Kraft, Hiebert, and Conn: A Comparison

I have found the work of Charles Kraft, Paul Hiebert and Harvie Conn very helpful as I have tried to get my head around the topics of religion, culture and worldview. But the three authors use the terms quite differently. Here is a comparison of their terms and below an attempt to diagram that and add my own proposal.

	Worldview	Religion	Culture
Kraft	“the culturally structured assumptions, values, and commitments/allegiances underlying a people’s perception of reality and their responses to those perceptions”[1]	“… a means of relating to and dealing with an important part of the nonhuman universe.”[2] “A religion, then, is a set of cultural forms in terms of which a faith is expressed.”[3]	“a society’s complex, integrated coping mechanism, consisting of learned, patterned concepts and behavior, plus their underlying perspectives (worldview) and resulting artifacts (material culture).”[4]
Hiebert	“A worldview provides people with their basic assumptions about reality.”[5] “the foundational cognitive, affective, and evaluative assumptions and frameworks a group of people makes about the nature of reality which they use to order their lives.”[6]	“Religion provides them with the specific content of this reality ….”[7] “Religion … is the model man uses to explain the reality of all things.”[8]	“the more or less integrated systems of ideas, feelings, and values and their associated patterns of behaviour and products shared by a group of people who organize and regulate what they think, feel, and do.”[9] “… the integrated system of learned patterns of behavior, ideas, and products characteristic of a society.”[10]
Conn	“…the prescientific factories and bank vaults of presuppositions…”[11]	“[Religion] is the core in the structuring of culture, the integrating and radical response of humanity to the revelation of God. Life is religion.”[12]	“[Cultures] are integrated, holistic patterns structured around the meeting of basic human needs.”[13]

---

This is very tentative - an attempt to create a mediating space for worldview that acknowledges that there are some aspects of life, e.g. views of time and space, that are basic but nevertheless culturally relative. (The software sadly doesn't let me draw lines in all the right places.)

Kraft	Culture
	Worldview	Religion	Other aspects of culture
Hiebert	Culture
	Religion		Other aspects of culture
	Worldview	Religion expressed
Conn	Religion/Worldview		Culture
My Proposal		Cultures/Religions
		Worldview
	Religion

---

[1] Charles, H. Kraft, Christianity with Power (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1989), 20.

[2] Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, 197.

[3] Charles, H. Kraft, “Is Christianity a Religion or a Faith?” in Appropriate Christianity (Charles H. Kraft, ed.; Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2005), 87 (original emphasis).

[4] Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, 38.

[5] Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 371.

[6] Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 25-26.

[7] Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 371.

[8] Ibid., 356.

[9] Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 30.

[10] Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 25.

[11] Conn, “Culture,” 254.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 253.

Ten Perspectives on Missiology

Here are ten perspectives that describe the approach to missiology to which I aspire. I wrote this two years ago for a different audience but it was never used. Having just rediscovered it I thought I would post in on the blog in the hope that it might be helpful for others. It was prompted by reading John Frame's approach to theology. I borrowed the first three perspectives from him, as well as I understand him. I hope it doesn't make mission look complicated. Missiology is simply careful thinking about mission. The following is just an attempt to unpack that.

1. Biblical: the normative perspective

It is in the Bible that we read of God’s heart for the world. The text of Scripture must be read and understood for our missiology to be shaped by God himself. “All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2Tim 3:16-17). We examine the views and opinions of the Lord’s servants even though some do not hold to the infallibility of the Bible. Whether they do or not, their assertions must be checked against the Word “to see if what [is] said is true” (Acts 17:11). So, the biblical perspective keeps us centred.

2. Contextual: the situational perspective

We need to reflect on the context the Lord has put us in. We should seek to be involved in ministry as we reflect on it. That ministry will continually throw up questions to answer, issues to address. This is an important element in missiology; it is not to be merely theoretical. As the biblical perspective keeps us centred, the contextual perspective keeps us grounded in the stuff of real life.

3. Personal: the existential perspective
In considering missions, we are inevitably confronted with the challenge to consider our place, as individuals, in God’s purposes. Not only so but we are also challenged to consider our place as missiologists. We are forced, if we are honest, to reflect on ourselves as interpreters of God’s revelation in Scripture and in creation. Each of us has a unique perspective, which brings with it great potential for creative thinking and acting, because we are made in God’s image to reflect his creativity. But we also have great potential for both misunderstanding, because we are finite creatures with limited powers, and for twisting the truth, because of the continuing effects of sin on our thinking. So, we must consider the personal dimension as we learn and reflect, not just to bring our perspective to the discussion, but also in response to our discoveries as we learn. We do not approach missions from a distance but from within, with our personal histories, gifts, and scars from the battle.

4. Historical: the anterior perspective
We are not the first to do missiology. God’s people have reflected on God’s mission and their place in it for thousands of years. We need to learn from them, seeking not to repeat their mistakes but rather to stand on the shoulders of giants and carry the baton in our day as well as we possibly can (Hebrews 13:7).

5. Communal: the global perspective

The best learning goes on in community. It demands the development of good quality, honest relationships, in which we are partners, not competing with one another but seeking to use our gifts and ministry experience to build up others. Each of us is unique so we can all learn from each other. Missiology, then, is not an individualized discipline but an ecclesial one. Furthermore, the context can become as wide as the globe so we must consciously seek to learn from others who are different from us. Paul prayed for the Ephesians that “you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all God’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge – that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:17-19). So, that journey of coming to know God’s love is to be travelled in companionship with all God’s people. We have the tremendous joy of being able to do that in the twenty-first century with brothers and sisters all over the world. There are great obstacles that make that difficult, especially in language. But great gains to be made if we work at it.

6. Theological: the structural perspective

No-one comes to God’s revelation with a blank slate. Each of us has a grid, a framework, through which we see the Word and the world. We filter and select data and arrange it in our minds to make sense of it. In this way, then, we are all theologians even before we open the Scriptures. The question is, however, whether our theological framework is adequate for the task? In what ways does our theology need changing? As we reflect on the Scriptures and God’s wider revelation in the world about us we will be seeking to allow them to challenge preconceived ideas. Our framework will need to be revised as we go along, as we ‘think God’s thoughts after him’.

7. Eschatological: the future perspective
Paul tells the Corinthians that the events of Israel’s wilderness experience happened as examples and were written down for the benefit of the church. We are those, Paul says, “on whom the culmination of the ages has come” (1Cor 10:11). We are still living in that age today. As we draw near to the Lord and seek to understand our place in his purposes we can do so with this profound appreciation that we are doing something truly eschatological, that is that we are involved in God’s grand plan for his people, a plan that culminates in the completion of our salvation.

8. Critical: the analytical perspective
As we read the opinions of God’s people we need to do so with a realistic appreciation of human fallibility. So, we approach such writings with a view to weighing what is said. “Test all things,” said Paul (1Thess 5:21). We need to be fair in our presentation of the views of others, seeking to state their position as well as if they had presented it themselves. And then we need to argue our case cogently and clearly with a view to persuade our readers of our position. In this way, we can be like iron sharpening iron. We must not stoop to caricature or arguments ad hominem (that is against the person rather than their view) but handle ourselves with integrity.

9. Covenantal: the operational perspective
Missiology is not to be studied purely as an academic exercise. We cannot truly say we have understood the message of Scripture until we put it into action. We cannot say we truly appreciate God’s mission and our part in it until we are acting on that understanding. In this way, we acknowledge that God has brought us into covenant with him. He demands covenant faithfulness: action on our knowledge, obedience to his call on our lives. “Watch your life and doctrine closely,” Paul commands Timothy. “Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1Tim 4:16). So, we should press the application of God’s word on our lives as we learn of his purposes.

10.  Doxological: the ultimate perspective
The ultimate goal of missiology must be worship. John Piper puts it like this: “Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because God is ultimate, not man”. Likewise missiology. We reflect on God’s purposes with the grand vision of the Apostle John in front of us, in which he saw “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before God and before the Lamb [crying] out in a loud voice: ‘Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb’” (Rev 7:9-12).

Reflections on Student Ministry

Over the last month I have had the privilege of being involved in two major student events weeks, the first in Reading University and the second in Leeds University. In both I was a guest of the Christian Union ('CUG') and was a member of a team of workers from different backgrounds and from across the evangelical spectrum. I want to share some of my observations and reflections from those weeks.

Encouraging

What a blessing to be in early morning prayer meetings with scores of students enjoying the realities of the gospel and imploring the Saviour to be good to their friends. Seeing hundreds turn up to events knowing that the centrepiece was a talk about Jesus was a great joy. The good news of Jesus was central. The hard questions - Where is God when it hurts? How can a God of love send people to hell? Can we trust a book of fairy tales? etc. - were answered head on, and competently. Miracles were not seen as an embarrassment. The exclusive claims of Christ were not hedged. I had the joy of about a dozen serious conversations in each week. One or two lasted for two hours. I felt that a number of these were deeply affected by the presentations they attended. Many came back time after time. At each week several students filled out cards expressing that they had prayed with the speaker at the end of the evening. And many requested to be included in the follow up course or to go to a church. I was able to introduce most of those that I had had good conversations with to a CU member so that they were able to develop a friendship and continue their exploration of the faith.

Eye-opening

The CUs used many creative ways to attract their fellow-students to the events: the venue in both cases was a large marquee right in the centre of campus (Durham CU's experience last year seems to have been a great boost in this direction); wine and cheese; ceilidh; live acoustic music; sandwiches for lunch; full-blown meals for international students. I never felt these tactics were in any way inappropriate. There was no glorification of performers and no one suggested the CUs were tricking students to attend. One Chinese student asked why we put on such meals. I answered, "As followers of Christ we love to give hospitality and we love to talk about Jesus." At one lunchbar I did notice two students eat their sandwich and head straight out. They were by far the exception. The vast majority stayed right through the event; sometimes the formal part lasted over an hour - no mere epilogue here!

Engaging

The CUs (with good advice from their UCCF staff workers) have clearly become wise in the way they act towards their peers. There is much to commend about this. But I remain concerned that there is a naivety about engaging with those of other religious traditions. Neither of the CUs I worked with put on a hog roast but my son was involved in the event at St Andrews, where they did. How to alienate all the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jain and many Buddhist students. Perhaps there was a vegetarian option but is that enough not to put such people off? I don't know. It would be good to do some research on this; it wouldn't have to be onerous. My hunch is the smell alone would be off-putting for many. But it is not just the food issue. One speaker who shall remain nameless tossed John's Gospel on the floor in the middle of his talk. What is an endearing gesture to one would surely lower the value of the book in the eyes of another. It is not worth it. Speakers also need to be careful not to caricature the beliefs of other traditions. Not all Muslims think alike. Nor do Hindus (Western evangelicals seems to think all Hindus are Advaita monists - in fact hardly any are really). Not all Buddhists are non-theistic.

But it is not just with other traditions that we need to be wise. We live in a culture ourselves as aliens and strangers. But I wonder if our students are conscious enough of that. One morning, I suggested to the CU leader who had selected the ambient music in the tent that Frankie Goes to Hollywood's 'Relax Don't Do It' was inappropriate. He clearly had not thought it important to check out the lyrics. I wasn't listening for the words either, but I do remember that the song was banned on the BBC! Somehow, we need to help our young people to engage with their own culture critically.

Exhausting

Early mornings and late nights (in which sleep was not always easy - intense conversations kept coming back to my consciousness) made for sleep-deprivation. But that is a small price to pay for the reward of involvement in this work. Hats off to those who do two-weeks in a row!