A
CRITIQUE OF CHARLES KRAFTS
USE/MISUSE OF
COMMUNICATION AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES IN BIBLICAL
INTERPRETATION AND MISSIOLOGICAL
FORMULATION
Enoch Wan
Chair, Division of Intercultural Studies and Director,
Doctor of Missiology Program, Western
Seminary, Portland, Oregon, USA
Published in
Global Missiology, Research Methodology, October 2004, www.globalmissiology.net
INTRODUCTION
This paper is written with
a single purpose of providing a critique by answering the question whether Dr. Charles Kraft has used/misused the
communication and social sciences in his biblical interpretation and
missiological formulation.
METHODOLOGY
The generous cooperation of Dr.
Kraft of Fuller Theological Seminary, in the provision of an updated
comprehensive listing (see Appendix I for a sample of selected titles) of his
published works, is gratefully acknowledged. His commitment
and contribution to academic scholarship, missiological
formulation, interdisciplinary integration, etc. are much appreciated by many.
In the last thirty some years, Dr. Kraft has written more than two dozen books
(in areas ranging from linguistics, communication, missiology, to
deliverance ministries, etc. with translations in Chinese, Korean, and German), and more than 120 articles, editorials and
chapters in books.
From
the list of Dr. Kraft’s publications, it is obvious that there are three major
foci traceable chronologically to his personal
interest and professional development. From 1963-1973, he published
seven volumes on Hausa, a Nigerian language. Beginning in article format in the
early 1970s, his focus of research moved from linguistics/Bible
translation to interdisciplinary integration of linguistics,
hermeneutics, behavioral/social and communication sciences, etc., resulting
in the publication of the influential and controversial book Christianity in
Culture (1979a). (In the same year, two other books were
published, Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity and Communicating
the Gospel God’s Way.) Since his exposure from
1982-1983 to demonology and deliverance ministries, by way of John Wimber’s
“Signs and Wonders” class at Fuller (Kraft 1987:122,
1989:6, 62) and his sub-sequent (or second, cf. Kraft 1979a:6-12 being his
first) “paradigm shift” in 1984, his
publications began to shift (“practice shift,” 1987:127) towards that aspect of Christian ministries as marked by the
publication of several titles of this nature: Christianity with Power (1989), Defeating Dark Angels (1992), Deep Wounds, Deep
Healing
and Behind
Enemy Lines (both in 1994).
Of all
the publications by Dr. Kraft, three books—i.e. Christianity
in Culture (1979a), Communication Theory
for Christian Witness (1983) and Christianity with Power (1989)— and
several articles (see
Appendix I) will be included as the most relevant and representative of his use/misuse of the communication and social
sciences in his biblical interpretation and missiological formulation.
DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS
Bible: The inspired truth of the sixty-six canonical
books.
Biblical Hermeneutics: The principles and procedures by which the
interpreter determines the meaning of
the Holy Scripture within the proper contexts.
Culture: The context/consequence of patterned interaction
of personal Beings/beings, in contrast to
popular usage of culture applying to the presumed closed system of homo
sapiens. This definition of culture
can freely be applied or referred to angelic (fallen or good) beings of the angel-culture and the dynamic interaction of the
Three Persons of the Triune God in theo-culture (Wan 1982b).
Ethno hermeneutics: The principles and procedures by which the
interpreter determines the meaning of
the Holy Scripture, inspired by the Primary Author (Triune God within
theo-culture) and inscripturated
through the secondary authors (human agents of varied historico-culturolinguistic contexts of homino-culture) for the
recipients (of varied historico-culturo linguistic contexts) (Wan 1994).
Inspiration: The divine way of revealing biblical truth (the
Bible) to humankind.
Interpretation: The human way of reducing distance and removing
difference to ascertain the meaning of
the text at hand (Berkhof 1969:11).
Linguistic and Communication
Sciences: Includes the study of
descriptive linguistics, applied linguistics,
proxemic and kinesic communication, etc.
Missiological Formulation: The
formation and development of theory/methodology/strategy for the
sake of mission (the divine Great Commission) and missions (the human ways and
means to fulfill the mission).
Social sciences: Includes disciplines such
as sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc. and the term is used interchangeably with behavioral sciences in this study.
Scriptural: That
which is taught by the Bible and is prescriptive, principal and transcultural /
eternal in nature as compared to being “biblical” — that
which is found in the Bible and is of descriptive,
precedent and cultural / temporal in nature (Wan 1994).
KRAFT’S
USE OF COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES AS A CONTRIBUTION
TO INTER-DISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION
With the advancement of modern scholarship comes
the necessity of division of labor for the sake of specialization and the reality of the compartmentalization of
knowledge and disciplines. In addition to the challenge of
interdisciplinary integration, Christian scholars have to take up the challenge of integrating their Christian faith with
their efforts of interdisciplinary integration without injuring the integrity of either Christian faith (dogmatics; cf.
warnings by David Hubbard, Kraft
1977:170; and Robert McQuilkin, 1977), academic disciplines (academics) or practical application (pragmatics).
For
decades, evangelical Christians, like Charles Kraft in Christianity
in Culture: A Study in Dynamic
Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective
(1979a), have successfully strived for multi-disciplinary
integration, covering a multitude of subject matters. Of those, like Kraft, who
have received similar professional training and with similar ministry
experiences, have tried to bridge similar disciplines and
covering similar topics, there are many, e.g. Eugene Mida Kenneth
Pike, Alan Tippett. William Wonderly, Linwood Barney, James O. Buswen, III,
David Hesselgrave, Paul Hiebert, etc.
However, Kraft's book (1979a) is unique in terms of
the combination of the following characteristics:
conceptually coherent/consistent with simplicity (some reviewers like Carl
Henry and Edward Gross may disagree on
this point; yet it can be demonstrated as shown in Figures I and 2
below), ”well -documented and carefully organized" (Henry 1980:153),
thought provoking (Adeney 1980:24),
“creative...challenging. Impressive...admirable” (Saayman 1981:89 -90), innovative in theoretical formulation, illustrative
in field experience, practical in illustrations, comprehensive in coverage,
etc.
I have come a long way (cf.
previous review, Wan 1982a) and it has been a long time in coming to
have a greater appreciation of this volume: in the formats of pre-publication
mimeograph and later in published book form (as key reference or
textbook) for a period of about twenty years in teaching ministries, testing it out in three continents. Even this
semester, I am using it as a text for
my ethno-hermeneutics class in the doctoral class at the Reformed Theological
Seminary. I share the assessment of reviewer Robert L. Ramseyer:
. . .
a truly monumental attempt to show what cultural anthropology can do for our understanding
of Christian faith and mission. As the most complete work in the field, Christianity
in Culture is also the best
example of the way in which our understanding of culture
and the cultural process affects our understanding of Christian faith and life
. . . especially helpful in this respect because the author is
not afraid to follow his anthropological
presuppositions to their obvious theological and missiological conclusions.
Where his predecessors were content to merely suggest,
Kraft spells out in detail the logical
conclusions of consistently acting on his understanding of
society and culture . . . I felt strongly that this was at the same time both the
best book and the worst
book
that I had read on this subject. I still feel that way (Ramseyer 1983:110, 115)
(emphasis mine).
It is
in the spirit of appreciation, at the invitation of Dr. Kraft's risk taking,
continuous searching, “open -minded development ...
dynamic and growing ... you are free to disagree ... are encouraged
to join me in the quest for greater insight” (Kraft 1979a:xiii.l2, 41;
1987b:139), within the context of friendly and frank
discussion ("genuine dialog,” Kraft 1987b:139) that the following
comments are offered.
FIGURE 1- THE BASICS OF KRAFTS
(1979a) MODEL
CATEGORY |
GENERAL PATTERN |
KRAFTS PREFERRED PATTERN |
LANGUAGE (LINGUISTICS) |
sound, word, sentence, paragraph, etc. -(phonology, morphology,
syntax, semantics, etc.) |
-variable in forms, (chapter) -efficient / impactful in function, -constant in meaning (4-7) |
GOSPEL (EVANGELISM) |
-the goad news of salvation -(multiple approaches: prepositional, personal, presence,
persuasion. program, power-encounter, etc.) |
-meet the felt-need of receptor -(various receptor-oriented means leading to the communication of the
good news) (8-12) |
BIBLE (TRANSLATION) |
-in different languages for
different people-groups -(formal-correspondence,
dynamic-equivalence, etc.) |
-choice of receptor-oriented types of translation of
the Bible -(dynamic-equivalence
principle) (13-17) |
NOTE: ( ) chapter numbering
of Kraft’s Christianity in Culture. (1979a)
FIGURE 2- KRAFT'S INTER-DISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION
SOURCE / CATEGORY |
EUGENE NIDA (K. PIKE, etc.) |
[NEO-ORTHODOXY and NEW
HERMENEUTIC] |
||||||
DISCIPLINE |
COMMUNICATION
and |
[PHILOSOPHICAL and PRACTICAL THEOLOGY] |
||||||
linguistic and
communication sciences |
social/beh. sciences |
[existential theology, Bible translation, hermeneutics] |
[practical theology, missiology] |
|||||
Transform- ational grammar; and functional
linguistics |
communication theory and Bible translation |
functional -ism, conceptual model and Christian
model(2,3) |
[relational theology] (6) |
[revelation and hermeneutics] (10-11) |
evangelism |
discipleship and church planting |
||
BASIC IDEA |
form, function, meaning (4,5) |
three aspects: sender-message -receptor; communication with efficiency(8) |
human
commona-lity and world view (5) |
In-- carnation
(9) ethno- theology (7)] |
[receptor-oriented understanding (12- 13);ethno linguistic interpretation.(7)] |
“be all...to all...by all means" (lCor. 9) (cf.p.103,123, 128,142,154,197, 230,300,400) |
[contextualization, transforming culture with God] (18,19) |
|
KEY
TERM |
dynamic-equivalence (DE) / receptor-oriented (RO) |
|||||||
RO-principle / DE-principle |
RO-communication and DE-translation |
[DE- Transcultura -tion
(14)] |
[DE- theologizing (15)] |
[RO-revelation
(9) DE-translation of the inspired
Casebook (13)] |
IDE-conversion of (17)
and DE- transculturation of the message (14)] |
DE-churchness (16) |
||
NOTE: 1) ( ) chapter numbering in Christianity in Culture. (Kraft
1979a); 2) concepts and terms in [] are logical derivations of Krafts consistent/coherent theoretical model; leaning towards theological
deviation on Kraft’s part from the evangelical position as represented by
"The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics” (Geisler
1978).
KRAFT’S
USE / MISUSE OF THECOMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES IN BIBLICAL
INTERPRETATION AND MISSIOLOGICAL FORMULATION
Evangelical
response to Kraft's ethno theological model of integrating communication and
social sciences with theology varied from positive (Buswell
1986, Saayman 1981), mixed (Adeney 1980, Conn 1984, Hesselgrave 1992) to negative (Carson
1987 and 1993, Dryness 1980, Gross 1985,
Heldenbrand 1982 and 1985, Henry 1980, Krass 1979, McQuilkin 1977, Scaer 1982,
Wan 1982a). Two books have been
published in response to Kraft's Christianity in Culture, i.e. Edward N. Gross's Is Charles Kraft An
Evangelical? A Critique of Christianity in Culture (1985) of 100-plus pages and Harvie M. Conn's Eternal
Word and Changing World (1984) of 300- plus pages which was reviewed
by Buswell (1986:71) who stated that "in many respects this
work might be considered
an extended . . . commentary on missionary anthropologist Charles Kraft's
position developed mainly in his Christianity in Culture" (cf.
Conn's own admission,1984:330). Conn's
review by far was the most fair and extensive appraisal of Kraft's model.
The following discussion
is organized in the format of answers to four questions:
1) Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his attempt of interdisciplinary
integration? -- NO.
2) Has Kraft misused the
communication and social sciences in his biblical interpretation and missiological formulation in light of his
theoretical and methodological root being a linguist/communicologist? --
NO.
3) Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his biblical
interpretation from an evangelical perspective:
-based on "The Willowbank Report" ? -- NO
-based on "The Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy"? -- YES
4) Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his missiological formulation from an
evangelical perspective:
-based on "The Willowbank Report"? -- NO
-based on "The Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy"? -- YES
Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his attempt of interdisciplinary
integration? -- NO.
Kraft had been repeatedly
commended for his insightful discussion on linguistic application to Bible translation (Adeney 1980, Conn 1984,
Saayman 1981, Hesselgrave 1992, Ramseyer 1983) yet his critics faulted him either for his bad choice of an
anthropological theory called "functionalism"
(Conn 1984, Remseyer 1983, Scaer 1982, Wan 1982a) or his non-evangelical theology in terms of "truth,"
"revelation," and "hermeneutics" (Carson 1987 and 1993,
Conn 1978, Dryness 1980, Gross 1985, Heldenbrand 1982 and 1985, Henry 1980,
Krass 1979, McQuilkin 1977 and 1980, Ramseyer 1983, Wan 1982a).
A careful study of
Kraft's published works will show that his critics have misunderstood him very badly. In his writings, especially Christianity
in Culture, he appears to be an
anthropologist of the
"functional" school and a theologian of "neo-orthodox" and
"new hermeneutic" persuasion.
He uses freely the terms and concepts of anthropological functionalism (e.g.
"culture is an integrated
system," "form and function," "equilibrium,"
"felt-need," "functional substitute," "efficiency," "impact," etc.);
yet he never claims to be a "functionalist anthropologist." He employs with liberty the terms and concepts of
scholars of "neo-orthodox" and "new hermeneutic" tradition
(e.g. "continuous revelatory interaction between God and man," "revelation as a receptor-oriented
communication," "the Bible as a case book of God's continuous
dynamic interaction with man," "inspiration is an ongoing dynamic
process of God's communication," etc.);
he never identifies himself as a theologian. He is a linguist / communicologist
by self-profession (Kraft 1977:165; 1987:133; 1983) and by practice par excellence.
For instance, it is generally assumed by Kraft's
theoretical friends (Buswell 1986, Conn 1984, Saayman 1981) and foes (Dyrness 1980, Helderbrand 1985, Ramseyer 1983,
Wan 1982a) that his model of
ethno-theology (Kraft 1979a) is based on his choice of functionalist
anthropological theory (e.g. Conn
1984: chapter 3), traceable to the British (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, etc.) and American (Franz Boas, Talcott Parsons, Robert
Merton, etc.) traditions (cf. Buswell 1980, Hatch 1973, Harris 1968). This assumption of his personal choice of
anthropological `functionalism” is
not warranted by facts, i.e. h is training, profession, publication and performance.
A diachronic analysis of the formation and
development of Kraft’s ethno -theological model began in linguistics / communication sciences (Wan 1982a) and remains
consistently as a communication model
(Dyrness 1980:40). He began as a linguist by training (linguistics at Hartford
Seminary Foundation), by research and profession (as a Linguist / translator in
the Hausa language of Nigeria), by
publications (on Hausa: seven volumes between 1965-1973, thirteen articles between 1965-1976). Though not a
member of the Summer Institute of Linguistics (`SIL” except in 1961 -63,
see Kraft 1987:133), he followed closely and `built upon” (Conn 1984:154-159) the foundation of SIL/ABS
(`American Bible Society,”) transla tors / linguists such as E. A. Nida, K. Pike, W. A. Smalley, W. D. Reyburn, J.
A. Lowen, W. Wonderly, etc. (Conn
1984:154-159; Heldenbrand 1985:42).
It was
not until Kraft’s realization that his linguistic techniques and mono -cultural
missionary training did not prepare and equip him to deal with
cultural issues and contextualization problems
(e.g. polygamy, spirits, Nigerian preference of the Old Testament to his
beloved `Epistle to the Romans,” etc.), that he was led to move
into applied anthropology in research, reflection, and publication (Kraft
1979a: chapter 1). His model of ethno-theology in Christianity
in Culture is a cumulative combination of
linguistics / communication research (e.g. S-M-R, emic/etic and surface /
deep analysis, functional linguistic, transformational grammar,
receptor-orientation and dynamic-equivalence translation / communication, etc.)
applied to anthropology, theology, with a
strong dose of American pragmatism (e.g. efficiency, impact, practical Throw-to,” `functional fit,” `f elt-need,” `receptor
-orientation” for fruitful result, etc.). His ethno - theology has all the trappings of classical
functionalism of European tradition, and modern
functionalism of
contemporary American version in cultural anthropology. At heart he is a linguist / communicologist and is busy at work
(Kraft 1976c, 1977a, 1978c, 1979b, 1981, 1983 etc., see Appendix I) with
the preoccupation of being efficient and impactful pragmatically (Wan 1982a). His call for being “personal” and
“relational” (Kraft 1979a , 1983) is for the purpose of “good
communication for good result” (Kraft 1979b, 1979e), or “ensuring the best
return on the missionary investment”
(Saayman 1981:90), a rather pragmatic and programmatic motivation that is “biblical” like the recruitment pa ttern
of the scribes and Pharisees of the biblical time (Mt 23:15); but not “scriptural” (i.e. in obedience to
God and with compassion to and love for the recipients, Mt 9:35-38; 28:18-20; etc.)
Kraft has achieved what he planned to do in Christianity
in Culture, i.e. develop a “cross
-cultural Christian theology” by
integrating “anthropology, linguistics, translation theory, and communication science on areas of life and thought
that have ordinarily been regarded as theological”
(1979a:13). Credit is due him for his successful interdisciplinary integration
with clarity, coherence, convincing
presentation, etc. and for his momentous accomplishment in theoretical formulation (Ramseyer 1983:110). Even
one of his strongest critics (100-plus pages of negative remarks) complemented him on this volume as “one of the most
important books yet printed dealing
with the current contextualization debate” (Gross 1985:3).
Kraft’s model has been criticized by reviewer
Ramseyer who said, “Christianity in Culture seems strangely unaware of confrontations and
conflict in New Testament gospel sharing” (1983:112-1 13) on the basis of Kraft’s “naive attempt to apply insight
from one particular kind of cultural
anthropology (static functionalism) to the Christian mission (1983:115). Providentially, Kraft in 1984 experienced a
“second paradigm shift” (cf. Kraft 1979a:6 -12 being his first) which gave him a “kingdom perspective”
with a “warfare mentality” realizing the
reality
of the spirit world. His “practice shift” (Kraft 1987:127) moving into the
Christian deliverance ministries is theologically supported
by his research and publication of several books:
Christianity with Power (1989),
Defeating Dark Angels (1992),
Deep Wounds, Deep Healing
and Behind Enemy Line (both
in 1994) and many articles.
Kraft began his research and writing in linguistics
from 1963-1973, followed by his intensive study on and integration of
anthropology, communication, translation, interpretation and contextualization in the 1970s with the resultant
publication of Christianity in Culture in 1979. He
then shifted his focus to the spirit world from the 1980s to the present. This
pilgrimage of inter-disciplinary integration is similar to the
wilderness experience of the Israelites due to his conception and compartmentalization of reality, especially spiritual
reality.
Kraft
took the "cultural / supracultural and absolute / relative"
presupposition (epistemological discussion here and theological
critique later) from Nida with neither reservation nor modification
(with reference to Nida in his 1979a "a total of 41 times," as
observed by Conn, 1984:144). The weakness of Kraft's
interdisciplinary approach lies in this faulty presupposition of
reality (see Figure 3) in his theoretical formulation and the resultant
research / ministry operation that took him many years
of time and efforts moving from the lower level (of functional
linguistics) to the higher level (of "integrated culture,"
incarnation, inscripturation, interpretation of Scripture, ethno-theology) to
the middle level (of angels demons, deliverance ministries)
as shown in the diagram below.
Perhaps
this is the problem Ramseyer (1983: 114) is trying to identify which "is a
characteristic of the Western intellectual tradition . . . but his is unable to
see that his attempts to split reality into
principles and behavior, meaning and form . . . are the sort of Western
intellectualizing which he warns his readers against." The
following quotation may illustrate this point of duality conception and its correlated compartmentalizing
operation:
The dialectical
logic of the Ameri-European culture can best be understood in
light of lineal conception of time and monochronic time-management
. . . The extensive use of the Aristotelian logic,
especially the law of identity and the law of contradiction . . . leads to a
deep-rooted perception of duality in reality
and dialectical cognitive process in operation,
It is axiomatic to categorize and classify everything in AE culture in terms
of duality: e.g. ethically right or wrong,
good or bad; cosmologically nature or culture,
temporal or eternal, the city of God or city of man, heaven or hell; cultural
or supracultural, absolute or relative; existentially
compartmentalize life into public or private, profession or personal,
departmentalize . . . soteriologically the sovereignty of God or the free will
of man; christologically the divine nature or human nature in the
person
of Christ, the historical Jesus or Christ of the kerygma (Wan
1982b, 1985); epistemologically true or false; aesthetically
beautiful or ugly, etc. The list of duality can
be easily multiplied (Wan 1995:15).
In
this study, a new definition and concept of "culture" is proposed as
an alternative that would not presuppose humanity as a "closed
system" (Wan 1982b), compartmentalized from angelic beings
and the Divine Being (the Three Persons of the Triune God). This new model of
reality will enable evangelical Christians to develop a
"symphonic integration" that is multi-disciplinary (not
just a "trialogue" of anthropology, missiology and theology as
proposed by Conn 1984), multi-contextual (Wan 1982b,
1994), multi-dimensional (Holmes 1983), and multi-perspectival
(Conn 1984:335-337, Poythress 1987). (See Appendix II—A Symphonic
Approach to Interdisciplinary Integration:
A Vari-dynamic Model. This "vari-dynamic
model" is to be "Trinitarian" in
theology and epistemology, "incarnational" in anthropology and
methodology,
"contextual-interactionist"
in contextualization, multi-dimensional and interdisciplinary in demonology
and deliverance ministries, family-focused in the practice of evangelism, discipleship,
church planting, ethno hermeneutically in theologizing which is biblically
based, scripturally sound and culturally sensitive, see Wan
1982b, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991a, 1991b,
1994, 1995).
Has Kraft misused the
communication and social sciences in his biblical interpretation and missiological
formulation in light of his theoretical and methodological root being a
linguist / communicologist? -- NO.
If one criticizes Kraft’s ethno -theology from an
anthropological perspective (as I did in 1982) one is overlooking his strength in consistent and creative, insightful
and innovative interdisciplinary
integration (see previous quote of Ramseyer, 1984). Attacking Kraft’s view on
`truth,” `revelation,” `interpretation,” etc. as presented in Christianity
in Culture theologically without considering his theoretical and methodological
base in linguistic and communication sciences,
as did many of his critics (e.g. Carson 1987 and 1993, Conn 1978, Dryness 1980,
Gross 1985, Heldenbrand 1982 and 1985,
Henry 1980, Krass 1979, McQuilkin 1977 and 1980, Ramseyer 1983, Wan 1982a) is indeed a real mistake. Kraft has neither
the intention nor the pretension to
declare himself a theologian (whether it be an `evangelical” one or not is
beside the point). On one occasion he expressed his frustration at being
misunderstood, `it is unlikely that a ‘meddler’
(of theology) like myself could function competently as a theolo gian” (Kraft 1977:166).
He, (by confession `academically I am labeled an
anthropological linguist,” Kraft 1977:165) is a linguist / communicologist / missiologist busying himself in his
courageous venture into the hinterland
of `cross -cultural theologizing” (sub -title of 1979a) dynamically
(to be different from the traditional `static” approach, 1979a:32 -38), ‘open-mindedly”
(to break away from the `closed -minded conservative,” 1979a:39 -41), cross-culturally
(to swim against the current of mono-cultural theologizing of the regular practice
of western theologians, Kraft 1979a: chapter 7), contextually (to avoid the pitfall of the old-fashioned `cultural imperialist”), progressively
(termed `cumulative revelation
information” of the Bible rather than `progr essive revelation” of the
closed-minded evangelical, Kraft 1979a: chapters 9-12), pragmatically (for
`efficiency” and `impact”), communicatively
(see Figure 3). His strength in
being theoretically consistent and coherent
has misled him theologically. (see [ ] items on the right side of Figure 2).
Kraft
is to be praised for his courage to go beyond his linguist / comminico1ogist
predecessors, Nida, Pike, Smalley, Wonderly, etc. (cf. quote of
Ramseyer 1983 previously), embarking on his journey,
of interdisciplinary integration of `cross -cultural theologizing” by way of
communication (Kraft 1973d, 1974a, 1980, 1983), psychology (Kraft 1974b, 1986),
anthropology (Kraft 1975, 1977, 1 978b, 1980, 1985),
theology (Kraft 1972a, 1972b, l979a) and missiology
(Kraft 1978a, 1978b). In Christianity in Culture, Kraft
is charting a new path of multidisciplinary integration and
in the process he might have controversially attracted criticism on
his theology by the well intentioned `defenders” of the evangelical faith in
the persons of Harvey Conn (1978), William
Dyrness (1980), Edward Gross (1985), Carl Henry (1980), Richard
Heldenbrand (1982 and 1985), and Robertson McQuilkin (1977 and 1980). Only a linguist
/ communicologist would be eager to develop a new `theology of com munication”
and
make “biblical” but not
“scriptural” statements as listed in Figure 4.
Kraft’s best
contribution to interdisciplinary integration is his insightful analysis of
language, translation, communication
and his masterful synthetic model of communication. Even his critics complement him: "[Kraft] has produced a book
which contains a wealth of extremely helpful ideas and suggestions. He is at his best when he discusses language.
Chapter 13 on the translation of the
Bible is excellent” (Ramseyer 198 3:115).
FIGURE
4 - KRAFTS (1983) - THEOLOGY OF COMMUNICATION
COMMUNICATION
THEOLOGY |
COMMUNICATION
THEORY |
God: - the REALITY, Originator of principle (215) - God's communication goal:
personal relationship with man (20-22) - the MESSAGE of communication (58,207) |
Assumption: - "God abides by the communicational rules he
built into his creation"; therefore
"we can and should imitate God's example" (215) - critical realism (223) |
the Incarnation: (23-26) - identificational communication (15) |
we learn from Jesus: (23-26) -
personal participation in the lives of his receptors: - love = primary
concern for receptor - respects, trusts and makes
himself dependent on and vulnerable to receptor |
the Bible: = record of the revelation of God's message (215) = manual / case-book of
communication ( 16) =
precedents and principles of communication (16) = inspiration of message
extends to method (3) |
communicator should: -adopt the receptor's frame of reference (culture, language, etc.) (41); -have relational and specific message (21) |
“truth": -
meaning determined by receptor (89-108) |
message: (75-82) - interaction, multiple, irretrievable, complex, 6
types |
hermeneutics: (l89-190) -interpreting
the Bible = communication interpreting
the “truth” (interpretational reflex) |
meaning exists: (109-133) - neither objectively (external) nor subjectively (in symbols); - is result of interpretation;
thus receptor-dependent and is relative |
the Gospel: life-changing message of the Great Commission
(i.e. “communicating the good news throughout the world”)(17) |
Jesus is the master/effective
communicator: (22-34, 195- 207) -7 things to learn: 1) segment audience; 2) enter receptor’s frame of reference;
3) control vehicles; 4) self + message; 5) credible; 6) relevant; 7)
specific |
evangelism and Bible translation: -communicating for
life-change (222); -the person as medium (160); -translation as communication (171) |
-10 myths of communication
(35-54) -3 factors of communication: (64-75) goal,
audience, method of presentation |
-conversion: -“paradigm shift” (radical change of perspective) (271) -church planting: dynamic equivalence
Christian group |
-receptors have needs (9); -7 stages of receptor’s decision -making (105) |
-effective
communication for deep-level change: worldview, value, commitment (221-224)
-dynamic communication with efficiency and impact (48, 82-88, 238-240) |
NOTE: ( ) page numbering in Communication
Theory for Christian Witness (1983)
Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his biblical
interpretation from an evangelical perspective?
- based on “The Willowbank Report”? -- NO
-
based on “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”? -- YES
Dr.
Kraft was on of the dozens of participants and presenters (Kraft 1980b) at the
Consultation on Gospel and Culture held at Willowbank,
Somerset Bridge, Bermuda from 6th to 13th January 1978, sponsored by the
Lausanne Theology and Education Group. “The Willo wbank Report” was published (Coote and Stott 1980:308-342) as
the result of the gathering. His input at the consultation and the
drafting of “The Willowbank Report” could be identified and there is no
apparent
conflict between that report and his
ethno-theological model.
However, implicit in Kraft’s model of ethno
-theology in terms of biblical interpretation are two assumptions
that are in conflict with “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy”: i.e. his epistemological assumption is in conflict with
Article III and his methodological assumption with Article V.
Firstly, in his reaction against the
rationalist’s (like Carl Henry or Harold Lindsell) insistence on “propositional/objective
truth” to be “static” and his avoidance of neo -orthodoxy (like Barth and Thiselton) “subjective truth,” he opted for Ian
Barbour’s (1974) “critical realism” for the sake of being theoretically consistent to arrive at a
“relational truth” (Walters 1982) which Kraft described as “receptor-oriented” understanding of truth (Kraft 1979a).
The Bible being “God’s revelational
information” is only “potential revelation” until the recipient’s proper
understanding / interpreting to have
the “meaning” (with the Holy Spirit as the activator).
This is at variance with Article III of “The
Chicago Statement,” which states that “[w]e deny the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only
becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for
its validity” (Geisler 1980:494 -495). John Dahms added to A. Holmes’ (1977:34-38) two-dimensional understanding of
“truth” to be three: “in biblical usage truth is sometimes a quality of propositions, sometimes a quality of persons and
things (especially a characteristic of
ultimate reality), and sometimes a quality of conduct or action” (Dahms 1994:8). And the “unity of truth” is to be found in
the Logos — the Word— Incarnated and inscripturated.
See Appendix IV for the multidimensional, multi-level, multi-contextual understanding of God’s revelation that would allow
a “symphonic mu ltidisciplinary integration” under the direction of the Triune God (i.e. the Father likened to the
composer, the Son the music / theme and the Holy Spirit the conductor, using
the same score—the Word Incarnate and inscripturated.)
Secondly,
Kraft’s ethno -theology model has a methodological assumption that is not
in accordance with
Article V of “The Chicago Statement”: “God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures
was progressive . . . deny that any normative revelation has been given since
the completion of the New Testament writings” (Geisler
1980:495). Kraft’s model is built on the “ synchronic”
dimension of “functional linguistics” and “transformational grammar” which
would lead him to be devoid of the historical
dimension of the Bible in his interpretation (e.g. “ progressive revelation” and the Christian faith, e.g. Israel and the New
Testament church as God’s covenant people, see Conn 1974:4; Dyrness 1980:40).
His extensive, almost exclusive,
use of the communication model and the emphasis on
God’s “dynamic continuous interaction”) with humanity would have similar effects of denying the closed “canon”
of the Bible historically and thus
confusing “inspiration” with “illumination,” see Appendix III. Here are
examples of Kraft’s “unscriptural” statements:
- God
has inspired and still inspires (Kraft 1979a:205; 1987:126).
- Yet in many ways tradition
(‘law’), tribe and ceremony in Hebrew culture were the functional
equivalents of grace, freedom, and philosophizing in Greek culture. The latter are
not necessarily superior ways of expressing the Gospel, just different
culturally (Kraft
1979a: 232).
- Yet I had concluded that a living God is a still
revealing God (Kraft 1987:126).
The historicity and historical dimension of the
Christian faith cannot and should not be lost by the indiscriminately adoption of a mere synchronic / communicational /
dynamic interaction model of “time -zero” for the sake of emic -based
understanding of “meaning” or efficient communication
with impact, because these have ill-effects on his interpretation of the Bible
and cross-cultural theologizing. Kraft’s “unscriptural” statements of
Figure 2 (in [ ]) warrant some comments here.
God is not just the “MESSAGE” of Christian
communication (Kraft 1979a: chapter 9; 1983:58, 207). Jesus, the Incarnate Word is not just the “master / effective
communicator” (Kraft 1979a:chapter 6;
1983:23-34, 195-207; see Figure 1 and Figure 2). If “Jesus of Nazareth” (termed
“form” in Kraft’s model to be considered “relative”) should be separated from
the ”Christ of kerygma”
(termed “meaning” in Kraft’s
model to be “receptor oriented / determined”) as Kraft has done (e.g. “word/form” separated from “meaning” in
linguistics and from “meaning/message”
in communication) then this Christology of Kraft is no longer evangelical and this type of interdisciplinary integration (of
linguistic and communication sciences with theology) is improper. The Bible, the inscripturated Word, is neither
just the "the measure of revelation"
nor just "the record of the revelational information from God," nor
the "manual / case-book of
communication" (Kraft 1979a:187-190; 1983:16, 215, see Appendix V). Carson
(1977) criticized Kraft's view of the
Bible "as a casebook" and made some strong statements:
He
treats the Bible as a casebook, in which different narratives or passages might
reasonably be applied to one particular culture but not to another . . . it
appears as if Kraft's reliance on contemporary hermeneutics has
simultaneously gone too far and not far enough. He has gone too far in
that by treating the Bible as a casebook he does not ask how
the pieces fit together. Indeed, he necessarily assumes that they do not . . .
But he does not go far enough in that he fails to recognize that
even basic statements such as "Jesus is Lord" are in certain respects
culturally conditioned . . . "Jesus" is not an entirely unambiguous
proper noun; are we referring to the Jesus of the Mormons, the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Jesus of liberal
Protestantism . . . of orthodox Christianity (Carson 1993:58-59)
Kraft's use of the Bible to formulate his "theology
of communication" and his application of the RO-/DE-principle in
hermeneutics and cross-cultural theologizing is a violation of the general teaching (termed "plain meaning" or not
being in "functional control of the Bible" by McQuilkin 1980). In simple terms, Kraft's biblical
interpretation and missiological formulation is "biblical" but not "scriptural."
Since
God's revelation and our interpretation have multi-dimensional, multi-level,
multi-contextual complexity, evangelical interpretation and cross-cultural
theologizing (Conn 1978:44- 45; Wan 1994) should not only be
"biblical" but also "scriptural," not individualistic but communal
and complex ("convenantal community" in Conn
1984:231-235;"complexity and necessity" in Wan 1994; see
Appendix VI and Figure 5 below).
Figure
5- THE REVELATORY and HERMENEUTICAL CIRCLE
revelatory
process
—>........ —> A = Bible Author (the Triune God)
B =
Bible Writers (Moses to Apostle John)
A B C or D C = Christian recipients/interpreter / communicator
<—........ <— D =
Non-Christian Recipients/Interpreter
hermeneutical process
As one
evangelical anthropologist observed, "Kraft has opened himself up to the
charge of being too beholden to the 'God of
culture' and a 'high view of culture/low view of scripture'." (Hesselgrave
1991:129).
Has
Kraft misused the communication and social sciences in his missiological
formulation from
an evangelical perspective:
- based on "The Willowbank
Report"? -- NO
- based on "The Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"? -- Yes
Kraft
has not misused the
communication and social sciences in his missiological
formulation, from
an evangelical perspective based on "The Willowbank Report," but did
so if examined on the basis of "The Chicago
Statement on Biblical Inerrancy." Implicit in his model of ethno theology
are two questionable assumptions: anthropological assumption cf. Article XIV
and methodological assumption cf. Article XVIII.
In
contemporary linguistic science, language is considered axiomatically to be
"an arbitrary system for communication"
that is relative in value and morally neutral. Kraft (following Nida, Pike,
etc.) made use of the translation / communication model (i.e. the RO- and
DE-principle, see Figure 2) and extensively applied
it to transculturation, cross-cultural theologizing and evangelism,
etc. The anthropological assumption is that "culture is analogous to
language in that the relationship between cultural
forms and the meanings which they convey is essentially arbitrary"
(Ramseyer 1983:111).
Evangelical
Christian anthropologists can neither assume "culture" to be morally
neutral, presupposing it to be relative in value (i.e. human
cultures approximate the "scriptural" standing in varying degrees), nor
merely arbitrary (i.e. the image of God, the fallenness of humanity, the transforming power of the gospel, etc., cf.
reviewers: Adeney 198O:26; Henry 1980:157; Ramseyer 1983:110). The importance of the New Testament epistles in
terms of fulfillment of the Old
Testament books is based on the assumption of “the unity and internal
consistency of Scripture” (Article
XIV) and is not due to the cultural preference of mono -cultural Western missionaries
and could not be opted out by any cultural groups because of cultural affinity
to or preference for portions of the Bible
(Kraft 1979a:chapters 13-15; cf. Carson 1987 and 1993).
“We
affirm that the text of Scripture. . . den[ies] the legitimacy of any treatment
of the text or quest for sources lying behind it
that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing or discounting its
teaching”
is affirmed by “The Chicago Statement” (Article XVIII). It is at variance with
Kraft’s
methodological assumption which is
communication-reductionist and instrument-teleological.
The term “communication” used by
Kraft is frequent and fluid. For a communicologist like Kraft,
everything is “communication.” Yet Kraft provided no specific definition of the
term “ communication” in either 1979a or
1983; the closest one of such is as follows:
The use of the terms preach
and proclaim as
virtually the only translations of kerusso and
several other Greek terms suggest. . . In
present day English, at least, such a term is readily at hand in the word communicate. I would, therefore, contend that the broad presentation of the gospel is intended by such Greek terms as kerusso, it would be more
accurate to translate it “communicate
(Kraft 19783:43).
Subsequently, Kraft can include everything under
the term “communicate.” According to K raft’s theology of communication (see Figure 4): “God is the MESSAGE of
communication,“ “the Incarnation is
identification communication,” translating and interpreting the Bible is
“ communicate,” etc. Thus “communicate” is a catch -all generic label
(from God’s inspiration, redemption,
and salvation to the Christian’s evangelism, theologizing, and church planting)
that is so broad, so vague, so
inclusive, etc. that it would confuse those who seek to communicate effectively and impactfully to use the term
"communication" more carefully.
Kraft’s
communication -reductionist model of the “RO - / DE-principle” (see Figure 2)
has a methodological assumption that evangelical Christians
would question, including his methodology statement, “the
inspiration of the Bible extends both to the message and the method”
(Kraft 1983:3). Reviewer Ramseyer sounded the alarm:
In far too many cases, however, it
has been assumed that the gospel is simply a message to be communicated and
that whatever these sciences tell us about the communication of messages can be used to facilitate the
communication of the gospel (Ramseyer 1983:108)
The gospel is not like any “message.” Evangelism
is not like any communication (McQuilkin 1977:40-41). Conversion is not just “paradigm shift.” The In carnation
is not just “identification communication.”
There are the divine dimension, the, spiritual reality, the theo -dynamic and angel-dynamic contexts (see Figure 6). In all the
examples listed above, “communication” is only “the necessary bit not suffi cient” factor and is only one
dimension of reality. To be com - munication-reductionistic
is to be simplistic in theory, “biblical” but not “scriptural” (see Appendix IV to Appendix VI), just communicational
without commitment in “heart” and “life” (see Conn 1978:43 for discussion on John Calvin’s theologia
pietatis of covenant witness with
covenant life).
The
methodological assumption in terms of instrumental/teleological presupposition/
preoccupation
(Wan 1994) is a serious problem from an evangelical perspective. Conn (1978:42;
1984:192-205) wrongly identified McGavran’s
attempt to reduce the gospel to a “core" of threefold affirmations for evangelization as the result of Cartesian
rationalism and stated that “the
simple gospel is never that simple.” (A b etter option is to have a “center
set” of approach that is
theo-dynamic, Christocentric, scripturally sound and culturally sensitive, Wan
1982b, 1994). Kraft’s model of ethno
theology shared the same instrumental/ teleological
presupposition/ preoccupation with success, efficiency
and impact. (Even more alarming is the "functional
Trinitarian" view of God embraced by both Nida (1959:53) and Kraft
(1979a:195). This would explain his
readiness to propose his felt-need, non-combative, receptor-oriented approach
for "minimal dislocation," and maximum efficiency in his
contextualized Muslim evangelism
(Conn 1984:192-195; Heldenbrand 1982, 1985; Kraft 1982b; McQuilkin 1977:40) (See Figure 6).
FIGURE
6 – WAN’S ANALYSIS OF KRAFT’S (1983) MODEL
KRAFTS MODEL |
WAN’S ANALYSIS |
||
COMMUNICATION PATTERN |
COMMUNICATION CATEGORY |
CHRISTIAN EQUIVALENCE |
MISSING ELEMENT |
know and master the principle of:
form, function, and meaning |
surface level: multiplicity of form and function |
understanding the Scripture; personal evangelism |
inspiration: Bible =
divine-human Book evangelism/ illumination: divine-human
interaction |
receptor-oriented comunication |
deep-level: paradigm-shift |
spiritual repentance and conversion |
kernel level: personal
interaction (like human sexual intimacy) |
communication
with efficiency and impact |
goal-oriented
communication |
spiritual reality of being born-again |
deep level: spiritual
regeneration (like amalgamation with genetic pooling |
DE-Christian group |
successful and efficient communication |
discipleship and church planting |
transformed life, committed disciple, organismic church with body-life |
For
evangelicals the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation" (Ro
1:16-17) and theo-dynamic. Evangelism is
different from other kinds of communication; similar to incarnation,
inscripturation, and illumination for it is theo-dynamic in nature, Christo-centric,
multi-contextual, multi-dimensional,
multi-individual (the Triune God, the Bible-writer, the human messenger/ evangelist, the receptor, etc see
Appendix IV and Appendix V). It is not human-centered, not merely message / meaning / means-based, not receptor-dependent
alone, not outcome-determined. In
Christianity, "the means" and "the messenger," are also
determined by the "message"
of God-revealing truth, God-redeeming power, and in a God-character way. Following Nida's lead on
"supracultural/cultural, absolute/relative" principle, Kraft credited
God with being the only "absolute"; everything else is relative,
cultural, functional, adaptable, etc.
was for the purpose of building a biblical basis
for his pragmatic/functional/relative/teleological way of theoretical formulation and missiological
application.
"Scripturally"
speaking, evangelism is not just a Christian's effort to minimize the negative elements
of the gospel to "market it" for effective membership recruitment for
a "Christian club." It is a divinely
motivated/enabled/guided Christian's effort to make committed disciples (not
just communicating the gospel message to appeal to the "felt-need" of
the receptive recipient) whose transformed lives should be
nurtured in the Christian fellowship of the church—an organism, not a
social aggregate of individuals with "paradigm shift."
However,
Kraft's most recent "paradigm shift" 1989:82-85) and "practice
shift." (1987:127) have shown a very healthy and
scriptural shift from this methodological presupposition and preoccuptaion
with "gospel-marketing," receptor's felt need, consumer orientation
for success, efficiency, etc. His articles (1986a, 1987b, 1991,
1992) have repeatedly emphasized “allegiance encounter,”
and “truth encounter” (as suggested by reviewers Conn 1984:229 -235; Ramseyer
1983:112) in addition to
the popular understanding or `power encounter,” thanks to his former colleague Paul Hiebert (for Kraft’s recognition,
see 1992:215). And his books (1989, 1992, 1994a 1994b) have included the confrontational, conflicting, combative
elements of the gospel and evangelism
(as suggested by reviewer Ramseyer 1983:112-113). Better yet, the Trinity is involved (as suggested by reviewers Conn 1974:45,
1984231; Dyrness 1980:40; Henry 1980:163;
Wan 1982b) at every stage of encounter with a sound `scriptural” foundation for
`power encounter” (1992:217),
`allegiance encounter” and `truth encounter” (1992:218).
This
is a full circle, of going from the study of homino-culture (e.g. from
linguistic and communication sciences to social
sciences) to theo-culture (e.g. inspiration, incarnation, etc.), to angel-culture
(e.g. power-encounter) and back to homino-culture. There is evidence of a
holistic view of humanity (with the multi-dimension of cognition,
volition and affection), a balanced view of human culture, a
scriptural understanding of reality, a non-dualistic and nondichotomistic
frame of reference, and non-reductionistic approach to ministry (Wan 1988,
1989, 1991b,
1995).
CONCLUSION
In this study, Kraft’s
contribution to inter -disciplinary integration by using the communication and
social sciences has been analyzed and recognized. His use/misuse of the
communication and social sciences in biblical interpretation and missiological
formulation have been examined and critiqued. A new concept and
definition of `culture” has been proposed as a constructive suggestion
for the improvement of Kraft’s theoretical and theological (evangelical)
approach. This new `vari -dynamic model” will lead to a
`symphonic approach” (not just dialogue or trialogue)
of multi-disciplinary, multi-level, multi-contextual, multi-dimensional
integration. Kraft’s recent shift from reductionistic, non
-dichotomistic, non-evangelical and `unscriptural” approaches
of inter-disciplinary integration is most encouraging.
It is high time for Dr. Kraft to revise his
influential yet controversial book Christianity in Culture (1979a)
incorporating his new insights and recent discoveries, as a contribution to
evangelical scholarship in interdisciplinary integration.
REFERENCE LIST
Adeney,
Miriam
1980 Christianity
in Culture. Radix 2 (Jan/Feb): 25-26.
Barney, G.
Linwood
1973 "The Supracultural
and the Cultural: Implications for Frontier Missions." In The
Gospel
and Frontier Peoples: A Report of a Consultation, Dec.
1972, edited by R. Pierce Beaver. Pp. 48-57. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library.
Berkhof, L.
1969 Principles
of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House.
Buswell,
James O., III
1986 "Conn
on Functionalism and Presupposition in Missionary Anthropology [review
article]."
Trinity Journal 7:69-95.
Carson,
Donald A.
1987 "Church
and Mission: Reflections on Contextualization and the Third Horizon."
In The
Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study. Edited by D. A. Carson. Pp. 213-257.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House
1993 "Christian
Witness in an Age of Pluralism." In God and Culture. Edited by D.
A.
Carson
and John D. Woodbridge. Pp. 31-66. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Cohen, Percy
S.
1968 Modern
Social Theory. New York: Baadic Books, Inc.
Conn, Harvie
M.
1978 "Contextualization: A New Dimension for
CrossCultural Hermeneutic."
Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 14(1): 39-46.
1984 Eternal
Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology and Mission in
Trialogue.
Grand Rapids; Zondervan Publishing House.
Coote,
Robert. and John Stott, eds.
1980 Down
to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture—The Papers of the Lausanne
Consultation
on Gospel and Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Dahms, John
V.
1995 "The Biblical Concept
of Truth." Unpublished paper.. Canada: Canadian
Theological Seminary.
Dyrness, William A.
1980 "Putting the Truth in Human Terms." Christianity
Today 24 (April): 515-
516.Geisler, Norman L.
1980 Inerrancy.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Gross, Edward
N.
1985 Is Charles Kraft An Evangelical? A Critique of Christianity in Culture.
Elkins
Park, PA: Christian Beacon
Press.
Harris,
Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New
York:Thomas Y. Crowell Co.Hatch,
Elvin
1973 Theories of Man and Culture. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Heldenbrand,
Richard
1981 "Missions
to Muslims: Cutting the Nerve?" Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 18
(3, July): 134-139.
1985 Current issues in Foreign Missions. Warsaw,
IN:Ministry to Muslims Project.
Henry, Carl
F. H.
1980 ‘The
Cultural Relativizing of Revelation.” Trinity Journal 1 (Fall): 153-64.
Hesseigrave,
David J.
1991 Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House.
Holmes,
Arthur F.
1977 All Truth is God’s Truth. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
1983 Contours of a World view. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Krass, Alfred
C.
1979 “Contextualization
for Today.” Gospel in Context 2(3, July): 27-30.
McQuilkin, J.
Robertson
1977 “The
Behavioral Sciences Under the Authority of Scripture.” Journal of the
Evangelical
Theological Society 20(1, March): 31-43.
1980 “Limits
of Cultural Interpretation.” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological
Society 23(2, June): 113-124.
Nida, Eugene
1959 “Are
We Really Monotheist?” Practical Anthropology 6: 49-54.
1971 “New
Religions for Old: A Study of Culture Change in Religion.” Church and
Culture
Change in Africa. Edited by David J. Bosch.
Pretoria: N.G. Kerkbockhandel.
Poythress,
Vein Sheridan
1987 Symphonic Theology: The
Validity of Multiple Perspectives in Theology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House.
Ramseyer,
Robert L.
1983 “Christian Mission and
Cultural Anthropology.” In Exploring Church Growth.
Edited
by Wilbert Shenk. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Saayman,
Willem
1981 Review of Christianity
in Culture by Charles H. Kraft. Miss ionalia 9(1, April):
89-90.
Scaer, David
1982 “Functionalism
Fails the Test of Orthodoxy. Christianity Today (February): 90.
Shenk,
Wilbert R., ed.
1983 Exploring Church
Growth. Grand Rapids, MI: Wi I -ham B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Wan, Enoch
1982a “Critique
of Functional Missionary Anthropology.” His Dominion (Canadian
Theological Seminary) 8(3,
April).
1982b “The Theological Application of the Contextual
Interaction Model of
Culture.”His Dominion (Canadian
Theological Seminary) 9(1, October).
1985 ‘Tao—The
Chinese Theology of God-Man.” His Dominion (Canadian
Theological Seminary),
Spring, 24-27.
1988 “Spiritual Warfare: Understanding Demon iza
tion.” Alliance Family (Manila,
Philippines: CAMACOP),
Summer, 6-18.
1989 “Deliverance from Demonization” Alliance Family
(Manila, Philippines:
CAMACOP), Spring, 8-12.
1990 "Ethnic Receptivity Factors and
Evangelism." In Reclaiming
A Nation Edited by
Arnell Motz. Richmond, BC:
Church Leadership Library. Pp.ll7-132
1991a "The
Theology of Family: A Chinese Case Study of Contextualization." Chinese
in
North America, March - April.
1991b 'The Theology of Spiritual Formation: A Case Study
of Contextualized Chinese
Theology."
Chinese in North America, March-April, 2-7.
1994 "Ethnohermenutics: Its Necessity and
Difficulty for All Christians of All Times."
Unpublished
paperpresented at the Evangelical Theological Society, Chicago, IL, November 1994.
1995 "Horizon of Inter-philosophical Dialogue: A
Paradigmatic Comparative Study of
the Ameri-European and The
Sino-Asian Cognitive Patterns/Processes." Unpublished
paper presented at the Second Symposium of Chinese-Western Philosophy and Religious
Studies, October 4-6, 1995, Beijing,China.
Wolters, Al
1982 "Truth as Relational." Theological Forum 9(3
and 4): 7-11.
APPENDIX 1: PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF
CHARLES H. KRAFT
Books
1963 A
Study of Hausa Syntax (3
vols.). Hartford Studies in Linguistics, vols. 8, 9, 10.
1965 Are Introduction to Spoken Hausa
(textbook, workbook, tapes). African
Language
Monographs 5A, 5B. African Studies Center: Michigan State University.
1966ba Workbook in Intermediate and Advanced Hausa. African
Language Monograph 6B. African Studies Center: Michigan State University.
1966cb Where Do I Go From Here? (A Handbook for
Continuing Language Study in the Field), with Marguerite G. Kraft. U.S. Peace Corps.
1973a Teach Yourself Hausa,
with A. H. M. Kirk-Greene. English Universities Press.
1973b Introductory
Hausa, with M. G. Kraft. University of California
Press.
1973c Hausa Reader.
University of California Press.
1979a Christianity
in Culture.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
1979b Communicating the Gospel God'sWay.
Pasadena,CA: William Carey Library.
1979c Readings
in Dynamic Indigeneity, with T. Wisley. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library.
1981 Chadic Wordlists (3
vols.). Berlin: Verlag von Dietrich Reimer.
1983 Communication Theory for Christian Witness.
Nashville: Abingdon Press.
1989 Christianity with Power. Ann
Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
1992 Defeating Dark Angels. Ann
Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
1994a Deep Wounds, Deep Healing.
Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
1994b Behind Enemy Lines,
edited. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
Articles, Editorials and Chapters in Books
1963 “Christian Conversion or Cultural Conversion?” Practical
Anthropology 10: 179-
187.
1964 “A New Study of Hausa Syntax.” Journal of
African Languages 3: 66-74.
1969 “What You Heard is Not What I Meant.” World
Vision Magazine 13: 10-12.
(Reprinted
in Messenger 118(16, 1969): 20-22.)
1971a ‘The New Wine of Independence.” World Vision 15(2,
February): 6-9.
1971b “Younger
Churches —Missionaries and Indigeneity.” Church Growth Bulletin 7:
159-6 1.
1972a “Theology and Theologies I.” Theology, News and
Notes 18(2, June): 4-6, 9.
1972b “Spinoff
From the Study of Cross -Cultural Mission.” Theology, News and Notes
18(3, October): 20-23.
1972c “The
Hutterites and Today’s Church.” Theology, News and Notes 18(3, October):
15-16.
1972d “Theology and Theologies II. ” Theology, News
and Notes 18(3, October): 17-20.
1973a “Toward a Christian Ethnotheology." In God,
Man and Church Growth, edited by
A. R. Tippett. Pp. 109-26. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
1973b “Church
Planters and Ethnoling uistics.” In God, Man and Church Growth, edited
by A. R. Tippett. Pp. 226-49. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
1973c “God’s Model for Cross -Cultural Communication—
The Incarnation.”
Evangelical Missions Quarterly 9: 205-16.
1973d “The Incarnation, Cross -Cultural
Communication—The Incarnation.” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 9: 277-84. A Critique of Charles KrafPs Use /
Misuse 155
1973e “Dynamic Equivalence Churches.” Missiology
1(October): 39 -57. Reprinted in
Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity, edited by C. H. Kraft and T. N. Wisley. Pp. 87- 111. Pasadena: William Carey Library.
1973f “North America’s Cultural Heritage.” Christianity
Today 17(8, January 19): 6-8.
l974a “Ideological Factors in Intercultural
Communication.” Missiology 2: 295-3 12.
1974b “An
Anthropologist’s Response to Oden.” In After Therapy What? edited by
Neil
C. Warren.
Pp. 136-59. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
1975 ‘Toward an Ethnography of Hausa Riddling.” Ba
Shira 6: 17-24.
l976a “Communicate or Compet e?” Spectrum (Spring
Summer): 8-10.
1976b “Cultural Concommitants of Higi Conversion: Early
Periods.” Missiology 4: 43 1-
42.
1976c “Inter -cultural Communication and Worldview
Change.” Unpublished paper,
School of
World Mission, Pasadena, CA.
1977a “Bibl ical Principles of Communication.” The
Harvester 56: 262-64, 275. Edited
and reprinted
in Buzz (December, 1977), New MaIden, Surrey, pp. 17, 19.
197Th “Can Anthropological Insight Assist Evangelical
Theology?” Christian Scholar’s
Review 7: 165-202.
1978a “The Contextualization of Theology.” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 14: 311-36
1978b “An
Anthropological Apologetic for the Homogeneous Unit Principle in
Missiology.” Occasional Bulletin of Missionary
Research 10: 12 1-126.
1978c “Woridview
in Intercultural Communication.” In Intercultural
and International
Communication, edited
by Fred L. Casmir. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
1978d "Christianity
and Culture in Africa." In Facing
the New Challenges—the Message
of PACLA.
Pp. 286-91. Nairobi: Evangel Publishing House.
1978e 'The Church in Western Africa" (Response #2).
In The Church in Africa 1977, by
Charles R.
Taber. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
1978f "Interpreting in Cultural Context." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
21: 357-67.
1979a "Dynamic
Equivalence Churches in Muslim society." In The Gospel and Islam:
A 1978 Compendium, edited by Donald M. McCurry. Monriva, CA MARC.
1979b "God's Model for Communication." Ashland •Theological Bulletin
(entitled
Communicating the Gospel God'sWay,
chapter 1) 12(1, Spring): 3-16.
1979c "The Credibility of the Message and the
Messenger." Ashland
Theological
Bulletin (entitled Communicating the Gospel God'sWay, chapter 2) 12(1,
Spring): 17-32.
1979d "What
is the Receptor Up To?" Ashland
Theological Bulletin (entitled
Communicating the Gospel God's Way.chapter
3) 12(1, Spring): 33-42
1979e "The Power of Life Involvement." Ashland
Theological Bulletin (entitled
Communicating
the Gospel God'sWay. chapter 4) 12(1, Spring): 43-60.
1979f "Dynamic
Equivalence Theologizing." In Readings Dynamic Indigeneity, edited
by C.
H. Kraft and T. N. Wisley. Pp. 258-85. Pasadena, CA: Wilham Carey Library.
Reprinted from Christianity in Culture. Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1979, pp. 231-311.
1979g "Measuring Indigeneity." In Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity,
edited by C. H.
Kraft and T.
N. Wisley. Pp. 118-52. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
1980a "Conservative
Christians and Anthropologists: A Clash of Worldviews." Journal
of
the American Scientific Affiliation
32(September): 140-145.
1980b "The Church in Culture—A Dynamic
EquivalenceModel." In Down
to Earth:
Studies in Christianityand Culture, edited by John R.W. Stott and Robert Coote. Pp.
211-230. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
1981 "The
Place of the Receptor in Communication." Theology, News and Notes
28(3,
October): 13-15, 23.
1982a Foreword
in Oral Communication of the
Scripture by Herbert V. Klem. Pasadena,
CA: William
Carey Library.
1982b "My Distaste for the Combative
Approach." Evangelical
Missions Quarterly
18(3, July):
139-142.
1983 Foreward
in Guidelines for Christian Theology
in Africa by Osadolor Imasogie
Achimota.
Ghana: Africa Christian Press.
1986a "Worldview
and Bible Translation." Notes
on Anthropology 6 and 7 (June‑
September):
46-57.
1986b "The Question of Miracles." The Pentecostal Minister,
Winter, 24-27.
1986c "Supracultural Meanings via Cultural
Forms." In A Guide to
Contemporary
Hermeneutics,
edited by Donald K. McKim. Pp. 309-343. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
1987a "Missionary
and SIL/WBT." In Current
Concerns of Anthropologists and
Missionaries, edited by Karl J.
Franklin. Pp. 133-142. Dallas, TX: SIL.
1987b "Shifting Worldviews, Shifting
Attitudes." In Riding the
Third Wave, edited by
John Wimber
and Kevin Springer. Pp. 122-134. England: Marshall Pickering.
1990 "Shifting
Worldviews, Sifting Attitudes." In Conflict and Conquest, Power
Encounter
Topics for Taiwan, edited by Kenneth D. Shay.
Taiwan: O C International.
1991 "What
Kind of Encounters Do We Need in Our Christian Witness?" Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 27(3, July): 258-265.
1992 "Allegiance, Truth and Power Encounters in
Christian Witness." In Pentecost,
Mission
and. Ecumenism. Essays on Intercultural
Theology, edited Jan. A.B. Jongeneel. New York: Peter Lang.
1993 "Understanding and
Valuing Multiethnic Diversity," with Marguerite G. Kraft.
Theology
News and Notes 40(4): 6-8.
1994a "Two
Kingdoms in Conflict." In Behind
Enemy Lines, edited by Charles Kraft.
Ann Arbor,
MI: Servant Books.
1994b "Spiritual Power: Principles and
Observations." In Behind
Enemy Lines, edited by
Charles
Kraft. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
1994c "Dealing with Demonization." In Behind
Enemy Lines, edited by Charles Kraft.
Ann Arbor, MI: Servant
Books.
APPENDIX II – A SYMPHONIC
APPROACH TO INTER-DISCIPLINEARY INTEGRATION: A VARI-DYNAMIC MODEL2
THEO-CULTURE (theo-dynamic
context)
trinitario-dynamics: Trinity, Christology,
pneumatology, covenant, etc.
Inspirio-dynamics: inspiration,
illumination, etc.
Soterio-dynamics: predestination,
atonement, etc.
ANGEL-CULTURE (angel-dynamic
context)
theophano-dynamics; theophany, vision, dream,
etc.
Angelo-dynamics: angiology,
deliverance, etc.
Satano-dynamics: demonology, power
encounter, etc.
HOMINO-CULTURE (homino-dynamic
context)
Christo-dynamics: incarnation,
missianology, etc.
Missio-dynamics: missio dei, possessio, elenctic,
etc.
Culturo-dynamics: enculturation,
assimilation, westernization, etc.
Socio-dynamics: socialization, system
theory, structural analysis, etc.
Psycho-dynamics: cognitive analysis,
worldview studies etic /emic, etc.
Behavioral-dynamics: reciprocity, kinesics,
proxemics, etc.
Linguistic-dynamics: descriptive
linguistics, semantics, etc.
2 The
"vari-dynamic model" (as in aerodynamic or thermodynamic model)
includes the various dynamic systems within the model.
APPENDIX
III – A SYNOPSIS OR REVELATION, INSPIRATION AND ILLLUMINATION(Wan 1994:6)
Revelation Inspiration Illumination |
Key Question What
is communicated? How is it communicated? Why is it communicated??
Answer the material I message the method of the meaning of record
communicated recording
Focus - What The
product The
process The practical and spiritual
enlightenment
-Who The
revealer, the The
instrumental The receiver of the
author Bible writers message
Objective The
communication The
complete in- man through the
of God’s message fallibility
of Holy
Spirit (1Cor
to man God’s message 2:13.14)
through man
Objective / objective
disclosure objective
disclosure Subjective apprehension
Subjective and or subjective
appreciation
(1Co 7:10, 12,25.40)
Subject The
self- God’s
chosen few all God’s children
revealing God
Time Past
historical Past
historically Present process of
fact: special terminated conviction
and
revelation e.g. event:
inspiring conversion
incarnation and Bible
writers by
inspiration present- the Divine
continued effects: Author
(Rev
creation and 22:18.19)
conscience
Technical Special
revelation: Inscripturation: None
Term(s) i.e.
redemptive the process of the
revelation both in inspired
truth as
Christ the living Word infallible and
(incarnation Heb 1:2, authoritative
Jn 1:14) and the truth
of faith and
inspired/inscripturated practice
Word
General revelation: Inerrancy:
creation and the
trustworthiness and
conscience truthfulness
of God’s
(Ps 19; Rom 1 and 2) inspiration.
based on the
historic
truth Plenary
inspiration:
all
parts of the O.T and N.T. are inspired and infallible
Catchy Phrase Inspiration
with- Inspiration
including Inspiration with
out revelation as revelation
as in the illumination
as
in the Book of Apocalypse (Rev in
the Prophets
Acts (Ac 1:4) 1:1-11) (1Pe
1:11).
Inspiration including illumination
as in the case of Paul (1 Cor 2:12)
Similarity All dealing with God’s
interaction with humans of the Scripture leading to a
better knowledge of God and
his plan of salvation for humanity
APPENDIX
V - GOD’S REVELATION TO MAN (Wan 1994:7)
(multi-dimension, multi-level, multi-context)
CATEGORY
\ |
THE WORD |
IN THE
WORD |
THROUGH THE WORD |
|
NATURE OF
TRUTH |
essential
and efficient |
essential: being God’s Ward |
efficient:
becoming Gods Word |
|
PRESENTATION
OF TRUTH |
personal
and propositional |
propositional |
personal |
|
PERSPECTIVE
- CHRISTIAN |
objective
and subjective |
objective |
subjective |
|
TIME |
historical
and historic |
historical |
historic |
|
PROCESS |
completed and continuous |
completed |
continuous |
|
WORK
/ LEVEL: |
Divine |
the Christ
perfect God |
H.S.:
Author, inspiring |
H.S:
illuminating |
Human |
the Jesus:
perfect Man |
Bible
writers: inspired |
interpreter:
exegeting |
|
PRODUCT |
divine-human Perfect Being |
divine-human
perfect Book |
imperfect
efforts need divine aids |
|
CONTEXT: |
historico- |
past and
present |
past |
past->
present |
culture- |
dual level:
theo-culture homino-culture |
multi-faceted: Jewish/Hellenistic
/Aramaic/Roman |
multiple in no. and
variety of cultures |
|
linguistic- |
heavenly/Gk/Aramaic/
Hebrews |
multi-lingual: Heb/Gk/Aramaic |
many
contemporary languages |
APPENDIX VI –
CONTEXTUAL INTERACTION OF THE TRIUNE
GOD’S REVELATION TO MAN
(Wan
1994:8) (multi-dimension, multi-level, multi-context)
CONTEXT\ |
THE WORK |
THE WORD |
THROUGH
THE |
|
theo-culture |
GENERAL REVELATION |
SPECIAL REVELATION |
INTERPRETATION |
|
Homino- culture |
|
|
|
|
H.S. Son |
FA H.S. |
FA Son |
FA Son |
|
FA universe and mankind |
Son Jesus = God |
H.S. Bible = divine |
H.S. contemporary |
|
CREATION and |
INCARNATION |
INSPIRATION and |
REGENERATION and |
APPENDIX
VI- TILE TWO QUESTIONS: BIBLICAL? SCRIPTURAL?
(Wan
1994:12)
=/=
biblically based scripturally
based
|
== |
|
-
descriptive - prescriptive
- precedent - principle
- cultural / temporal - trans-cultural / eternal
Editor’s Note: Republished with permission from
William Carey Library. Originally published as chapter 8 of Evangelical Missiological Society series #4: Missiology
and the Social Sciences – Contributions, Cautions, and Conclusions,
edited by Edward Rommen and Gary Corwin, William Carey Library: Pasadena, 1996.