Christianity in Culture by Charles H. Kraft

27 April 2004

A Review by the Reverend Alan Morris

In the book Christianity In Culture, by Charles H. Kraft, I discovered what I believe is a whole new perspective into the nature of the work of Christ. This could be called a “paradigm shift” or a change of worldview, and this is exactly the reason why Kraft wrote such a book. After having been a missionary himself in Nigeria, he realized that he was not equipped to answer many of the questions that he thought theological school had supposedly prepared him for. He had no answers for whether or not he believed in evil spirits, or whether people could be healed or rise from the dead, or whether God would accept believing polygamists. He had been trained in linguistics and anthropology, but thought he had to keep these separate from his theological training. He began to realize how narrow his understanding was, and he began to integrate the two, attempting to do theology from a cross-cultural, anthropological perspective. He knew he did not want to become liberal in his theology but was to become an “open conservative”, open to learning things from people of a different culture concerning what biblical Christianity should look like in their culture. This attempt “opened his mind to the probability that God wanted to lead the Nigerians in their attempts to be faithful to Christ in a way different from the way he was taught to lead Americans and Europeans. (p.8) He began to encourage them to search the Scriptures for answers that would satisfy them, asking the Holy Spirit to lead them always. As a result, he was quite amazed at how the Spirit worked with them to make a passage more meaningful to them in their own culture.
As Kraft’s eyes were opened, he began to understand that the Bible was a multicultural book, directed to Hebrew and Greek audiences. As Westerners, we looked at Scripture the way we see things, through our own lenses. Not only that, perhaps God wants us to seek to understand and to accept people within their own cultural contexts rather than simply to impose upon them what we have come to understand from within our cultural contexts. This would include being faithful to Scriptures, but seeing the perspectives of others who see the same Scriptures through different eyes.
The purpose then of his book is an attempt to develop a biblically grounded theological model that would enable us to be more effective in communicating the Christian message in a multicultural world. This book was written not only to those who were involved in intercultural missionary work but also to those who were involved in intracultural Christian witness. Often the material found in most Christian colleges and seminaries are just irrelevant to the people that we were trained to serve. Some of the concepts basic to scriptural imagery results in serious misperception of the Gospel message. Not only that, but there appears to be a great distance between the way conservative theology is spoken and the way most people think. There is little room for new understandings of Scripture, since it tends to equate “orthodoxy” with truth itself. (p.15) Instead of being threatened with innovative approaches to theology, we are to imitate other theologians who had to reinterpret theological data in ways that have been seen as improvements, even though they often opposed the orthodoxy of their times. At the time of his writing of this book the only models available for developing these understandings seem to demand that a person choose between the authority of the Bible as interpreted by conservative theologians and the liberal theological option that denies biblical authority. (p.18) Kraft became convinced that it was his and every Christian’s obligation to risk whatever theological frame of reference we have been trained into for the sake of growth. If we refuse we should not be surprised if more and more people stay away from churches because either God is behind the times, or because church is not relevant to contemporary life and thought.
Because our message to those of other cultures has been so culture-bound, the members of other cultures have been unable to see God as anything other than a “White Man’s God.” All of the answers we have given them have been couched in the interpretation of Scriptures that are thoroughly Euro-American. “So the Africans, cringing in their fear of evil spirits, puzzled over their relationships between the Christian God and their living ancestors, and uncomprehending the discrepancy between the attitude of the missionaries and that of the Bible toward polygamous marriage, hear from the western Christianity no serious attempt ;to deal with their pressing problems.” (p.21)
2. Mirrored Reality
Next, Kraft builds the foundation for more understanding in seeking the answers to these problems of ethnocentricity of the Western mind. Through our faith in science and the scientific process, western theologians have also bought into the pride of an upwardly evolving theology. They have seldom even questioned whether ultimate knowledge in anything is ever attainable, even though that is exactly their criticism of the scientific establishment. Western theologians have also not taken into consideration the way in which we attain knowledge, which is through our own minds and through our own culture. We can never see things as God sees them, objectively, as things really are. (p.28) These recurrent pictures or models of reality that we experience are sometimes termed “paradigms”. Another term that is similar but more complex, is our “worldview”, which is our total view of reality. These forms are passed on to the members of a community by those who have gone before in a culture. We sometimes speak of Christian conversion as a “paradigm shift”, or a worldview change. Jesus often worked toward getting the people to see reality differently. But he was not giving a model which could be substituted for the reality of God, only a way of assisting humans to see the truth more clearly. He was constantly assaulted by those who thought they already understood everything, and thus the most profound conversions were those who had their eyes opened to a new model or worldview.
God uses models to teach us something about the way he functions. Examples of these would be father, Lord, king, person, and shepherd. These reveal important information about him, but can also distort the message. Our language and culture give us problems by always focusing on the process rather than the function. We would like to say that God is our Father, instead of God behaves towards us like a Father. Most importantly, these models cannot automatically be cross-culturally valid. Kraft then makes it clear that he does not intend to be bound by traditional models of theologizing, even though he accepts the Bible as both inspired by God and an accurate record of Spirit-guided revelation. His position is that valid theologizing may be done on the basis of a variety of cultural models. An anthropological perspective is holistic, and does not simply select a single aspect of human experience to focus on, seeking to develop a cross-culturally valid understanding of Christianity. The Christians in the New Testament were unafraid to risk the old understandings with a spirit of adventure that did not believe that all truth had been discovered but the Christ promised the leading of the Holy Spirit into all the truth. (p.38) Implicit is the belief that truly biblical Christians are not closed-minded. Kraft even allows the reader to disagree and to pick and choose the things which he thinks is most valuable from his book.
Part Two. The Cultural Matrix
3. Human Beings in Culture
Human beings are understood to be totally immersed in culture, and therefore to study culture, we first have to understand how it influences us, and then to understand the culture of those we are studying. Lastly, we need to discover how God relates to cultures in which humans are immersed. Our culture shapes both our acting and our thinking, although we may be unaware of its influence. In order to not become ethnocentric in our behavior we have to develop a cross-cultural perspective. Westerners tend to view any culture that is not technologically advanced, as primitive. Anthropologists have found that it is objectively impossible to evaluate cultures in this way, but that cultures are more or less equal, based on their ability to meet the needs of the members. The western church has tended to assume that many of their cultural based features are equitable with God, and therefore can be equated with the superiority of their culture. The truth is there are many weaknesses and well as strengths to our culture, but many of them point not to our superiority but to our sickness. (p.50) No culture, especially not ours, can be regarded as superior in every way to every other culture.
The distinctions between cultural forms and their functions, meanings, and usages are important to understand when talking about culture change. Cultural patterning is an extremely complex system which we are indoctrinated before we realize what is happening. What a person does with this is referred to a cultural performance. Each person and group constantly alters the cultural patterns they have received and passes them on to the next generation. From time to time we alter our cultural behavior by the choices we make, and this can effect changes of habit. Sometimes these shifts can be quite earth shaking, such as the western understanding of the universe from a God-centered and God-controlled to a very mechanistic understanding. Understanding the process of culture change is crucial when understanding Christian conversion, since this requires a change in perception. Innovations are most likely to be accepted when they combine a felt need with a solution. Most of these are realized within the culture itself, but can also come from without if the solution is looked upon as superior to their own. The Bible provides a necessary casebook of previous experiences and a yardstick with which to measure one’s own experiences. The empowerment for change at least partially from a supernatural source. This process is called “Christian transformation”.
5. Human Commonality
Anthropologists have sought to discover what peoples have in common who live in radically different cultures. Again, because of the western superior attitude, Christians have tended to be intolerant, and have desired to convert the “heathen” to western cultural practices as well as Christianity. With a shift in our thinking we can better appreciate God’s concern for and fairness to all people, not just westerners. Human beings are biologically similar, with our needs being met in different ways. The thought processes are remarkably similar, with the need for meaning in life basic to all. All cultures have some kind of religion, and have some idea of sin. Christians believe that “man and woman were made for God,” and will not find true meaning in life until they are in relationship with their creator. (p.86) The great similarity of cultures is impressive and provides the basis on which understanding and communication between cultures take place.
In cross-cultural ministry we want to pay extra attention to the functions and meanings of religious forms. Kraft lists five principles which are helpful in evaluation. Every culture needs to be sized up in terms of its own ideals, but to be constantly aware that every culture falls short of providing adequately even for the needs that it defines for itself. We can only see through a mirror dimly, and there are fragments of truth in all religions. All people need to have a relationship to God through Christ, but they can experience it without converting from their particular set of cultural forms. God wants a relationship so much with humans that he is willing to adapt his approach to human understanding. The message to be conveyed, however, is constant.
6. God’s attitude toward Culture
God’s attitude toward culture is that “he views human culture primarily as a vehicle to be used by him and his people for Christian purposes.” (p.103) Kraft devotes the remainder of the book on this basis, that culture is not in and of itself either an enemy or a friend to God or humans. It is not inherently evil or good in itself. but because human beings are infected by sin, the human use of the cultural form, patterns, and processes which they use are always affected by sin. Because human beings are redeemable, and when transformation takes place as a result of the relationship with God, the influence of God can result in a culture change. God chooses to use culture, he is not bound by it in the same way human beings are. He freely chooses to use human culture and a various points has chosen to limit himself to the culture to interact with his people.
7. Supracultural Meanings via Cultural Forms
Kraft also argues that it is not the form that beliefs and practices that is important. It is the functions and the meanings behind such forms that are of primary concern to God. There is no absoluteness to the human formulation of a doctrine, the historical accuracy of the way in which the ritual is performed, or the rigidity with which one abides by one’s behavioral rules. (p.118) As culture changes, these forms of belief and behavior must be updated to preserve the eternal message. (p.119) Can we then know Supracultural truth? Yes, because of God’s revelation of himself. But our understanding is only partial because we are human. God in his mercy has decided to adapt his approach to human beings in their cultural contexts. (p.123)
In order not to see our culture as superior to all others, Christians can use a perspective called “relative cultural relativism.” There are absolutes or Supracultural truths, but they are all related to God who stands outside of culture. These are not related to any cultural expression or description of any relationship between God and humans. This approach of “biblical cultural relativism” is “an obligatory feature of our incarnational religion.” God conditions his expectations of human beings by making allowances for the differences in what he has given them and by what kind of opportunities they have. He expects more from those that he has given more. We can also see relativism in how much information God has given different cultures at different times. Jesus points to this when he compares his superior revelation to that of previous revelations. God also takes into account the cultures of the peoples with whom he deals. His approach is then relative to the human cultures of the Bible. This Supracultural principle of biblical relativity enables us to explain a large number of discrepancies in the working of God in the human context.
We can never understand supracultural truth absolutely because we are limited in our perception by several factors. These include the fact that God has only revealed certain things about himself and we are limited in our understanding of those things which he has revealed. Our perception and ability to understand is affected by sin, and our motives are never pure. We are totally immersed in our culture and cannot help but be affected by it. Supracultural truth exists above and beyond any cultural perception of it, and God reveals to us glimpses of this truth through the languages and cultures of Scripture. As we grow in our understanding, the Supracultural ideal continues to lie beyond our grasp. We never understand all from our perspective. We need a deepened approach to hermeneutics to interpret Scripture with an anthropological understanding of cultures. It is a dynamic process that demands a deep subjective involvement on the part of Christian interpreters within the community both with the Scriptures and with the world around them. The Scriptures are life-related, not merely “religious discourse…couched in technical language.” (p.145)
Part Four. The Dynamics of Revelation
This section contains perspectives on revelation and inspiration which are quite interesting and exciting. This perspective understands that God speaks to us by coming all the way to where we are, by employing our language, our culture, and our principles of communication. God has sought by his own initiative to bridge the Supracultural-cultural gap, and that he has given revelation that has built bridges in the past. This material can be used by us today, since God still seeks to communicate his message today. Until God communicates within a human context his message cannot be perceived as relevant to human life, since it cannot be understood by human beings. (p.171) When God became human and came in the person of Jesus Christ, he came for the purpose of dwelling among us. He came as a learner, a sharer, a participant in the affairs of humans, no longer simply God above us. Human beings discovered that he was even more impressive that their knowledge about God, but was now based on their experience with him. God identified with his people, and we can identify with him in imitation of both his life and his approach to communicating God’s message.
Completely new things happen when God reveals something of himself. This communication of the eternal message involves new people and new meanings that have never been precisely used that way before. Therefore, the application of God’s message in and to a new situation results in a new event in the course of history. (p.178) Jesus said, “I am the truth”, and our understanding of truth should not be reduced to a concept of true information, but living truth. This interaction is dynamic, and is always relevant to the receptor of the message. Kraft defines revelation as “God’s supplying of information that would not otherwise be available to us.” (p.182) God’s disclosure consists of far more than information about himself; it is a stimulus to action. The desire of evangelicals to know absolutely and their underlying fear of subjectivity tends to lock them into static models of revelation. Revelation can be seen as both information and stimulus to understanding. The key to God’s revelatory nature lies in the kind of stimulus rather than the newness of the information. There is general information concerning God and his activities coming from cultural sources and transcultural sources. We also have special information concerning God and his activities coming to us from the Supracultural God through cultural vehicles. “But it is the proper use of that information by God as communicator and by human beings as receptors that is revelatory. Revelation is a divine activity, not simple the finished product of that activity.” (p.184)
God will not contradict himself. We can therefore use the Bible as a measuring device against which to test and evaluate new revelation. Our task is to discern whether there are equivalent behaviors and beliefs between those in Scripture and those in contemporary settings. This may be termed “dynamically equivalent revelation.” Kraft suggests such a model as a “Bible as yardstick model.” This model does not solve all the problems of such evaluation, but it does tell us that there is a similarity between what God is doing now and what he has done in the past. Revelation is an ongoing activity of God. The information in Scripture is used improperly is neither revelation nor God’s word. The Bible is also a “tether” in terms of which the range of allowable variation in interpretation and experience is gauged.
Kraft then turns the discussion to the Bible as an inspired, casebook. The Bible is a human word as well as God’s, and this divine communication is based as much on the needs of human beings as on the desire of God to reveal himself. What is communicated is more than mere information about himself, but more to specific issues that surface to human awareness in specific situation. These accounts have been written down under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. By applying the yardstick of the Scriptures to our modern situations we can see how God is constant in his method of relating to human beings.
The Bible is thus not primarily the Word of God, but the record of the Acts of God. (p.198) This casebook describes real life, and is much more than a theology textbook. It is not only God’s Word; it is a human word as well. In producing the Bible, God has permitted human beings to participate with him in his redemptive activity. Through the Bible we see that God works in a wide variety of ways—through circumstances, through people, and through special revelation. It is not the only communication of God, even though He will never contradict His written Word. In our Western cultures, we are fixed more on the written descriptions of divine-human interactions, rather than on the dynamics of the interactions themselves. Kraft believes that the words of Scripture are almost incidental, as the primary focus of inspiration is on the meaning. One of the primary purposes of the Bible is to provide us with insight into the process of God’s continuing leading. This continuing interaction which we are invited to participate in is based on the same principles which God participated with the authors of Scripture.
The Bible is a casebook of communicational events by which God made himself successively better known to His people. (p.213) The total message is as true as it was then, as well as an accurate history of God working out the details of our salvation. But the exciting part is that it demonstrates how truth is effectively gotten across. Our God is a God of dialogue, one who wants to continue to interact with us, and continues to reveal himself in specific ways. God has not left humanity helpless and hopeless. Every culture reveals a need for a relationship with the Supracultural God, and there is communication from God embedded in every culture. The Scriptures are clear that existence of God and the knowledge of his will are self-evident and universal. The Pharisees’ reverence for past revelation got in the way of them seeing what God was doing right in front of them. They were so impressed with the forms and how to preserve them, that they were not used for their intended purpose, which was to recreate the message with which could be used by personal beings. Response is the desired end of the communication between God and humans, and we are saved not by our knowledge but by our faithfulness to Him.
Kraft then continues in a discussion of what he calls a starting-point-plus-process. Although allegiance to God is central to the message, God allowed for a range of understanding of himself. This would include a variety of potential starting points, and a revelational understanding of starting from a place that is less than ideal in God’s mind and continuing toward his ideal. This distance between God and man is always bridged by mercy on God’s part, with him allowing understandings along the way that aren’t necessarily complete. Scripture evidence points to the fact that God has allowed but seeks to reform most subideal beliefs and practices except those that require faith allegiance to another god. God start from where people are, and it is the direction which we are moving that is important to him, whether that is towards him or away from him in practice and maturity. God then raised the bar, so to speak, and is the same today as he has always been, patient with his people.
The remainder of the book is devoted to the dynamic-equivalence translation of Scripture, based on the idea that translation is basic to all kings of worldview change within the receptors conceptual frame of reference. The aim then of translation is to bring about an equivalence between the responses of the contemporary hearers and that of the original hearers of the communication recorded. This process is in contrast to the literal translations which fail to see the radical differences between the worldviews underlying the structuring of languages and cultures. This theory requires that there be a much deeper understanding of both cultures, and should serve the same function today. We are not simply to transmit the theological products of the past but to re-create the process. Christian conversion should also be dynamically equivalent today, and not just a conversion from one culture to another. It is a lifetime process, consisting of continuous divine-human interaction and a series of human decisions.
In the last section of the book, Kraft discusses how the people of God in partnership with God can affect a change in culture which can be transformational. Christians are to work with God from within culture. True transformational change is a change in the worldview of a culture, and must be brought about in a Christian way rather than an unchristian way, in a minimally traumatic way. If God can be seen as near, concerned and active in his relationships with people, then changes will result because of their love for him. The culture forms are not in themselves sacred, but as we participate with God in his transformation of these forms, they can serve as a means for his interaction with his people. As it becomes more obvious that the culture of the religion is not longer doing the job, change can be seen as a good thing. A static religion poorly serves a dynamic culture. Kraft believes that the Christianity that we know in our culture is not dynamic, but is culture-bound. But God is still the God who interacts with his people, and the church badly needs to be dynamically equivalent to the church of the New Testament. “Such Christianity not only transforms individuals, but can transform cultural forms such as American individuality into organic groupness. It can transform an unimaginative, impersonal, propositional, “sacred” but dead preaching form into something genuinely communicative. It can transform static theological formulations into understandings of the creative divine-human use of culture that dynamic interaction between human beings and God demands. It can, in fact, provide the spark around which our rapidly disintegrating culture revitalizes.” (p.384) “Social breakdown, therefore, provides a fertile setting for the return of Christians to a more dynamic understanding and expression of their faith and for the communication of this faith to others. May all Christians return to a vital, apostolic faith. May we then fearlessly venture out with God from the staticness of our culture-bound religion to participate actively with him in the transforming power of dynamically equivalent Christianity.” (p.385)


Works Cited

Kraft, Charles H., Christianity in Culture. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, 1979.