Other Cultures and Christianity

[ique]

What do you guys believe regarding the tenets of Christianity and the many different cultures of the world?
I. Is Christianity 'compatible' with every culture, and to what extent?
II. Is compromise acceptable? i.e., is it a valid 'solution' for the given culture to filter the messages of Christianity into a format more relevant/appropriate in their worldview?
III. Is compromise a distortion of the true message?
IV. Is the introduction of Christianity to other cultures an unnecessary ethnocentric intrusion upon their respective belief systems, or a necessary enhancement to their culture?

Discuss.

[John Chrysostom]

1. Yes it is compatible to every culture.

2 & 3 I think it really depends on how far the compromise goes, I would say that the Nicene Creed has the standard for what we must believe and that different cultures can have some differences in how they relate to Christ but I think that if you look at the Early Church and how they spread to different cultures you'll see a pretty similar approach and acceptance albeit with a slightly different flavor if you will from time to time.

4. I think this question asks the wrong question, I think it's imperialistic to assume that Christianity will enhance a specific culture or somehow "civilize" them. I think in fact that the perspective a specific culture brings to Christianity could go a long way in enhancing Christianity. As far as an intrusion on their old belief system I think that for example how Europeans encroached upon Native American tribes in the US is an example of going about it the wrong way but that isn't the only way to spread the Gospel.

[Sherlock]

I. Well, I suppose the whole premise of Christianity is that there are objective, moral norms. Because the norms are objective, they must also be universal and, therefore, must be accessible and understandable by all people. The Ten Commandments, for example, outline a set of what we might consider objective moral instructions. The way these norms are taught, however, and the instruments and methods used to teach them may vary depending on the culture in question. This question of "how" is probably one of the primary issues with modern day mission work. A one-size-fits-all approach to Christianity has never been all that successful historically, so I think some adaptations need to be made.

II. Yes if the filtration does not have the effect of rendering the objective subjective. In other words, in teaching, say, the Ten Commandments, one can't excuse the practice of one of the commandments in a culture where the particular behavior may be condoned. This dilutes the moral norm to the point of making it a subjective determination, a belief more suited to moral relativism than traditional Christian teaching. I would say filtration can encourage cultural relativism, so we should be careful there.

III. See above. The existence of so many denominations within Christianity already means that the "message" is being spread differently. Now, if we want to say the "message" consists of those certain doctrines which are held in common by all Christian groups, then this may make more sense, but it does reduce the truths, if you will, down to a very small set of moral norms (I.e. the Ten Commandments).

IV. I agree with John Chrysostom here. Christian colonization has its own issues, as we've seen throughout history. Then again, I think the "conversion" mentality (approaching another with the intent to convert them to your worldview) is flawed anyhow, so perhaps my opinion is already a bit skewed. Just like how Christianity should help us become better people on an individual, moral level, I also think Christianity on a cultural level should enhance the good elements of the existing culture and mitigate the bad elements where possible. A person or a culture should not become worse for having adopted Christianity.