We need a defined standard for indigenous theology

-         Rev. Yoon Tahk Sohn (Namdaemoon Church)

Opening remarks

The word ‘indigenization’ means transforming what belongs to others into what belongs to me. It is accepting a Christianity, which is totally different from Korean or Mongolian culture, and making this Christianity Korean or Mongolian.

Everyone wears the clothes of their culture from the moment they are born. A person born in America wears clothes from American culture. He learns English and the American way of life. And he becomes an American.

Jesus, the Word of God, was born in Bethlehem in Judea. He grew up in Judean culture, ate Judean food and followed Judean customs. Jesus wore the clothes that Israelites wore and used the carpentry tools that Israelites used. He probably built buildings in the Nazarene style, not the Korean or Chinese style. Everyone would agree that, when Jesus taught, he taught based on Israelite customs using their language.

When churches speak about indigenization, they need to distinguish between the gospel, which is the seed, and the culture, which is soil. The seed of the gospel planted in Mongolia needs to grow in the soil of Mongolia. Then it becomes Mongolian Christianity.

It is an obvious statement, but Korean Christianity is Korean Christianity. Many missionaries came to Korea from America, England, Australia and Canada. They brought their culture with them. However, the Christianity which grew up in Korea was not the Christianity of America, England, Australia or Canada. Christianity in Korea grew as a different Christianity from those of foreign countries.

In order for Christianity to take root in one country, it has to go through a certain process. We call this a ‘process of indigenization’.

When the gospel is preached for the first time, it comes with the culture of the missionaries. The ‘clothes’—so to speak—of the gospel are the clothes worn by that missionary's culture. It is inevitable. It is not easy to strip the clothes of culture off from the gospel.

Neither is it easy to put the ‘new clothes’ of a culture onto the gospel. It has to be done without distorting the gospel. And this process is not easy at all.

We hope that the seed of the gospel will firmly root in each country and grow as Christianity becomes accustomed to the soil. This is indigenization, and indigenous theology is the result of this process. Therefore, indigenous theology is very important.

However, indigenous theology should not be handled without good guidelines. This process and work has to be done very carefully. If the gospel gets distorted during indigenization, it will lose the original value of Christianity and result in syncretism or religious pluralism. Worse yet, it can even become a heresy or a cult.

Therefore, I would like to talk about a few critical points in ‘indigenous theology’ from the perspective of evangelicals in the Reformed tradition.

Correct standards for indigenous theology

Everyone who attends church has his or her own theology. Even if it is unbiblical or unorthodox, everyone has a theology. Therefore, the church is responsible for leading people’s theology to be biblical and orthodox.

For example, let’s suppose that a person who came to church for the first time believes “God will make me rich overnight”, or “God will make the man of my dreams become my husband”. That person can develop this as their own theology, but this is certainly not a universal or normal Christian theology.

Then what is a universal and normal Christian theology? What are the standards for a healthy and right theology?

Right theology has to be biblical

Evangelical theology is a Bible-centered theology. It needs to be renewed and reformed, but the standard is always the Bible.

It is ironic that the Bible is one of the oldest books in the world. This is why some people treat the Bible as one of the ancient classics that we can use as a reference.

However, in order to reform and live a new life, we need to establish the Bible as the standard for our theology. It does not matter how good the ideas and thoughts are, if they are different from the Bible, then it is not a right theology.

Many scholars from many different countries have talked about indigenous theology. They have been arguing whether indigenous theology is right, even with the Bible as the standard.

The Bible testifies that Jesus is the only Christ. The Bible says that Jesus is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). The Bible proclaims that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). And the Bible teaches that “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8).

Among the people who have pursued indigenization, there have been some who tried to honor achievements and characteristics of certain saints or great historical figures, and elevate them to the same level as Jesus. This is clearly neither theology nor indigenization. The first standard of all theology has to be the Bible.

Right theology has to be historical

Right theology has to agree with the past 2,000 years of Christian history. Churches respect the history of the past. This is why the church studies its history in order to establish official doctrines.

As mentioned earlier, historically the church has had different cultural backgrounds, depending on the region and ages. When the church had issues, the church called big and small councils and resolved the problems. Also, through councils, churches decided about the ‘Confession of Faith’, using guidelines appropriate to the culture and environment.

Additionally, both the Apostles’ Creed and the Westminster Confession of Faith are good examples of historical theology. The Trinity and some catechisms are important theologies which have historical basis.

However, even if something has a clear historical basis, if it contradicts with Bible then it should not be accepted. The teachings of Theotokos, teachings about the perpetual virginity of Mary, or the infallibility of the Pope are unbiblical teachings.

The Korean church has promoted an anti-smoking movement for a long time. However, some people claim that it is okay to smoke because the Bible tells us “do not get drunk on wine” (Ephesians 5:18) but does not say not to smoke. They are against Korean anti-smoking traditions, and even point out that some pastors in America or Europe smoke.

This seems to make sense. However, although there have been no Christian councils to decide the issue of smoking, the anti-smoking tradition is acceptable for health reasons.

Smoking has been described as the “throwing of sand into the wheels of a delicate machine”, George Washington Carver is rumored to have said, “If God wanted people to smoke, he would have put our noses on top of our heads like a chimney”. This is not an issue that we can resolve though the Bible or history but our real lives. Therefore, the third standard of right theology is that it has to be practical.

Right theology has to be practical

A theory or theology should not be like catching the wind. We generally say that the medieval church was corrupt, because the theological seminaries of that time got caught up in useless arguments, such as how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle. The number of angels who can fit on a needle does not help us with our faith and theology, and there is no reason for us to know this.

Therefore, right theology has to be practical and applicable, while also being sensible and specific. Hebrews 4:12 says:

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

When we talk about indigenous theology, we need to talk about the practical and living theology.

The indigenous theology of Mongolia is the same. It has to agree with the Bible and 2,000 years of Christian history. At the same time, this theology needs to be specific and practically applicable in the lives of Mongolian people.

The Bible is the textbook for all theology

Every grain has a kernel and a skin. To use this as a metaphor, the kernel is reality, and the skin over the kernel is formality. Of course, the kernel is the most important part, however, formality is also important. Let’s suppose a farmer went to the field to harvest beans. But every bean is wrapped in skin. The farmer thinks, “What I need are the beans, I don’t need the skins”. Then he removes the skin from every bean. What is going to happen? Are the beans able to continue to grow? No way. The beans do not grow any more. As soon as the skins are off, the insides start to dry. In the same manner, we cannot underestimate the importance of the skin which encapsulates and protects the kernel.

Every worship service has certain formalities and procedures. However, the real purpose is glorifying God. That is why there is time to praise, give offerings, and pray. There is time for a sermon and benediction. However, some impatient young people complain, “Why the formalities? Isn’t the purpose of worship more important? The formality of worship is meaningless, and we should discontinue it.” Let’s think about it one more time. Is it possible to worship God without formality?

Grain without skin cannot exist. What is important is affirming and establishing significance and priority. The text, which is the kernel, is important. The kernel of worship is glorifying God. We also need formality, which is the skin. The skin and the formality of worship come from the culture. Culture is context.

Worship is glorifying the God of the Trinity, therefore, we have to offer worship according to his will. In order to worship God, we need the formality of worship. Then what kind of order or procedure do we need? There could be a procedure which reflects our culture, ideas and ways. However, if the formality is not in accordance with the will of God, then the worship cannot be right worship, because God is the object of the worship. This is the homework for indigenous theologians.

There have been many cases where people corrupted the gospel in the name of indigenous theology. Mongolian indigenous theology should be nothing more than planting the seed of the gospel in Mongolian soil, so that the seed of the gospel would grow, bloom and bear fruit in Mongolia.

However, problems occur when some people try to change the seed itself. They believe they have found a seed in Mongolian history and culture which is similar to the seed of the gospel of Jesus Christ. But the gospel of Jesus is the only gospel that God gave to us.

Confucius, Siddhartha and Socrates were great teachers in human history. They deserve to be respected. I respect them. So, I try hard to follow their teachings and wisdom. Then, I always pray to God that he would help us and strengthen us through his Holy Spirit to live according to their teachings. However, although they might be great teachers, they are not my lords or saviors. I would never put them in the same position as God and the seat of Jesus Christ our Savior.

I studied the teachings of Confucius and Mencius. I also studied the teachings of Siddhartha. I was influenced by them and studied oriental philosophy. Sometimes, I even teach oriental philosophy. However, that is only an outward manifestation in my life; I am doing it to glorify God. Because I became a new creation though the blood of Jesus, I study and follow their teachings so that I can live more ethical and righteous life. By no means could their teachings replace the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Many religions and countries have numerous respectable teachers and books which show ethically great knowledge, but there is only one gospel that was given to us by God. The Bible is the only book that teaches the gospel; therefore the Bible has to be the text for indigenous theology. American culture, Korean culture and Mongolian culture are only contexts to which this text is applied. We need to clearly understand that when the text and context are switched, or the seed and the soil are switched, or when the gospel and culture are switched, that this is no longer a Christian theology.

The suitcase culture of the west, and the bojagi (knapsack) culture of Korea

When missionaries from the west came to Korea, they had Bibles in their suitcases. The Bibles they brought to Korea had been translated into Korean. Of course, the Korean government had forbidden the possession of Bibles at that time. Koreans could not see what missionaries had in their suitcases. They had to open the suitcase to see what is inside.

Of course, the missionaries opened their suitcases and showed what was on the top first. There were stethoscopes, medical equipment and medicines. There were medical books, physics books and chemistry books. The Bible was at the bottom of the suitcase, so that inspectors would only find it later.

Koreans have a bojagi (knapsack) culture. It is different from the suitcase culture of the west in many ways. An empty suitcase can be carried, but no one carries an empty knapsack. Instead, people wrap the empty knapsack around their necks or wrists, or put the knapsack in their pockets. When Koreans need to carry something, then they wrap the object in a knapsack. However, this wrapping reveals the contents even against the owner’s desires to reveal them. When books are wrapped, the knapsack takes a shape of books. When a kettle is wrapped, the knapsack takes the shape of a kettle. If dishes are inside, the knap sack looks like dishes. Now times have changed, and Korean missionaries carry suitcases when they visit other countries. However, the knapsack culture of Korean does not disappear easily. If you watch a Korean for five minutes, you can tell what kind of person he is. Even if he does not say anything, he reveals his identity as a missionary.

Koreans are like knapsacks; they cannot hide things, instead they reveal everything. That might be the reason that Koreans can adjust to any environment well and are used by God in that way. However, just as a knapsack cannot hide its contents, Koreans cannot keep secrets well and they are often taken advantage of.

What about Mongolian indigenous theology?

Then, what can be said about Mongolia? In my personal opinion, Mongolian culture is a horse-riding culture. Mongolians are horse-riding people. The Mongolian cavalry conquered the world with their excellent riding techniques. No nation in history has had such a great empire as Mongolia. Culture is transmitted to the next generation and, since this is the age of globalization, it is time for Mongolian Christians to carry out their grand legacy to the world.

Mongolia was the first country which accepted the gospel in Asia in the past. History testifies that the Vatican bragged that they were sending the first missionary to the Mongol empire. But as the missionaries from the Vatican were exiting the court of the Mongolian Emperor after greeting him, they were startled by the loud church bell and choir sounds; there was already an established church there.

I expect that Mongolian indigenous theology will be distinctive from other indigenous theologies. It is going to be more ambitious and visionary then many others.

I mentioned the suitcase culture of the west, the knapsack culture of Korea, and the horse-riding culture of Mongolia in order to draw analogies from various cultures and show how these analogies could influence indigenous theology.

I am speaking about indigenous theology. I have lived as a Korean in Korean culture my whole life. Therefore it does not matter how hard I try to have the viewpoint of a Mongolian Christian. I may still have misunderstandings of Mongolian indigenous theology because I do not fully understand Mongolian culture. Perhaps missionaries from Korea or from the west who have lived in Mongolia for decades can talk about Mongolian indigenous theology. They may have a more accurate understanding of some things. However, if Mongolians cannot accept it, it has to be re-indigenized.

In the next issue, I will talk about the historical trends of indigenous theology.