Christmas - the first 'insider movement'

If you want a lively discussion about missions today try the topic of “insider movements” as it relates to Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus. The general idea is, how much can you retain of the culture/religious forms without becoming syncretistic with that religion? We even have a scale of C1 to C6 which rates complete separation from religious cultural forms on the C1 side to the other extreme of C6 which retains outward cultural forms while holding secretly to Christian beliefs. C1 often adopts Western forms of church and dress. C6 would have Muslim-background believers doing prayers in the mosque and observing all the feasts and fasts of the Muslim faith while secretly holding to the Christian faith.

Without launching into a discussion of the reasons for and against ‘insider movements’ it should be obvious that there are pitfalls to both extremes which then means there are reasons to consider something of a mediating position between the two. Embracing the Lordship of Christ is believing the truth of everything Jesus claimed to be and do. It does not necessarily mean embracing the culture of the messenger or the culture into which the message was given. Biblical faith does not mean adopting American culture or Middle Eastern culture but adopting truth that transforms the person in their own culture. And it is for that reason we should consider the need for an insider movement strategy as to how we do missions.

I find it interesting that our Christmas season and celebrations represent one of the first insider movements of the Christian faith. We have long heard it debated whether the first Christmas really happened on December 25 and whether Christians just adopted a pagan festival of the sun god and pagan customs. While I don’t think anyone has proof of when the first Christmas really took place, history gives more evidence that the early church celebrated Christmas around the date of January 6 which became known as Epiphany (‘to reveal’). In the Eastern Orthodox Church Epiphany marked the baptism of Jesus by John, the revelation of Christ’s person and ministry and also the time when the three Wiseman were suppose to have visited the Christ child.

The Roman culture into which Christianity emerged was polytheistic. An important figure in their religion was Sol Invictus – the prominent sun deity. Constantine, whether by political astuteness or by religious conversion (some say he did not convert until on his deathbed in 337 when he was baptized ) made Christianity a recognized religion along with the other religions and then made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. In 320 AD before Christianity had the sole status as the state religion Constantine decreed December 25 to be day of Christmas. It was also the celebration of Sol Invictus, which politically was an astute move by Constantine but put the church in a dilemma. Does it rebel against the official position or against culture or does it try to convert culture?

The church chose to embrace December 25 as the day of Christmas , not as syncretism with pagan beliefs, but to ‘win the day’ against paganism. There is no evidence that the intention was to incorporate pagan beliefs but rather to convert a pagan celebration with Christian meaning. And in that sense they were successful. The recognition of Sol Invictus faded from culture and Christmas with its Christ-story took center stage. So then it really was the first ‘insider movement’ of the Christian church.

As we step back from this period of history we can also see the adverse effects of syncretism when Constantine forced mass baptisms and wholesale conversions to Christianity. In my mind that does not make Christmas pagan nor does it argue for a C1 position of insider movements. We must constantly separate biblical truth from our cultural context. As in the case of the Muslim insider movement, worshipping on Fridays instead of Sunday, or worshipping in a church with pews or praying in the sitting position versus kneeling with one’s face to the ground are all cultural forms. It is the gospel of Christ that must be defended for its veracity and uniqueness, not the cultural forms. Christians can utilize pagan forms such as the day chosen for Christmas or the evergreen tree as a symbol of Christmas as long as it brings the observer to the new meaning in the Lordship of Christ and rejection of the old meaning in the paganism of one’s past.

In that sense, Christmas was an insider movement and as a holiday it should remind us of the impact that Christian beliefs can have on society and that the gospel can have in transforming lives.

Why Hermeneutics Needs Intercultural Studies

I am of the opinion that good theological education needs intercultural studies. I was reminded of this when one of my esteemed colleagues gave a Christmas devotional in which he referred to the “inn” of Jesus’ birth as “probably being a guest room in the home of a relative.” The reason is because the word ‘KATALUMA’ in Luke 2:7 can mean (1) ‘inn’ such as a lodging place, or (2) a ‘guest-room’ attached to a home. My point is that an understanding of Middle East culture would never allow a relative (especially one about to deliver a baby at any moment) to be relegated to a stable for a delivery room. It would be unthinkable if you see it through their cultural eyes, because family is valued above personal good. So I would say that the possibility of the ‘KATALUMA’ being in the home of a relative is nigh impossible. The relative would sleep on the floor, even in the stable, in order to provide for Mary who was about to deliver.
Another example would be Mark 3:31 where Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived at a home where a crowd had gathered to hear Jesus. They had come to “take charge of him” because they had heard people saying that “He is out of his mind.” Why did they send someone else into the house to get him rather than go in themselves? If you see it from the cultural perspective of not wanting to shame him and desiring to speak to him in private then you can better understand the account.
So then, hermeneutics should look at the possible interpretations but cultural understanding gives perspective to the interpretation and even shapes the interpretation.

The New Paternalism

Mistakes in missions have a strange way of reproducing themselves. Take 'paternalism' as an example. In days gone by paternalism showed itself by the foreigner creating a dependency of nationals on foreign fmissionaries. Sometimes it was done with the best of intentions but it was still paternalism in the way that it created dependency on foreign leadership.
We are now in a new day of missions where we have shed any vesture of colonialism and feeling quite proud of our models of equality and partnership. The fact is, we have come a long ways in living out the brotherhood of believers across cultural and national borders. But my question is, have we slipped into a 'new paternalism' not by making nationals dependent on our leadership but on our funding. Tens of thousands of evangelists in India receive their salaries from supporters in North America. Thousands of short-term teams go to majority world (Third-World by old terms) churches and paint walls or bring money for local projects with the best of intentions, but are still creating a dependency on the foreigners money.
So what has changed?