While change is not new, it is helpful to realize that more change has occurred in the last six decades than in the last six centuries. Major cultural shifts and changes that used to take several generations are now sweeping the globe every few years. What is important to observe is how rapidly these cultural changes are affecting language and cultural symbols. The Church is not insulated from its culture, as if it operated in a “cultural vacuum;” liturgical worship is part of the surrounding culture for in order to function, it “must assimilate various components of the culture.” In this setting, culture means “the sum total of human values, of social and religious traditions and rituals, and the modes of expressions through language and the arts, all of which are rooted in the particular genius of the people.”
Humanly speaking, an effective liturgy is a liturgy that contains powerful cultural symbolism and language that is able to communicate the Gospel without detailed explanation. It is recognized that some liturgical catechesis is necessary for understanding liturgical worship. Nevertheless, the best liturgical symbols and rites are those that have strong cultural connections and resonate with cultural meaning. On the other hand, an ineffective or weak liturgy is one that relies upon distant symbols, or symbols that are foreign to the culture; the people cannot relate to it because its symbolism is divorced from their experience. Abstract symbolism, or symbols that must be intellectually comprehended and retained in order to function properly in worship is ineffective; it is distant from the people, therefore, it loses its capacity to effectively communicate the message.
Therefore, it is imperative for the Church to stay abreast of cultural changes. It needs to regularly examine how cultural changes are impacting the current liturgical worship of the congregation. Do people understand the liturgy, or are they just going through the motions? Is the symbolism clear, or does it require extensive explanation to be comprehended? Is it reaching the older youth and twenty something generation, who are perhaps the most impacted by cultural change? It is this process of relating the gospel to culture that is called contextualization. My argument comes from the liturgical movement and insights gained from church history that demonstrate how liturgical worship requires an ongoing contextualization in order to maintain accurate symbols that effectively communicate the Apostolic Faith. This is especially true now, as the rate of cultural change is accelerating.
Before continuing this discussion about contextualization and worship, it is important to understand the duality of liturgy. While liturgy consists of cultural symbols and human language, it is also an act of God. Peter Brunner wrote, “The human actions which fill the worship service from beginning to end are entirely dependent on the Triune God’s filling them with His action. . . [In worship, the Lord becomes present to His congregation only by man’s proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of Holy Communion in obedience to the command of institution.]” Recognizing God’s action in worship, the question towards the human action remains. What makes a good liturgy? What makes a liturgy “authentically Christian and culturally relevant.” What should guide this process?
A useful metaphor to better understand the contextualization and liturgy is a bridge. Liturgical worship functions as a bridge that connects the Word of God to a specific people group. The bridge connects to places, the Apostolic Faith and the local cultural setting. All liturgical bridges have one side that is immovable, the side that begins with the Apostolic Faith. The other side of the bridge will touch down into a specific cultural setting; there are actually many bridges since a different bridge is required for different cultures. Each bridge is built using building materials from inside the culture. The liturgy takes local languages and cultural symbols and creates a liturgical bridge that can bring the Apostolic faith into this new cultural setting. Not all words or cultural symbols are suitable for Christian worship. Contextualization is concerned that the construction of the bridge to ensure the liturgy produced is “authentically Christian and culturally relevant.” Research into the relationship between culture and worship has discovered that liturgical “worship relates dynamically to culture in at least four ways; they are transcultural, contextual, counter-cultural, and cross-cultural. Understanding each of these dynamics will greatly assist those involved in liturgical worship.
The transcultural elements of worship are foundational, and are above any specific culture; their source is scripture, whose author is God. While each language may contain different vocables, the Word of God communicates and introduces transcultural elements into specific, local cultures. The Lutheran World Federation produced a helpful statement that listed the transcultural elements of worship. A document called the Cartigny statement reads:
An examination of the tradition, from the Biblical witness, the early Church, and the Lutheran Reformation, reveals the core of Christian worship to be Word, Baptism, and Eucharist. The pattern, or ordo, of entry into the community is teaching and baptismal bath. The pattern of the weekly gathering of the community on the Lord’s Day is the celebration centered around the Word and Eucharistic meal. These core elements are clearly evident in the historical witnesses of the Christian worship tradition. Further, it is evident that the purpose of this pattern of worship is faithfully to receive and faithfully to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Vincent of Lerins said of the catholic faith that it has been held “everywhere, always, by all” Vincent was recognizing the transcultural elements of the Apostolic Faith already in the fifth century.
Critiquing the Cartigny statement, one must recognize that their focus was upon identifying liturgical structure and liturgical elements in the local congregational worship. Other transcultural elements also exist that are important, such as justification by faith through grace in Jesus Christ, or how God uses the means of grace by the power of the Holy Spirit, where and when He wills, to bring this justification to a person. These transcultural elements are very important especially for Lutheran worship, however, they are really transcultural doctrines more than transcultural elements. While present in scripture, many doctrines where only emphasized later in church history because of heresies. Many were not clearly enunciated in the literature of the early church, nor promoted in the liturgical worship of the early church because these doctrines were not being contested. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize these transcultural elements and doctrines for they are the message, the Apostolic Faith that Christian liturgy is seeking to communicate.
The second way worship dynamically relates to culture is contextually. In worship, contextual elements are those taken from local cultures and used in the service of the church. The incarnation of Jesus provides the best analogy for understanding how God works contextually in our world; for as the second person of the Trinity, He was outside of culture. When He took on flesh, He entered our world as a Jew. He spoke and understood Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. His teachings used symbols and examples that reflected the local culture and connect with culture’s most basic experiences. Water was used in Baptism, related to cleansing and life. Bread and wine was used in the Lord’s Supper, relating to table fellowship and sustenance for life. These contextual elements had meaning and symbolism before Jesus connected them with His promise of forgiveness. The forgiveness offered in the Sacraments were enhanced and supported by the already-present meaning and function of bread, wine, and water within the local culture.
Incorporating cultural elements into liturgical worship has followed two methods in church history, they are creative assimilation and dynamic equivalence. Generally, creative assimilation begins with the culture and imports cultural symbolism into Christian worship; whereas, dynamic equivalence begins with the Christian liturgy and seeks to reexpress it using cultural elements that have equal meaning or value.
Examples of creative assimilation from the rite of baptism include wearing a white baptismal gown, or giving a lighted candle. These assimilations of cultural elements normally correspond to biblical typology, where local cultural elements are “reinterpreted in the context of biblical personages and events.” This is perhaps the easiest way to enrich a liturgical tradition in a local congregation, simply because there are many possibilities for creative assimilation. This needs to be balanced by recognizing there are many cultural elements that should not be assimilated. There are limits to creative assimilation; Anscar Chupungco has provided some guidance when considering bringing in a new cultural element:
First, supposing the newly added cultural elements possess what one can call “connaturalness” with the Christian liturgy, have they duly undergone the process of doctrinal purification? Similarity is not always a gauge of orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Second, are the biblical types used appropriate? It is possible that violence is done to the biblical text in order to accommodate culture. The opposite is violence as well. Third, do the local elements enhance the theological understanding of the Christian right? It can happen that they divert attention from the Christian rite by overly evoking their cultural provenance or, worse, by sending a wholly different message. Fourthly, do they harmonize with other elements of he rite, and are they sufficiently integrated with them? Perhaps they are no more than useless decorative appendices or cultural tokens with little or no role to play in the unfolding of the right. And fifth, we need to ask a question too easily forgotten . . .: do people accept them as an authentic contribution of their culture to the enrichment of Christian worship.
By the making good choices about additions or changes to the liturgy, creative assimilation offers the potential to dramatically enrich liturgical worship.
The second method of incorporating cultural elements into worship is dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence “involves re-expressing components of Christian worship with something from a local culture that has an equal meaning, value, and function.” Dynamic equivalence is a more difficult level of contextualization that often requires interdisciplinary collaboration and research. What makes it complicated is that every culture has its own identity, and every language has its own genius and special characteristics. Since each person is locked into his or her culture, it often requires a collaborative effort to achieve. The LWF has a procedure that may be followed when employing dynamic equivalence:
First, the liturgical ordo (basic shape) should be examined with regard to its theology, history, basic elements, and cultural backgrounds. Second, those elements of the ordo that can be subjected to dynamic equivalence without prejudice to their meaning should also be determined. Third, those components of culture that are able to re-express the Gospel and the liturgical ordo in an adequate manner should be studied. Fourth, the spiritual and pastoral benefits our people will derive from the changes should be considered.
Whenever working with cultural elements using the dynamic equivalence method, one needs to be aware that almost every aspect of culture has religious undertones. One not only has to be concerned about importing unwanted cultural meaning into Christian worship, but also maintaining a proper distance from culture. When religion and culture become too close, that is, the line between them becomes hard to distinguish, and there is a danger that Christian rituals will be culturally reduced “to mere social affairs.” For example, baptisms in Russia are fashionable and have become more of a social celebration than a new birth into the Christian faith. Another example might be church weddings in Europe, which have lost almost all their religious meaning.
There is another method that deserves mention, formal correspondence. Formal correspondence also starts with the liturgy when introducing Christianity into a new cultural setting. In contrast to dynamic equivalence, however, formal correspondence starts with the liturgy and translates it into the new culture without finding any dynamic equivalents. It “tends to be no more than a literal, word-for-word or phrase-by-phrase, translation to the point of ignoring the linguistic characteristics of the audience.” One evidence of this method is clearly visible when transliterations of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin phrases are used in the liturgy and church life. While formal correspondence is doctrinally safe method of bringing the Gospel into a new cultural setting, it is unable to bring the depth and richness that dynamic equivalence offers.
The third way liturgical worship interacts with the culture is by challenging the culture, that is, being counter-cultural. Christian worship doesn’t seek to blend in with the culture and become absorbed; rather it seeks ways to critique the culture by opposing those elements which are contrary to the Word of God. Scripture teaches that Christians are a people on pilgrimage, aliens traveling through this world on their way to their heavenly home. Paul wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds” (Romans 12:2). The LWF Cartigny statement put it this way:
The Church throughout its history, but its faithful proclamation of the Gospel, has challenged the status quo and the social injustices of the day (for example, Christ and his disciples sharing meals with the socially unaccepted people of their day). In the same way, the churches in every generation and in every context must ask what in their worship can/should be counter-cultural, challenging the culture in which it exists and ultimately facilitating its transformation.
In one sense, the Lutheran term of simul justus et peccator could be used to describe people as well as cultures. The Church needs to maintain a voice against sin and by its witness contradict cultural elements that are not of God. One vivid example comes from India where it is reported that some upper-caste Christians refuse to commune if they cannot do so before Dalits in their congregations. While these Indians are acting in accordance with cultural norms, such a cultural teaching runs counter to the Christian culture. In the Church, there is no class or caste distinctions, there are not rich and poor, male and female, slave and free before the altar of the Lord. All kneel together as the body of Christ to receive the Sacrament; so here is a good example of Christian Worship that is counter-cultural. The Church is in culture and uses cultural elements in her liturgy, but the Church must maintain enough distance to be able to critique the culture.
Finally, worship has a cross-cultural dynamic; there is a sharing between cultures of liturgical ideas and practices that can enrich the liturgy, as well as strengthen the sense of the communio of the Church. Cross-cultural dynamics of worship are excellent ways of sharing the best of each culture, as well as stimulating creativity in other Christian communities. It must be said however, that the same caution must be exercised to insure that any cultural elements being introduced through cross-culturally channels are culturally appropriate in the new culture and will enhance their liturgy. What works in one culture will not necessarily work in another, for not all cultural elements can be used cross-culturally.
To summarize thus far, Christian worship relates dynamically with its surrounding culture in four ways, transcultural, contextual, counter cultural, and cross-cultural elements. Methods such as creative assimilation and dynamic equivalence are able to incorporate new cultural elements into liturgical worship. What is most important is to always keep in mind the center of liturgical worship – Jesus Christ. Christian worship must be rooted in Jesus Christ, and built upon the apostolic foundation. From its very beginnings, Christian worship has been built upon existing tradition. As Eugene Brand has said:
Because of the historical and incarnational aspects of Christian faith, the Church’s worship has remained anchored to the historical person of Jesus and the culture in which he lived. Since Jesus was a Jew, Christian worship has retained a Jewish character. . . Adherence to liturgical forms rooted in the Judaism of Jesus’ day is what marks Christian worship as authentic. the sharing of the loaf and the cup in the context of thanksgiving is the chief example.
Almost every text book that traces the roots of Christian worship shows how our Christian worship was patterned after the traditions and worship patterns of Jewish synagogue. The ancient pattern of synagogue worship that included gathering around a meal on the Sabbath has obvious parallels with the early church gathering on Sunday for the Lord’s Supper.
As the worship tradition grew, the early church struggled to recognize what would be acceptable to use in worship and what was not. For example, candles were not used until the fourth century because of their association with idolatry and pagan temples. White baptismal gowns are mentioned early on in the Christian tradition as representing forgiveness and purity, most likely because of a creative assimilation based upon the toga candida of the Roman citizens. While almost every cultural element has a similar story behind it, the critical principle that has been learned over the ages is that any liturgical change or introduction of new cultural elements must be built upon what already exists. There needs to be a connection with the core elements of Word, Baptism, and Eucharist mentioned above. The Roman Catholics put it this way,
[C]are must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing. The process can perhaps be described as a tree that branches out, as a rite that develop into other different rites to form a . . . liturgical family”
This is helpful, for it reminds us that all cultural elements that are introduced into the liturgy do not add anything to the Gospel; rather they are to be brought in to fill up a cultural gap. The liturgy is not about entertainment, or simply adding elements for the sake of interest. It is to make the Apostolic Faith available and relevant to all people, in every culture. That is the purpose behind the ongoing process of contextualization, to insure liturgy’s symbolism is effective in communicating the Apostolic faith.
A paradigm shift occurs for many people like myself when they discover that the liturgical movement is not working toward a repristination of ancient liturgies. Rather, their focus is on identifying historical norms for worship based upon New Testament and Church history, and then using these insights to establish fundamental principles for ongoing, liturgical reform and contextualization. Their motive is pastoral, in that they desire the liturgy to once again become a vital element in forming the faith of believers. Part of the reason many congregations are turning to non-liturgical formats is because liturgical worship has become ineffective at conveying the faith. In Christian worship,
signs which no longer convey the message of the liturgy nor speak to the people are empty, lack efficacy and betray the very purpose of liturgical signs. One is perhaps tempted to conclude that they must therefore be changed. But such a conclusion without further qualification is open to debate. For there are signs which may not be understood, because they happen to belong to another cultural milieu or have been obscured by historical evolution. It seems that the right approach to the matter is catechesis, which situates liturgical signs in their cultural and historical context.
Catechesis on liturgical worship is important, for even the best cultural symbols need some explanation. While it is a liturgical truth that the best way to learn about the liturgy is to actively participate in it; it is also recognized that “participation was enhanced when it was informed.” The better people understand their liturgy, the better they are able to, and want to participate in the liturgy. The past century of liturgical reform has shown that most “resistance to [liturgical] change often stems from ignorance and a lack of information, rather than anything else.” Therefore, it is important to remember that before any changes are introduced or suggested, there must be an appropriate amount of education before hand.
Motivation is also an important factor, and it is helpful to understand the role that the liturgy used to play in the church. Before the days of the catechisms, it was the liturgy that was the principle means of religious training! Historically, it was the liturgy that functioned as their catechism (shedding new light on the familiar phrase, Lex orandi, lex credendi). As the church enters the post-modern era, the liturgy may be a formative ally in Christian education. Unlike the catechism that emphasizes the rational, intellectual powers of understanding and memory, the liturgy has “a far greater formative power with its appeal to the emotions, the senses, and the will.” It is the desire of the liturgical movement to help the church recognize the power and influence of the liturgy to form one’s faith.
Architecture is also a powerful cultural element that the church uses in her service, yet it is a symbolic power that is seldom used. Consider the typical baptismal font used in many Lutheran Churches. They are normally small, movable, and contain a small silver bowl that remains empty except on the day a baptism is scheduled. What do these fonts say about baptism? Do they communicate the same degree of importance that is part of Lutheran sermons and catechetical teaching? In recent years, attention has been given to this due to the influence of the liturgical movement. Baptismal fonts have become more elaborate to emphasis their importance, they have been placed near the entrance to the sanctuary symbolizing how one enters the Christian faith and the family of God. Catechesis has taught Lutherans that it is ok to dip one’s finger into the water as a reminder of their baptism, reinforced by making the sign of the cross. Some newer fonts have running water to emphasis baptism as the living water, while others are becoming large enough to allow full immersion representing our entering the watery tomb and rising to new life.
These changes are brought about as a means to make liturgical worship more effective in forming the faith of the believers. In America, it is an unfortunate reality that most people only spend one hour in church. Why not work to make the liturgy as powerful as the sermon in communicating the message of the Gospel? Understanding the dynamics of contextualization, and being able to critically analyze the cultural symbolism within liturgy, is on ongoing process and very important to maintaining a dynamic worship service.
As one begins reading in this area, it is helpful to know that there are a variety of terms that are used to describe this process. Some of the terms include: accommodation, adaptation, localization, inculturation, contextualization, and indigenization. Many of these terms have overlapping definitions, which may be an indication that theologians are having difficulty agreeing on a single term.
The single exception is the term indigenization, which is becoming the preferred term in the literature. While there is still a variety of definitions, the primary source for the current understanding of indigenization comes from the Roman Catholic Church.
Defined in the Papal Encyclical, Redempitoris Missio (1990:89), as ‘the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human creatures.’ Thus instead of a merely external relationship between the Gospel and culture, conceived in terms of ‘kernel’ and ‘husk,’ it urges instead a dynamic ‘ongoing process of reciprocal and critical interaction and assimilation between them.
Whenever speaking about contextualization, localization, or inculturation, the classical understanding of bringing the Gospel into new contexts is understood. What is different about indigenization is that it often seeks to indigenize the Apostolic faith as the Apostolic faith indigenizes culture. African theology is giving much attention to this area, as they look for an authentic African theology. Many are putting the Apostolic faith into African categories and expressions, separating it from any cultural elements that have previously been part of Church tradition. There is a general rejection of Western traditions they see as being generated by Western categories that don’t fit African culture. The unanswered question is, “Is this use of indigenization altering the transcultural elements of the Apostolic Faith?” Is indigenization as being used in Africa in such a way that allows the Gospel to transform culture, or is culture transforming the Apostolic faith? There seems to be a double movement contained in the definition of inculturation that is significant, and demand caution.
This issue is very complex, but most likely will have an effect upon all Christendom as the center of Christianity shifts to Africa in the next 50 years. It must be observed that Africans are taking seriously Christian worship, and seeking the same goal that is also being sought here – that liturgical worship contains accurate symbols that are effectively able to communicate the Apostolic Faith. Cultures don’t stand still, they are constantly moving. Hence it follows that there needs to be now, as there has been in the past, an ongoing process of contextualization.