로잔운동과 상황화에 관한 논의에 대한 연구

Abstract

Even if the term “contextualization” came from the TEF of WCC, the evangelicals are interested with the trend of contextualization, particularly in Lausanne Movement. From 17-21 June 1997, fifty two evangelical missiologists, theologians and mission practitioners from twenty countries met in Haslev, Denmark to consider the issue, “Gospel Contextualisation Revisited.”This meeting was sponsored by the Theology and Strategy Working Group of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. It began by looking back to the 1978 Lausanne meeting on Gospel and Culture which was held in Willowbank. The resulting Lausanne Occasional Paper, “The Willowbank Report - Gospel and Culture,” brought the challenge to accept contextualization and to become more adept in the use of its principles. We are grateful for this pioneering work and hope that our work adds value to this prior work. The purpose of our meeting was to review nineteen years experience of thought and practise and to identify issues that have emerges during this time. According to Patrick Sookhdeo, Contextualization may be understood as the expression of the gospel through appropriate forms within the culture of its recipients. While not an easy process, contextualization endeavours to distinguish between the content of the gospel and the forms which express it. The gospel is God-given and so is of universal application, while culture is relative to time and place. The process of contextualisation recognizes that all cultures contain elements which oppose or compromise the gospel. Contextualization is therefore committed to the gospel controlling its forms of expression. Syncretism reverses this priority. Patrick insists that J.H. Bavinck was right in urging that "Christians are to take legitimate possession of customs and cultures, give them new meaning and new contents, and enlist them in the service of Christ". But as he pointed out, "it is never easy to decide whether a custom can be retained or should be rejected" or, if I may add a further point, should be adapted. The assertion that every culture has something of God, something of the devil and something human raises serious implications for contextualization. The retention of cultural identity in relation both to conversion and to church life is a taxing issue and one which creates polarizations. It is important to identify the extent to which our stance on this issue is based not only on missiological principles but also on our family background, culture, theological and church traditions. On the other hand, in terms of Contextualization and Spiritual Power, Charles Kraft was in debate as questioning such as where are the discussions concerning biblically legitimate and culturally appropriate approaches to such areas of Christian experience as warfare prayer, deliverance from demons, healing, blessing and cursing, dedications, visions, dreams, concepts of the territoriality of spirits, angels, demons and the like? Shouldn't we be discussing the contextualizing of spiritual warfare? What are the scriptural principles applicable to every cultural situation and what are the cultural variables in this important area? Something as important to nonwestern and, increasingly, to western Christians needs to be discussed and dealt with. With the critical issue on contextualization for muslims, Cody Lorance, the Global Diasporas Network of the Lausanne Movement, criticized that the C1-6 scale is fatally flawed in this regard as it seems to suggest that more and more contextualization leads inevitably to syncretism and secret believers. A new contextualization scale should be created that recognizes Christlikeness as the ultimate goal of all contextualization. On one extreme are those who simply are not pursuing Christ in this regard. On the other is full-blown, word-made-flesh incarnational ministry. In conclusion, Christian faith is not separated from cultural/historical facts. The faith must include realistic needs from one's own culture. It comes from a shift toward integrated thinking. A contextualizer must try to find out a stimulus to give a challenge to the worldview of unbelievers, minimizing the internal conflicts among the Christian community through understanding socio-cultural-historical factors. Positively it needs to have a paradigm shift to be able to use the various kinds of cultures as the means to communicate the Gospel.