cultura, cosmovisão e religião

8/14/2019 cultura, cosmoviso e religio

1/16

Philosophia Reformata 66 (2001) 2338

CULTURE, WORLDVIEW AND RELIGION

A Perspective from the African Continent

Bennie J. van der Walt

Why is a Reformational philosophy needed in Africa? It is necessary, becausesomething is missing in African Christianity. Most Western missionaries taught

Africans a broken or dualistic worldview. This caused a divorce betweentraditional culture and their new Christian religion. The Christian faith was

perceived as something remote, only concerned with a distant past (the Bible)and a far-away future (heaven). It could not become a reality in their everydaylives. It could not develop into an all-encompassing worldview and lifestyle.

Because Reformational philosophy advocates the Biblical, holistic approachof a comprehensive worldview, it is welcomed on our continent. It contains ahealing and liberating message to our bleeding and lost continent.

What Africans, however, neither want nor can afford, is an ivory towerphilosophy, playing intellectual games; a philosophy which does not do orchange anything. They want a philosophy which is a marriage betweenabstract ideas and the facts on the ground. They need a Christian philo-sophy with compassion that may even contribute to the alleviation of theirpoverty!

Living on a bleeding continent does not allow one the luxury to philo-

sophise merely for ones own enjoyment. The crucial question accordingly ishow to approach the topic Religion, worldview and culture so that it canbecome more alive, concrete, with direct practical value.1

1 In the original text (see symposium file) I have tried to achieve this practical goal bydiscussing these three concepts in relation to development. For the past fifty years(1950-2000) the West have in vain tried to develop Africa and other so-calledunderdeveloped third world countries in the southern hemisphere according to Westerncultural ideas of a developed society. Because of limited space allowed for the publicationof papers, I was, however, forced to limit myself to a discussion of the three basic concepts(culture, worldview and religion) and their relationship. I was only able to provide some

suggestions of their possib le relevance to the issue of development. Readers interested in theapplication of a Reformational perspective on the issue of development on the Africancontinent are invited to write to me for the complete text. (Those who can read Afrikaans,may be provided with an even more extensive discussion in my book on the topic: Kultuur,lewensvisie en ontwikkeling; n ontmaskering van die gode van die onderontwikkelde Afrika en dieoorontwikkelde Weste. Potchefstroom: IRS, 1999. 284 pages).

Due to the fact that I did not include references in the text, to assist those who would liketo study the topic of culture, worldview and religion in detail, I have added a brief readinglist. This selected bibliography focusses on two important areas only: (1) a Christian

worldview and (2) the interaction between the Gospel, Christianity and culture. (For adetailed biblio graphy on development, see my above-mentioned book, pages 181-188.)


2/16

24 b.j. van der walt

1. Culture

In Reformational philosophy, especially amongst the older generation (Kuyper,Vollenhoven and Dooyeweerd), much was said and written about religion andworldview. I am glad that the younger generation is paying more attention toreligion and worldview in their relationship to culture. I am especially thrilledby the fact that this conference wants to take a closer look at thecontemporary multi-cultural situation in which Reformational philosophy hasto fulfil its world-wide calling. I will encourage this trend by dealing moreextensively with culture than with the other two concepts.

1.1 Many definitions of culture

We have many hundreds definitions of culture. I only mention thefollowing two: the segmental and the comprehensive.

The first includes in the term culture only spiritual achievements likeintellectual and artistic products (orchestras, performing and other arts,museums etc.). Culture is regarded as something that bestows lustre upon life,a higher level of existence, the icing on the cake. It can therefore only beacquired by and is reserved for the wealthier and more leisured members ofsociety. Inhabitants of monasteries and universities have much of it, whileprisoners and the poor dont have any!

I am aware that this viewpoint is more or less outdated today. It isfurthermore a Western idea never held in Africa. I mentioned it in order tocontrast it with a second, more acceptable viewpoint.

This second, comprehensive view of culture regards human life in its totalityasculture, not merely the intellectual and artistic aspects. It is not somethingsublime or disconnected from, but includes our ordinary attitudes, customs,behaviour, values, beliefs, institutions, etcetera. It is not necessarily acquired by(formal) education and reserved for a section of the population. Every humanbeing is a cultural being prisoners and the poor included! Culture is ourframe of reference for human thought and conduct. We are hardly aware ofit. It is like the air we breathe; like the water in which a fish lives; we areprogrammed by our own culture. We only become aware of ourculture when something goes awry or when we encounter people of othercultures.

1.2 Distinctions also important

I prefer the comprehensive view of culture, but simultaneously realise that oneshould distinguish between different facets of a culture. The distinction madeby Reformational philosophy between different modalities or aspects of lifecan help us indicate which aspectof culture we have in mind: the domain offaith, moral or ethical, aesthetic, juridical or political, economic, social, lingual,technical or historical, logical, sensitive, biotic, physical, spatial and arithmetic


3/16

culture, worldview and religion 25

aspect or modality. The arts is an example of the aesthetic aspect of cultureand commerce an example of economic culture.

1.3 A simple diagram

I am aware that, while a diagram can help us to understand difficult issues, it atthe same time oversimplifies and should therefore always be used with greatcare. To reduce the complex phenomenon of culture to comprehensibleproportions, I use the following diagram, consisting of five concentric circles:

For the sake of simplicity, I distinguish between only five layers. Feel free to add

and subtract to the number! My five layers symbolise the following differentaspects of a culture:

1) The religious dimension.We may also call it the directional dimension, becausereligion is the central directedness of all of human life towards the real orpresumed ultimate source of meaning and authority. In the case of theChristian religion this directedness is our response to the true God who revealsHimself in creation, in Scripture and in Christ. The response should beaccording to His will (summarised in the central commandment of love).


4/16


Two problems

My diagram does not solve two important problems. (1) In the Reformationaltradition our central religious commitment is clearly distinguished from thedimensionof faith (usually indicated as the pistic aspect or modality). This is a

very important distinction because it prohibits the identification ofall-encompassingreligion with only one aspectof life (the faith aspect). We have toserve God in all the other aspects of our lives and not only in our faith life.Unfortunately my diagram does not clarify this vital distinction. (2) A secondproblem is whether we may regard religion (and worldview) as portrayed inmy diagram as part of culture. According to Reformational philosophy the

whole of our lives is religion, service to God or a substitute god. Religion and

worldview, are both influenced by culture, they definitely have a cultural side.But is it correct to subsume them under the one concept of culture and inthis way regard them as suchas cultural phenomena?

2) The worldviewish dimension provides a perspective on the interrelatedcharacter of cosmic reality and our place in it. Stated metaphorically: a

worldview provides us with eyes, ears, feet, hands and a mind to serve the realGod (or a substitute) in this world.

Two remarks

In brief I see the distinction between religion and worldview and theirinterrelatedness as follows: The difference between the two is that religion is ourrelationship towards God, while worldview describes our relationship towardsthe world. But because we believe that this world belongs to God, we can neverseparate the two. The close relationshipbetween the two becomes evident in thefact that our service to God does not happen in a sphere somewhere above,but manifests itself inthis world! If religion is the direction towards God (or a god) and worldview indicatesourplace in creation, then we may say that the remainder of culture indicatesour task or calling. Culture is the historical manifestation of our religiously directedresponse to all Gods mandates for life, as expressed in our understanding of creation andour place in it.

3) The social dimension.Because I could not find a more appropriate term, Iput social in quotation marks. It includes inter alia morals, arts, politics,economics, language, styles of thinking, the way our emotions are expressed as

well as the different societal relationships, like marriage, family, the state,business and other institutions.

4) The material or technical dimension includes food, clothes, tools, machines,buildings etc.

5) The behavioural dimension includes our habits, customs, and behaviour our lifestyle.


5/16


As already stated, this diagram is not prescriptive, but merely a preliminary aidto try to explain the richness of the concept culture. Let me mentionsomething about its value as well as its limitations.

1.4 The value of the model

It is integrated, holistic. I deliberately put light, dotted (not solid) linesbetween the five different layers to indicate that we may distinguish themfrom each other, but can never clearly separate them. We should thereforeneither judge a culture by isolating one facet nor try to change it by replac-ing only one aspect. The two-way arrows between the different layersemphasise that they are interrelated and have mutual influence on each

other. Visibility and describability. The diagram indicates that not only the more

visible aspects of a culture are important, but also its deeper, invisible corefacets, like worldview and religion. This is to be kept in mind in spite of the factthat the outer, overt layers (e.g. an artefact or custom) are easier to describe,

while the inner, covert (e.g. worldview and religion) are much more difficult todefine. Cultural change. The outer, softer layers of a culture usually changemore easily. The harder core is more resistant to change. (An example:

Africans wearing modern, Western clothes, while still believing in ancestorworship.) The determining role of the core.The heart or soul of a culture, to my mind, is itsreligion and worldview. It directs the outer, more visible cultural layers. Only in

the light of a specific religion and worldview can we properly understand theouter cultural manifestations. I therefore also believe that real, deep change inany culture is stimulated from its core.

1.5 Limitations of the model

All these reservations are related to the fact that real life is always muchmore complicated than our schematic, theoretical models irrespective ofhow sophisticated they may be. We should therefore never absolutise anymodel, but rather be willing to relativise it in the light of the complexities ofreality.

I would like to keep religion and worldview in the centre. As far as layers 3to 5 are concerned, I have no order of priority in mind in the sense that 3 isbuilt on 2, 4 on 3 and 5 on 4. If you wish, you may move 4 (the materialdimension) to position 3 (the social) or the behavioural (5) may be regarded aspart of the present 3 (the social). In other words, keep in mind that it is merelya model and feel free to improve on it! My model should not encourage the idea that religion, worldview andother aspects of culture are static entities. Especially those who idealise the pasttradition believe in a static culture. All cultures change, some slowly, others


6/16


more rapidly. They do so by way of inter aliathe following: (1) inheritance; (2)innovation; (3) the free borrowing or adoption from other cultures whichimplies adaptation (acculturation cannot be separated from inculturation)and (4) forced change from a foreign, imposed culture. My model should also not create the impression of a homogenous or pureculture the axiom of cultural purists. Culture is usually a hybrid or mixture especially in our contemporary, multi-cultural world. We cannot (physically) see a religion or worldview. Therefore we will haveto derive their features from their more visible, concrete manifestations in theother aspects of a culture. Not only does religion and worldview influence culture, but as indi-cated in our diagram by the arrows in both directions between the different

cultural layers the remainder of culture influences religion and worldviewtoo. An example is the strong influence of contemporary secularist culture ondifferent religions like traditional African religion, Islam and Christianity in

Africa. Such a change caused by the influence of the outer layers of a culture onthe centre may result in a complete power shift in the core. Thus, theoriginal religious commitment could be destroyed and replaced. More often at least initially the result is a double (religious and worldviewish) core.Simply because of our sinfulness as Christians we may have a split religious and

worldviewish loyalty. (An example is the Christian-national ideology behindapartheid which tended to cause a split between Christian belief and nationalpatriotism.) We may also have a divided soul as a result of our contact withother, foreign cultures. (A common phenomenon in Africa because of the

clash between traditional African and modern Western culture.)

We should therefore reckon with the fact that while older, closed(primitive) cultures had a single religious core, cultures may have more thanone religious centre in the contemporary, open, multicultural world. It seemshowever, that one of them gradually becomes dominant. It is noticeable in thecase of secularism, which marginalises other religions so that they startfunctioning outside the core. They are not relevant to the entireculture, buttheir influence is limited to a small part, for example, in the case of Christianstheir spiritual or ecclesiastical life.

1.6 Cultural diversity

Today, more than in any previous time in history, we are confronted withcultural diversity. People in Kinshasha or Nairobi are different from those inLondon or New York. They make love differently (for instance, some Africantribes believe that kissing is only done by monkeys), get married in different

ways, buy and sell differently, live, die and are finally buried in different ways.How is this great variety to be explained? How should we evaluate differentcultures?


7/16


We have already defined culture as our task of answering to the real God(or a presumed god) according to a specific worldview that describes ourplace in the world. Our place in creation is determined by four basicrelationships: towards God/god, nature, our fellow human beings andourselves. However, when considering these relationships, different world-

views tend to overemphasise one relationship. Consequently they interpret theother three relationships in the light of the one they absolutised. Africa, forexample, emphasises the community and interprets the other relation-ships in the light of its communalistic worldview. The West stresses theindividual and reads the remaining relationships from its individualisticperspective.

In previous publications 2 my conclusion had been that every culture

contains something good and beautiful, because it emphasises an importantrelationship. At the same time every culture has its valleys and blind spots,because it does not acknowledge the equality of these four basic relationships.

I can therefore not accept ethnocentrism neither Eurocentrism norAfrocentrism which believes that its own culture is the only true andwholesome culture. Neither can I accept present-day relativism that is of theopinion that, because cultures and their cultural traits or features are equallytrue or good, they should not be judged, criticised or changed. I dont denythat it is very difficult indeed to decide what is good or bad in a specific culture especially in ones own but I still believe it should be done.

1.7 Cultural interaction

Evaluating different cultures (and their cultural features) becomes even moretricky when they interact with each other. Western development is a clearexample of this encounter and interaction of cultures.

The older theories in this regard could be described as theories aboutdevelopment and culture. In the oldest ones, non-Western cultures wereregarded as a stumbling block in the path of development. In more recentones, traditional, indigenous cultures are viewed as something positive, whichmay aid Western development projects. Nevertheless, the basic viewpoint wasnot changed. Culture and development are still viewed as separate entities. Inthe first theory they have to be separated and in the second you have to stirthem together to get effective development.

Followers of more recent theories have realised that culture is not a facet ofdevelopment, but rather that development is a facet of culture. I call this the

theory of development as culture. This realisation that development is apartof culture enables us to be much more critical about different developmentparadigms. It assists us inter alia to view development as an encounter and

2 Van Der Walt, B.J. 1997a. Afrosentries of Eurosentries? Ons roeping in n multikultureleSuid-Afrika. Po tchefstroom : Instituut vir Reformatoriese Studie and Van Der Walt, B.J. 1997b(Reprint 1999). Afrocentric or Eurocentric? Our task in a multicultural South Africa. Potchefstroom :Institute for Reformational Studies.


8/16


interaction between the competing interests of different cultures; as thecultural intervention of one culture in another; as cultural transfer, changeand even the destruction of the receiving culture. It finally brings home thetruth that development is a relative concept. It has diverse meanings indifferent cultures.

1.8 The impact of Western developmental models

Examples of how various Western developmental models have differentconsequences for the receiving culture, are the following:

The imperialistic model (e.g. colonialism) forces change. It results in culturalhomogeneity, damage or even the extermination of an indigenous culture. In the modernisation model (e.g. megaprojects), change is planned. Theresults are individualism and materialism. In the charitymodel (e.g. relief work and humanitarian aid) change is given.Indigenous cultural survival strategies are affected and people becomedependent on outside help.

1.9 Four reactions

The following are but a few possible reactions to the intervention of an alienculture:

If a people have the freedom to do so, they can resist the interference by,for instance, trying to revive their own traditional culture. They can accept domination of the foreign culture; start imitating it (thecopy-cat mentality) and finally become dependent on it in a variety of ways,including mentally (colonialisation of the mind). They may accommodate the foreign invader-culture, simultaneously tryingto maintain their own. This results in a kind of schizophrenic existence or thephenomenon of a divided soul, referred to previously. Finally, they may interpret the foreign culture in terms of their own.In real life it is not always possible to distinguish these four reactions clearlyfrom each other.

When we apply the above to the issue of development in Africa, we have the

following options:

Many Africans believe that development could only be achieved throughthe revival of traditional African culture. They dont see anything wrong withtheir own culture. Some Westerners also regard Africa as an exotic continentand Africans as innocent children of nature, or noble savages. They aretherefore of the opinion that Africa should not be developed. At the opposite extreme we have Westerners who regard Africa asuncivilised and Africans as an inferior, subhuman race. Consequently they see


9/16


no future for the continent if it does not accept superior Western culture lock, stock and barrel and is developed accordingly. The third option (a schizophrenic culture) does not have the ability torelease the necessary generating power for development. The solution for real, healthy development, in my opinion, lies in thedirection of a careful accommodation (acculturation) of beneficial aspects of

Western culture (without becoming schizophrenic). It implies an inter-pretation (inculturation) of Western culture in terms of African culture. In this

way the own, African culture will be enriched and new developmentalpotentials opened.

Many researchers today emphasise the need for a clear, cultural identity as aconditio sine qua nonfor development. (One could also reverse the statement,

saying that real development implies cultural identity.) The reason is thatcultural identity provides the necessary self-respect, self-esteem, confidence,

values as well as a purpose in life. Lack of cultural identity has the oppositeeffect: poor self-respect and self-esteem, little confidence and few aspirations.It results in a dependent, inert, static culture of silence.

1.10 Easier said than done: the need for a Christian worldviewishperspective

Careful examination of any feature of a specific culture, however, reveals itsmixed or ambivalent nature; it can be evaluated both positively and negatively.The extended family in Africa is, for example, something beneficial. It takescare of many in need traditional Africa does not believe in orphanages and

old age homes! Yet it may also financially ruin those who have to take care ofall their relatives when people move away from a rural to an urban andindustrialised society.

To be able to really discern between what is beneficial and what isdetrimental in a specific cultural habit or custum, one will have to delve muchdeeper than simply a superficial analysis of the culture or a comparison withother cultures. One method to achieve this is to submit culture to apenetrating Christian worldviewish analysis.

Let us therefore have a very brief look at the second main concept, viz.worldview.

2. Worldview and Ideology

As mentioned already, a worldview is our perspective on created reality. It is anindication of our place in the world in which we have to fulfil our cultural task,the direction of which is provided by the will (laws) of something or Someoneregarded as our absolute authority in life. A worldview functions like a map, itprovides orientation; like a compass, it gives direction from a deep religiouscommitment.

The danger of a worldview even a Christian one is that it candegenerate into an ideology. And ideology is an absolutised, hardened, closed,dogmatic orientation about the world, our place and cultural calling. In


10/16


essence it is not prepared to see the world as it really is. It forces reality into itsown preconceived mould and wants to change it accordingly. It cannot see ourplace and task correctly, because it (partly or totally) rejects the directionprovided by God in his central love commandment. It lives according to its ownnorms.

Basically therefore, a worldview and an ideology have the same structure, butdifferent directions. A worldview is something normal and healthy; an ideologycan be very dangerous.

The important issue of development in two different cultures (the Westernand African) should be approached from its worldviewishideological core.This will help us determine whether it is an acceptable or unacceptable kind ofdevelopment.

In order to do so, it is important to distinguish the basic components of thespecific worldview or ideology. I have selected six elements. They are our view,perspective or conception of the following: (1) God/god; (2) norms or values;(3) being human; (4) society or community; (5) nature; (6) time and history.

The following comparative table summarises the differences between thecontemporary Western, traditional African and Biblical worldviews accordingto these six components:

Component WESTERN AFRICAN CHRISTIAN

God A secular, materialistic,capitalistic god

Post-Christian

Distant creator-god,

not demanding

responsibility, replaced

by unpredictable spiritworld .

Pre-Christian

The personal God of

the Bible, Creator,

Sustainer and highest

Authority.

Christian

Norms Individual autonomy

Subjectivism (things are

laws)

Self-interest, individual

egoism

Communal autonomy

Subjectivism (the

kinship group is the

law)

Group-interest, group

egoism

Heteronomy:Gods will,

revealed in his

command-ments (both

directional and

structural) to be

positivised in norms for

different areas of life.

A balance between love

of self and others

Man A reductionisticanthro-pologycharacterised by

individualism,

materialism, hedonism,

etc.

A reductionisticanthro-pology in which

one aspect (the

communal) is

absolutised and the

individual aspect

sub-ordinated,

suppressed.

A multi-dimensionalanthropology: all the

different aspects of

being human to be

developed in a balanced

way.


11/16


Community Atomistic-liberalistic:

Individual liberty and

rights first.

Destroys communality,

finally results in

totalitarianism.

Organistic-communalist

ic:

First communal equality

and duties.

Destroy individuality,

leads directly to

totalitarianism.

Individuality and

commu-nality are

complementary facets

of multi-dimen-sional

man; both to be

developed to enhance

individual and

community.

Anti-totalitarian

Nature Viewedanthropocentric-ally:

Separate from man; to

be used and exploited

for wealth.

Viewed holistically:

Man a part of nature; it

should therefore be

revered and not

inter-fered with.

Viewed Biblically:

Man distinguished

from, but not separated

from nature has to

use and protect it in a

stewardly way.

Time andhistory

A commodity to be

measured and used for

ones own benefit.

Future-oriented

(progress)

Something to be shared

and enjoyed with

others.

Past-oriented

(repristination)

Granted by God both to

be used and enjoyed in

a responsible way.

Past, present and future

are equally important.

3. Religion

In the explanation of my diagram of concentric circles, I have already given thefollowing definition of religion: it is the central directedness of all human lifetowards the real or presumed ultimate source (God/god) of meaning andauthority. I will not elaborate further.

In this section I want to deal with the relationship between religion and (theremainder of) culture. Our diagram has already indicated that religion is notsomething disconnected from, but part of culture. We have also indicated that(the rest of) culture is coloured by its religious core. But the obverse is also

true: other cultural facets may influence the religious core.Here we do not focus on religion and culture in general, but specifically onChristian religion and culture. The relationship between Christianity and cul-ture is not the same as the relationship between Gospel and culture. The Gos-pel is the infallible Word of God, while Christianity is our fallible, human re-sponse to Gods Word. The following diagram will help to distinguish clearlybetween the two:


12/16


1.

2.

3.

1. Gods threefold revelation(in creation, Scripture and Christ)

3. Christian religion as response

2. From the perspective of a specific culture

We will first deal with the relationship between Gospel and culture (1 and 2)and then with the relationship between Christianity and culture (3 and 2).

3.1 Gospel and culture

Because the Gospel (of the Old and New Testament) is given to us in the wordsand histories of different people through many ages, it is not a culture-freerevelation. It is always embedded or embodied in cultural clothes or forms.God met the people of Israel in their own culture. They were not withoutculture. Apart from their own language, they had their own culturally definedfamily life, laws, government, ways of commerce and types of worship. God didnot provide them with a sacred language or culture!

In the Old Testament the Gospel appeared in the clothes of the culturesof the Near East. In the New Testament, especially the Book of Acts, we see thegradual transition from an embodiment of the Gospel in the culture of

Judaism to a more Western, Hellenistic form the dominant culture of theRoman Empire.

Apart from this relative continuity between Gospel and culture we do,however, see a radical discontinuity between the two. Without a degree ofcontinuity, the Gospel could never be relevant. Without discontinuity, it wouldnot be able to challenge the culture in which it was embodied. It wouldbecome syncretised. The Biblical message is clear: The Gospel associated itself

with different cultures never to be domesticated nor to become the captiveof these cultures, but to liberate and transform them!

The Bible abounds with such examples. Many of the Old Testament lawswere derived from the environment in which Israel lived. At the sametime, however, the Old Testament torah changed the harsh, inhuman lawsof, for instance, Eshnunna (an Acadic Law book of 1800 BC) and that ofHammurabi (a Babylonian law book of 1726 BC). New laws on slaves,

women, the poor, foreigners and excessive wealth indicates how traditionallaws from the surrounding cultures were softened to acknowledge humandignity.


13/16


The same pattern is repeated in the New Testament where the dcorchanged to Greek-Roman civilisation: this culture was reformed and not simplyaccepted. An example is the power of the pater familias. Men had almostabsolute power over their wives, children and slaves. In Ephesians 5:21 6:9,Colossians 3:18 4:1 and 1 Peter 2:13 3:7 these inhuman customs arereplaced with new guidelines for Christians.

3.2 Christianity and culture

The Gospel should determine our Christian religion. Therefore the sameprinciple which we discovered in the relationship between Gospel and culture,should also be applied in the relationship between Christian religion and

culture: relative continuityand radical discontinuity. We will first pay attention torelative continuity.

We have to serve God in and withour culture. We cannot do it outside ourown culture. We should not try to do it in the garb of a foreign culture,because it will not touch us deep in our hearts and minds; it will not be relevantto our situation. There should be a relative continuity between the culture in

which we were brought up and our conversion to the Gospel as Christians.A problem arises, however, when the relative is omitted from relative

continuity and only continuity remains.The gradual Christianisation of the West resulted in the Westernisation of

Christianity (first it was Hellenisation, then Germanisation). This was a normalprocess. The trouble, however, was that Christianity became too comfortablein its Western clothes. In many respects it was so accommodating that it

conformed completely to Western culture. The price paid, was that, in suchcases, it became more Western than Christian!

The situation turned even more complex when Western missionariesproclaimed the Gospel to non-Western regions like Africa. There are manyexceptions, but many made the following three mistakes: (1) they did notalways distinguish clearly enough between the Gospel and its Western culturalembodiment; (2) they did not fully realise that Western culture has good andbad aspects; (3) they did not see much good in non-Western cultures.

In order to warn against the dangers of syncretism, much attention wastherefore paid to traditional African religion and culture. Syncretism (exces-sive emphasis on the element of continuity) was regarded as something thathappens when other cultures (like the African) encounters Christianity and itsGospel. There was little awareness amongst Western Christians, churches and

theologians of the fact that their brand of Christianity may have failed tochallenge the assumptions of their own Western culture. To what extent may

Western Christianity also be called syncretistic?!In the relationship between Christianity and culture we have thus far only

discussed one Biblical principle, namely relative continuity. We have alsoindicated what happens if the relative (in relative continuity) is not honoured.This issue, however, also arises because this first Biblical principle has to beapplied jointly with the second principle, viz. radical discontinuity.


14/16


3.3 Three possible positions

If applied jointly, the first principle guarantees relevance. The second provides achallenge. If only the first principle is applied, it may result in syncretism oruncritical accommodation. If only the second principle is applied, the result willbe the isolation of Christianity from its surrounding culture. Consequently, itcannot really challenge its cultural environment. Only when we apply bothprinciples, will it be possible to bepart of a cultureas Christians and at the sametime to reform it from inside.

In summary then, we have the following options:

conformitybetween Christianity and the culture of which it is part, because itstresses the continuity between the two;

the isolationof Christianity from culture, thus emphasising discontinuity and reformation or transformation of culture (and Christianity as part thereof),

emphasising simultaneously relative continuity and absolute discontinuity.

When we study the history of Christianity we encounter these three positionsover and over again. We find these positions, for example, in the Christianity ofthe first centuries when Christians had to work out their relationship towardsGreek and Roman cultures. Today the same basic positions are adopted in therelationship between Christianity and traditional African culture. Theisolationist position is very difficult to uphold. It is in fact impossible tomaintain. The Christian religion is always part of a culture; we can neveroperate as Christians outside a specific culture. Therefore the representativesof the isolationist position are few compared to those propagating the

accommodation strategy. This very popular attitude in Africa believes thattraditional African culture is a stepping-stone, a preparation for Christianityand the Gospel. The Gospel and Christianity accordingly merely complete,perfect, fulfil what was already present in traditional African culture andreligion!

The third (and correct viewpoint) is neither to accommodate, nor toflee, butto reformculture. It is surely no easy option. That is perhaps why we find so fewhistorical examples to guide us. I was privileged to get to know theReformational tradition in philosophy, started by Abraham Kuyper in the 19thcentury and continued by scholars like H. Dooyeweerd and D.H.Th.

Vollenhoven and their many successors during the previous century. TheReformational position is a Biblically based viewpoint. It provides us with areally liberating perspective on the relationship between Christianity and

culture.


15/16


Selected Bibliography

Aay, H., Griffioen, S. 1998. Geography and worldview; a Christian reconnaissance.Lanham : University Press of America.

Ariarajah, S.W. 1994. Gospel and culture; an ongoing discussion within the ecumenicalmovement. Geneva : WCC.

Bediako, K. 1992. Theology and identity; the impact of culture upon Christian thoughtin the second century and in modern Africa. Oxford : Regnum.

Borgan, P. 1996.Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Edinburgh : Clark.Brown, P. 1995. Authority and the sacred; aspects of the Christianisation of the Roman

world. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press.Burnett, D. 1990. Clash of worlds. Eastbourne, East Sussex : Marc.

Chaplin, A., Chaplin, J., Peck, J., Shaw, S., Storkey, A. 1986. Introduction to aChristian worldview. Open Christian College.Clouse, R.G., Pierard, R.V., Yamauchi, E.M. 1993. Two Kingdoms; the church and

culture through the ages. Chicago : Moody.Colson, C., Pearcey, N. 1999. How now shall we live?Wheaton, Illinois : Tyndale

House.Donovan, V.J. 1982. Christianity rediscovered; an epistle from the Masai. London :

SCM.Doran, R. 1995. Birth of a worldview; early Christianity in its Jewish and Pagan

context. Boulder : Westview.Fletcher, R. 1997. The Barabarian conversion; from paganism to Christianity. New

York : Henry Holt.Fowler, S. 1995. The oppression and liberation of modern Africa; examining the powers

shaping todays Africa.Potchefstroom : IRS. (Series F2, no.63.)Fox, R.L. 1986. Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean world from the secondcentury AD to the conversion of Constantine. London : Penguin.

Frey, B., Ingram, W., Mcwhertor, T.E., Romanowski, W.D. 1983. All of liferedeemed; Biblical insight in daily obedience. Jordan Station, Ontario : Paideia.

Garber, S. 1998. The fabric of faithfulness; weaving together belief and behaviour duringthe university years. Downers Grove, Illinois : Intervarsity.

Gort, J.D., Vroom, H.M., Fernhout, R., Wessels, A. 1989. Dialogue on syncretism;an interdisciplinary approach. Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans.

Goudzwaard, B. 1984. Idols of our time.Downers Grove, Illinois : Intervarsity.Guinness, O. 1995.Fit bodies, fat minds; why Evangelicals dont think and what to do

about it.London : Hodder & Stoughton.Helleman, W. 1990. ed. Christianity and the classics; the acceptance of a heritage.

Lanham : Univ. Press of America.Helleman, W. 1994 ed. Hellenization revisited; shaping a Christian response within theGreco-Roman world. Lanham : University Press of America.

Holmes, A.F. 1983. Contours of a worldview.Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans.Kearney, M. 1984. Worldview. Navato, California : Chandler & Sharp.Klapwijk, J. 1986. Antithesis, synthesis and the idea of transformational

philosophy. Philosophia Reformata, 51:138-154.


16/16


Klapwijk, J., Griffioen, S. & Groenewoud, G. 1991. Bringing into captivity everythought; Capita selecta in the history of Christian evaluations of non-Christianphilosophy. Lanham : Univ. Press of America.

Kraft, C.H. 1989. Christianity with power; your worldview and your experience of thesupernatural. Ann Arbor, Michigan : Servant.

Macmullen, R. 1997.Christianity and Paganism in the fourth to eighth centuries. NewHaven : Yale Univ. Press.

Marshall, P., Griffioen, S., Mouw, R.J. eds. 1989. Stained glass; worldviews andsocial change. Lanham : Univ. Press of America.

Marshall, P. & Gilbert, L. 1998. Heaven is not our home; learning to live in Godscreation. Nashville : Word Publishing.

Newbigin, L. 1986. Foolishness to the Greeks; the Gospel and Western culture. Grand

Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans.Niebuhr, H.R. 1951. Christ and culture. New York : Harper & Row.ODonovan, W. 1996. Biblical Christianity in African perspective. Carlisle :

Paternoster.Roques, M. & Tickner, J. 1994. The good, the bad and the misled; true stories reflecting

different world views for use in secondary religious education. Crowborough, EastSussex : Monarch.

Russell, J.C. 1994. The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity; a sociologicalapproach to religious transformation. New York : Oxford Univ.

Sire, J.W. 1976. The universe next door; a guide to world views. Leicester :Intervarsity.

Sire, J.W. 1990. Discipleship of the mind; learning to love God in the ways we think.Downers Grove, Illinois : Intervarsity.

Smart, N. 1983. Worldviews; Crosscultural Explorations Of Human Beliefs. New York: Charles Scribners.

Turaki, Y. 1999. Christianity and African Gods; a method in theology. Potchefstroom: IRS. (Series F2, no. 75).

Van Der Walt, B.J. 1994. The liberating message; a Christian worldview for Africa.Potchefstroom : IRS. (Series F3, no.44).

Wallace, R. & Williams, W. 1995. The three worlds of Paul of Tarsus; native cultures,Hellenization, Roman. London : Routledge.

Walsh, B.J. & Middleton, J.R. 1984. The transforming vision; shaping a Christianworld view. Downers Grove, Illinois : Intervarsity.

Wessels, A. 1994.Europe: was it ever really Christian?London : SCM.Wessels, A. 1996. Secularized Europe; who will carry of its soul?Geneva : WCC.Wilken, R. 1984. The Christians as the Romans saw them. Hew Haven : Yale

University.Wilson, M.R. 1989. Our father Abraham; Jewish roots of the Christian faith. Grand

Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans.Wolters, A.M. 1985. Creation regained; Biblical basics for a Reformational worldview.

Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans.

cultura, cosmovisão e religião

Documents

Transcript of cultura, cosmovisão e religião