1. Introduction
In the contemporary scenario, Christian theologians, missiologists and cross-cultural communicators have brought their perspective of looking at how communication of the gospel is understood in different cultural contexts. For, there are multiple cultures in the world. Every culture is different from another. In such context, communicating gospel is quite challenging task. However, as Christian communicating gospel to people in different cultures is the essential task assigned or commanded by Jesus Christ.
Therefore, in this paper, the writer’s endeavor is to include and analyze the various models of communication to assist to understand how Christian missions or church should present gospel in diverse cultures. Primarily this writing is based on these questions:
· What are the models of communication or cross- cultural communication?
· And then, how Christian should relate to their surrounding culture in order to share gospel?
· What models of communication are helpful and considerable in ministry?
As the limitation of this writing, this research is based on only the concepts of six different scholars: namely David Hessel Grave, Lesslie Newbigin, James Engel, Charles Kraft, Donald A. McGavran and Niebuhr. This paper does not attempt to explain their wider perspective but it does include their chief ideas in regard to the models of communication.
2. Understanding Different Terms
Understanding these following terms in this paper is essential to understand the different model of communication in cultures.
2.1. Gospel and Culture
According to Stephen Bevans, “The meaning of the Gospel could be transmitted and interpreted from our own particular horizon and in our own particular thought forms. As our cultural and historical context plays a part in the construction of the reality in which we live, so our context influences the understanding of God and the expression of our faith.”[i] Communicating gospel means communicating redemptive message to people.
In the view of Niebuhr, “Culture is the total process of human activity and it refers to the secondary environment which man superimposes on the nature.”[ii] Dennis Teague says, “Culture is a way of thinking, feeling, believing. Culture is a design for living. It is a plan according to which society adapts itself to its physical, social, and ideational environment.”[iii] Marchal Fernando says, “People should be encouraged to take culture for good and honest reasons and not as yet another trap to proselytize. Gospel and Culture should be based on honest recognition of the need to integrate in the community to share the richness of plurality in our society.”[iv]
2.2. Communication and Cross- Cultural Communication
According to WACC[v], “Communication is a spiritual exercise which builds and shapes community, connectedness, enhances participation, promotes freedom and demands accountability, celebrates cultural diversity and affirms justice and challenges injustice.”[vi] Timothy Lenchak says “Preaching the gospel is basically a communication act. In every communication act, there would be three fundamental factors: the sender or source, the message and the receivers.”[vii] Here, cross- cultural communication need to seen through the perspective of sharing gospel to the different contexts, apart from own culture.
3. Various Scholars’ Models of Gospel Communication in Culture
The main ideas of these scholars in regard to the model of communication have been mentioned here. Each of these models is created from the different aspects by different scholars. These models differ from one scholar to another in the term of construction of model.
3.1. Niebuhr’s Model: - “Christ and Culture”
In his book, “Christ and Culture,” Niebuhr purposes five views which are much discussed in the theological realm. These five views are included below:
3.1.1. The Christ against the Culture
The biblical basis of this model is 1 John, which states “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.”[viii] In this view it is obvious that it affirms the sole authority of Christ over culture and resolutely rejects culture’s claims to loyalty. The counterpart of loyalty to Christ and the brothers is the rejection of cultural society. Here, a clear line of separation is drawn between the brotherhood of the children of God and the world.[ix] According to Niebuhr, says “The people who reject the world have not taken easy ways in professing their allegiance to Christ. They have endured physical and mental sufferings in their willingness to abandon homes, property, and the protection of government for the sake of his cause.”[x] But Niebuhr believes that this position is adequate primarily because this separation from world and Christianity has never been achieved at any time. Most importantly for Niebuhr, this view does not adequately recognize Jesus’ and Spirit’s role in creation. There seems to be the false notion that sin lies in culture and when the Christian escapes culture, he or she can escape sin. But this is certainly not the case- Niebuhr says.[xi]
3.1.2. The Christ of Culture
Here, for Niebuhr the Christian system is not different from culture in kind but only in quality. The best of culture should be selected to conform to Christ. He further says history testifies that people were attracted to Christ because of the harmony of the Christian message with the moral and religious philosophy of their teachers.[xii] This view holds that Christian system is not different from culture since Jesus was relevant to his time and confirmed the laws of his society. Jesus showed concern for the society. However, Niebuhr’s problem with this view lies in distortion of Christ when seen with the intention to make Jesus conform to the best of society.
3.1.3. The Christ above Culture
According to the concept of Niebuhr in this view, “The reception of grace perfects and completes culture though there is not a smooth curve or continuous line between them.” Here it is needed to be understood that this concept does not make the battle between Christ and culture but rather it sees the battle between God and man: holy God and sinful man. For him, grace perfects the culture and God orders culture. Thus culture is neither good nor bad. He sees the harmony between Christ and culture as the best way to deal with the problem.
3.1.4. The Christ and Culture in Paradox
This view capture the biblical tension depicted for Christians in this world. Therefore, Niebuhr says, for man is under the law and yet not under law but grace. He is sinner and yet righteous and recipient of divine wrath and mercy.[xiii] This view is much similar with above view “Christ above culture.”
3.1.5. The Christ Transforms the Culture
In Niebuhr’s understanding, Culture reflects the fallen state of humanity; in Christ humanity is redeemed and culture can be transformed so as to glorify God and promote his purposes.[xiv] Here it is needed to note that we as Christian workers need to work for its transformation because while there is sin in culture, it is not all lost, there is hope through Christ, for redemption of cultures. It is also to be notice that as a Christian worker does not defeat sin by escaping it or fighting it directly but rather with eyes on Jesus. Hence, God- oriented desire will help to defeat sin. Niebuhr further says that God involved in human creativity and it was good and it can be good too.[xv]
Here, Niebuhr is not appealing for simple or uncritical social action but he purposes an awareness to guide our action. He argues that we need to be aware of the relativism/ culturally conditioned nature of our actions. He also says that since we have partial, incomplete, fragmentary knowledge, we need to have a measured opinion about our ability to be involved in culture for the Lord.
Nevertheless, D.A Carson criticized the view of Niebuhr. Carson says, Niebuhr has been so influential because his analysis embraces Catholic and Protestants. For him Niebuhr’s views are idealizations and that in reality people and movements likely to pick and choose to merge desperate elements. Carson also say, “Niebuhr judged some movements but not Christian Gnosticism. He dealt about many histories figures but in his attempt to ground his patterns in the Bible he is less.”[xvi] Whatsoever, the researcher strongly holds the Niebuhr’s concept of the Christ transform the culture. There is not bad culture. Every culture is a part of God’s diverse cultures. God transforms the culture.
3.2. Donald A. McGavran’s Model: - “High- Low Views Debate”
Donald A. McGavran purposed the high low views debate in a logical biblical way. There are four different views, which are included below. Out these four, he encourages missionaries to take the fourth views.[xvii]
§ A high view of the Bible and a low view of culture.
§ A high view of culture and a low view of the Bible.
§ A low view of the Bible and a low view of culture.
§ A high view of the Bible and a high view of culture.
Why does he urge to take fourth view? In this point, it is obvious that the fourth view emphasis on the high view of both the Bible and Culture. In the term of communicating gospel, one cannot give low view towards culture nor the Bible. Both of these factors should be viewed highly. In the first view, Bible is viewed highly but culture is viewed low. This is not at all true biblical emphasis. And in second view, culture is viewed high but the Bible is viewed low. This is also not a true biblical emphasis. In the third view also, the problem is that both the Bible and culture are viewed low. And this is also not a true biblical emphasis. Therefore, the fourth view is much emphasized by McGavran that every missionary need to take this fourth view in terms of ministry. In this point, the researcher highly supports to McGavran’s concept of giving high view to the Bible and culture at the same time.
3.3. Charles Kraft’s Model: - “Incarnational Model”
Charles Kraft model of communication emphasizes on the incarnational model of communication bringing the example of how God communicated to humanity. In this point, the incarnational model of communication means taking different form to communicate as God became flesh (John 1:14). He says that today there is problem faced by many missionary in the term of communicating the gospel in the culture of the society where they go. Why so? For him, it is because of the role that missionary assumes.[xviii] In every culture, there can be different situation. And such context, the roe of the missionary also need to be incarnational in their role in order to present gospel.
What is stereotype to take? Charles Kraft gives a two different model of incarnational model of communication basing on the perspective of Bible: model of God and model of Jesus. These are quite comprehensive for following the incarnational model of the gospel communication.
3.3.1. God’s Communicational Model
Charles Kraft says, in Jesus the stereotyped God broke out the stereotype.[xix] What does he mean to say here? His very focus goes to explain that God throughout the history had relationship with Jewish people. And in spite of his association with them and his constant working in human matters both within and outside of the Jewish nation, he had come to be regarded as predictable, isolated from meaningful interpersonal contact with all but a very few human beings, and more or less depersonalized. But then in the fullness of time God did something about the situation in Jesus. God who has every right to remain God, above humanity, powerful, majesty, and worship-able, putting aside both his rightful position and power became a human being for the purpose of coming to live among us (John 1:14/ Phil. 2:6-7). Because of this human being could see, feel, touch Jesus and understand truth of gospel.[xx] This is what the communication model of God for missionary to be identified in the culture where they go to communicate gospel. Missionary must demonstrate God’s message from within the human frame of reference.
3.3.2. Christ Communicational Model
What does Kraft want to say here? His focus goes to explain how Jesus established his credibility as a human being among people. Jesus identified with poor people and enabled them to understand that God concern for each one of them. Jesus led his disciples to discover who he is. His teachings, primarily parables were based on daily lives and activities of people of his time. Jesus becoming a human he learned, shared, and participated in human affairs.[xxi] Hence, Kraft’s lesson for missionary to urge to take role of Jesus how he identified with people in order to communicate the redemptive message on the early ministry. These two events are the example of incarnational model. Incarnational model has to take a new form, in order to communicate gospel in new culture. Of course the concept of incarnational has been criticized by many scholars, saying this concept is totally divine and it has nothing to do in the human activities. But the searcher is still holds that Kraft’s concept of incarnational has to see from the model of Jesus involvement with people in term of communicating the message of kingdom of God. Jesus identified himself with people whom ever he mingled. In this point, it is crucial to see that incarnational concept need to see through the stereotype that Jesus left for his disciples but not only through the divine perspective.
3.4. James Engel’s Model: - “The Church: Medium and Message”
What is the fundamental principle of communication in the view of James Engle? The very focus of James Engle’s model of communication bases on the two different terms: Church as message and medium.[xxii] But before looking into these two terms, it is crucial to know what the model of the church in the view of James Engle is? He purposes two different contrasting thoughts in regard to the models of the church: institutional model and organic model.[xxiii]
What is institutional model of church in his view? In this regard, he says, “In institutional model the actions are governed by hierarchy, delegation of authority, formality and ministry through over expanding programs. And the final authority is always bases with some of the governing board. In such scenario of the church, life is not much different form standard of organizational chart found in business and other recognized institution.”[xxiv] He further says, seemly this may be satisfactory outwardly but there are consequences of this system. What are the consequences? According to his view, the consequences are following.[xxv]
· The church may ignore the spiritual gifts in the life of every believer.
· A false division between staffs and laity can be seen.
In regard to organic model, what is the view of James Engel? For him, the organic model of church has one body which is equipped by God, led by God as well as ministering to the one another and to the world.[xxvi] These are the essential attributes of organic model of the church. Hence, he supports organic model of church saying that the organic model of church can be a message and medium of gospel communication in any cultural context. Therefore, for him significant view on the church is both the medium and message for the world evangelization. And evangelism and social action should not be disconnected. And as a medium, the church has role to share redemptive gospel to people.[xxvii]
In regard to this view, the researcher holds the organic model due to its unity which focuses on one body ministering to one another and to the world. Engle’s view on this seems to be strong and effective to take into consideration in ministry.
3.5. Lesslie Newbigin’s Model: - “Gospel, Culture and Cultures”
Lesslie Newbigin firstly he identifies the two problem between culture and cultures. Then he goes to explain about the model of contextualization of gospel in cultures.
3.5.1. The Problems
Lesslie Newbigin[xxviii] has attempted to formulate two problems in connection to the cross-cultural communication. His first concern is based on the gospel and culture (singular).And second problem raised by Newbigin’s experience of cross-cultural communication is concerned with the gospel and cultures (plural). Both of these issues problems are mentioned below.
3.5.1. 1. Gospel and Culture (Singular)
According to Newbigin, “The evangelist must use the language of the hearers. Yet that language uses terms that reflect the world view by which the hearers make sense of their world view.”[xxix] He provides an example of Saskrit word Swamy, means Lord. In his view this can be a possible word but the problem is that there are many lords. According to Hindu tradition, there are three hundred and thirty million lords. In this point, if Jesus is just one more lord, then there are more important matters to attend than a message about another swamy.[xxx] Here, his focuses mainly bases on the issue to identify the problem: how can the missionary be both relevant and faithful to the gospel or how does one avoid the twin problem of irrelevance and syncretism? This is what the main emaphsis included by Newbigin.
3.5.1.2. Gospel and Cultures (Plural)
During the 19th century the missionary movement exhibited ethnocentricism. The western form of the gospel was considered to be normative. All other cultural expressions of the Christian faith were judged by western patterns. In the middle of the 20th century, in reaction to western ethnocentrism, there was a shift towards relativism: there were no criteria to judge a faithful contextualization of the gospel in any culture.[xxxi] Lesslie Newbigin says, “My confession of Jesus as Lord is conditioned by the culture of which I am a part…no myth is seen as a myth by those who inhabit it: it is simply the way things are.”[xxxii] Under this point, his main focus bases on the issue to identify how one avoids the twin problems of ethnocentrism and relativism.
3.5.2. Models of Contextualization of the Gospel
According to Lesslie Newbigin, there are three elements as a path to the faithful contextualization of the gospel. These three elements are mentioned below:
3.5.2.1. Faithfulness to the Scriptural Story
According to Newbigin, “Essential for faithful contextualization is a proper understanding of the nature of scripture. When the process of contextualization proceeds by selecting particular aspect of scripture that is most compatible with the patterns of various religions and cultures, Scripture will be interpreted in the light of culture rather than culture in the light of scripture.”[xxxiii] For him, the Bible is not a book of religious or theological ideas but rather believes that it tells the story of the mighty acts of God culminating in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Therefore, he believes that making starting point in contextualization is not simply a rational matter of starting with scriptural truth but rather a matter of the believing community “indwelling” and embodying the story of scripture.[xxxiv] He also says that contextualization is a communal matter. The church is ecclesial community which attempts to view the world and live in it in the light of scripture. [xxxv]
3.5.2.2. A Dialogue with Various Cultures of the world
According to Newbigin, “A dialogue with the various cultures of the world is the one of the important elements of the faithful contextualization that avoids the twin problems of syncretism and irrelevance.” How can this avoid? He further says, “Failure in contextualization within a particular culture takes place when either of these words of the gospel is suppressed. When God’s No, his word of judgment is not applied, syncretism will be the result. The culture is simply affirmed and the gospel is domesticated into the plausibility structure of the culture. Alternatively, when God’s yes, his word of grace is not present, irrelevance will be the result. The culture is rejected and since cultural embodiment is inevitable, the church will resort to a cultural form of the gospel from another time or place and will, thus, be irrelevant to its culture.”
3.5.2.3. Openness to the Ecumenical Fellowship of all Christian: Avoiding Ethnocentrism and Relativism
According to Newbigin, “The importance of ecumenical dialogue for faithfulness to the gospel within a certain culture is evident when nothing his use of the image of Archimedean point[xxxvi]. Faithful contextualization needs a dialogue that moves beyond cultural boundaries.” [xxxvii]This dialogue must be open to the witness of churches in all other places and thus saved from absorption into culture of that place and enabled to represent to that place the universality. Further he also says that there is danger that any one local contextualization of the gospel will be absorbed into the culture of that place; if it is to be challengingly relevant then a dialogue must take place among believers from every culture. He believes that the dialogue will involve both mutual correction and mutual enrichment.[xxxviii]
Lesslie Newbigin’s emphasis on culture and cultures are quite comprehensive due to its meaningful exploration. The Christian communication bases on the multicultural context where so many cultures are being practiced. In the midst of all these, Lesslie’s emphasis on contextualization stands more useful for any of the cultural context. For, contextualization must be preceded from the faithfulness to the scripture, dialogue to the cultures and ecumenical thinking. Therefore, his concept is more thoughtful to take into consideration in contemporary Christian ministry.
3.6. David Hessel Grave’s Model
David Hessel Grave’s model of communication is significant to understand in order to comprehend how message is communicated to people. Below, Hessel’s three ways cultural communication and seven dimension of cross- cultural communication have been mentioned.
3.6.1. Three Culture Model of Missionary Communication.
These following three model of communication are purpose by David Hessel Grave. These three models are: the Bible culture, missionary culture and respondent culture. Each of these is described below.
3.6.1. 1. The Bible Culture Context
According to Hessel Grave, “The missionary understands the intended meaning of scripture through correct exegesis, teaching and training.”[xxxix] In his understanding these methods helps missionary how to decode scripture, by which missionary will be able to identify the message of salvation in any cultural setting. He also emphasizes that decoding is a necessary preparation for every missionary and minister, as the message of salvation needs to be communicated to the masses.[xl]
3.6.1.2. Respondent Culture Context
Hassel’s focus in this point is to instruct missionary the use of encoding scripture. He says encoding the contextual wrap to the message is necessary in most situations. In such point, this requires the careful consideration of a multitude of influencing factors, including socio-economic background, history, culture, language, geo-politics and religions. Furthermore, he also says that some scripture may be communicated directly where there are such clear parables, like the prodigal son. [xli] According to his understanding, this parable is easily understood by the society which is familiar with paternal status and dignity, hereditary rights, and family relations between a father and son.
3.6.1.3. Missionary Culture Context
In this juncture, Hessel’s focus bases on to assist missionary to identify his or her own cultural background. He says it is complex but necessary to identify. Missionary from different place may have their own background of culture. In such case he or she should understand his or her own background in order to present message of salvation in the socio- economic context of other people. He also says that in order to teach children in village, missionary must not expect in a level of children who are academically oriented.[xlii] Here, Hessel’s understand that each person is culturally shaped and their attitude is developed in accordance with that, which the missionary must know.
3.6.2. Three Ways Relationship: Bible, Missionary and Respondent Culture.
David Hessel Grave’s three ways relationship between the Bible Culture, Responded Culture and Missionary Cultures can be seen in figure as well.[xliii]
Source Message Respondent
This figure of the three cultures model gives an understanding of a framework to missionary which helps to prepare to present gospel for a particular group of people. According Hessel, this is an indigenization aspect. For, here, a missionary share Jesus to obtain result. Then a missionary train faithful men in cultural context to convey message to the respondents in the context of their culture. He says that the Bible culture takes into account the specific situation in which books were written. Therefore, in this point, he says the missionary is required to study scripture and understand it in the light of its context.[xliv] The missionary culture, the background that influences the missionary should not spoil this. Instead the missionary should present the message of the Bible to the target audience with application through understanding of the responded culture.
3.6.3. Seven Dimension of Cross- Cultural Communication
David J. Hessel Grave has purposed the following seven dimension of cross- cultural communication. According to him, these seven dimensions are significant in the terms of communicating gospel.[xlv] And as Christian missionary need to be aware of these dimensions.
· World Views: - ways of perceiving the world
· Cognitive Process: - ways of thinking
· Linguistic Form: - ways of expressing ideas
· Behavioral Patters: - ways of acting
· Social Structure: - ways of interacting
· Media Influence: - ways of channeling the message
· Motivational Resources: - ways of deciding
As communicator of the gospel, according to him, one must be aware of these ways in the terms of communicating gospel in cross-cultural context. Jorgen Motlman, in his article called “The Idea of a Christian University,” in An Interdisciplinary Journal for Asian Christian Scholar (AIJFACS), says “The cultural science cover everything from languages, social science and law to philosophy and religious studies, in sum, everything that belong to the culture of a society.”[xlvi] In this point, missionary or gospel communicators has wider task to understand to communicate gospel in cross- cultural setting.
These dimensions of cross- cultural communication has to do with ways of perceiving the world, thinking, expressing ideas, acting, interacting, channeling the message and then deciding. All these perspective should not be ignored in term of communicating gospel to the cross- cultural context. In any communication, the world view of people, cognitive, linguistic, behavior, social, media influence and motivational resources become strong point to take into consideration by which one may come to know the wider perspective of cross- cultural communication. Hence, the researcher supports the idea of Hessel that the gospel message only can be communicated to people when missionary play an active role to communicate into community.
Missiological Implications
The Christ transforms the cultures,” is more considerable model in the term of communicating gospel to people. Whatever the cultures are being practiced in the world, all the culture has its own significance in society. In this point, culture should not be viewed as low, rather it need to be viewed as high as the Bible is viewed. Because, the Christ is the transformer of every culture.
Christ’s communicational model” is another essential model for contemporary missionary. The life of Jesus Christ is a good example of incarnational model of communication. God communicated to people by becoming himself as human being. He came in the form of human to communicate truth to people. Whatsoever the concept of incarnational model of ministry has been come to much debatable issues but still, taking the model of Jesus communicating people remains significance. As church, need to be incarnational in the term of presenting gospel to any cultural setting.
Another important thing in term of communication model is church becoming an organic model. For, institutional model of church bases on hierarchy where there ministry function bases on the power and authority of leader. It also brings the division between staffs and common believers. In this point, the church cannot stands as message and medium of gospel communication. Therefore, in order to become message and medium of gospel communication, the church needs to be organic model in term of ministering to people.
Another helpful consideration in connection to communicating gospel to cross-cultural context, thinking and applying the concept of contextualization remains significance. As Christian gospel communicators, need to understand the important of contextualization. The more appropriately make contextualization, the more Christian communicators can become effective in passing gospel message to people in cross-cultural context.
Conclusion
All of these above models are essential for the gospel communicator in the terms of sharing gospel into the cross- cultural setting. Some of those views may not be fitting to apply but all these are crucial for us to comprehend. These models help each individual gospel communicator, church or missions agencies or missionary to carry out gospel in a better. Therefore, a Christian should relate to their surrounding culture with an understanding of different applicable models of communication in the terms of communicating gospel to cultures.
Bibliography
[i] Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, Revised &Expanded ed. (Manila, Philippines: Logos Publications, Inc., 2003), 4.
[ii] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1975), 32.
[iii] Dennis Teague, Culture: The Missing Link in Mission (Manila, Philippines: OMF Literature Inc., 1996), 171.
[iv] Marshal Fernando “Gospel and Cultures: From the Perspective of Sri Lankan Buddhist Experience” accessed from: http://daga.dhs.org/daga/btr/btr9v/v95marshal.htm. on 5/03/2015.
[v] The full form of WACC- World Association for Christian Communication.
[vi] Communication for All: Sharing WACC’s Principles- htt://waccglobal.org/eho-we-are/our-organization/principles. Accessed on 9/03/2015.
[vii] Timothy Lenchak, The Bible and Intercultural Communication, https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CCC-HBI/files/UNIT%20-%20II%20-%20Christian%20Foundations%20for%20Communication/, accessed on 9/03/2015.
[viii] I John 2:15
[ix]H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 45.
[x] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 66.
[xi] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture , 78.
[xii]H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 83.
[xiii] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 157.
[xiv] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 194.
[xv]H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 196.
[xvi] D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture. Revisited (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 36.
[xvii]Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally to Other Religions: A Mission Perspective on Sharing the Gospel: at: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CCC-HBI/files/Unit%20VI/ accessed on 9/03/2015.
[xviii] Charles Kraft, The Incarnationa, God’s model for Cross-Cultural Communication: at http://brookhavenpres.com/incarnation-gods-model-cross-cultural-communication-charles-kraft/ accessed on 3/03/2015.
[xix] Charles H. Kraft, Communication Theory for Christian Witness (New York: Orbis Books, 2005), 20.
[xx] Charles H. Kraft, Communication Theory for Christian Witness, 17.
[xxi] Charles H. Kraft, Communication Theory for Christian Witness, 173.
[xxii] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1975), 31.
[xxiii] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice, 92.
[xxiv] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice, 91.
[xxv] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice, 94.
[xxvi] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice, 93.
[xxvii] James F. Engel, Contemporary Christian Communications. Its Theory and Practice, 96.
[xxviii] Newbigin was a third generation missionary to India for almost forty years in India. He is one of the leading missionary thinkers and statesmen of the 20th century.
[xxix] Mike Goheen, Gospel, Culture, and Cultures: Lesslie Newbigin’s Missionary Contribution (Canada: Redeemer University College, 2000), 4. Accessed from: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CCC-HBI/files/Unit%20VI/ accessed on 9/03/2015.
[xxx] Lessile Newbigin, Christ and Cultures (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1978), 2.
[xxxi] Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflection of Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994) 76.
[xxxii] Lesslie Newbigin, Christ and Cultures, 3.
[xxxiii] Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 42.
[xxxiv]Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 152.
[xxxv] Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 153.
[xxxvi] According to Lesslie Newbigin, it is a principle from where people can understand when he or she rejects one culture as normative, find other as formative, where does find a principle, this what the point he calls as Archimedean point.
[xxxvii]Lesslie Newbigin, Unfinished Agenda: An Autobiography (Edinburgh: Saint Andrews Press, 1993), 250.
[xxxviii]Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 196.
[xxxix] David Hessel Grave, The Role of Culture in Communication: Perspectives on the world Christian movement, edited by Steven C (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1999), 392.
[xl] David Hessel Grave, The Role of Culture in Communication: Perspectives on the world Christian movement, edited by Steven C, 393.
[xli] David Hessel Grave, The Role of Culture in Communication: Perspectives on the world Christian movement, edited by Steven C, 394.
[xlii] David Hessel Grave, The Role of Culture in Communication: Perspectives on the world Christian movement, edited by Steven C, 396.
[xliii] David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-culturally (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press, 1980), 29.
[xliv] David J. Hessel Grave, Communicating Christ Cross-culturally, 107.
[xlv] David J. Hessel Grave, Communicating Christ Cross- culturally, 164.
[xlvi] Jurgen Moltmann, “The Idea of a Christian University” in Quest: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Asian Christian Scholars, Vol. 5, No. 1, June 2006, p. 64. Accessed from: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CCC-HBI/files/Unit%20VI/ accessed on 9/03/2015.
In the 18th century, Capuchin missionaries served in Nepal's Kathmandu Valley for 54 years, establishing the first churches. After Prithivi Narayan Shah's conquest in 1769 AD, they were expelled due to fears of foreign imperialism and their ties with the Malla kings.