The Process of Inculturation

🪴Sprout 🙂Agree

---

Importance: 50%

The Big Idea:

Note

Adapted from Paper by Dr. Jame Marriott link to article

---

Inculturation is the dynamic process by which the Christian faith is performed in various cultural contexts of every time and place. The formal articulation and study of inculturation has been introduced in the twentieth century, where theologians gave voice and a name to that which for unnumbered years served as the undercurrent for the performance of the Christian faith in various communities. 

Bryan Spinks, referencing the work of Aidan Kavanagh, describes this timelessness of inculturation as “nothing other than the continuation of God’s own humble incarnation in our midst by Word, faith, and sacrament—an incarnation which reached its peak, to be sure, in Jesus the Christ, but which began already in the genesis of the world and continues, as the Pauline corpus implies, in the Spirit-filled Body corporate of Christ which is the Church.” 

There are some important distinctions to be made in this statement. First, it aligns inculturation with a natural, God-inspired process that is the manner in which Christianity is expressed and ascertained in this world. 

Second, and relatedly, this indicates that culture itself is part of the expression and understanding of the Christian faith, an extension of the material ways in which God has chosen to be revealed and made present in creation. Faith and culture interact interdependently. 

To that end, Spinks also writes that “the gospel as it is lived through a community of faith must itself be regarded as a cultural, symbolic world, a social construct with its own interests and concerns, and thus inculturation is not an incarnation of a timeless, unchanging, and acultural reality into a particular culture, but always an intercultural encounter or dialogue between at least two cultures.”

Anscar Chupungco is one of the primary voices developing the theory and practice of liturgical inculturation. For Chupungco, inculturation functions as a lens for interpreting Christian past, present, and future. In tracing the general history of the liturgy, he shows the consistent pattern of cultural influences on and tensions with the liturgical practice of the Church—he calls this liturgical adaptation. Throughout his survey of Christian liturgical history, he notes that the pattern of liturgical practice stays relatively consistent, while the specific rites themselves are 

He also suggests that the “Roman genius,” with its simplicity and brevity, is easily adaptable to other cultural and contextual adaptations; again, the pattern stays consistent, but the content is adaptable. Chupungco names the perpetual incarnation of Christ as a chief theological justification for liturgical adaptation.24 

Chupungco acknowledges that “the incarnation is an historical event, but its mystery lives on whenever the Church assumes the social and cultural conditions of the people among whom she dwells.”25 “Adaptation,” he continues, “is thus not an option, but a theological imperative arising from incarnational exigency.”26 Christ is active and incarnate by the Word, though the Church, in the world; that is, in and through the cultures of the world. Thus there are elements of each body which are and can be mutually compatible. 

This type of cultural engagement fuels the “full, conscious, and active participation in the liturgy,” a familiar principle of the Reformation that found new ecumenical fruition in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. 

Chupungco suggests that appropriate cultural adaptation, however, must always be accomplished through a filter of liturgical appropriateness determined by the ultimate purpose of the liturgy: preserving and perpetuating this divine encounter. He specifically advocates that the Sacraments not be dismissed because of difficulty in cultural translation, but rather that efforts be made in liturgical adaptation and catechesis to “bridge the gap” between culture and liturgy. 

To this same end, he also suggests that liturgical texts should not be created ex nihilo, but instead should always be inspired by existing rites. Thus, while Chupungco emphasizes the dynamic and perpetual nature of inculturation by noting that “since no culture is static, the liturgy will be constantly subjected to modifications,” he also insists that these modifications are guided by a number of liturgical and cultural principles for adaptation. 

In identifying cultural principles for adaptation, Chupungco insists that while inculturation is most applicable for “mission” lands, it is also something that can and continues to be applied also in long-Christianized communities. 

Thus, inculturation is a consistent, normative practice of the Church, rather than an exception. In a later work, “Liturgical Inculturation and the Search for Unity,” Chupungco clarifies much of the scope and tactics for appropriate liturgical inculturation. 

One significant tension for inculturation practice is the plurality of cultural expression in worship without compromising what Chupungco calls the “cultural unity” of the Church.

Chupungco first acknowledges the inherent cultural diversity in Christian worship and practice, emphasizing that it “is so inextricably bound up with the culture of a people, that it is not possible to celebrate it outside a cultural context or in a cultural vacuum…History itself attests to the incorporation into the liturgy of elements of practically every culture with which the church has come into contact.”34 He reiterates that inculturation “is not an option but an imperative, for through it Christ breaks into the life and history of nations.”

Inculturation, then, “means that the cultural elements adopted by the liturgy are so integrated with the texts and rites of worship that they become con-natural vehicles of the liturgical message. In other words, inculturation is not a juxtaposition of unassimilated elements or a mere external adaptation.”

This point, the process of integration and con-naturality, is significant in understanding cultural unity, as both liturgical and cultural adaptation simultaneously destabilize and enrich this sense of unity. 

This is a critical tension point for inculturation: responsible inculturation practices must identify the places where unity is conscientiously maintained, intentionally and purposefully destabilized, and holistically enriched. 

The point and purpose of inculturation is mutual enrichment: “Culture is evangelized…and Christian worship itself is enriched by the culture it embraces.”37 In outlining the limits of inculturation, then, Chupungco suggests that inculturation is not that particular type of creative activity which stems purely from one’s rich imagination, fantasy or personal preferences. Inculturation is rooted in the living and received liturgical tradition of one’s church; it begins with the actual praxis or else is based on tradition. 

That is why it does not produce alternative liturgies that are not backed by tradition or praxis…in this sense creativity is an easier and often more entertaining endeavor than inculturation. One who is not familiar with the tradition of one’s church or ignores its practices is bound to render an immense disservice to the liturgy and to inculturation. 

This tension in inculturation is an important foundation for our journey together in this class, especially as we consider the manner in which the LC-MS has engaged in liturgical and cultural practices of its U.S. context in the last half-century.

For Chupungco’s purpose, inculturation speaks prophetically to the very issues the LC-MS faces in this current generation: Inculturation should not cause the fragmentation of the church nor of its worship. What it should aim for is to allow variations in the cultural expression of the same liturgical tradition and praxis, not departure from these. 

Inculturation is basically the faithful translation into different but suitable cultural values, patterns and institutions of what the churches have received from the apostles. Hence, inculturation does not break unity nor does it introduce practices that are totally alien from the gospel message.39 

Thus, as we will explore further, the two main tactics of liturgical inculturation are the dynamic translation and contextual enactment of the ordo, along with the sufficient critique of cultural context which fosters a “con-naturality” between liturgy and its expression in local culture. 

This pursuit and production of “con-naturality” is one of the true projects of inculturation. In both Western and non-Western cultural interactions, as well as inculturation practices within Western contexts, the juxtaposition of Christianity in foundation and expression might need quite a bit of nuance and translation in order to be received into a host culture. 

The Story of Christianity—the grace and love of God demonstrated through Jesus Christ that restores a fallen creation into right relationship with God—is a fundamental catalyst for change, naming sin and brokenness and calling for repentance and restoration. In every culture, care must be taken to identify that which is contrary to Christianity and that which is consonant with Christianity. 

This is one of the tensions of formalized inculturation: theologians must work to navigate inculturation as a midwife who guides, stimulates, and encourages the natural birthing process of authentic faith in a new culture. 40 

Inculturation at its worst is engaged with the agenda more akin to cloning the (especially Western) cultural expression of Christianity, rather than skillfully distinguishing the relationship between Christianity conditioned by Western culture and Christianity latent in a new culture. 

Perhaps one of the biggest weaknesses of formal inculturation, then, is the “formalization” of that which is inherent and natural. History often shows that when humanity works to control a natural process, even with the best of intentions, the manipulated process can produce mutant results. 

This is evident in a variety of LC-MS mission projects, where assumptions on music, especially the use and translation of the historic German chorales, have often been the main thrust of inculturation, rather than the fostering of nascent and indigenous expressions of musical theology. 

The tension here balances the German chorales as a kind of essential core of Lutheran Christianity over and against the perspective of these chorales as local yet sharable cultural expressions of Lutheran Christianity.41 The manner in which this balance is maintained conditions the manner in which inculturation is engaged. 

As the formal study of inculturation has developed over time, care has been taken to restrict intervention and manipulation, and rather identify and encourage the natural interactions between the incarnate Gospel presence of God in Christ through the Spirit and the host culture.42 

Liturgical Inculturation: As Easy As A+B=C Liturgical theologians, then, rely on inculturation for two primary purposes. First, inculturation works to identify that which is the core (Story) of Christianity, both in abstract concepts and in concrete practices, even while recognizing the contextuality of these concepts and practices. Second, inculturation fosters the interaction of this Christian core with various cultural contexts, a process which inevitably changes both the culture and the newly inculturated essence.43 

These purposes are illustrated in a sort of equation for the purpose of comprehending the process of inculturation: A+B=C. In this equation, the “A” represents that which is Gospel essence or Story, recognizing that “A” itself is some complex balance of unchanging essence and cultural/hermeneutical conditioning. 

As will be demonstrated throughout this course, this balance is clearly depicted in the understanding of Christian tradition and conditioned by a postmodern understanding of knowledge and truth. The “B” is the host culture, which contributes philosophy. 

Cochrane demonstrates, from a South African context, a method of fostering theological expression and formation from within a cultural context, rather than imposing a theological framework from outside the cultural context. This distinction is especially sensitive to issues of power and privilege, and giving voice and legitimacy to local contexts as theological voice, rather than placing theological authority with the voice of the “trained” theologian. 

In this, Cochrane provides a helpful illustration of Bevans’ notion of theologian as “midwife,” referenced above ritual behavior, and other cultural agents towards the unique and indigenous engagement of “A.” As will be explored further, the complex nature of culture (“B”) in a postmodern U.S. context makes the process of inculturation both intriguing and complicated.

Finally, the “+” of the equation is the hermeneutical catalyst between the “A” and the “B”. The very nature of addition is to enhance or increase, yet in some cases subtraction and refinement are needed in order to facilitate the interaction. 

Robert Schreiter’s theory of intercultural hermeneutics will serve as the foundation for the engagement of the “+”.45 “C,” then, is the new, inculturated, and local expression of Christianity—unified by the essential proclamation of and faith in the Christian witness, yet diverse in its cultural and contextual form. 

The cyclical nature of this process in every time and place ensures that the new “C” invokes change in both the “B” and the “A,” giving the equation a kind of reciprocal momentum that propels its repetition. In this way, the lens of inculturation helps to enhance the Church’s understanding of its own liturgical practices, both in their immediate cultural contexts and in the manner in which certain practices become “transcultural.” 

In the course of Lutheran liturgical practice, the tension between orthodoxia and adiaphora is one of inculturation—the “A” of confessional orthodoxia as enacted in the “B” of contextual rites and ceremonies, the performance of which creates a “C”, or new and unique expression of the Church in the world that effects change in both “A” and “B.” 

In this formation, the “A” itself must be understood for both its contextual and transcultural elements, a dynamic process of becoming instead of a fixed entity. Likewise, the “B” must be engaged both holistically and critically, working to foster points of consonance between the “A” and the “B.” All of this is conditioned hermeneutically, the process of “+”, and is subject to a multiplicity of interpretations and methods. Thus, as will discover together, the process of “+” is in constant tension and negotiation between the “A” of confessional orthodoxia and the “B” of cultural engagement.

1. Definition and Context:

• Inculturation is the dynamic process by which the Christian faith is expressed and practiced in various cultural contexts across time and place.

• Formal study of inculturation introduced in the 20th century, giving voice to a longstanding aspect of Christian practice.

Question: What Cultural contexts have you seen Christianity practiced within?

• Inculturation begins when missionaries arrive in regions where Christianity does not exist, then converts gradually give the faith a local expression.

2. God’s Humble Incarnation:

• Inculturation emphasizes the interconnectedness of faith, culture, and the expression of Christianity.

• One way to describe this is that inculturation is the continuation of God’s humble incarnation through Word, faith, and sacrament.

Question: how do you perceive the relationship between faith and culture in your life? 

• Inculturation began with Jesus but extends to the Spirit-filled Body of Christ (the Church) throughout history.

3. Interaction of Faith and Culture:

•  Liturgical inculturation can be used as a lens for interpreting Christian history and practice

• Therefore, culture is part of expressing and understanding the Christian faith.

• Faith and culture interact interdependently. Long history of cultural influences on Christian practice.

Question: What cultural adaptations have you seen or noticed in our liturgical practices throughout the years? 

Question: As a Church, how do you think we can effectively engage diverse cultural contexts while maintaining theological integrity?

4. Cultural Unity and Diversity:

•  Inculturation is not limited to mission lands but applicable to all Christian communities.

• Inculturation should maintain cultural unity while allowing variations.

• Cultural diversity is inherent in Christian worship.

Question: How does your own cultural background shape your understanding of Christianity?

• Inculturation should not depart from liturgical tradition but adapt it to local culture, guided by both liturgical and cultural principles.

Question: How do cultural principles influence liturgical practices in our community?

5. Mutual Enrichment:

• Inculturation enriches both culture and Christian worship.

• It is rooted in tradition and praxis, not mere creativity.

• Balance is crucial to avoid fragmentation.

• Cultural engagement enhances participation in liturgy.

Question: What are examples of cultural adaptation that can enhance or detract from worship experiences?

• Inculturation aims to enrich both culture and Christian worship.

Question: How can the Church effectively integrate cultural elements into worship without diluting the core message of Christianity?

6. Challenges and Weaknesses:

• Past LCMS mission projects sometimes prioritized Western cultural expressions over indigenous ones.

• Formal inculturation like that can sometimes lead to cultural cloning rather than authentic adaptation.

Question: How can the Church avoid imposing cultural expressions on other communities while still sharing the Gospel effectively?

• Inculturation should be a natural process guided by the interaction between Gospel essence and host culture.

7. The Equation A+B=C:

• The process of inculturation serves to identify the core of Christianity and foster its interaction with diverse cultural contexts.

• Robert Schreiter in “The New Catholicity: Theology between the Global and the Local” offers an interesting framework for understanding the interaction between Gospel essence and cultural context.

• A represents the Gospel essence or Story.

• B is the host culture.

• C is the new, inculturated expression of Christianity.

• The hermeneutical catalyst (+) facilitates interaction.

Question: How do you think the Church can foster meaningful dialogue between different cultural perspectives within its worship practices?

8. Conclusion:

• Inculturation enhances the Church’s understanding of liturgical practices.

• It balances orthodoxia (confessional faith) and adiaphora (contextual practices).

• The process of “+” involves tension and negotiation.

• The tension between orthodoxia and adiaphora in Lutheran liturgical practice reflects the dynamic nature of inculturation.

Question: How do you perceive the overall balance between preserving tradition and adapting to cultural context?