Conformed and conforming: Hybridization,discernment,and the gospel/culture interface

The gospel/culture interface

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29 NIV)

For a number of years I have taught a course on contextualization and intercultural communication, and I typically end the term with a role play where my students become a “mission team” with different views on how Christians should respond to religiocultural string-tying practices in Thailand. ¹ This has resulted in excellent discussions, and I like to think it is a good learning experience, preparing my mission-minded students for later real-life conversations.

But I have had a growing sense of discomfort with my scenario. Over the years I noticed that the ways I framed this discussion (as a “mission team” conversation, focused on the one issue of string tying, and highlighting contrasting views rather than areas of commonality) unintentionally led to a fairly limited range of outcomes, and also (as you will have realized much sooner than I did) tended to emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in (foreign) disciplers more than in (local) new believers. It also does not account well for the reality that different churches in Thailand (and in Cambodia, where I worked) have come to different decisions on these matters.

This article comes out of that discomfort, and is my contribution to ongoing discussions on the intersections and interactions of gospel and culture. What does it look like for individuals and groups to become conformed to the image of Christ while also enfleshed and encultured in a specific place and time? What might the Lord want to see happening in cultural practices and processes as people come to faith in Jesus and mature—individually and together—as His disciples? And how can the church (and cross-cultural workers in particular), better engage with these issues?

I will talk about the “gospel/culture interface” here as a way of naming what Scott Moreau (2018: 1) calls “the intersection of God’s unchanging Word and the ever-changing settings in which people live out their faith as followers of Christ” and what Darren Duerksen (2022: 27–28) refers to as “the interaction between God’s revelation and human culture.” My view of “gospel” reflects Kwame Bediako’s (1999: 8) definition of it as:

who Christ is, and what he means, in his person, his life on earth, his work, his death, his resurrection and its aftermath, and how all that concerning him relates to all human beings, in all our cultural traditions, histories and environments.

“Culture” is a contentious term, which I further discuss in this article, but as a helpful foundation I will use Daniel Shaw’s (2018: 26) characterization of it as “people’s beliefs and values and the practices that are associated with them.”

A second key reason for this article is the gap between some missiological writing, and contemporary work in the social sciences. Important aspects of missiological theory and practice are still sometimes based on concepts (such as animism or worldview) that no longer have currency in the broader scholarly community because they over-essentialize what are now recognized to be complex and changing features (Arbuckle, 2010; Lee and Harold, 2019; Priest, 2015; Rynkiewich, 2016; Yip, 2014). With regard to culture in particular, Gerard Arbuckle (2010: 17–18) argues that contemporary theologians are still typically using a modernist understanding of culture as “a homogeneous and integrated whole,” and are not taking account of “crucial postmodern insights into cultures such as their polyphonic, fragmentary, and hybrid qualities, and their internal struggles for power.”

In this article, therefore, I will highlight key contemporary insights about the hybrid qualities and hybridizing nature of culture, and will consider ways in which these can help us look at the gospel/culture interface. First, I suggest that hybridity theory (and hybridization theory) can be used to strengthen missiology by adding more nuanced understandings of peoples’ complex cultural worlds. I then argue that hybridization theory helps to expose blind spots in gospel/culture discussions, and I draw attention to two of these (the cultural hybridity of all Christians, and the crucial question of how discernment on cultural matters actually takes place). Drawing particularly on the example of the early church, I argue that discernment is best treated as a process rather than a one-point-in-time decision, that the core values at play seem to be faithfulness to Christ and church unity/edification, and that praxis is an integral part of discernment processes. I then raise five key questions for followers of Jesus to reflect on to help us—individually and communally—live the gospel within our complex and dynamic cultural worlds.

Hybridity and culture

“Hybrid” is a biological term, relating to plants and animals created through cross-pollination or other forms of genetic mixing, and the concept of hybridity refers to “a disruption and forcing together of any unlike living things, . . . a making one of two distinct things” (Young, 1995: 24). Hybridity theory was developed in postcolonial work—most notably Homi K Bhabha (1994)—initially regarding racial and cultural mixing, but now used about the mixing of many different kinds of categories including “cultures, nations, ethnicities, status groups, classes, and genres” (Nederveen Pieterse, 2015: 81). It has enabled conceptualizations of a “third space” created by the merging of two (or more) distinct elements, as well as more nuanced analyses of features that were otherwise treated as homogenous or discrete (Francisco, 2018: 250–51; Lee and Harold, 2019: 4–5).

Missiologists have recently begun to pay more attention to hybridity—it was the focus of a consultation by the Lausanne Movement and Global Diaspora Network in 2018, and was the theme of the 2021 meeting of the American Society of Missiology, leading to a hybridity-focused edition of this journal in 2022. Most of this scholarship, however, focuses on particular hybrid identities—either bicultural and diaspora people, or else hybrid socioreligious identities (insider movements and/or multiple religious belonging). While recognizing the importance of these conversations, I want to follow the lead of Edwin Zehner (2005, 2009) and Peter Lee (2022) in treating cultural hybridity as a normal part of life, for everyone, rather than primarily treating it as the domain of particular types of “hybrid people.” ²

I see hybridity theory as a way to strengthen missiology, and the wider church, through more nimble and granulated understandings of culture, which can then open up more effective mission strategies (see, for example, Hsu, 2017; Kim, 2017; Lee, 2022; Rynkiewich, 2020). It can also clarify discussions about what faithfulness to Christ looks like in practice. One example is Daniel Shaw and William Burrows’ edited book Traditional Ritual as Christian Worship: Dangerous Syncretism or Necessary Hybridity? (2018), which draws on concepts of hybridity to argue that traditional/pre-Christian ritual practices can be acceptable—even “necessary”—for faithful followers of Jesus. This contrasts, for example, with the theory of culture underlying many discussions about “C3” and “C4” Christian communities—wherein C3 communities use only “non-Islamic cultural elements” while C4 communities use “some Biblically acceptable Islamic practices” (Williams, 2011: 336). The issue here is that this distinction between “religious culture” and “non-religious culture” is not particularly viable—Wayne Dye and Harley Talman (2020: 158) observe that, “[s]eparating what Western workers view as ‘religious’ from ‘cultural’ is much less clear in traditional societies where they are often fused together”, and Amos Yong (2014: 257) argues that philosophy, culture, and religion are better treated as “overlapping domains” rather than separable traditions. Hybridity theory can help missiologists (and the broader church) to better conceive of—and thus respond to—these “overlapping domains.”

I do want to clarify, however, that I am talking about cultural hybridity, rather than about hybrid religious allegiances. A shift in allegiance is at the center of my understanding of conversion, and I would argue that allegiance to Jesus is the primary calling of all Christians. I am wanting to use hybridity theory (and, particularly, hybridization theory) to characterize and analyze how Christians express our allegiance to Christ in our complex and changing cultural worlds. ³

Hybridization and culture

There is a problem, however, if hybridity is conceived of in a “static” sense that emphasizes some kind of “final product”—as this ultimately creates just another form of essentialism (Lee, 2022: 53; Lee and Harold, 2019: 4). Peter Lee (2022: 53) (drawing on Néstor García Canclini and Ien Ang) has advanced this argument the furthest within missiology, arguing that in missions research “the focus should not be on the cultural hybridity per se but the cultural and social processes of hybridization” (see also Schreiter, 2011: 31–32). What I will refer to here as hybridization theory uses this kind of thinking, which moves beyond describing “hybrid” cultural mixtures and is instead a way of looking at key processes by which culture is being formed. ⁴

Hybridization theory, as I am using it, treats culture as always involving diverse and dynamic creative processes—like an ongoing conversation (Howell and Paris, 2019: 44–45), or like a gradually changing kaleidoscope—rather than being a fixed and monolithic entity like “Chinese culture” or even “Christian culture.” And I want to focus on “cultural and social processes of hybridization” through paying careful attention to patterns in how this conversation takes shape or this kaleidoscope is turned. Indeed, one important implication of this hybridizing view of culture is that the kaleidoscope is always turning, the conversation is always ongoing, and therefore followers of Jesus should not be expected to automatically adopt all the cultural norms of Christians in the past or in other places (though, as I will argue below, these norms remain important contributors within the conversations, or kaleidoscopes, of culture).

A “pure gospel” or unreflective hybridity?

Indeed, one key benefit of hybridization theory for missiology is as a corrective to what Vince Bantu (2020: 220) highlights as the “tendency for Western culture to act as the barometer of Christian orthodoxy” as one of the after-effects of the Christendom period and colonial history. Normalizing hybridity, and challenging the use of “syncretism” to label others, has helped challenge western cultural normativity, particularly the ways in which it has been mediated through cross-cultural missionaries (Shaw, 2018: 23; Zehner, 2009: 182).

I would like to go further, however, and suggest that hybridization theory can be used as an intervention against “pure gospel” assumptions in the church more broadly. The theological argument underpinning this is that, “no pure, disembodied gospel exists . . . The gospel remains a Word from outside, but only ever comes to us embodied” (Flett and Wrogemann, 2020: 214). Ultimately, I would argue that focusing on syncretism (typically in “others”) can mask a greater danger, which is the problem of unreflective hybridity in “us” and in our churches. By this I mean any cultural norms that are treated as if they are fixed and immutable—as if they are somehow outside of the constant changes of culture—and thus immune from adaptation or critique.

Reconsidering “normal” Christianity, and looking at discernment as a process

I would argue, therefore, that hybridization theory is important for the church as a whole (and for missiology in particular), because it gives us a more accurate view of “normal” Christianity, and thus a better basis for reflections on the gospel/culture interface. When cultural hybridity is seen as unusual, discussions on gospel and culture (including the string-tying contextualization exercise I gave my students) often circle the central question—“Is this syncretistic?”—by which we mean aberrant and avoidable. ⁵ If we instead accept that cultural hybridization is a normal part of Christian life, then rather than primarily focusing on syncretism per se, we should instead center on the broader issue of discernment. This would mean a shift to asking: “How can/should we express love for God and for our neighbors in this place and at this time?” (a synchronic form of analysis) and also: “Who decides, and how?” (an issue that is far too often skimmed over in discussions about contextualization and syncretism). It would also mean considering diachronic questions such as: “Might these answers change over time?”

Edwin Zehner’s helpful research reflects the first half of the approach I propose here—a synchronic analysis of Christian cultural hybridity. He found “a substantial amount” of hybrid cultural mixtures among evangelical Christians in Thailand but noted that while some mixtures were rejected as syncretistic, others were seen as either unproblematic, or were not recognized as hybridities (Zehner, 2005: 585, 2009). Because he was treating hybridity as a neutral feature of culture, Zehner was positioned to analyze which hybridities were seen as acceptable (or not) for Christians in that context. Ultimately, his finding was that:

while evangelical Christianity presents as being vigilant on all matters, evangelical anti-syncretism is in practice narrowly focused, being concerned primarily to forbid resort[ing] to alternative sources of spiritual power and to techniques that had been associated with those alternative sources. (Zehner, 2005: 587)

This is an important insight, suggesting allegiance to the Lord is the central value at play here. Hybridization theory, however, would take us one step beyond Zehner’s analysis by also paying attention to the processes of discernment: that is, by a diachronic analysis of the circumstances whereby—over time—various practices (including the “techniques” Zehner refers to) have been welcomed, tolerated, rejected, or overlooked by Christians.

My concern here is that in discussing the gospel/culture interface (such as how Thai or Cambodian Christians can/should respond to string-tying practices, or what church meetings can/should look and sound like) church leaders—including missionaries—tend to automatically rely on past decisions about cultural practices. These past decisions have often become fixed and unquestionable because they are no longer located in time or space—they no longer have a history of discernment processes attached to them. For Protestants, at least, who tend to think that we do not give tradition the same kind of weight as Scripture, this should be problematic.

Diachronic analysis of discernment processes helps us to situate cultural norms and to challenge the myth of a timeless “Christian culture”—thus enabling the cultural conversation to continue. Hybridization theory is an important stepping stone here as it emphasizes that cultural change is always underway, and thus we need to pay attention to the ongoing interactions of the timeless gospel and the dynamic time-bound cultures of humans. This opens up a space for continuing conversations (about what faithfulness to Christ can/should look like in this time, and in this place), and creates a helpful basis for understanding cultural diversity and change, including among followers of Jesus.

Discernment as a process in the early church

As I reflect on discernment, I am fascinated by the hints and insights we get about how the early church navigated the interaction of the gospel with the diverse cultural norms in its midst. A good example is the range of actions (by individuals, by groups of believers, and by the Lord) that together make up the discernment processes in Acts 9:43–11:18, Acts 15:1–35, and Galatians 2:1–14. Regardless of whether the letter to the Galatians was written before or after the Council of Jerusalem, we can still see that there are visions from God, an inner voice from the Spirit, and the discernible outpouring of the Spirit on Gentiles. We can see that there are theological discussions (planned and spontaneous, formal and informal): such as through Peter, Cornelius, Paul, and Barnabas sharing their stories of what God had done, through believers teaching each other and sometimes critiquing each other, through the lively discussions and ultimate decision at the Council at Jerusalem, through the letter being sent to Antioch and welcomed there, and through a series of events where Jewish and Gentile Christians did (or did not) eat together. The ongoing narrative in these passages suggests to me that discernment on these gospel/culture questions is best seen as a complex, contested, ongoing process involving a range of actions, events, and interlocutors, rather than as a tidy, one-off, decision.

We can also recognize that each of the events recorded in these passages led to a further series of individual and corporate decisions of what to do in response to them. Indeed, I would argue that Scripture gives only a partial picture of discernment in the early church because even where there was overt guidance (by Paul, or the Jerusalem Council), it still needed to be put into practice over time, in changing contexts. I see praxis as a crucial part of discernment processes, but I think it is often neglected or sidelined in discussions on the gospel/culture interface because it is often more inconsistent than we would like to admit. One example would be Peter’s Spirit-led willingness to break Jewish cultural norms by staying with Simon the tanner and then with Cornelius (Acts 9:43 and 10:48), his (successful) defense of this huge cultural shift when “the circumcised believers criticized him” on his return to Jerusalem (Acts 11), and then his withdrawal from eating with Gentile converts after “certain men came from James” in Galatians 2. Through the lens of hybridization theory, I am reminded again that discernment processes around cultural change—especially on contentious topics such as Jews and Gentiles eating together—can be messy and ongoing. The reality is that over time many more minds were shifting (and more behaviors were adjusting) than just Peter’s—including Barnabas and the other Jews who were swayed by Peter’s example in Galatians 2:13, and James (who seems a very different influence in Acts 15 than he is in Galatians 2).

Even Paul—whose theological standpoint on questions of gospel and culture seems the most consistent—shows surprising variety in matters of praxis. His comments on food sacrificed to idols range from saying he would go so far as to never eat meat again if it might lead someone into sin (1 Cor 8:13), to later telling believers they can eat anything sold in the meat market (1 Cor 10:25), and indeed should eat any food offered to them by an unbeliever (1 Cor 10:27), except if they are told it has been sacrificed to an idol (1 Cor 10:28). When we take account of the fact that in Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council had advised Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia against eating food sacrificed to idols, and that the Corinthian church obviously had enough disagreements that they had written to Paul to ask for advice on this area (1 Cor 7:1 and 8:1), I would again suggest that discernment about these cultural practices in the early church was more of an ongoing, nuanced, contested—and possibly context-specific—process, rather than a tidy, one-off decision.

Discernment processes and the gospel/culture interface

Paying attention to discernment processes raises normative questions. How should individuals and churches decide what it looks like to express allegiance to Jesus Christ and be conformed to His image within our cultural contexts? I see hybridization processes as multiplex, however, so I do not want to suggest that there is one best way to practice biblically faithful and culturally appropriate discernment.

Nonetheless, one observation I would make at the level of theory is that Paul’s guidance on food and sacred days (Rom 14:1–15:13 and 1 Cor 8:1–11:1) seems to suggest a values-based approach to discernment on cultural matters (centered on allegiance to Christ, and on church unity and mutual edification), rather than treating practices themselves as inherently right or wrong. He makes a similar point in Galatians 5:6 (and 13–14), commenting that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” The Jerusalem Council’s decision in Acts 15 also seems to come from similar values, with the four minimal directions apparently aimed at church unity (both Judaizers and anti-Judaizers are giving ground here) rather than necessarily being overriding and immovable statements about which cultural practices are un/acceptable (hence Paul’s carefully nuanced comments in 1 Cor 8–10). This is just a brief sketch, however, and rather than drawing firm conclusions I would like to note others who have contributed to this important discussion on discernment (Bediako, 1999, 2001; Duerksen and Dyrness, 2019; García-Johnson, 2019: 169–70; Howell and Zehner, 2009; Kane, 2021; Karkkainen, 2019: 213, 216–18; Kim, 2009; Yong, 2000). This is a theological conversation that needs to continue.

In terms of praxis, I have already noted the extended, complex, and messy (but nonetheless Spirit-led) example of the early church. For more recent examples, there are hints of discernment processes in the case studies in Shaw and Burrow’s (2018) book, with references to existing religiocultural traditions (local and imported), to individuals or groups feeling a sense of conviction or inspiration, to discussions with other believers, and to experiences that confirmed or challenged thinking.

For those hoping for a more ordered, methodical, approach that still has a strong praxis element, Paul Hiebert’s “Critical Contextualization” is clearly the most influential missiological model of discernment processes. It involves leaders taking a church congregation through four steps: “Exegesis of the Culture,” “Exegesis of the Scripture and the Hermeneutical Bridge,” “Critical Response,” and then finally “New Contextualized Practices” (Hiebert, 1987: 109–10). In my experience, however, most of the time Hiebert’s model is cited it has been principally undertaken by an individual (and often a foreigner), rather than truly involving a church community. (It is this outsider-centered approach that my role play unwittingly reproduced.) Furthermore, I have noticed that the theory side of Hiebert’s model tends to be discussed much more than the praxis—even though (as we see in Peter’s slide into compromise in Galatians 2) the latter is often a significant way in which the former is tested and refined. It is this very eliding of processes of discernment (and of praxis as an integral aspect of these processes) that I think missiology needs to pay more attention to.

I do not, however, see Hiebert’s work as the last word on discernment processes. Claire Chong (2021: 18) pays careful attention to both theory and praxis in outlining a process used for three projects of the “Faith and Culture Committee” of the Evangelical Fellowship of Cambodia, and Ruth Haley Barton’s Pursuing God’s Will Together: A Discernment Practice for Leadership Groups (2012) depicts another model that I have seen used in a missions context. It is important, furthermore, to bring a diachronic perspective to all these matters. Hybridization theory sees discernment processes themselves as culture-bound (and therefore subject to change over time), and suggests that the specific cultural norms and practices that emerge from any discernment processes will shift in nature and usage and will grow (or decrease) in acceptance and influence over time.

Key questions to consider

What might you have done to fix my role play for trainee missionaries and church workers? I still do not have a full solution, but I do believe that these issues cannot be answered well unless we recognize that cultures are always hybrid and hybridizing, and unless we pay attention to discernment as an ongoing process that involves theory and praxis.

If processes of discernment are indeed to take the place of “syncretism” as the core ecclesiological and missiological focus at the gospel/culture interface, some important questions will include:

These are messy, but necessary, questions to work through, and to keep working through. Although the good news about Jesus is unchanging, I see it as always expressed through people and communities that are enfleshed and embedded in complex and dynamic cultural worlds, to the ongoing glory of God. Consequently, how we (as individuals, as local communities of faith, and across the global church) are to faithfully, authentically, and lovingly live out the gospel is a conversation with no conclusion this side of eternity, but which needs to continue.