Just a question

I was thinking today. Actually I was reading an article in RELEVANT Magazine about community. This article caused me think about Christianity, the religion not the relational Christ-following that we are called to, but the social-political construction of Christianity. I was thinking that maybe we, Christ-followers, look at our religion wrongly. Christianity is an out growth, some would say a divinely inspired evolution, of Judaism. Lamin Sanneh says that Christianity has been translated over the years. First it was Jewish faith that was translated into a Greco-Roman faith that was then translated into a Northern European faith. This Northern European faith was then translated into an American faith (see The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan Hatch) and an African faith and an Asian faith (see “Encounter with Modernity: The McDonaldizationand Charismatization of Korean Mega-churches” by Young-Gi Hong). Some will think this a liberal trash, but I think it makes since. When we translate a sentence from English to Spanish, it says that same thing. However, the translation says the “truth” of our original sentence in words that Spanish speakers can understand. This is what happened to Christianity. The truth of the gospel message was translated into a “language” that is understandable to different cultures. This idea of translation has a direct implication on the way we “do” missions. If I go to Mexico and transliterate my sentence into Spanish the Spanish speakers will have a more difficult time understanding my message than if I follow the rules of Spanish grammar. Furthermore, if I use idioms that are common place to people of Mexico the message of my sentence will be even easier to understand. The same reality applies to the gospel message. If we “transliterate” the truths of my faith into another culture, the people will have a hard time understanding it. However, if I explain my faith in light of their culture they will understand it more easily.

That was not really was I was thinking about when I was reading the magazine article. What I thinking about is really more of a question. Here is my question, is Judaism an eastern religion or a western one. I reckon that it is an eastern religion and that Christianity too is an eastern religion. Therefore, I have another question, should we not interpret our faith in oriental terms rather than occidental ones? But that calls into question the idea of translation. If Christianity is translated into another culture, is that correct. Or should we begin to de-translate Christianity and return it to the eastern religion that it was. But this leads to another question if I am to de-translate (de-construct??) Christianity what process do I use. For example the Christianity that is present in Korea developed by way of north European Christianity. As a result, do I back track and remove from Korean-Christianity first its Korean-ness then its north European-ness then its Greco-roman-ness in an effort to return it to yet again an eastern faith.

I don’t know, but I am thinking that a faith that holds to the truths of the gospel and that is understandable in one’s culture is a good thing.