicated. Some feel that the monologue is the best form for the gospel, yet Jesus himself used dialogue, debate, object lessons as well as monologue. For the Thai and to a certain extent the Khmer, drama is the best medium for communicating.

Thai drama - John devotes the next few pages to describing the history of Thai drama, how it is actually imported from India long ago but now accepted as Thai. Thai drama is very long with a single play taking maybe 7 to 9 nights. He talks about how people get so involved with the play they weep and laugh, shout and threaten the villain. He doesn't say it but I wonder if this is not the origin of the television soap? He goes one to point out how two groups in Thailand have adopted (and adapted) the "likay" (Thai play) to present the gospel. He notes their success especially in the area of breaking down the thought that the Gospel is a "Western religion".

Thai art - John notes that Thai art and drawings have been adapted for presenting various Bible stories and gives an example.

In the New Testament, St Paul never separated so called "secular" forms of communication from "sacred" forms. 1 Cor 9 19-20 talks about the use of all MEANS for the presentation of the gospel "I have become all things to all men, so that by ALL MEANS I might save some". If this principle is allowed to apply to the local church then culturally appropriate forms of communicating will occur. John notes that one need not fear that people would just copy Buddhist forms of worship since such worship is devoid of joy and celebration which is the essence of Christian worship.

Withholding the right to express worship in their own God given cultural forms has been the missionaries most serious mistake. This attitude reflects a lack of belief that God is able to guide Thai people to worship him in true Thai fashion. Essential Christian worship in the New Testament includes singing of hymns and songs, prayers, reading and teaching from scripture, using the Gifts of the Spirit, observing baptism and the Lords Supper. It doesn't include the time of worship, the building, the layout of pews, the use of a pulpit and the mode and order of the service.

Redemptive analogies - (TO ME THIS WAS THE MOST EXCITING PART OF THE BOOK).

If God has "not left himself without a witness" in the various cultures, then the primary task of the missionary should be to find that "entry point". The entry point for John the Baptist was the proclamation of Jesus as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." For Nicodemus, Jesus used the idea of fulfilling a concept that he already had - the brass serpent on the pole. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Jesus spoke of himself as the "true Manna" to the Pharisees, also the "true Shepherd" picking up on Ezekiels indictment against Israel's unfaithful shepherds. Hebrews shows how Christ fulfilled all the central elements of Jewish culture - priesthood, tabernacle, sacrifices, even the Sabbath rest. All these are "concept fulfillments".

The question is are these "redemptive analogies" unique to the Jewish culture. There are a great number of examples where missionaries have found "concept fulfilment" can be applied. The Damal people who anticipated a long awaited golden age within their mythology called Hai. When Christs second advent was preached, the Damal took this as fulfilment and responded in large numbers. The nearby Dani believed that one day man would be immortal. Upon hearing of the resurrection of Christ they turned en masse to Him as fulfilment to their hopes.

The Karen tribe in Burma, the Lahu, the Yali in Irianjaya, and perhaps the most notable the Sawi tribe (of "Peace Child" fame) have all turned to Christ as a result of finding the "eye opener". This is a action or activity that has a parallel to part of the gospel, in contrast to the above which were fulfilled hopes.

The question must be asked, are there any redemptive analogies in Thai and Khmer culture? We have discussed the concept of merit transfer. The use of folk Buddhist myths, legends and prophecies has seldom been investigated with one exception.

Buddhist scripture speaks clearly of a coming Messiah. Although there are said to have been 27 messiahs before Gotama, the one messiah who is foremost in Buddhist aspirations and prayers is Mettaya. This messiah ranks highest of Bodhisattvas and is the most popular figure in Buddhist art.

The oriental mind places great value on the mystical, subjective experience of the worshipper. The Eastern min places emphasis on "spirituality", a quality of life which stresses meditation, contemplation and asceticism rather than the cerebral and logical approach of the West. Buddhists often discount Christianity as "shallow" incapable of answering the deep philosophical questions of life. Thus "spirituality" is relevant to a discussion on contextualisation.

Christianity has in fact a rich heritage of "spirituality", although the term is difficult to define. Zen, related to Buddhism, is subjective realisation, while Christianity is objective in that it relates primarily to history and doctrine. Therefore although two people may have the same mystical experience, the Christian would want to see the source of the experience and not just accept the experience per se. No doctor would conclude that the source of all headaches was the same.

John quotes a chap called William James who gives four basic categories for describing Christian spirituality:- Ineffability - an indescribable experience of God's presence, Noetic quality - Knowledge that can be grasped by intuition and insight activated by a source outside itself, Transience - mystical experiences rarely last long, though their significance and effects far outweigh the proportion of their duration, Passivity - the feeling of something given, being overwhelmed by a greater will than ones own. One distinctive element of Christian spirituality is that it normally produces an overwhelming desire to help meet society's physical and spiritual needs. True Christian withdrawal explodes into action.

A further distinctive is that it is essentially Christocentric and Theocentric. It has a focus of God's presence. Throughout the Old Testament the prophets warn Israel that God's presence may depart from His people if they disobey. Spirituality in the Old Testament seemed to relate to the concept of "shalom", positive wholeness, in contrast to Eastern negating metaphysical mysticism. Often it was collective rather than individual.

The history of Christian spirituality drawing as it does from its Jewish past, should never be seen as a product of subjective metaphysics. Spirituality derives from relationship rather than mere reflection, from communion with a person rather than contemplation of a subjective state. John goes on to look at Pauls spirituality in the New Testament. He notes he had an overwhelming experience showing a personal relationship with God, "I knew a man in Christ". He shows how this communion expresses itself in love. God himself is love, therefore the supreme Christian virtue must be love. If we are overwhelmed it will be by love. Christian spirituality is the instrument and vehicle through which God's saving grace is to be made known to all people. Christian spirituality without love profits nothing.

However with the vast history of Christian spirituality, little has been published in the Thai and Khmer languages. The only model they have are its missionaries. John declares that they hardly reflect the vast legacy of spirituality of the world wide church, nor are they attractive to Buddhists who see their own spirituality as more desirable. It would prove to be good contextualisation if Buddhists were able to see Christian communicating the Gospel by means of :- a life of meditation and prayer, a life of sacrifice and self denial, a life of compassion, demonstrated in good works, a life of detachment and unconcern for materialism.

The Old Testament and contextualisation - This chapter seems out of place in the book. It reverts to trying to justify contextualisation per se. John looks at scholarly work that shows how the Israelites were influenced by their neighbours. Even when they reject syncretism and tear down the idols they still accept some cultural forms and re-interpret them. For example - the annual feasts and even circumcision had pagan counterparts. The story of the patriarchs is both a progressive de-culturalisation of undesirable elements such as idolatry, sexual immorality and corrupt economics, and the "extension" of other elements from previous cultural norms. The sign of circumcision was probably a transition rite of puberty but it was "reloaded" with divine content by its use on infants. John spends some time on this, how parts of the ritual were deinvested of their original meaning and other parts continuation.

He acknowledges that such findings, and circumcision is only one example, disturb evangelicals. He talks about the festivals, the Passover, the architecture and design of the tabernacle, Biblical Wisdom. It implies that God validated many important cultural forms which we in a monocultural environment would write off as pagan or even "demonic". In conclusion, it is probable that none of the festivals or rituals used by Israel appeared "out of the blue". However this should not threaten the divine origin of the instructions. This borrowing from other cultures was under the guidance of Yahweh. God is a God of all cultures. Such an observation has far reaching implications. Whatever else one may deduce, one must accept the fact that Yahweh is in the business of validating all cultures by using what there is and transforming it for his usage. If Yahweh did it, why are his servants (missionaries) so reluctant to follow suit?

Even regarding Biblical wisdom John sees four important points. Material is included in the Hebrew Canon - irrespective of the cultural context, only when and if it correlates with other Biblical material, after the material is contextualised into salvation history, and when it reveals God himself and his working in history. Israel understood the risk of syncretism but continued to adopt, adapt, transform and reinvest anything from surrounding cultures. John finishes this section by suggesting that if Israel could borrow from its surrounding cultures, why cannot Thai Christian borrow from theirs. In Africa now there are 6000 new emerging religious movements. Africans are seeking to express their worship to God in local forms. John suggests that deep down Thai Christians must also be yearning to be free to worship God in their own cultural forms.

Contextualisation in the New Testament The Incarnation is a classic. God contextualised Himself in Jesus.

The scripture is written not as a definitive, systematic theology textbook, although systematic theology can be derived from it. Rather it earthes its teachings in real life situations. Teaching emerges from "context". Jesus's many actions are signs to point to his messianic nature. Letters were written in response to specific questions or needs. The gospels are written to different audiences. Matthew's "Jewish" gospel is broken up into sections of threes and fives and sevens to give narrative followed by teaching. Mark, who writes to those unfamiliar with Judaism, tells the background of each story. Luke, the cosmopolitan emphasises women and the poor, while Apostle John's "spiritual" approach is to be culturally relevant. So the New Testament itself sought to be contextual. And within the script itself. John Davis points out how the early Christian Jews thought that circumcision was supracultural and therefore essential to salvation. God had to work hard to break down their prejudices.

In 1Cor 8 Paul does not introduce a new law imposed from the Jerusalem council, but argues his case regarding behaviour from the cultural context of his audience. He differentiates between form and meaning. Pauls arguments are to the casual observer inconsistent. He argues against circumcision and then circumcises Timothy. He saw no inconsistency theologically (it seemed) between the once for all sufficient sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and his paying expenses for sacrifices for him and others in the Temple.

John argues that the overriding principle of Pauls actions was of contextuality. He supports this further by reference to slavery. Pauls teaching is "situational". To Corinthians he teaches that they should not bother about being slaves. he encourages Philemon to treat a slave as a brother in the Lord. On the other hand he warns slaves in his letter to Colossians to serve their masters "as to the Lord". He goes on to baptism as a "continuity" of the Jewish rite. And Logos, used by John, is a word long used in Greek philosophy. He shows how the word is used carefully to avoid syncretism and reload its meaning. And his final example in detail is to look at the messages of Paul and Peter.

Example Apparently about 600 BC there had been a devastating plague in the city of Athens. The people offered sacrifices to their 30,000 gods but the plague raged on. Epimenedes was asked to solve the problem and he felt there must be another God who would be great enough to help. He called a flock of sheep and let them loose on Mars hill. He commanded men to follow the sheep and asked the God to make them lay down where he wanted men to sacrifice to him. The Athenians built an alter and inscribed it to the unknown God. The plague lifted and the city was delivered. 600 years later, rather than proclaim a "foreign God" Paul uses this story and alter to say that you need not be ignorant of Him. This was the eye opener to turn his listeners from the darkness of idolatry to the light of God's truth. (A friend of mine pointed out that this is one of the few occasions where Pauls ministry did not result in mass conversion - I am not sure what that means!)

John presents Joslin's analysis to compare the contextualised sermons. A Pohotocopy is included.

We should take courage on three accounts. First it has been clearly proven that God initiated and inspired this principle of contextualisation in Scripture. Second, the result was not a mixed up "soup" of religion, but a unique revelation of Person and purposes applied in a historical context. Third, that both the Word of God and the Spirit of God have been given to guide and ensure what the appropriate parameters of contextualisation will be. The key is to discern between legitimate, critically determined syncretism and uncritical syncretism. The former will be authentic, constructive, will validate the Scripture, affirm the culture, resulting in an unambiguous application of the Good News. The latter will be confusing, destructive both to Scripture and culture, leaving no Good News.

Surprisingly, John does not devote a chapter to this but just adds it to the end of chapter 9. I think he has been in Asia too long, lost his logic!

Before a new product is launched, feasibility studies and market research must be done. So too the proposals made in this book must be assessed. Experimentation and investigation of these radical innovations need to be made. The general principles suggested must be beaten out on the anvil of creative experimentation by the hands of those more qualified for the task - Thai and Khmer Christian leaders. The following areas need more research:-

The development of local theologies. Traditional theology "culture bound, church centred, male and age dominated, pro-capitalist, anti communist, over theoretical and unrelated to the social contexts in which it is developed" should give way to local theologies for the context of South East Asia.

An In depth analysis of Thai Rites, Rituals and Ceremonies. Something must be done. The type of Christianity introduced by the early missionaries created a "black hole" leading to social alienation and loss of cultural identity for those who became Christians. Unless something is done soon, Thailand will be added to the list of countries with New Emerging Religious Movements, because the climate is now ripe for this phenomena to occur. Certain rites and ceremonies should be adapted, and new method s of communication developed. There is nothing to be lost and Thailand to be gained.

Cognitive process of Communication. Alternative methods of communication have been discussed and local theology needs to be expressed in local forms. Thai and Khmer songs, traditional and pop, narrative theology, art and drama.

Culturally appropriate expressions of Christian spirituality. There is always a danger in a book like this to analyse belief systems in a detached academic fashion, overlooking how people behave. When one sees the dedication of the sincere Buddhist one must ask what has the Christian to offer. Sad to say many Christians live below the standard set by many Buddhists. This has been talked about in chapter 8. What is needed is a spirituality which has both a mystical dimension as well as the practical. Such a prophetic type spirituality is appealing to both mans inward condition and his outward environment. We need to reflect Christ more fully. The idea of Christian community also need consideration.

The issue of "power encounter". The shortest chapter is perhaps the most important. Although controversial the subject of the principalities and powers must be addressed.

The need for a Thai creed. John feels that one of the most important elements of the book is found in an Appendix. A tentative Thai Creed.

Strange to say, the book ends at that point! In places I found John's logic strange. I found the book didn't flow, for instance chapter 9 could be nearer the start. But I did find the book helpful. At the time of writing, we have had three evening prayer nights talking about contextualisation. The group had not read the book and were from five or six "Western" nationalities and two "South East Asian" countries. So our experience is not particularly exhaustive! However I would like to offer my own summary of what I and others working in rural Cambodia got from that discussion (influenced by my extractions from the book).

The first evening we brainstormed what we knew about contextualisation in our Western Christianity and culture. The second evening we looked at scripture for examples of contextualisation. I have already pointed out that we noted Pauls limitations when using the Unknown God. (Our discussion also got a bit side-tracked on whether Christians should go into drinking houses (pubs)) And then the third evening we divided our previous thoughts into groups and noted four areas for contextualising. These were 1) Functional Substitutes, where Christians need ceremonies and activities that fill the social vacuum left by conversion. We noted that there were things that had to stop because they were contrary to scripture, e.g. cannibalism, things which were neutral like taking your shoes off when entering a house, and things that needed "reinvesting", say tunes for songs. 2) Effective communication, where we needed to use words and actions that the local population can understand the Gospel. 3) Syncretism, we had actually found examples of syncretism in the west, and 4) Local theology, trying to use scripture to answer locally important questions like on ancestor worship.

Then we turned to Khmer society, what we knew of it. And looked for examples of each category. We only got to the first two! The result of this effort was the following table. Note there is no intention to link items across the width.

1) The "Isaac" ceremony had recently been used by one of the group who was marrying a Khmer Christian. To find a functional substitute to the negotiations between parents of bride and groom, the church had adapted the story of Abraham sending his servant to find a wife. A public ceremony was created, where the grooms friends and family are led through the street to the brides house. At the house the chosen "servant" has to argue the case of the groom, telling how he became a Christian and what a good chap he is (and that he doesn't have another wife). This is received formally by the parents of the bride. It is a neat functional substitute but we believe that Mikes engagement was the first to use this idea.

2) Preah Jesus fails to distinguish the uniqueness of Christ from Preah Buddha or even Preah Sihanouk. It seems that words have been devalued since the King is described as omnipresent and omnipotent. We concluded that Khmers didn't really believe that but nevertheless his full title includes those words. Preah Attabt means Creator god and is good for use when talking about Christ - but hardly any lay person knows that word!

3) The word for law to be used in the Khmer Bible translation is difficult. Toa is the Buddhist law, which is higher than state law. But the translators did not want to use this word so used the word for State law. But then there is a higher law!

4) The word for prayer in Buddhism means a meditation leading to detachment. It carries no meaning of personal relationship. A different unusual word is required.

5) The prophecy (redemptive entry point) about Mettaya is known in Khmer, but not written down. However one of the group pointed out that Buddha said not to call him a God, and that's a good place to start a conversation

Our feeble attempts to think about this subject ran out of time. I only hope that this small personal inclusion stimulates the reader to think practically through the subject and get fired up with a vision of a Christian Cambodia.

If you have reached this page via a search engine and are not using the framed navigator, please click here.
If you cannot support frames, click here for an older non-frames version of the site