CHRISTIANITY VS SYNCRETISM: GUIDELINES FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION

CHRISTIANITY VS SYNCRETISM: GUIDELINES

FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION

Prof. John Brown Okwii

President,

LAWNA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, UNIVERSITY OF

JOS, NIGERIA.

[email protected].

[email protected]

CHRISTIANITY VS SYNCRETISM: GUIDELINES

FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION

INTRODUCTION

Alan R. Tippet (1975:13) asked an important question which I think is

very applicable to our discussion. He asked: How do we avoid syncretism and

achieve an indigenous Christianity? This question not only raises the problem of

what an indigenous Church may look like, but it also raises the question about

the essence of Christianity. Thus, when we are talking about an indigenous

Church, what is our definition of such a Church? Hans Kasdorf (1979:72)

observed that one of the problems about the adjective ‘indigenous’ in relation to

the Church is its meaning. When people speak of an indigenous church or

Christianity” what do they actually mean? What actually rings into our minds

when we hear the terms or phrases as “indigenized Church”, indigenization, and

“indignity or indigenity”? Until when we are able to define what an indigenous

church is, our ability to either attribute it to syncretism or not becomes very

superficial. Another problem is the term ‘syncretism’, what is the definition of

“syncretism?” The term “Syncretism” as with the term “indigenous” has

various definitions.

I will give a detailed understanding of these terms before presenting the

guidelines. The discussion in this paper is an attempt to contribute to the already

scholarly works done on it.

The writer does not claim any exhaustive treatment of the topic. For

convenience, I will be using the phrase “Indigenous Church” in place of

2

“Indigenous Christianity” as our topic suggests. However, I may be using them

interchangeably.

DEFINITION OF TERMS AND RESPONSE

‘Indigenous’ Church:

The Webster’s Ninth New Collegial Dictionary defines the verb

‘indigenous’ as “having originated in, “being produce,” ‘growing ‘, “Living or

occurring naturally in a particular region or environment.

In the Webster’s International and the Reader’ Digest Encyclopedic

Dictionary the adjective ‘Indigenous’ is said to have its origin from the Indo-

European and Latin compound word in+de+gena, meaning to beget. In this

sense the adjective ‘Indigenous’ signifies that which is “born from within” or

“that which comes from”, or ‘innate’ “local in contrast to foreign,” ‘alien’ or

‘exotic’ hence the noun ‘indigenity’ or ‘indigenousness’ which is expressed in

modern term as ‘indigeneity’ generally meaning ‘natural belongingness.,

(Kasdorf, 1979 : 72) .

Melvin Hodges (1953:11) defined the indigenous church “as a result of

missionary effort, a native church has been produced which shares the life of the

3

country in which it is planted and finds within itself the ability to govern itself,

support itself and produce itself.” Henry Venn, defined it as a church that has

emerged through the missionary work and consequently emerged as

autonomous church through dying (euthanasia) of the foreign missions,

(Kasdorfm1, 1979:73-74).

Hans Kasdorf (1979:74-75) says “an indigenous Church is one that has

been planted by a foreign mission but comes under native leadership and

support without foreign domination. An indigenous Church is a Church born

and maintain within a given culture by people of that culture without direct

outside human influence or control.”

Alan R. Tippet (1975:27) defines the indigenous as a “church that is somehow

the supra cultural core of the truth, in both written and the living word of God

has to be incarnated in the culturally-bound churches or fellowships.”

The definition given by Tippet seems to be more adequate for the writer

than the others because the incarnation of God’s truth to the recipients is the

central focus. If we agree with the Webster’s definition of ‘indigenous’ as

something growing out of, then Tippet’s definition becomes very important in

the discussion of the indigenous church. This means that until when members of

a local church are able to say now “we know whom we have believed” and

therefore we all give our total allegiance to him without reservation, that church

is not yet indigenous.

4

The members of an indigenous church should be able to say to the church

planter (missionary) as the Samaritans said to the woman (the missionary in the

case) “it is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard

for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the World (Jn.

4:42, RSN).

The Samaritan woman, whom, I consider as a short-term missionary, led

the people to Christ. When they heard from Jesus, they turned their allegiance to

Him rather than on what the woman told them. I assumed that after Jesus must

have left the city, left the people, they must have continued in their new found

faith. This is the true mark of an indigenous church. A Church that recognizes

her Saviour. Another similar example of the mark of an indigenous church is

found in (Mat. 16:13-16), RSV).

According to Matthew, on their way to the district of Caesarea Philippi,

Jesus asked his disciples the following question: “who do men say that the Son

of man is”? The disciples responded, “Some say John the Baptist, others say

Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Jesus again turned to the

disciples and asked: But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter responded for

his colleagues by saying: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” In

another occasion, after many of Jesus’ disciples left him because they could not

understand His teaching, Jesus asked the twelve: “Do you also wish to go

away?” Simon Peter an extrovert responded by saying, Lord, to whom shall we

5

go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to

know, that you are the Holy one of God,” (Jn. 6:67-69, RSV).

How applicable are these questions and responses to the discussion of an

‘Indigenous Church?” An Indigenous church must be a church that recognizes

the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Jesus should be real to the people.

It is then that the issue of the three selves, (which is about a dozen now,

Kasdorf 83, 85) and autonomy, takes a dynamic place in the indigenous church.

I assumed this is what Bolaji Idowu (1965:11) meant when he defined an

indigenous church as “the church bearing the unmistakable stamp of the fact

that she is the church of God” in the place she is planted. He said “by

indigenization it means when the church is planted,” for example in Nigerian

soil, “she is obligated to afford Nigerians the means of worshiping, as

Nigerians, in a way that is compatible with their spiritual temperament, so

singing to the glory of God in their own way of praying to God and hearing His

word in idiom which is clearly intelligible to them.” They should be able to

discern God’s will for herself in her context. She should become a spiritual

home of the Christians.” I will add that the church becomes not only a spiritual

home but also a social home of both Christians and non-Christians. The Church

also exists on earth for the sake of non-Christians. So an indigenous church is

one that has not lost her spirit of indigeneity. It is not a church that is till in the

‘incubator,’ (Idowu, 1965:14) of her founder.

6

Thus the true mark of an indigenous church is her recognition of the

‘Lordship’ of Jesus over her. Idowu (1965:11) described this as the ‘key-note’

characteristic of the true indigenous church. Christ becoming the ‘pre-eminent’

of the church. I suggest that this should be the primary yardstick for a true

indigenous church.

In addition, the true indigenous church is one that will always live in the

“watchful consciousness” that she is part as well as the ‘presence’ (Idowu,

1965:11) of the universal church. Idowu, (1965:12) rightly stated when he said

that the church is an “organic cell” belonging to the whole body. In this sense it

shares some characteristics that belong to the whole body. For, example the fruit

of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:23, the water baptism and the Eucharist, their

meanings need to be universally accepted by the church.

The task of becoming an indigenous church is not an easy one. There is bound

to be conflict between loyalty to the old and the new beliefs. I think this is one

of the reasons why some churches in Africa, are kind of reluctant in identifying

themselves as Indigenous.

In summary, an indigenous church is not the pouring of “new wine into

an old wineskin” (Mt. 9:17) or “a piece of unshrunk cloth, an old garment, for

the patch tears away from the garment, and a worst tear is made,” (Mt. 9:16).

For this will lead to syncretism.

An indigenous church is not a replacement of all foreign staff with nationals.

This would mean ‘exclusivism,’ (Idowu, 1965:10). It is not a colony of any

7

foreign body. For this would mean the ‘secularization’ of the church. It is a

church that is “free and independent in spirit” (Idowu, 1965:14). A church that

has found her being in Jesus Christ. A Church that does not live under the

influence of the devil because of her victorious life in Jesus Christ. Among the

six listed (1979:61) marks of an indigenous church, in Tippet’s article, self-

image comes first. He considers this mark as the primary feature of the

indigenous church. Finally, an indigenous church must be identified by her

community as part of its spiritual life and not as foreign institutions.

We now turn to syncretism. First we shall present its history, definitions

and then make some observations.

Syncretism:

Andre Droogers (1989:7) described the word syncretism as a “tricky

term.” It is both used objectively and subjectively, and it is here that its

difficulty lies. When used in an objective sense it means “the mixing of

religions”, when it is used subjectively it involves the interpretation or

evaluation of such mixing from the point of view of, the one evaluating. This

presupposes that the one interpreting or evaluating claims the possession of an

original truth.

The definitions presented below cut across these two streams, objective

and subjective.

8

History of the Word:

There are three sources, (Hendrick Kraemer ad Leonardo Boff), that give

a good historical background of the word ‘syncretism’.

This word originated as apolitical term in Crete. In the ancient classical

literature Plutarch is the only one who quoted the term in his treaties titled

Fraternal Love. It meant the temporary union (‘synistanto’ in Greek) of two

political parties (who had different ideologies) to combat a common enemy that

tries to invade the country. Later on Plutarch labeled the word as ‘synkretismos’

conveying the same meaning. It is the “unity born of a dangerous situation on

opportunist grounds” among the Cretans. Plutarch is quoted by Kraemer as

saying, ‘Synkretismos’ means the unity of the Cretans against foreign enemies.

To synceretise is ‘synaspizein’ (meaning to march against a common enemy).

As time went on the word lost its original meaning and came to mean ‘to mix’

originating from the Greek word ‘synkerannumi’ (Draemer, 1956:392, 393).

Eramus in his work, ‘Adagia’ discovered the original meaning and during the

Reformation, he used the term to unite the Protestant reformers with the

humanists. When he was writing to Melanchthon, he said, “you see with how

much hatred some conspire against the fine arts; it is right that we too syncretize

(like the Cretans) “aequum est nos quoque” ‘synkretizein’ (as quoted by Boff,

1986:177,178).

So at this period the term meant the reconciliation of two opposing parties

to achieve a common goal.

9

In the seventeen century, the term changed to a Greek concept

‘synkerannymi’ meaning, “to mix” “to meld” or “to harmonized” doctrines,

philosophies etc. (Boff, 1986:178). At this period those within the Church who

had different views on the accepted doctrine of the church were termed

‘syncretics.’ For example Calixtus (1656 AD), a Lutheran, a sympathetic

Christian and his group who tried much to bring good relationship between the

various Protestant Confessions were called syncretics (Kraemer, 1956:393).

In the nineteen century, the School of History of Religions took what it called,

an objective stand on syncretism in order to prove that Christianity was

syncretistic religion. It claimed that Christianity possessed many elements from

the primitive religions of its days (Kraemer, 1956:394).

Definitions:

Alan R. Tippet (1975:17, 18) defined ‘syncretism’ as “the union of two

opposite forces, beliefs, systems or tenets so that the united form is a new thing

neither one nor the other.” That this process, say in Christianity, brings

“confusions in the essential content, the metaphysical, the theological, for the

fusion of belief systems; so the supracultural gospel is contaminated, leaving us

with new kind of animism”.

Vissert Hooft (2963:11, 14), when quoting Professor Oepke says, “Real

syncretism is always based on the presupposition that all positive religions are

only reflections of a universal origin (Irreligion) and show therefore only

10

gradual differences.” “It is the intermingling and combination of diverse

religions.” Or the “snythesis of the beliefs which are radically divergent.

Paul G. Hiebert (1985:188), says snycretism is “uncritical acceptance of

the Old way of life or practice.” Van der Leeuw (except otherwise indicated all

the following definitions will come from Andre Droogers…, in dialogue and

Syncretistic. 1989:9-22) defined the term as “combination of various forms of

religions.” He and Kraemer regard all religions including Christianity as

syncretistic. H. Ringgren, defined syncretism as “any mixture of two or more

religions,” suggesting “that elements from several religions are merged and

influence each other mutually.”

J. H. Kamstra, defined it as “the coexistence of elements originating in

other religions or for example in social structures.” He identified two types of

syncretism: “the extreme” and “the intermediate.” The former refers to what he

called ‘conscious syncretism which involved “amalgamation” and

“identification” by the two or more religions; while the later is “unconscious”

syncretism which involves the process of “assimilations” M. Pye defined it as

“the temporary ambiguous coexistence of elements from divers religious and

other contexts within a coherent religious pattern”. First, by eliminating the old

meaning through “assimilation”, secondly, by creating “a new coherent pattern

of meaning” as a result of assimilation (a new religion), thirdly, by dissolution

of both meanings.

11

R. D. Baird defined it as “cases where two conflicting ideas or practices are

brought together and are retained without the benefit of consistency.”

Colpe, defined it as “as initially critical concept, which is being

transformed into a category of ‘historic genetic explanation’ for the antecedents

of a religious situation.”

Berner, defined it as “a process.” Rudolph, in summarizing all the definitions

presented said, “From survey of the literature… syncretism is becoming a

relatively value – free concept which, however, is still in need of a clear,

typology, and has not yet been defined satisfactorily, except in terms of

dynamic nature,” (quoting Droogers, 1989:12).

There is one common concept that these authors share in their definitions;

they all suggest that syncretism has to do with the mixing of elements by either

one or more religions or other contexts. (Pye and tippet, see above). What

divides them is the issue of interpretation or evaluation of syncretism. One

group regards syncretism as a positive thought; believing that it results in

bringing unity among various religions and ideologies. The other group regards

it as a threat to their religious beliefs or tenets. The proponents of the latter

group are mostly, if not exclusively, Christians.

The former constitute non-Christians and some “liberal Christians,” This

former group, which I will term prosyncretics accused the Christians who are

against syncretism of religious exclusivism. The writer is on the side of the

Christians who believe that syncretism is a threat to the Christian beliefs and

12

therefore must be evaluated correctly. The main question now before us is, how

can true Christians identify when their faith has become or is in the process of

becoming syncretistic? This is the heart of this paper. Before we proceed, it is

important that we define what is meant by “the pure faith” and the “essence of

the gospel” (Tippet, 1975:14).

The Pure Faith and the Essence of the Gospel:

Donald A. Mcgavran (1975:36 – 37), identified three ultimate

authorities in the Christendom that determine what the pure faith and essence of

gospel. For the Roman Catholic “The church” has been the ultimate authority.

For the Protestant, the ultimate authority is ‘theoretically’ the Bible alone. Then

for “some Christians, both from the Roman Catholic and Protestant, even from

the Latfricasians and Euricans, seeking to free Christianity from all ‘western

cultural accretions’ the ultimate authority is not the Pope nor the Bible but direct

experience of ‘Christ’.

Mcgavran defined the pure faith as the revelation of God made through

Jesus Christ. He supported his assertion from scripture (Jude3; 1Cor. 15:3; John

1:14 17; 5:11, 12; 14:6, RSV). I agree with Mcgavran, because when Jesus

spoke of the Christian Faith, He referred to it as the ‘mystery’ of the kingdom of

God (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 4:11; Lk. 8:10, NASB) being revealed. I believe this light

has been the very concept that the Apostle Paul understood to be the pure faith

or gospel, (Rom. 16:25; 2 Cor. 2:7; 4:1; Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 6:19; Col. 1:26, 27;

13

4:3; 1 Tim. 3:9, NASB). I assumed it was with this understanding that Paul

reacted with strong words when the Galatians Church was becoming

syncretistic. He exclaimed:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in

the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel – not that there s another

gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel, of

Christ. But even if we, or angels from heaven should preached to you a gospel

contrary to that which we preached to you let him be accursed. As we have said

before, so now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to

that which you received, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:6 – 9, RSV).

Paul defined the gospel which he preached to the Galatians church (Gal.

3:8, RSV) as God’s blessing to all humanity.

This is seen in Paul’s statement to the Galatians church when he said,

“And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,

preached the gospel before hand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the

nations be blessed.” So then, those who are men of faith are blessed. With

Abraham who had faith (Galatians 3:9 RSV).”

The pure faith as defined by Jesus and Paul is the unconditional,

undivided belief in the revealed truth of God, which is Jesus Christ Himself.

This assertion is supported with the words of Jesus when He said, “I am the

way, and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. If you

had known me, you would have known my father also henceforth you know

14

him and have seen him” (Jn. 14:6,7, RSV). This is the pure gospel. Any

Christian whose faith is based on these words has a pure faith. And to turn away

of this pure faith is to be syncretistic.

THE CONTENT OR THE ESSENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

The Willow bank report (pp. 12, 13) presents in a nutshell the content or

the essence of the faith or gospel. That the content of the Christian faith includes

the belief in “God as Creator, the universality of sin, Jesus as Son of God, Lord

of all, and Saviour through his atoning body and risen life, the necessity of

conversion, the coming of the Holy Spirit and his transforming power, now the

fellowship and mission of the Christian Church, and the hope of Christ’s

return.”

It seem to me that the understanding of the pure faith and its content is

usually confused with the living of that faith within a given cultural context.

Probably it is for this reason that it is very difficult to distinguish between what

the pure faith is and a syncretistic faith. This then leads to the previous

questions. When can true Christians identify when the faith has become or is in

the process of becoming syncretistic? This is a very difficult question to answer.

However, I shall endeavour to address it.

GUIDELINES FOR MAKING A DISTINCTION

15

In the discussion of this heading I am indebted to Robert J. Scheirter

(1986:151-155) in his topic, “A Model for Understanding Syncretism.” He used

his semiotic model (the dynamic of social change) to understand syncretism

from the point of view of the receiving culture. He presents two reasons why he

considers the semiotic model as very important for the understanding of

syncretism. First, “it looks at the syncretistic process from the point of view of

the culture, rather than from the side of the incoming Church”. For him this is in

line with the principle of contextualization in terms of his local theologies’

theories. Secondly, “it sees syncretism as a series of solutions at which a culture

arrives at as a result of trying to incorporate new messages, codes and

sometimes signs into the culture.” This last reason is very convincing, because

all along, scholars who have written on this topic have not seen the effect of it

on the receiving culture. I think this may be one of the reasons why it is very

difficult to distinguish between true Christianity and syncretism.

Schreiter presents what he calls “incorporative possibilities” as the key

towards the understanding of syncretism. First, the incorporation that is base on

the adaptation of the ‘similarities’ of sign systems, codes and messages

between the existing culture and Christianity. For example in some Nigerian

cultures the roles of Old Testament prophets and that of the traditional Diviners

are seen as similar. Among the tribes of Nigeria and many others in Africa,

divination is an acceptable feature of their religion (Adelowo 1987-88:72). So

when Christianity came, the role of the Old Testament Prophets was equated

16

with that of the diviners. Since the scriptures condemned divination, some

Diviners changed their title to prophets. They attract a lot of Christians in times

of crises. Most leaders of the independent Churches prefer to use the title of

prophets.

The question is, are they replacing this with the Old (diviner)? I think one

of the ways to identify whether or not they are mixing their former belief with

Christianity is to observe to whom is loyalty ascribed. Is it to Christ or to the

Prophet? What do they employ, say in their healing or foretelling process? In

some cases one might discover that the same methodology employed in the real

traditional practices is also employed in he new culture. For example,

slaughtering of chickens, the invocation of the spirits etc.

Secondly, is the incorporation of ‘filling gaps’? This means the

introduction of signs and codes by, say, Christianity which meet some existing

problems that had no solution within the existing culture. For example, before

Christianity came to Nigeria some diseases had no cure. The traditional healers

could not deal with them. The introduction of hospitals supplemented some of

the areas lacking in the traditional healing. Today, among some Christians, the

traditional healers are still valuable. In times of crisis, they run to them first; and

if the disease cannot be cured, it is then they turn to the hospital. For some

Christians, Christianity does not have answers for witchcraft, sorcery and evil

spirits. Therefore, Christianity is a religion of filling in the gap where traditional

religion is lacking.

17

Thirdly, is the “indiscriminate mixing” of cultural elements and

Christian elements. This happens when the receiving culture has what Schreiter

called, “a low level of social and cultural organization.” This type of culture

accepts everything (the signs, codes and messages) of the invading culture.

When the culture is accepted it does not mean that its meaning will remain the

same. In some cases the existing culture will use its new found culture or faith

(Christianity) to strengthen the low and become more organized.

For example in Northern Nigeria, Christianity was acceptable by the

minority cultures without much difficulty than within the Hausa-Fulani culture.

One could presume that at the beginning, Christianity was accepted not fully on

the bases of salvation from sin but as a means to stand against the dominating

cultures. For this reason in cultures where adequate education on Christian

beliefs and meaning was not given, syncretism still abound.

The main standard of evaluating the three incorporative possibilities is by

observing to whom is allegiance ascribed. IsJesus Christ the Lord of everything

in that culture, or are there some secondary deities still considered as gods?

When culture begins to judge God’s revelation, the church is on her way to

syncretism.

One final note is, all that has been said, relate to the problem of Christian

beliefs with that of other religions resulting to syncretism .We are reminded that

syncretism can also emerged when Christian beliefs are mixed up with certain

ideologies (1989:13, Droogers) Visser’t Hooft (1963:14), rightly said:

18

When every conceivable product of religious (ideological-my

addition) imagination is considered as in some way an expression of the

supernatural (supernatural-my modification) and therefore to some extent

valid, there remains no criterion in the light of which men can make up

their minds about truth and error.

The implication of Hooft’s statement is that no Church in any Society, no

matter how developed it claims to be, should assume that the problem of

syncretism is not applicable to her.

CONCLUSION

We have presented various definitions of an Indigenous Church and

Syncretism. The evaluation of each depends upon the presuppositions. From the

point of view of this writer, and many other scholars, which we have mentioned

that the true indigenous Church is a Church that has Christ as her Lord and

Master in life and practice. It is a church that has a self identity. A church that is

not a slave to any foreign agency. A church that is able to define its goals in

order to meet the felt needs of its society.

Syncretism in its subjective sense is generally defined as, “the mixing” of

other beliefs with Christianity. We have seen that this mixture can take three

basic “incorporative possibilities:” adaptation of ‘similarities,’ ‘filling the gaps’

and ‘indiscriminate mixing.” Syncretism also go beyond the mixture of

19

Christianity with other religious beliefs to the mixture of Christian beliefs with

other ideologies that are contrary to the Scriptures.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelowo, E. Dada. 1987 – 88. “Divination as an Aspect of Healing Process in

Major Religions of Nigeria.” Africa Theological Journal. Vol. 16 – 14

(1), pp. 70 – 93.

Boff, Leonardo. 1986. Church: Charism and Power. New York: Crossroad

Publishing Company.

Bradshaw, M, and Savage. 1975. “The Gospel, Contextualization and

Syncretism Report” in Let the earth Hear His Voice: International

Congress on World evangelization Lausanne, Switzerland, July 16 – 25,

1974 ed. By Douglas J. D. Minnesota World Wide Publications, (pp.

1224 – 28).

Brown, Arthur Judson. 1915. Rising Churches in Non-Christian Lands. Canada:

Missionary Education Movement.

Clasper, Paul. 1971 – 73. “The Boundaries on Which I Choose to Live” in

Southeast Asia, Journal of Theology Vol. 13 14 (1) pp. 60 – 65.

20

Draft, Charles H. “Measuring Indigeneity” in Reading Dynamic Indigeneity. Ed.

By Charles Kraft H. and Tom N. Wisley. California: William Carey

Library, (pp. 119 -152).

Droogers, Andre. 1989. “Syncretism: The Problem of Definition, the Definition

of the Problem.” in Dialogue and Syncretism: An Interdisciplinary

Approach. Ed. By Gort, Vroom, Fernbout and Wessels. Michigan: B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, (pp. 7 – 25).

Forman, Charles. 1964. The Nation and the Kingdom. New York: Friendship

Press.

Harnack, Adolf. 1972. The Expansion of Christianity in the First Three

Centuries. New York: Books for Libraries Press, (pp. 391 397).

Hiebert, Paul G. 1985. Anthropology Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House, (pp. 71 – 192).

__________. 1960. The Indigenous Church. Chicago: Moody Press.

__________. 1978. The Indigenous Church and the Missionary. California:

William Carey Library.

21

___________. 1957. Build my Church. Chicago: Moody Press.

Hodges, Melvin L. 1953. The Indigenous Church. Springfield, Missouri: Gospel

Publishing House.

Hoft, W. A. Vissert t. 1963. No Other Name. Philadelphia. Westminster Press.

Idowu, Bolaji. 1965. Towards an Indigenous Church. London: Oxford

University Press.

Imasogie, Osadolor. 1983. Guidelines for Christian Theology in Africa. Ghana:

Christian Press.

Jacobs, Donald. 1980. “Conversion and Culture: AN Anthropological

Perspective with Reference to Africa” Down to Earth, Studies” in

Christianity and Culture. Michigan: Wn. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company.

Johnston, Sir Harry. 1966. Trade Politics and Christianity in Africa and the

East. New York: Negro University Press.

22

Kasdort, Hans. 1979. “Indigenous Church Principles: A Survey of Origin and

Development” in Reading in Dynamic Indigeneity, ed by Charles H. Draft

and Tom N. Wisley. California: William Carey Library. (pp. 71-86)

Kato, Byang H. 1975. “The Gospel, Culture Context and Religious Syncretism”

in Let the Earth Hears His Voice, International Congress on World

Evangelization. Lausanne, Switzerland. Ed. By Douglas J. D. Minnesota:

World Wide Publication, (pp. 1216 -1223).

Kraemer, Hendrick. 1956. Religion and the Christian Faith. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, (pp. 387 – 417).

Luzbetak, Louis J. 1989. The Church and Cultures: New Perspectives in

Missiological Anthropology. New York: Orbis Books.

Mcgavran, Donald A. 1975. “The Biblical Base from which Adjustments are

Made” in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity. Ed. By Tetsunao

Yamamoru and Charles R. Taber. California: William Carey Library, (pp.

35 – 55).

Moyo, Ambrose Mavingire. 1983. “The Quest for African Christian theology

and the Problem of the Relationship between faith and Culture” The

23

Hermeneutics Perspective” in Africa theological Journal. Vol. 12 (2),

(pp. 188 – 195.)

Muzorewa, Gwinyai H. 1985. The Origins and Development of African

Theology. New York: Orbis Books.

Onuwa, Udobat. 1986. “The Biblical Basis for Some Healing Methods in Africa

Traditional Society” in Africa Theological Journal. Vol. 15 (3) (pp. 188 –

195).

Poppee, John S. 1979. Towards an Africa Theology. Tennessee:

Abingdon.

Sawyer, Harry. 1969. “What is African Theology?” in Africa Theological

Journal Vol. 2 – 4 (4) (pp. 7 – 24.).

_________. 1986 “What is African Theology?” in Africa Theological Journal.

Vol. 2 – 4 (4), (pp. 7 – 24).

Schreiter, Robert J. 1986. Constructing Local Theologies. New York: Orbis.

(pp. 144 – 158).

24

Soltau, Stanley T. 1955. Mission at the Crossroad. Michigan: Baker Book

House.

Taber, Charles R. 1975. “Christopagnism or Indigenous Christianity” in

Christopagnism or Indigenous Christianity? Ed. Y Testsunao Yamamori

and Charles R. Taber. California: William Carey Library, (pp. 13 – 34).

Taber, Charles R. 1978. “The Limits of Indigenization in Theology” in An

International Review. Vol. VI (1), Jan., (pp. 53 – 77).

The Willowbank Report 1978. “Gospel and Culture” In Let Earth Hear His

Voice. Lausanne Occasional papers, 6th to 13th Jan.

Tippett, Alans, R. 1979. “Indigenous Principles in Mission Today” in Reading

in Dynamic Indigeneity. Ed. By Charles H. Kraft and Jom N. Wisley.

California: William Carey Library, (pp. 52– 70).

Wagner, Gunter. 1984. “Paul and the Apostolic Faith” in African Theological

Journal Vol. 13 (2), (pp. 115 – 133).

Walls, Andre F. 1982. “The Gospel as the Prisoner and Liberator of Culture” in

Missinalia. Vol. 130(3) (pp. 99.).

25

Wan-Tatah, Victor 1989. Emancipation in African Theology. New York: Peter

Lang.

Widjaja, Albert 1971 – 1973 “Beggarly Theology: A Search for a perspective

toward Indigenous Theology” In Southeast Asia Journal of Theology.

Vol. 13, 14 (2) pp 38-45.