Spirit House- The Practice of Rean Theivoda in Cambodia Daniel Shinjong Baeq.pdf

7/30/2019 Spirit House- The Practice of Rean Theivoda in Cambodia Daniel Shinjong Baeq.pdf

1/13

International Journal of Frontier Missiology 29:1 Spring 201233

Daniel Shinjong Baeq is a ormermissionary to Cambodia and currentlyserves as a missionary researcher withSEED International. He graduated

rom Choong-Ang University (B.A.)and Fuller Teological Seminary(T.M.), and is enrolled in the Ph.D.program at rinity EvangelicalDivinity School (EDS). He alsocurrently serves as the Project Directoro the Paul G. Hiebert MissionResearch Initiative at EDS andis an adjunct proessor at rinityInternational University. He can becontacted at [email protected].

Introduction

emples have been and continue to be a pervasive institution in

the religious history o mankind (Stark 2007),1 and one o the

primary ways through which man has endeavored to communicate

with his god. While the complex structures, practices and belies associated

with temples and shrines have conronted Gods people within the pages o

Scripture (and throughout the churchs mission or the past twenty centuries),

the temple has also been embedded in their history. Tis article attempts to

examine how a proper exegesis o the biblical material surrounding Solomons

temple, particularly as it relates to a structure known as the Rean Teivoda

(spirit house, angel tower), can help determine this structures potential as

a vehicle or communicating Christian belies and shed insight into mission

in Cambodia today. Admittedly, these reections are not conclusive in

themselves, but are only an initial and partial evaluation o the broader process

o critical contextualization (Hiebert 1987), a process that must ultimately

involve the local Cambodian believing community.

Contextualization and Method

For the last three decades, contextualization2 has received much attention

rom missiologists and missionaries, with a renewed emphasis on authenticity

in both Christian practice and the theology o the peoples who are respond-

ing to the gospel.3 Denitions o contextualization vary, but I nd Enoch

Wans especially clear and concise. For Wan, contextualization denotes

the efforts of formulating, presenting and practicing the Christian faith in such

a way that it is relevant to the cultural context of the target group in terms of

conceptualization, expression and application; yet maintaining theological coherence,

biblical integrity and theoretical consistency (Wan 2010).

Additionally, Ninian Smart outlined the seven dimensions o religiondoctrinal,

ritual, mythic, experiential, ethical, social, and materialthat need to be dealt

Interpreting Religion

Spirit House: The Practice of Rean Theivodain Cambodia

by Daniel Shinjong Baeq


2/13

International Journal of Frontier Missiology

34 Spirit House: The Practice of Rean Theivodain Cambodia

with i there is to be a completecontextualization o biblical truthin a given culture (Smart 1996).4 ISmart has narrowed down the re-ligious aspects that may need to becontextualized, Paul G. Hiebert hasprovided a model or the process ocritical contextualization, wherebyaspects o religion and culture can beaddressed appropriately.5 He suggesteda our step process: 1) phenomenologi-cal analysis (exegesis o the culture);2) ontological reection (exegesis othe Scripture and the hermeneuticalbridge); 3) critical evaluation; and 4)missiological transormation (Hiebert1987; Hiebert, ienou, and Shaw1999, 2129) (Figure 1).

Tis paper seeksthroughexegesis and, to the degreepossible, the application o criticalcontextualization principlesto evaluate, both biblically andmissiologically, the potentialappropriate use o the Rean Teivoda(angel tower) in CambodianChristianity. Te phenomenologicalanalysis (step 1 in Figure 1) drawsupon the authors knowledge oReanTeivoda,which he gained rom oversixty research papers written by hisCambodian university students.6 Teontological reection (step 2) will notbe exhaustive due to space limitations.One passage will be examinedexegetically while others will besuggested or urther study.

One limitation o this study is thatlocal Cambodian Christians werenot a part o the contextualizationprocess. Tus, or steps 3 and 4(critical evaluation and missiologicaltransormation) I will simply oer

suggestions, since the necessarydecisions about the use oReanTeivodaneed to be made by thehermeneutical community oCambodian Christians.

Contextualizationin CambodiaProtestant mission in Cambodiabegan in 1923 when Mr. and Mrs.

Arthur Hammond o the Christianand Missionary Alliance began theirministry there (Cormack and Lewis2001, 57). As the church grew andmatured, hymns were indigenized byputting Christian lyrics to traditionalCambodian music. Similarly, theBible was translated using amiliar,authoritative Buddhist religious terms(derived rom Sanskrit and Pali), sothat the Bible would be received as aholy text and not be seen as oreign.7

Tese eorts at contextualization weresuccessul in relaying the gospel ineasily identiable terms.

Church growth came to a nearstandstill during the communistrevolution o the Khmer Rouge(1975-1979). Not many Christianssurvived this period, as people oany aith or education were targetedand massacred. Some, however,

were ortunate enough to ee toreugee camps in Tailand. Tere,missionaries evangelized a new groupo Cambodians and gathered theminto churches (Cormack and Lewis2001, 13). Without their Christianpredecessors, a new Christian culturebegan to emerge in the camps, onethat did not recognize the importanceo contextualization or the need todeal with the personal and communalissues o Cambodian society. Ten

in 1991, with the help o UNpeacekeeping troops (1991-1992)and the United National ransitional

Authority in Cambodia (UNAC,1992-1993), Cambodia became anation with religious reedom.8 Tusa new community o Christians romthe camps moved into the countryunder oreign protection.

As Cambodia has becomeincreasingly less dangerous in recent

years, the number o missionarieshas risen rapidly. However, those

who attempt to evangelize are metwith much resistance, especiallybecause many missionaries discouragetraditional practices. Most traditionalcelebrations or rituals (such as

weddings and uneral traditions)identiy participants as memberso Cambodian society and areclosely related to their traditionalreligions. All o these areas oCambodian culture need to beaddressed as potential candidatesor contextualization. Among theserituals and practices is the dailypractice o praying and givingoerings at the Rean Teivoda(hereater R). Can the structures,practices, and belies associated withthe Rbe used to communicateChristian belies in a way that areboth compatible with cultural normsbut distinctive enough to be perceivedas carrying a dierent message? Canthe Rbe used to complement andenhance scriptural truth?

A Brief Descriptionof the Rean Theivoda

Te Rean Teivodais a prominentstructure in Cambodian society,one that exists in the majority oCambodian homes, businesses, andeven Buddhist temples.9 One majorritual practiced at a Ris prayerto ancestral spirits (Neak a) orthe protection and blessing o thehousehold. Such prayers are perormedby putting ones palms together andbowing toward the R. Sometimesthese prayers are accompanied by the

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Phenomenological

analysis

Ontological

reection

Critical

evaluation

Missiological

transformation

Description without

judgment

Biblical reference/

social function

Hermeneutical

community

Transformation

of people

Figure 1. Methodology of Critical Contextualization (Hiebert, Tienou, and Shaw 1999, 22)


3/13

29:1 Spring 2012

Daniel Shinjong Baeq 35

burning o incense, as people believethat their prayers ascend with thesmoke rom the incense.

Another ritual practiced at the Rinvolves the giving o dierent kindso oerings. For example, ater theirdaily visit to the market, the womenusually oer some o their groceriesto the various spirits that resideeither in the miniature house o theRor under it. On special occasions,owers like jasmine and lotus areplaced there to venerate the higherspirits, including ancestral spirits.

Tis act not only expresses respect orthe ancestors but also conveys lialpiety toward the living, both parentsand elderly relatives. Te oeringo prayers and ood at the Ralls

within the practical expressionsthrough which religious identity isounded and lived out in the real

world (Moreau 2006, 329). Becauseo their importance in Cambodiansociety, the rituals at the Randother olk practices are areas that theCambodian church needs to address.

BackgroundLike most traditional practices andbelies, both missionaries and Cam-bodian Christian communities alikehave strongly rejected the practice othe Rean Teivodaas a orm o idola-try. Some zealous missionaries otenencourage new believers to destroytheir Rprior to being baptized inorder to show their aith in Christ.In my ministry in the small town oKampong Cham, the Roten be-came an issue or new Christians andthose being evangelized.10

As the Cambodian Christian com-munity continues to spread rapidly,11culturally oreign and strange prac-tices are being introduced and tra-ditional practices visibly rejected,12creating both public and private13conict between Christians and non-Christians.14 So ar no Cambodianchurch or oreign missionary hasattempted to accept the traditional

practice oR. Undoubtedly, ac-cepting such a practice without ap-propriate contextualization will leadto syncretism. On the other hand,any strong rejection o the Rthatignores the signicance and inu-ence o this ritualcould produce asplit-level Christianity in the longrun (Hiebert et al. 1999, 15). Asplit-level Christianity (where someChristians return to the ormer olkpractices o their old belie system),may occur when the church or itsleaders are unable to successullydeal with the serious lie crises thattheir members ace.

Historical and Religious BackgroundIn the South Asian countries o theIndochina peninsula, the worshipo spirits in the spirit house iscommon practice (Reichart andKhongkhunthian 2007, 97103). InCambodia this type o spirit house iscalled Rean Teivoda(literally angeltower,) or in more ormal religiousterminology,Preah Phumdey(the earthgod). Tis worship o spirits originatesrom an ancient belie that likelyexisted long beore any o the majorreligions predominated in Cambodia.

Te main unction o the Risreligious in nature. Te Ris a place

where people honor several veneratedspirits including Neak a(ancestralspirits), Preah Ko (the sacred bull), andBuddha (Ranges and LeBoutillier2010, 92).15Neak a, oten thoughto as a grandather-like spirit,ndsits origin in the oldest ancestral spiritbelie system in Cambodia (Baeq2007, 6162).16 It represents a naturespirit and thereore is believed toexist in animals, old trees, rivers, andhouses (Choulean 2000, 36). Toughancient, this belie system continues topersist to this day.

Historically, the practice oRwasadapted by various religions. It was

widely accepted during the Hinduempires o Chen La (505-802 AD)and the early Angkor (802-12th c.).During this period, the Rbecame aplace o prayer to the angelic spiritso Hinduism and has been calledthe angel tower ever since. Peoplebelieved that the angels would descendand sit on top o the Rand therebygive protection to the household.

Around AD 1181, under the reigno King Jayavarman VII, MahayanaBuddhism was introduced toCambodia (Chandler 1992, 56).Rather than getting rid o thestructure, the Rwas dedicated toBuddha by royal decree. CambodianBuddhist monks integrated the Rinto Buddhism at that time17 and evennowRs are preserved in Buddhisttemples to house guardian spirits.Many temples have our to eighttowers oPreah Phumdey, a ormal titleor Rean Teivoda,erected around theence to protect the vicinity rom evilspirits (vinnien akkrok).

Along with the Rstructure itsel,the olk practice oNeak asurvivedthrough the Hindu and early Buddhistperiods, and is still practiced to thisday with its syncretistic orm andmeaning (Anon. 1973, 113116). Teolk practice o worshiping household

Neak aat the Ris common amongrural Cambodians as well as manyurban dwellers.

Ethical and Social Functions

of Rean TheivodaTere are three ethical aspects to thepractice oR. Te rst entails respector parents and the elderly. Tose

who pray daily to theNeak aat theRare constantly reminded to care

In my ministry in the small town o KampongCham, the Rean Teivoda oten became an issue

or new Christians and those being evangelized.


4/13



or their parents and elderly. Te earo being punished or neglecting the

Neak aelicits dutiul devotion o onegeneration to another.

Te second aspect o the Ris howthis ritualrelates to the spirits whoare believed to reside beneath the R,namely the spirits o dead travelers,the poor, and unborn or dead chil-dren. People oer ood at the Reachday to allay these spirits and in so do-ing ward o harm and invite blessings(the spirits o the dead babies, or ex-ample are believed to attract custom-ers to vendors). Tis and other belies(e.g., that those who reuse to helpthe needy risk becoming the targeto their wrath ater the needy die) all

work to engender sympathy towardthe marginalized.

Lastly, the Ralso provides the op-portunity to publically demonstrateones level o dedication to, and respector, the ancestors. By building an ex-travagant Rstructure, dutiully oer-ing ood and daily prayers, and partici-pating in other ceremonies to honorthe dead, people attain great honor,respect and recognition in the com-munity. It is also believed that prayingto theNeak abrings protection to thecommunity as a whole.

Having laid the basic oundationneeded to understand the practice oR(which satises the rst step incritical contextualization), we nowturn to the second step, the exegesiso Scripture and development o ahermeneutical bridge to the culture.Since the Rstructure itsel is most

visible element and ocal point orthe aorementioned rituals, a similarcase o the contextualization o abuildingnamely Solomons temple

will be examined to search or apotential hermeneutical bridge.

Contextualization of theTemple in the Old Testament

When YHWH called Abram, aworshiper o pagan gods (Josh.

24:2), to become Abraham, he didnot call him within a religious orcultural void. YHWH knew ull

well that Abrahams worldviewwas limited by his culture and hispopular notions about God. But

YHWH seems to contextualize Hispurposes by using the orm andpractice o the ancient Near Easterntreaty with all its accompanyingidolatry (Gallagher 2006, 146-147;Petersen 2007, 118-119).Likewise,

we can see in hindsight that theconstruction o Solomons emplein 2 Samuel 7:1-17 served asanother step in moving the peopleo God rom the initial signiicanceo the tabernacle to a Messianickingdom concept.

King David and the Temple(2 Sam. 7:1-17)Most Christians assume that thebuilding o the temple was the willo YHWH; a closer examinationo Scripture suggests that this

was not necessarily the case. obetter understand the missiologicalimplications o adopting religiousarchitecture such as the R, we needto careully examine 2 Samuel 7:1-1718to uncover 1) which actors inuencedDavid to propose the idea o buildinga house o cedar (temple) or

YHWH (vv. 1-3); 2), what YHWHsinitial response was (vv. 4-7), and 3)

why YHWH temporarily permittedthe temple structure to representthe house (dynasty) o David rom

which the kingdom o YHWHs son(v.14)the son who would ultimatelybuild YHWH a house or His name(vv. 8-17)would be established.

We will also discuss how the paganconcepts and orms associated withreligious architecture were adopted torepresent the ways o YHWH.

Davids Plan to Construct a Temple

(2 Sam. 7:1-3): Mans ThoughtsSeveral actors contributed toDavids desire to build a temple or

YHWH. Arnold suggests that Davidsproposal was based on the successulestablishment o his kingdom in theregion and the completion o his ownpalace (2003, 473). It was duringthis time o peace that David turnshis attention to doing something or

YHWH and comes up with the ideao building a temple.

As David contemplated what he coulddo to honor YHWH, he must haveremembered his earlier experiences

with the Ark o the Covenant.19 Ar-nold suggests that since the Ark o theCovenant had previously been capturedby the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11), David

wanted to saeguard it rom uturedanger (2003, 473) Indeed, Davids rstattempt to bring it to Jerusalem hadinitially ailed20 and the second timethe process had not been easy. On bothoccasions, however, David was over-

joyed at the prospect o having the arkbrought to Jerusalem. Tis reected hislove or YHWH and his genuine desireto build a temple betting the true Godo Israel as neighboring nations haddone or their gods.

Tere is strong evidence that theIsraelites were constantly beingexposed to the inuences o thesurrounding nations. And when theIsraelites entered the land o Canaan,

YHWH knew that they would want aking like the neighboring nations evenbeore they had asked or one.21 InDeuteronomy 17:15-20, instructionsare given to Israels uture king. Tebiblical account seems clear that

A closer examinationo Scripture suggests

that this was notnecessarily the case.


5/13

29:1 Spring 2012


YHWH had decided to use the ormo earthly kingship to contextualizethe deeper meaning and signicanceoMessianickingship in redemptivehistory. Similarly, some scholarssuggest that the act that temples wereso widespread throughout the ancientNear East led to the idea o buildinga temple or YHWH as well (Kaiser1978, 150; Collins 2007, 124).22 Also,Davids desire to build a temple or

YHWH seems to reect the popularnotion that a house was better than atent, and thereore, God would preera temple to a tent as well.

Some liberal theologians have sug-gested that Davids proposal mayhave been modeled ater the prevalentancient Near Eastern royal ideologyo securing and expanding a dynasty(Bergen 1996, 335). Archeologicalresearch on ancient Near Eastern cul-ture does indicate similarities betweenaspects o the Davidic-Solomonictemple and other ancient Near East-ern temples.23 Overall, however, thebiblical text does not support the ideathat Davids reason or wanting tobuild a temple was to make a name orhimsel24 or his dynasty, but rather tomake a name or YHWH 25; Davidsintentions26 were pure.

First Response of YHWH (v. 4-7):

Correcting False AssumptionsNathans role in Davids court was tohelp David discern and ollow the

will o YHWH. When David rstspoke to Nathan about building atemple or the Ark o God, Nathantold him to proceed with whateverhe had in mind. And David wouldhave gone ahead with his plans had

YHWH not spoken to Nathan thatnight to let him know that He had notauthorized this proposal (Firth 2009,384; Brueggemann 1990, 254). Nathandelivered the ollowing oracle,

This is what the LORD says: Are you

the one to build me a house to dwell

in?I have not dwelt in a house from

the day I brought the Israelites up

out of Egypt to this day. I have been

moving from place to place with a

tent as my dwelling. Wherever I

have moved with all the Israelites,

did I ever say to any of their rulers

whom I commanded to shepherd

my people Israel, Why have you not

built me a house of cedar? (2 Sam.

7:5-7 NIV, emphasis mine)

YHWH poses two questions inthis passage (see italics above). Keiland Delitzsch suggest that the rstquestion carries a negative overtone(2001, 2:596). In act, Old estamentscholar William J. Dumbrell interprets

verse 5 as a clear reusal o Davidsidea, especially when the same accounto this story in 1 Chronicles 17 isconsidered (Dumbrell 1984, 145).27

Tus by posing the rst question,YHWH establishes the act thatDavid will not be the one to build ahouse or Him.

Many evangelical scholars suggestthat the statement ollowing therst question explains the reasonor YHWHs reusal. Ater denyingDavids request, YHWH describeshow His dwelling place had alwaysbeen in motion, moving with Hispeople. Additionally, Martens notesthat YHWH raised the subject o Hisdwelling place to negate the notionthat God dwells, as pagan gods do, intemples (1981, 141). Indeed, Godssecond (also rhetorical) questionreinorces the idea that dwelling in atent had been YHWHs choice andpreerence. Tus it seems credibleto suggest that YHWH preerredto dwell in a tent in order to reectthe mobility o the divine presence(Dumbrell 1984, 145).

Te ip side o YHWHs initialchoice o a tent over a house couldbe that He was concerned about just

what the loss o the mobilityo Hispresence would mean (Brueggemann1990, 254). Dumbrell suggests that

YHWH wanted to prevent theinstitutionalization o aith, whichcould lead to the corruption o thepriesthood, as was the case with Elistwo sons in Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:17)(Dumbrell 1984, 145).

Another plausible reason that YHWHreused Davids petitionand thisrelates to issues oRpracticeisthat temples were pagan in origin.

As noted earlier, liberal critics havepointed out the similarities betweenSolomons temple and other temples(Stacey 1979, 239; Walton 2009,2:442). We know rom hindsightthat since the Spirit o YHWH hadinstructed David as to how the temple

was to be built,28 YHWH was notconcerned about structural similaritiesto pagan temples. What was at issueor YHWH was the ailure o thepeople to keep His precepts. Te laterhistory o Israel and Judah reveals thepropensity o the Israelites to ollowother gods and the wicked practices othe surrounding nations.29 Although atrst YHWH rejected Davids petitionto build Him a temple, a new covenanto a Messianic dynasty would later begiven to David (2 Sam. 7:8-16).

The Davidic Covenant:

YHWHs Thoughts (v. 8-17)Most scholars agree that this passagecontains the Davidic covenant(Campbell 2005, 72; Firth 2009, 382)and many point out how it standsapart rom the previous covenants

YHWH made.30 Firth states that thisis an essentially promissorycovenantthat does not require any specicaction on Davids part (2009, 382).Indeed, it is not presented in the ormo a conditional i-then structure.

Davids desire to build a temple or YHWHseems to reect the popular notion that ahouse was better than a tent.


6/13



Examination o this passage revealsthat YHWHs covenant has two parts(Grisanti 1999, 236240). In therst, YHWH begins by remindingDavid that it was He who had chosenDavid when he was just a shepherdboy and it was He who had led himuntil the present time (vv. 8, 9b). TenHe makes a series o promises (vv.9b-11a) concerning David and theIsraelites that would come to pass inthe days o David.

In the second part o this covenant,YHWH expresses His thoughtsconcerning Davids idea o buildingHim a house o cedar. I the rst parto the covenant would bephysicallymaniested in the immediateuture,the second part would be spirituallymaniested in the everlastinguture.

Without being explicit, YHWHcontrasts Davids house o cedar withthe house He is going to establishor David (v. 11b). While the houseo cedar would result rom humaneort, the house or David would be

YHWHs initiative.

Because this dynasty would beestablished by YHWH himsel, it

would have all the qualities o aneverlast ing dynasty. Further, romthis dynasty, YHWH promises toraise up Davids ospring (v. 12), one

who will also be a son to YHWH(v. 14). And this son will be the oneto build a house or YHWHs Name(v. 13a). Tis one way covenant

with David was, in essence, notabout Davids immediate successor,Solomon, but about the comingMessiah, Jesus Christ.

Tis is especially evident since neitherSolomons kingdom nor his throne

was physically established orever.31Further, ater Solomon dedicates thetemple, YHWH responds to Solomonby making a covenant with him (1Kings 9:4-9). Here the covenantdiers rom the unconditional, one-waycovenant that YHWH made withDavid in that it ollows a conditional

i-then ormat. Tis urther supportsthe idea that the house that YHWH

would build or David would not bea physical house, but a spiritual one.However, the question arises: Why did

YHWH allow an earthly temple to bebuilt when the house to be built orHis name would be a spiritual one?

YHWHs Purposeful Authorization:The Temporary Grant

YHWH was gracious to grant Israela king when they cried out or one,even though He objected to it. AndHe was gracious enough to use thismodel o kingship and kingdom tobuild His revelations upon. Similarly,the building o thephysicaltemple,despite YHWHs reservations,32 was

permitted on a temporarybasis tobe used as typos until the redemp-tive plan through the Messiah wasullled (Goppelt and Ellis 1982,114115). Groningen also supportsthe view that the temple became thecentral place where YHWH graduallyrevealed the redemptive history o theMessiah (1990, 855).

Although nowhere in Scripture doesYHWH give direct permission or thetemple to be built, some passages doindicate that YHWH allowed it andaccepted it.33 Te construction o thetemple did, at least initially, serve tobring orth a nationwide commitmentto wholehearted oerings (1 Chron.29:1-9).34 And, as Kaiser points out,

the history o the Exile clearly revealsthat Yahweh Himsel would be thereal temple o true believers (Ezek.11:16-21) (1978, 239).

As the kings ell away rom God,king and people alike requented thehigh places in order to worship othergods (2 Chron. 33:3-5). Tis physicaltempledespite David and Solomonsgenuine desire to make a name or

YHWH, and that o a ew subsequentkings to turn the peoples hearts backto the Lordailed to ulll its role.

As or the spiritual temple, both Jesus( John 1:14; 2:21) and the hearts andbodies o those who believe in Jesus(1 Cor. 3:16) are reerred to as thetemple. Indeed, the temple wouldonly be perected in the body o JesusChrist. Numerous passages supportthe idea that the temple o Israel wasinternalized in the person o Jesus.35For example, Jesus reerred to himselas the temple when he said, Destroythis temple, and I will raise it againin three days (John 2:19-21). Teaccount in Mark 14:58 records, Weheard him say, I will destroy thistemple made with humans handsand in three days will build another,not made with hands. It is worthnoting that Jesus, who knew he wasthe true temple, acted to restore thetrue spiritual purpose and meaning toHerods physical temple, which hadbecome a den o robbers.

Te disciples o Jesus believedthat Jesus embodied the presenceo Gods grace ar more than thetemple (Goppelt and Ellis 1982,115). John recorded in Revelation21:22, I saw no temple in the city,or the Lord God Omnipotent andthe Lamb Himsel are its temple.Paul also taught the reality o aninternalized temple and applied it tothe Corinthian believers themselves

when he said, Dont you know thatyou yourselves are Gods temple andthat Gods Spirit lives in you?(1 Cor. 3:16) Te true temple where

I see fve principlesrom the lessons

in 2 Samuel that shouldguide any critical con-textualization o the

Rean Teivoda.


7/13

29:1 Spring 2012


YHWH resides is in the heart obelievers. Tis is an internalizingo thetemple. In act, this is precisely what

Jesus emphasized when he told theSamaritan woman that the physicallocation did not matterwhat mattersis the worshipers heart.36

Contextualization PrinciplesLearned and Applied

Trough His preerence or thetent,YHWH showed His desire tobe mobile in order to dwell amongHis people and to move with them.

YHWHs intent still remains thesameHe desires to move with Hispeople even through changing timesand cultures. YHWH is willing tocontextualize in order that all maybe saved (Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom.10:13). I see ve principles rom thelessons in 2 Samuel 7:1-7 that shouldguide any critical contextualization othe Rin its Cambodian setting.

Principle 1: YHWH allowed Histabernacle to be contextualized into atemple to adapt to changing times andsettings.YHWH knew that the nationo Israel would transition rom livingin tents to houses as they acquiredland and settled down. YHWH knewthat their worldview would changeand that they would come to value atemple over a tent. And in His grace, Ibelieve He allowed a oreign structure,one akin to pagan structures, torepresent His Name because He knewthat in this new setting a temple couldbe used to communicate His message.

Christian orms, including visiblestructures and metaphysicaltheologies, also need to be utilized tocommunicate eternal truths in waysthat are specic to dierent culturesand worldviews across the dierentgenerations and periods o history. oaccomplish this, the mode and style ocommunication need to be modied,

while conserving the truth.

For Cambodians, the Ris one suchpagan structure that has long been a

part o their worldview and experience.Asking Cambodians to denounce orabandon the Rwould be like askingsomeone not only to change into adierent set o clothes, but to cut o apart o their body. Since the physicalstructure and practices surroundingthe Rare so central to Cambodianculture and lie experience, it wouldbe worthwhile to discover ways tocontextualize it appropriately.

Principle 2: he structure or orm doesnot matter as much as the meaningconerred on the orm itsel; mean-ing takes precedence over orm and theheart or intentions o the believer whoadopts the oreign orms is more impor-tant than the orms themselves. Eventhough the orm o the tabernacle

was allowed to change, the mean-ing remained unchanged; although

YHWH accepted Solomons temple(despite certain oreign inuences),He never allowed any pagan mean-ing to contaminate what the templestood or. Further, God recognizedthe genuine love that David had orHim and allowed David to expresshis love by arranging or Solomon tobuild the temple.37

I understand intention to be closelyrelated to conscience. Conscience isthe passive counterpart o intention,both o which are internal in nature.

Tus Pauls discussion about the eatingo ood sacriced to idols hinged onthe intention o the eater. Likewise, ione does something or YHWH withpure intentions, and an appropriatemeaning is attached to the orm,then one can expect to have a clearconscience. I one does something

with an evil intention without regardor YHWH, one has attached a

wrong meaning to the orm and onesconscience is not clear.

Since there is no obvious parallelorm like the Rin Christianity, itis difcult to replace the practicesperormed at the Rwith Christianones. Since the Ris such an integralpart o the Cambodian culture, it maybe possible to alter the structure o theRso that Christian meanings can beconerred on them.

Without a doubt, the rituals practicedat the Rare unacceptable, sincepraying to ancestors or spirits andoering goods to them are bothunbiblical.38 Tus changing thebelie system behind praying atthe Rwould be a challenging butnecessary step. Tere would need tobe clear teaching that dierentiatesbetween these very dierent conceptso oering. Oerings are made atthe Rto allay the spirits so thatthey will protect rather than harmtheir household and community. Incontrast, oerings in the Christiancontext are given with the knowledgethat all that we own comes rom

YHWH and that He is moreinterested in the attitude with which

we give the oering rather than whatand how much we give. Likewise,

while believers and non-believersalike use similar body gestures whilepraying, there are (or at least shouldbe) very dierent attitudes toward,and conceptual understandings o,this common orm. Believers shouldbe given instruction on prayer sothat there is no conusion as to thetheology behind it.

With respect to the practice oR, whether the hermeneuticalcommunity will reject, modiy, oraccept it will depend on their abilityto replace pagan meanings and attachChristian ones to the orm (Baeq2010, 201-202).

Believers should be given instruction on

prayer so that there is no conusion as to thetheology behind it.


8/13



Principle 3: YHWHs revelation isprogressive, that is, it becomes graduallyand increasingly more clear with the

passage o time (Kaiser 1978, 234)so that it moves rom the visible andtangible orms and rituals to theinvisible, eternal spiritual truths. Teconcept o messianic redemption hasbecome increasingly more completeand encompassing over time.39 Inthis particular passage YHWH usedDavids desire to build a house ocedar to explain the coming o aneternal King, the Messiah.

Similarly, the en Commandmentsare claried rom the Old to theNew estament, all the while giv-ing greater value to spiritual truths.

Jesus Sermon on the Mount parallelsMoses delivering the en Command-ments on Mount Sinai. In the Mosaiccovenant, it was sufcient not to com-mit murder, the emphasis being onthe outward display o obedience tothe law. In contrast, when it comes tothe New estament, Jesus claries thetrue intent o the law and says thatthinking murderous thoughts, callinga brother Raca, or not being rec-onciled to a neighbor, all alls underthe commandment Do not murder.

Jesus ne-tunes and claries Godsprecepts and shows that the intent othe heart takes precedence over theoutward appearance.

In regard to the practice oR, itshould be understood that Cambodianreligion and culture are heavily basedon external orms and rituals. WesternChristianity, on the other hand, hashad sufcient time through its longhistory to move rom an emphasison visible and tangible orms tomore invisible spiritual truths. Tusa huge chasm exists between the waythat Western Christian missionaries

want to relay the Good News versushow Cambodians are ready toreceive such a message. Tey needa stepping-stone to go rom thetangible, visible religious culture tothe invisible, spiritual truths taught

by the missionaries. Tey need botha stepping-stone and time to cross it.It is conceivable that contextualizedpagan orms can serve such aunction, as something to bridge thegap between a maturing Christianculture and a pagan one. With eachgeneration, this gap is lessened and,once they are able to internalizespiritual truth, the need or thestepping-stone may disappear entirely.

One application o this principlemay be that a contextualized ormo the Rwould be allowed on atemporary basis just as YHWHallowed the temple as a temporaryarrangement. Even i the Rismodied to convey Christian truths,

it should only be a stepping-stoneto decrease the antagonism oCambodians against Christianity sothat Christianity is not perceived asa oreign and dishonorable religionthat seems almost anti-Cambodian.I YHWH was willing to wait orHis people to completely conormto His ways and will, missionariesshould not be quick to dismiss whatseems like the entire traditionalculture o the Cambodians.

Principle 4: A christocentric messianicmessage must be the highest causeand the primary reason or adopting

pagan orms. Despite the danger osyncretism, YHWH permitted theconstruction o the temple in order to

establish Messianic redemptive historythrough it. Te contextualizationo the tabernacle into the templestrengthened the nation and developedthe concept o a Messianic dynasty.

o apply this principle to the practiceoRwould require creativity. Sincethe Ris by the main gate, onesuggestion is that a cross be placed ontop o the miniature house so it willresemble a church building. Further,in the miniature house that is the R,a praying-hands statue can be placedinside instead o a statue o Buddha,aNeak a, or some other idol. In this

way, whenever a Christian enters thehome, he or she can be reminded topray or his or her household. Further,it could be used as a reminder thatthe church is not a building to be

visited weekly but rather the bodyo Christ both gathered in churchesand scattered in homes and placeso work. Moreover, it could be areminder that Jesus is the head o thechurch and o the household o aith,the one who dwells with us and inour hearts. Te Bible could remindthem to always put the Word o Godin the center o their lives and to

whole-heartedly ollow His ways.

Principle 5: Even whencontextualization is successul, there isalways the danger that the Christianmeaning o accepted orms willbecome altered or distorted, and thusa constant openness to reormationis necessary i syncretism is to beavoided. Even Solomons temple,

which made a name or the Lord,lost its purpose over the successivegenerations. Empty rituals werecarried out merely or the sake okeeping religious ordinances, andboth kings and the people beganto turn to other gods. Once a ormbegins to lose its intended meaning,rituals can themselves become theocus o worship. Tus God raisedup many prophets to get the peopleto turn rom their wicked ways.Even when another temple was built

Tey need both astepping-stone

and time to cross it.


9/13

29:1 Spring 2012


during Ezras time and the returningIsraelites repented and truly turnedto Gods ways, by the time o Jesusministry, His Fathers House hadonce again become a den o robbers.

Similarly, i the practice oRis contextualized so that a newChristian meaning is conerred onthe R, the congregation shouldcontinue to be reminded not to ocuson the physical structure (lest theyrevert to idolizing the orm) butrather to ocus on the christocentricmeaning that justies its use.Furthermore, just as the notion o thetemple was eventually internalizedthrough the redemptive history o theMessiah, the role and signicance oadopted pagan orms should diminishso that the Christians are weanedaway rom the orms themselves,lest the orms become objects o

worship.40 Christian meaning shouldbe reinorced, strengthened andinternalized so that the need or theorms diminishes over time.

ConclusionTe principles that emerge romthis Old estament passage arenot limited to the ve listed above.

And other passages will need tobe studied to uncover yet otherprinciples. Contextualization isneither an easy nor an instantprocess, but requires comprehensiveeort and a great deal opatience. I have tried to addressthe rst and second steps ocritical contextualization inthis paper. However, as Hieberthas recommended, criticalcontextualization has to be donerom an emic(insider) perspectiveo cultural and biblical analysis(Hiebert, ienou, and Shaw1999, 2128). Since this paper

was drated in the absence othe local community o aith, thesuggestions made here are basedsolely on the authors experiences oengaging students, doing research,and teaching cultural studies at

the Cambodian University orSpecialties (CUS) in KampongCham, Kingdom o Cambodia.

Te next step is the critical evaluationo what was learned rom the rsttwo steps (my attempts at descriptiveand biblical analysis). Tis step oreecting on the biblical teaching andcultural realities needs to be carriedout within the local communityo aith and missionaries as theyengage in intensive dialogue. Unlessdecisions are made by the communityo local believers, any decision, eveni good and appropriate, can easilybecome irrelevant to the actual aithcommunity (Hiebert et al. 1999,2728). Te role o the hermeneuticalcommunity, which is comprisedo local leaders, believers, andmissionaries, is critical or successulcontextualization. Te purpose o thispaper was to simply to make somesuggestions that would promote thecritical contextualization o the R(see Appendix 1, p. 38).

Tis brie survey o the practicessurrounding the Rhas sought toprovide some general insights intothe ethical and social unctions othese rituals as they relate to everydayissues in the lives o Cambodians. Intraditional olk religion, the practicesoRhave provided answers aboutlial piety, communal relationships,social ethics, health, saety, ortune,and the meaning o lie. Te task ocontextualization must also meetmultiple needs. Ater these relatedorms and meanings are analyzed, thepagan meanings need to be detachedand replaced with Christian meaningsthat not only provide prooundanswers to everyday issues but alsoshow that God is concerned evenabout the smallest needs. Even i the

Ris creatively adopted to conveyChristian meaning and worldview orthe current generation, believers willhave to be vigilant in guarding the newChristian meaning rom mutation.

I the missionaries and CambodianChristians continue to denouncethe practice oRand reuse toengage with the issues that arerelevant to Cambodians, the pullo olk religion may cause somebelievers to go underground, creatinga hidden level o alse meaning andpractice. In this case, they wouldhold both an orthodox public aithand a more private traditionalaith that still conserves oldermeanings and practices. Te ailureto allow the church to address themeaningulness and signicanceoRpractice may create aschizophrenic aith in thesebelievers (illich 1964, 3). Indeed,the practice oRmay or may notbe modiable or Christian use butthe decision must remain with theCambodian believers. Giving localChristians the opportunity to deal

with these issues over time will helpthem to discern Biblical truth moreclearly than beore so that whetherthey decide to modiy and accept theRor denounce it, they will haveclear reasons or their convictions.

Good contextualization cannotbe created overnight or withoutcritique and opposition. Agents ocontextualization should anticipatethese hurdles in their ministry otransormation (Krat 2005, 255273).

As Krat has pointed out, time is acritical actor in contextualization.41Each generation will need to re-evaluate the eorts o the previousgeneration and strive to keep theiraith and practices pure. IJFM

Unless decisions are made by the community olocal believers, any decision, even i good andappropriate, can easily become irrelevant.


10/13



Appendix 1. Suggestions for Critical Contextualization of the Rean Theivoda

Practice Belief Biblical Reference Social Function Christian Response

Structure

Angel Tower(Rean Theivoda)

Place of service forhaunting spirits andancestral spirits

2 Sam. 7:1-292 Kings 5:15-19

Generosity towardpeople and toward

the spirits

Preserve the structurewith noticeablechanges but rejectspirit worship

Spirit House(Preah Phumdey)

Style of Hindu orBuddhist temple

Worshiping highgods and earthlyangels

Offerings

Food

Spirits of the unborn,dead children, and

those who died onthe streets withoutany family

Mark 7:14ffRom. 141 Cor. 8-10

2 Cor. 6:14-7:1

Social ethics towardtravelers, weakerpeople, and the

marginalized

Reject the offeringof food to the spiritsbut teach socialresponsibility for the

marginalized andprayer for them

Flowers(Jasmine, Lotus)

Worshiping ancestralspirits(Neak Ta)

Acts 14:13Ps. 103:15

Filial piety towardliving parents anddead ancestors

Discard the practicebut emphasizeBiblical teachingabout respecting andobeying parents

Prayer

Prayer or Wish(Bueong Sueong,

Attitan)

Protections andblessings

Ps. 65:2Luke 6:12

Col. 4:2

Householdand communalprotections andblessings

Prayer for family,community, thechurch, and worldmissions

Burning of IncenseAscends with theirprayers to heaven

Ex. 30:1Luke 1:10Rev. 8:3-4

Visual conrmationof their prayer

Needs furtherdiscussion

Endnotes1 Rodney Stark, a proessor o the

sociology o religion at Baylor University,describes this phenomenon as temple reli-gion, which has a long history since ancientcivilizations (2007, 64112).

2As the Western missionaries haveendeavored to reach all people groups romdierent religions, races, and cultures, termslike indigenization, inculturation, contextu-alization, and appropriate Christianity havebeen used to make the Gospel message andpraxis authentic to them (Shorter 1988; Hes-

selgrave and Rommen 1989; Gilliland 2002;

Krat 2005). Each term overlaps in meaning

but puts dierent emphasis on certain aspectso making Christianity appropriate and rel-

evant to dierent people groups. Te word

contextualization was rst used by Shoki

Coe (Coe 1976) to move beyond indigeniza-

tion to transorming society as a whole (Ott,

Strauss, and ennent 2010, 266).3 In his bookAnthropological Insights or

Missionaries, Hiebert added sel-theologizingas a ourth principle to Henry Venns three-

sel principles (Hiebert 1985, 193224).

4Te theme that this paper is dealing

with,Rean Teivoda(angel tower), alls in di-

erent dimensions o Smarts model (1996).It has a materialisticdimension because these

rituals are carried out at a structure; a ritual

dimensions because prayers and ood oer-

ings are practiced daily; and ethicaland social

dimensions, because it teaches moral values

and reinorces appropriate social behavior.5According to Hiebert, there are three

responses to the old belie system; acceptance,leading to syncretism; rejection, leading to

a split-level Christianity; and engagement,


11/13

29:1 Spring 2012


leading the community o believers to criticalcontextualization (Hiebert 1985, 183190;Hiebert, ienou, and Shaw 1999, 2029).

A notable aspect o critical contextualiza-tion is that it is not conducted by the mission-ary (as was traditionally the case), but ratherby lay Christians and church o leaders o thetarget group, with the missionarys support andguidance. In this case, the missionary is merelythe acilitator and is there to try to answer di-cult theological questions. Critical contextual-ization shits power to the local people.

6Te author taught cultural studies atthe Cambodian University or Specialties(CUS) in Kampong Cham rom 2005-2009and collected ethnographic research papersrom student assignments on various subjectson Cambodian culture, including the prac-tices involving the Rean Teivoda. 62 studentssubmitted research papers on this subject.

7 One good example o lexical adoptionis the term priest in the Old estament.

Te Cambodian Bible adoptedpreah song,a word o Sanskrit origin used to reer toBuddhist monks. More than hal o theCambodian hymnal consists o traditionalmelodies that new believers are accustomedto hearing and singing.

8 Since then the Cambodian churchhas enjoyed reedom o worship and mis-sionaries have rushed into the country tomake up or lost time. According to the

Association o Korean Missionaries inCambodia (AKMC), approximately 45-50Korean missionary units entered Cambodiaannually between 2006 and 2009.

9Te structure o the Rlooks muchlike the spirit houses ound in Tailand,Vietnam, and Laos. Tey dier slightly insize, style and extravagance, but are alwayslocated next to the main gate o the houseso that the amily members can pray when-ever they go in and out o the gate.

Tere is a platorm (usually on a pedestalmade o cement or wood) on which is sometype o miniature house with a roo over it.Some are very modest, while others are quitelarge and painted with gold colors. Te styleo houses diers greatly. Some look like the

Hindu temples in Angkor Wat, others likeBuddhist temples, and yet others like tradi-tional houses made o wood. Regardless ostyle or size, it must look like a shelter so thatthe high spirits can dwell inside the structureand the lower spirits, under the platorm.

Te high spirits includeNeak a(ancestralspirits),the Hindu angels, and Buddha. Telower spirits are the spirits o the homeless (whohave died in or near the house) and o unbornor prematurely deceased children. Religiousexpression in Cambodia is closely related to

architecture, dancing, music, sculpture, etc. Inother words, expressions o aith tend to be out-

ward and visible. TeRas a structure serves toremind them o many o their belies and values.

10 Destroying or moving the Rinvitesscrutiny rom villagers. Leaving it alonealso tempts new Christians to all back intoold practices and to entertain the lingeringquestion o whether difculties in lie aredue to neglect o the R.

11According to the Evangelical Fel-lowship o Churches in Cambodia (EFC),0.3% o the population was evangelicals in2004, but this percentage grew to 0.7% in2008 and 1.3% by 2009.

12John (pseudonym) is a Korean mis-sionary who used to work in Tailand. Hisministry is a good case o this rejection model.In the mid-nineties, he planted a church

with a ew Buddhist background believers.He required the new believers to denouncetheir spirit houses and destroy them beore

baptism. It became a ritual or John to gowith new believers to their homes and helpthem to destroy their spirit houses. But earlyin the 2000s, while he was helping destroy aspirit house, some o the neighbors called thenewspaper; Johns picture and the burningspirit house appeared in the major newspaper.

Te head monk o a nearby temple convictedJohn, but he ed the country immediately. In2003, missionary visa quotas were reducedsignicantly or Korean mission agencies and

within a ew years later some o mission agen-cies closed their ofces in Bangkok.

13While many Cambodians havewelcomed recent modernization and theeconomic aid that has gone hand in hand

with NGOs and missionaries, the older gen-eration eels that Westernization is makingtheir culture immodest and that the youngergeneration disregards their customs.

14 Conicts between CambodianChristians and Buddhist nationalists havebeen reported in major broadcasts anddaily newspapers in Cambodia each year(Croucher 2003). See the ollowing: http://

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/11105.htm15 In the olk belies and practice o

Rean Teivoda, people worship many otherspirits;Mrun Kongviel(the spirits o theunborn or children who died early), Vinnien

Areak (spirits o people who died on thestreets without amily), or Preah Phumdey(heavenly angels designated to each house toprotect the amily members) (Chhun 2010).

16Tis research was based on inter-views conducted in 2006 with students othe Cambodian University or Specialtiesand with local Christian leaders who residein Kampong Cham province.

17 Chou, a-Kuan, a Chinese ambas-sador who traveled to the Angkor Empireduring 1296-1297, observed their religiouslie. He records that in addition to the mainstatue o Buddhawhich people calledPo-lai (a Chinese transliteration oPrah(Preah), god or divinity o religion)theBuddhist temple had many buddhas onthe towers, to which people sacriced shand meat every morning (Chou 1992, 11).

Tis is very similar to the present practice oRean Teivodaand explains why Buddhisttemples today preserve the spirit housesaround the temple.

18Te author o Chronicles alsorecounts the same event with his own in-terpretation. In depth study o 1 Chronicles17:1-15 is also recommended.

19Te ark had been captured and placedin a oreign temple, then placed in the eldo Joshua o Beth Shemesh (1 Sam. 6:1-15)and in the house o Abinadab (1 Sam. 7:1).

20

His previous attempt to bring theark to the city o David was unsuccessul

when Uzzah accidently touched it and itended up being let in the house o Obed-Edom (2 Sam. 6:1-11).

21 Deuteronomy 17:14 When youenter the land the LORD your God is giv-ing you and have taken possession o it andsettled in it, and you say, Let us set a kingover us like all the nations around us.

22 No! they said. We want a kingover us. Ten we will be like all the othernations, with a king to lead us and to goout beore us and ght our battles (1 Sam.8:19b-20). Payne states that Sauls king-ship over Israel was not the original will oGod but His permissive will (Payne 1972,325). Israels petition to have a human king

was to conorm to the standards o theirpagan neighbors (Payne 1972, 323). Kaiseralso notes, God had promised Abraham(Gen. 17:6,16) and Moses (c. Deut.17:14-20), that they will have a king, butthe Israelites could not wait or Godstiming and insisted to have one right away(Kaiser 1995, 77).

23 Roland K. Harrison urther indicates

that Phoenician skill was drawn uponheavily in the design and building o theemple, although the general pattern othe wilderness abernacle was basic to thestructure (Harrison 1969, 410).

24Te people o Babel also wanted tomake a name or themselves (Gen. 11:4)Come, let us build ourselves a building

with a tower that reaches to the heavens, sothat we may make a name or ourselves andbe in unity and not scattered over the aceo the whole earth.


12/13



25 In 1 Kings 5:5, 8:17, and 8:18 Solo-mon quotes David as having told him tobuild a temple or the Name o the Lord.

26 God recognized Davids genuine in-tention to bring glory to God. 1 Kings 8:18has Solomon quoting YHWH, But theLord said to my ather David, You did wellto have it in your heart to build a temple ormy Name Further, immediately ollowingGods covenant with David, David respondsto God saying, Do as you promised,so that your name will be great orever (2Sam. 17:25b, 26a).

27 In the same account in 1 Chronicles17:4, God answers, You are not the one tobuild me a house to dwell in.

28 In 1 Chronicles 28, David gathers allthe ofcials to announce that God has en-dorsed the establishment o his dynasty andhas, by the Spirit o the Lord, given detailedinstructions or a temple. In v. 12 it says, Hegave him the plans o all that the Spirit had

put in his mind or the courts o the templeo the LORD and all the surrounding rooms,or the treasuries o the temple o God andor the treasuries or the dedicated things.

Also in v. 19 it says, All this, David said, Ihave in writing as a result o the Lords handon me, and he enabled me to understand allthe details o the plan.

29 King Manasseh o Judah is describedas the king who led Judah and the people o

Jerusalem astray, so that they did more evil thanthe nations the LORD had destroyed beorethe Israelites (2 Chron. 33:9). In 2 Chronicles33:2-6, He did evil in the eyes o the LORD,ollowing the detestable practices o the nationsthe LORD had driven out beore the Israelites.He rebuilt the high places ... he also erectedaltars to the Baals and made Asherah poles. Hebowed down to all the starry hosts and wor-shipped them. 5in both courts o the templeo the LORD, he built alters to all the starryhosts. 6He sacriced his children . . . practiceddivination and witchcrat, sought omens, andconsulted mediums and spirits.

30Tere are covenants, including theAdamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Palestinian,Mosaic covenants. Among them the Da-

vidic covenant is unique and important ormessianic hope (Enns 1989, 503512).31 1 Chronicles 17:14 says, I will set

him over my house and my kingdom orever;his throne will be established orever. Tishouse cannot be Solomons temple becauseit was destroyed by the Babylonians. Tesecond temple was built as recounted in theBook o Ezra and later renovated by Herod.

32 Permission to construct the emplewas granted despite the dangers o corrup-tion and o a state-supported religion that

would place itsel wholly at the service o thestate and [would] begin to hallow the state inthe name o its God (Bright 1953, 41).

33Te construction o the temple wasaccompanied with divine signs: answer toprayer at the site (2 Sam. 24:18-25), divineinstructions concerning the design o thetemple (1 Chron. 28:12a), and Gods con-secration o the temple ater the dedicationceremony (1 Kings 9:3).

34Te Israelites gave wholeheartedly orthe construction o the temple just as theirancestors had done or the building o thetabernacle during the Exodus (Ex. 35:4-36:7).

35 Bergen lists many New estamentteachings concerning Jesus based on theDavidic covenant, which shows Jesus is theMessiah who ullls the Davidic covenanton the house that YHWH promised.(1) the son o David (c. Matt. 1:1; Acts12:22-23; Rom. 1:3; 2 im. 2:8; Rev. 22:16,etc.); (3) the builder o the house or

God (c. John 2:19-22; Heb. 3:3-4, etc.);(5) the possessor o an eternal kingdom (c.1 Cor. 15:24-25; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pe-ter 1:11, etc.); (6) the son o God (c. Mark1:1; John 20:31; Acts 9:20; Heb. 4:14; Rev.2:18, etc.) (Bergen 1996, 337338).

36 Caldwell interprets Jesus response tothe Samaritan woman, not on this moun-tain nor in Jerusalem temple (John 4:21) asa recognition o both places (Caldwell 2000,26). By teaching about the true worship ortwo more days in Samaria, Jesus reed theSamaritan believers to worship YHWH inspirit and in truth even at the templeon theMount Gerizim. Te location o worshipplace should not be the central issue, ireligious orm and meaning are detach-able. Tis permissive adoption o pagancultures was also practiced to ree the newcommunity o worship during the Jerusa-lem Council in Acts 15 (Flemming 2005,4353; Higgins 2007).

37 In act, God himsel has orderedquestionable things. For example, he com-manded Abraham to sacrice his son. Tereare biblical texts that tell how God deteststhe sacricing o children. So why does He

ask Abraham to sacrice Isaac? First o all,Gods intention was not the blood sacriceo a human being, rather the testing o

Abrahams aith.38 It is interesting to note, however, that

Christians do pray and are to pray unceas-ingly to God. Christians pray to God becauseas sons and daughters we can boldly comebeore him with the least o our concerns. Inthe practice o prayer in R, prayers are notconded to someone in a condent relation-ship but to unknown spirits with unknown

intentions. I the practice o prayer is to alsobe used, it must be made clear that the objecto Christian worship and prayer is neitherNeak a nor lesser spirits (vinnen areak).

39 Messiah was represented in many ways:the seed o the woman, the sacricial lamb, ourHigh Priest, King, the Anointed One, etc.

40illich calls this demonization,when syncretism leads to a orm thatbecomes more important than the sacredmeaning (illich 1964, 60).

41Yet, or this struggle over time to suc-cessully make a oreign culture able to pres-ent and practice the Christian aith at alltimes, I would recommend Peter Beyerhausthree steps o biblical adaption or possession(i.e., selection, rejection and reinterpretation)as a helpul spiral development o contextual-ization (Beyerhaus 1975, 119141).

ReferencesAnon.

1973. Provotesa Khmae (History o Cam-bodia). Phnom Penh, Cambodia:Ministry o Youth and Education.

Arnold, Bill .2003. 1 and 2 Samuel: Te NIV Application

Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan Publishing House.

Baeq, Daniel Shinjong2007. (2):

(Analyzing Cross-Cultural

Adaptations o Korean Missionaries2): Relationship Models &Deculturation Case Studies).Korea

Missions Quarterly6 (2): 4568.2010. Contextualizing Religious Form

and Meaning: A MissiologicalInterpretation o NaamansPetitions (2 Kings 5:15-19).

International Journal o FrontierMissions27(4): 197-207.

Bergen, Robert D.1996. 1, 2 Samuel. Nashville, N:

Broadman & Holman Publisher.

Beyerhaus, Peter1975. Possessio and Syncretism in Bib-

lical Perspective. In Christopagan-ism or Indigenous Christianity?,

ed. etsunao Yamamori, CharlesR. aber, and Milligan College,119141. Pasadena, CA: WilliamCarey Library.

Bright, John1953. Te Kingdom o God: Te Biblical

Concept and Its Meaning orthe Church. Nashville, N:

Abingdon Press.

Brueggemann, Walter1990. First and Second Samuel.

Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.


13/13

29:1 Spring 2012


Caldwell, Staurt2000. Jesus in Samaria: A Paradigm

or Church Planting amongMuslims.International Journal oFrontier Missions17 (1): 2531.

Campbell, Antony F.2005. 2 Samuel. Grand Rapids, MI:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Chandler, David P.1992. A History o Cambodia. Chiang

Mai, Tailand: Silkworm Books.

Chhun, Sopech2010. Dialogue about Cambodian Spirits

and Folk Practices oRean Teivoda.

Chou, a-Kuan1992. Te Customs o Cambodia. rans.

Paul Pelliot. 2nd ed. Bangkok,Tailand: Te Siam Society.

Choulean, Ang2000. People and Earth. Phnom Penh,

Cambodia: Reyum Publishingand the Kasumisou Foundation.

Coe, Shoki1976. Contextualizing Teology. InMission rends No 3, 1924. GrandRapids, MI: Paulist & Eerdmans.

Collins, John Joseph2007. A Short Introduction to the Hebrew

Bible. Minneapolis, MN:Fortress Press.

Cormack, Don, and Peter Lewis2001. Killing Fields, Living Fields: An

Unfnished Portrait o the CambodianChurchTe Church Tat Would NotDie. Monarch Books.

Croucher, Rowland

2003. Cambodia News O Persecution.John Mark MinistriesTinkingMaturely about the ChristianFaith. http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/11105.htm.

Dumbrell, William J.1984. Covenant and Creation: An Old

estament Covenantal Teology.Paternoster Press.

Enns, Paul P.1989. Te Moody Handbook o Teology.

Chicago, IL: Moody Press.

Firth, David G.2009. 1 & 2 Samuel. Nottingham,

England: Apollos.Flemming, Dean E.

2005.Contextualization in the New estament:Patterns or Teology and Mission.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Gilliland, Dean S.2002. Te Word Among Us:

Contextualizing Teology or Missionoday. Wip & Stock Publishers.

Goppelt, Leonhard, and E. Earle Ellis1982. ypos: Te ypological

Interpretation o the Old estament

in the New. Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Grisanti, Michael A.1999. Te Davidic Covenant.Masters

Seminary Journal10 (2): 233250.

Groningen, Gerard Van1990. Messianic Revelation in the Old

estament. Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House.

Harrison, Roland Kenneth1969. Introduction to the Old estament.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Hesselgrave, David J., and Edward Rommen1989. Contextualization: Meanings,

Methods, and Models. GrandRapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Hiebert, Paul G.1985. Anthropological Insights or Mis-

sionaries. Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House.

1987. Critical Contextualization.

International Bulletin o MissionaryResearch 11 (3): 104112.

Hiebert, Paul G., ite ienou,and R. Daniel Shaw

1999. Understanding Folk Religion: AChristian Response to Popular Be-lies and Practices. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker Academic.

Higgins, Kevin2007. Acts 15 and Insider Movements

among Muslims: Questions,Process, and Conclusions.

International Journal o FrontierMissions24 (1): 2940.

Kaiser, Walter C.1978. oward an Old estament Teology.Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House.

1995. Te Messiah in the Old estament.Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishing House.

Keil, C. F., and Franz Delitzsch2001. Commentary on the Old

estament: Joshua - 2 Samuel.Vol. 2. 10 vols. Peabody, MA:Hendrickson Publishers.

Krat, Charles H., ed.2005. Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena,

CA: William Carey Library.Martens, E. A.

1981. Plot and Purpose in the Old esta-ment. Leicester [Leicestershire]:Inter-Varsity Press.

Moreau, A. Scott2006. Contextualization that is Compre-

hensive.Missiology34 (3): 325335.

Nida, Eugene A.1954. Customs and Cultures: Anthropology

or Christian Missions. New York,NY: Harper & Row.

Ott, Craig, Stephen J. Strauss,and imothy C. ennent

2010. Encountering Teology o Mission:Biblical Foundations, HistoricalDevelopments, and Contemporary

Issues. Baker Academic.

Payne, J. Barton1972. Saul and the Changing Will o

God. Bibliotheca Sacra129 (516):

321325.Petersen, Brian K.

2007. A Brie Investigation o Old es-tament Precursors to the PaulineMissiological Model o Cultural

Adaptation.International Journal oFrontier Missions24, no. 3: 117-129.

Pittman, Don A., Ruben L. F. Habito,and erry C. Muck

1996. Ministry and Teology in GlobalPerspective: Contemporary Challenges

or the Church. Grand Rapids, MI:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Ranges, revor, and Kris LeBoutillier

2010. National Geographic raveler Cam-bodia. National Geographic Books.

Reichart, Peter A.,and Pathawee Khongkhunthian

2007. Te Spirit Houses o Tailand.Bangkok: White Lotus.

Sanneh, Lamin1989. ranslating the Message: Te

Missionary Impact on Culture.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Shorter, Aylward1988. oward a Teology o Inculturation.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Smart, Ninian1996. Te Religious Experience. Upper

Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Stacey, David1979. Groundwork o Biblical Studies. West-

minster, London: Epworth Press.

Stark, Rodney2007. Discovering God: Te Origins o the

Great Religions and the Evolutiono Belie. 1st ed. New York, NY:HarperOne.

illich, Paul.1964. Teology o Culture. New York, NY:

Oxord University Press, USA.

Walton, John H., ed.2009. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Back-

grounds Commentary Vol. 2. Vol.2. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, MI:Zondervan Publishing House.

Wan, Enoch2010. Critiquing the Method o radi-

tional Western Teology and Callingor Sino-theology. Accessed on Nov8, 2010.Missiology.org: Providing Re-sources or Missions Education. http://

www.missiology.org/missionchina/wan1-1.htm.

Spirit House- The Practice of Rean Theivoda in Cambodia Daniel Shinjong Baeq.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Spirit House- The Practice of Rean Theivoda in Cambodia Daniel Shinjong Baeq.pdf