Inculturation of Worship:

Forty Years of Progress and Tradition

Anscar J. Chupungco

A Lutheran Experience

For four years last century I had the rare privilege of taking part in a
series of liturgical consultations organized by the Lutheran World
Federation. I say "rare," because it is not often that a Roman Catholic
becomes a member of an international study group of Lutherans and, to
my gratification, declared by the group an honorary Lutheran! (By
coincidence-or perhaps providence-Martin Luther and I were born on
the same day.) During those memorable years I made lasting friendship
with Lutheran scholars such as Gordon Lathrop and S. Anita Stauffer.
Friendship means dialogue, and dialogue with them richly endowed me
with liturgical knowledge. Thanks to my Lutheran connection, the World
Council of Churches paired Lathrop and me in a number of conferences on
Christian worship.
Two volumes resulted from the consultations held in Switzerland
(1993), Hong Kong (1994), Nairobi (1995), and Chicago (1996). The
titles of these volumes convey the common concern that brought Lutheran
theologians, liturgists, musicians, and pastors together. The first is
Worship and Culture in Dialogue, and the second is Christian Worship:
Unity in Cultural Diversity. 1 It is evident from these titles that the
participants wanted to study the influence worship and culture have on
each other and to set the conditions or parameters for the inculturation of
Christian worship.
To answer these questions the participants followed a well-defined
methodology, which is worth developing here. Since the chief components
of Christian worship are baptism and Eucharist, the discussions focused
on them, even though questions concerning other church ceremonies like
marriage and funerals were also addressed.

1S. Anita Stauffer, ed., Worship and Culture in Dialogue: Reports of

International Consultations (Geneva, Switzerland: Lutheran World Federation,

1994); S. Anita Stauffer, ed., Christian Worship: Unity in Cultural Diversity
(Geneva, Switzerland: Lutheran World Federation, 1996).

224
 The methodology consisted of several steps. The first step was to
expound the biblical teaching and Lutheran tradition on the essential
elements ofbaptism and Eucharist. This defined the basic premise of the
entire consultation What is essential is nonnegotiable, although it can be
reexpressed in ways that are more congenial to the people of today,
without prejudice to the doctrine of scriptures. To reexpress what is
essential requires the participation of culture. This was the second step.
Historical researches on baptism and Eucharist have uncovered the
fascinating influence of different cultures on the ritual development of
these sacraments. In the case of the Western liturgy one should indeed
speak of cultural strata such as the Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Franco-
Germanic. The third step concluded the process by proposing, or at least
envisioning, possible cultural reexpressions of the rites of baptism and
Eucharist. This fmal step had to take into account the experiences oflocal
communities, the unity in faith and baptism of the Christian churches, and
the do's and don'ts ofliturgical inculturation.
My principal role in the Lutheran consultations rested with the
definition of inculturation. I described it as a process whereby pertinent
elements of. a local culture are integrated into the worship of a local
church. 2 Integration means that human values, cuhural patterns, and
institutions form with Christian worship a unified whole, so that they are
able to influence the wayprayer formularies are composed and proclaimed,
ritual actions are performed, and the message expressed in art forms.
Integration also means that local festivals, after due critique and Christian
reinterpretation, become part of the liturgical worship of the local
assembly. The immediate aim of inculturation is to create a form of
worship that is culturally suited to the local assembly, which should be
able to claim it as its very own. The ultimate aim of inculturation, on the
other hand, is active and intelligent participation of all in the congregation.
Inculturation properly understood and rightly executed will lead the
assembly to a profound appreciation of Christ's mystery made present in
the liturgy through the dynamism of cultural signs and symbols.
Inculturation, in other words, aims to deepen the spiritual life of the
assembly through a fuller experience of Christ who is revealed in the
people's language, rites, arts, and symbols.
To achieve inculturation one needs to work within a given method. I
proposed to the Lutheran participants the method of dynamic equivalence,
as opposed to formal correspondence. Dynamic equivalence starts with the

2Editor's note: The term "local church" as used by Chupungco refers to a

diocese.

225
liturgical ordo, which I will briefly defme below. Dynamic equivalence is
a type of translation. It reexpresses the ordo in the living language, rites,
and symbols of the local community. Concretely, dynamic equivalence
consists of replacing elements of the ordo with something that has equal
meaning or value in the culture of the people and hence can suitably
transmit the message intended by the ordo. Because dynamic equivalence
draws its elements from people's culture and traditions, the liturgy is able
to evoke life experiences and paint vivid images rooted in the people's
history, traditions, and values.
At some point during the consultations a question of terminology was
amply discussed. Is it contextualization or is it inculturation? In the 1970s
the World Council of Churches adopted the word "contextualization" to
signify the process of updating church structures so they would keep pace
with the changes in the modem world The context in which the Christian
community lives should be a chief player in the modernization of church
structures. Context includes socioeconomic, political, cultural, religious,
and geographical factors. In a way it is more encompassing than
inculturation, but unlike inculturation it does not focus specifically on
culture. Let me note that the Roman Catholic Church later adopted the
word contextualization, but with a distinctly political meaning. It became
synonymous with the liberation movement, especially in Latin America and
some countries in Asia that were under dictatorial and abusive political
leadership.
Inculturation, on the other hand, was a word that cultural
anthropologists preferred, because it expresses the creative and dynamic
relationship between two cultures. In 1981 Pope John Paul II said that
inculturation, though a neologism, "expresses one of the elements of the
great mystery of the incarnation." In 1985 the Extraordinary Synod of
Roman Catholic Bishops defined it as "an interior transformation of
authentic cultural values through their integration into Christianity and the
rooting of Christianity in various cultures."
I must admit that during the Lutheran consultations I advanced the
adoption of the term "inculturation" Both Lathrop and Stauffer were
understandably hesitant to abandon the term "contextualization," which
was in the active vocabulary ofReformed Churches. I am delighted to see
that my Lutheran sisters and brothers are starting to take interest in the
word "inculturation"
The Lutheran consultations were an experience of the process of
inculturation. Many questions were raised and several left unanswered.
I reproduce two salient questions. The first question was where to set the

226
boundaries to the incursion of culture in Christian worship. Failure to do
this could lead to a situation where violence is done to biblical doctrine in
order to accommodate culture. It could also happen that the cultural
elements integrated in worship overly evoke their cultural provenance and
thus divert attention from the Christian rite, or worse, send an altogether
different message to the assembly.
Another scenario would be the mere incorporation of cultural elements
into Christian worship without the benefit ofintegrating them. They could
be attractive, perhaps even entertaining, but ifthey are not integrated with
the Christian rite they are no more than decorative appendices or cultural
tokens with small role to play in the unfolding of the rite.
In the course of the consultations a few members voiced a rather
negative view of culture. They raised the warning that culture is inherently
evil because ofhmnan sin: it needs to be redeemed. As someone who is
engaged in incuhuration, with all due respect I could not disagree more.
I reasoned that while some elements of culture are sinful and erroneous,
not all fall under that category. The incarnation of the Son of God proves
that after the fall, human nature had kept redeemable traits. The work of
inculturation is precisely to integrate what is liturgically suitable in order
to redeem and transform it interiorly into a vehicle of Christ's grace. The
challenge therefore was, on the one hand, how to protect the doctrinal
integrity of Christian worship and, on the other, how best to utilize
whatever is good, noble, and beautiful in culture.
The second question dealt with the liturgical ordo of Lutheran
connnunities. By ordo I mean a standard liturgical rite that contains the
essential elements of Christian worship as handed down by tradition and
accepted as such by the church. The standard ordo for baptism, for
example, would include the following components: proclamation of the
word of God, blessing of water, renunciation of Satan, profession offaith,
immersion or infusion while reciting the baptismal formula, and possibly
anointing with chrism and the vesting of the neophyte in white garment.
The ordo, however, is not a mere arrangement of the various components
of the liturgical rite; rather, it is the proclamation of what the church
believes about the sacrament This belief is expressed by the choice of the
biblical reading and the formulation of the liturgical texts. These are the
articulation of the ancient adage lex orandi, lex credendi: the rule of
prayer is the rule of belief Centralized churches like the Roman Catholic
and several in the Orthodox Communion own standard ordo for baptism
and Eucharist. Is the same true with the Lutheran churches? The absence
of a fixed ordo has a disadvantage. Since the ordo should generally be the

227
starting point of liturgical inculturation, in its absence where does one
begin?
I devoted a significant portion of my paper to the Lutheran experience
of liturgical inculturation in order to bring across the message that an
international group of Lutheran theologians, liturgists, musicians, and
pastors has already began the work. This is what they have initiated and
done so far. Their effort and dedication are truly remarkable and worthy
of emulation. The question now is where do Lutherans go from here?

The Roman Catholic Experience

On December 4, 1963, forty years ago, 2,152 Council Fathers

gathered in the Vatican voted on The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
(CSL) with a solid 2,147 votes in favor. Of this document Pope Paul VI,
in his address at the conclusion of the second session of the council, said:
''The arduous and intricate discussions have certainly borne fruit, for one
of the topics, the schema on the sacred liturgy-the first to be discussed
and, in a certain sense, the first in order of intrinsic excellence and
importance for the life of the Church-has been brought to a happy
conclusion." The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican I1 has a
particular significance for me and for us gathered here, because it
enshrines the Magna Carta of liturgical inculturation.
Forty years have elapsed and much water has passed under the bridge,
but it is surely not out of place to recall here how CSL was shaped and to
review what it says about the relationship between Christian worship and
culture. For the Roman Catholic Church the constitution is the official
instruction on how to update and reform worship. Alas, after forty years,
several of its directives have yet to be brought to "a happy conclusion," if
I may use the words of Pope Paul VI. This is the case with those Roman
Catholics who spurn changes in worship, firmly believing that progress in
worship ended with the Council ofTrent. For other Christian churches
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council is
an invitation to take a closer look at their worship services, especially
where there is question of culture. It is not presumptuous to say that CSL
somehow influenced the Lutheran consultations I discussed earlier.
After Pope John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council, a
preparatory commission on the liturgy was established on June 6, 1960.
The composition of the preparatory commission was indicative of the type
of reform that CSL would eventually espouse. Most of the members and
consultors were scholars who knew their liturgical history. They admired

228
the noble simplicity and sobriety of the original Roman liturgy before it
had merged in the eighth century with Franco-Germanic rites. Ironically,
the inculturation of the Roman liturgy by the Franco-Germanic churches
induced the disappearance of its classical shape. It took twelve centuries
for the Roman Catholic Church to recover the noble simplicity of its
worship. It would not have taken this long had Rome heeded in the
sixteenth century Martin Luther's call for liturgical reform.
In the thinking of the preparatory commission history was not static.
The dynamism ofhistory led it to regard the recovery ofthe classical shape
as a prerequisite to the "adaptation" or inculturation of the Roman liturgy.
There is need to retrieve the original simplicity ofthe Roman liturgy before
it can be effectively inculturated. The preparatory commission set the
Franco-Germanic churches, which inculturated the classical form of the
Roman liturgy, as model for the churches today.
With this background in mind it is easy to understand why in CSL
there is constant shifting from the classical shape of the Roman liturgy to
various measures that would ensure the reformed liturgy was truly
contemporary-contextual, if you wish. Such salient reforms as active
participation, use of the vernacular, and the frequent references to socio-
cultural situations are indeed part of a bigger agenda to inculturate the
Roman liturgy. Paragraphs 37-40 of CSL/ for which we are forever
indebted to the American Benedictine Godfrey Diekmann, are the
articulation of what implicitly runs through the pages of the constitution,
namely the inculturation of the liturgy. Pastoral liturgy should be
addressed in the light of human values, patterns, and institutions or, in
short, local culture. The Latin word aptatio, which is translated as
adaptation, refers to Pope John XXIII's catchword for the council:
aggiornamento. Without inculturation this word would be empty.
Throughout CSL there is interplay between tradition and progress.
Paragraph 23 is a significant statement: "In order that sound tradition be
retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, a careful
investigation . . . should always to be made into each part of the liturgy
which is to be revised.'"' The investigation should be theological and
historical, in order to determine liturgical tradition. It should be pastoral,
in order to open the door to inculturation. The phrases "sound tradition"
and "legitimate progress" adequately describe the thrust of CSL. These

3The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1.37-40, in Vatican II: The Conciliar

and Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery, new rev. ed. (Collegeville, MN:
The Liturgical Press, 1992), 13-14.
4 lbid., 10.

229
phrases also lay down the foundations ofliturgical inculturation. In :fuct,
inculturation does not create new liturgical rites apart from the Roman rite.
What inculturation aims to achieve is to translate dynamically the Roman
liturgy into the culture of local churches. The sound tradition of the
Roman liturgy is the basis of legitimate progress that inculturation seeks
to achieve.
Firmly rooted in the premises of the liturgical trovement, CSL sets
forth active participation as the principle and criterion of the conciliar
reform of the liturgy. Paragraph 14 states: "In the restoration and
promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active participation by all the
people is the aim to be considered before all else. " 5 The theology on which
the constitution bases itself is the doctrine on what would later be called
"common priesthood" by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. 6
According to CSL, active participation is "called for by the very nature of
the liturgy," and such participation by the Christian people is ''their right
and obligation by reason of their baptism. "7 I am certain that Martin
Luther would have smiled in triumph had he read those lines. Let me note
the ultimate aim ofliturgical inculturation is to foster active participation
in consonance with the cultural patterns or traits of the local community.
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy regards the use of the
vernacular as an effective means to promote active participation.
Paragraph 36 is a classic case ofvia media or conciliar compromise on the
use of the vernacular. The shadow of Martin Luther still caused
uneasiness among the council fathers. Nonetheless, CSL embraced the
principle that active participation requires understanding, and
understanding requires the use of the vernacular. For this reason, and
within the spirit of compromise, paragraph 36 prioritizes those parts of the
liturgy where the vernacular may be used to great advantage, namely the
readings and instructions and some prayers and chants. Thus the
constitution allows the use of the vernacular for the purpose of
implementing its fundamental principle of active participation. At the
same time, the vernacular language is one of the most significant elements
of culture. The adoption of the vernacular is a basic work of liturgical
inculturation. Lutherans might flatter Roman Catholics for their progress

5Ibid., 8.
6Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, UlO, in Vatican II: The Conciliar and

Post Conciliar Documents, 361.

1 The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, 1.14, in Vatican II: The Conciliar and

Post Conciliar Documents, 8.

230
in this area; the reality, however, is that the Lutherans in the sixteenth
century already engaged in the work of inculturation when they used the
vernacular in worship.
The Consititution on the Sacred Liturgy uses the word "adaptation,"
but it should be read as "inculturation," a word that the Roman Catholic
Church adopted in the 1970s, thanks to Pope John Paul II. The
constitution devotes four articles on inculturation. A brief description of
the paragraphs might be useful.
Paragraph 37 advances the principle of liturgical pluralism among
local churches. Pluralism includes respect for the culture and traditions of
local communities and the integration of suitable cultural elements found
among them, provided they are not indissolubly bound up with superstition
and error.
Paragraphs 38-39 deal with "legitimate variations" in the Roman rite.
Legitimate variations mean that the changes introduced by local bishops
for their churches of responsibility are those suggested or recommended in
the liturgical books published by Rome. Paragraph 38 cautions that ''the
substantial unity of the Roman rite" should be preserved in the process.
The expression "substantial unity" is somewhat difficult to defme.
Paragraph 40 addresses the question of radical adaptations in the Roman
rite. Radical means that the changes local bishops make in their local
churches are not envisaged by the official books. The bishops are given
the task to "carefully and prudently consider" what elements from the
people's culture may suitably be introduced into the Roman rite. I should
add that all intended changes on the local level need the approval of the
Vatican.
I realize that the above description of the provisions of CSL on
inculturation has little or no relevance to Lutherans who do not have to
grapple with centralized system and hierarchical prerogatives. However,
underneath such provisions we can detect a certain valid concern that
might interest Lutherans. The concern is unity of churches .through the
confession and celebration of the same faith. In light of this the second
volume of the Lutheran consultations was entitled Christian Worship:
Unity in Cultural Diversity. The problem that besets the Roman
Catholics is that some want unity to embrace not only belief but also its
cultural expressions.

231
A Roman Catholic Attempt at Inculturation

At this point, allow me to offer an example of liturgical inculturation

that attempted to implement the provisions of The Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy. The example comes from my home country, the
Philippines.
The Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines has produced two
major attempts to inculturate the Roman liturgy. The first is theMisa ng
Bayang Pilipino or Mass of the Filipino People. Rome has,
unfortunately, not yet approved this Mass, which was submitted in 1976!
Rome, it is said, is eternal. The second is the Rite of Marriage. Luckily,
this second attempt has received the Roman placet. For lackoftime I will
concentrate on the first.
Several criteria guided the shaping of the Misa. First, the prayers,
which were composed in the Tagalog language, must clearly express the
church's doctrine on the holy Mass as both Christ's sacrifice on the cross
and a sacred meal. Second, they should incorporate genuine Filipino
values, idiomatic expressions, proverbs, and images drawn from the
experiences of people. Third, without forgetting the needs of the universal
church, the texts should include such contemporary concerns of the church
in the Philippines as social justice, peace and development, and lay
leadership. Fourth, when proclaimed, the texts of the prayers should be
clear, dignified, and prayerful Fifth, enough occasions should be provided
for active and prayerful participation through bodily posture, songs, and
responses. And last, an atmosphere of prayer and reverence should be
encouraged amidst the Filipino pattern offestive or fiesta-like celebration.
At the introductory and concluding rites people are blessed with a
large cross, which is afterwards venerated with a song of praise. The
veneration of the cross stems from the Filipino Catholics' great devotion
to the cross. They venerate crucifixes at home or carry them around.
Indeed, they make the sign of the cross at every significant moment of the
day. Basketball players sign themselves before entering the court. People
make the sign of the cross when they pass a church or the cemetery.
Beginning and concluding the Mass with the cross is the Filipino way of
underlining the doctrine that the Mass is the memorial celebration of
Christ's death on the cross. Before the readings the gospel book is
venerated with a song in praise of God, whose word reveals his will and
teaching and guides us on the path oflife. The readers make the mano po
to the priest and receive his blessing. The gesture is done by placing the

232
right hand of the elder person on one's forehead It is part of Filipino
religious culture to ask for the elder's blessing before performing a special
task. At the general intercessions that follow the homily the people kneel
rather than stand, which is the Roman posture. Filipinos, however,
associate kneeling, rather than standing, with urgent petitions.
The Misa has other characteristics every Filipino Catholic would
easily associate with solemn prayer. For example, at the start of the
eucharistic prayer, which highlights the words of consecration, the candles
on the altar are lighted, the clrurch bells are rung, and the priest and people
make the sign of the cross. At home people light candles and sign
themselves before they kneel to pray.
A Filipino cultural tradition has found a worthy place in the Misa.
Just as the head of the family or the host eats last, the priest receives
communion after he has distributed it to the assembly. It is the Filipino
way of expressing the values of leadership, hospitality, and parental
concern. Incorporated into the Mass, this practice alludes to the saying of
Christ that the first should be the last and the servant of all (Matt 20:26-
28).
Language plays an essential role in the liturgy. The liturgy is made up
of two basic elements, namely proclaimed texts and gestures. As regards
the language of the Misa, much effort was made, including several
consultations with experts in the Tagalog language, in order to ensure that
the texts, when proclaimed or sung, are clear, dignified, and prayerful.
The language is also slightly poetic, and often observes terminal as well as
internal rhyme. Filipinos have a predilection for sentences that rhyme and
place value on rhythmic cadence in solemn speech. Because ofthe cultural
value of idioms, the Misa is attentive to idiomatic speech.
Finally, the Misa pays special attention to words and phrases that
express genuine Filipino values. At the penitential rite the typical Filipino
value that combines together humility, unworthiness, and embarrassment
stands out At collection time the priest reminds the assembly of a popular
saying: "God blesses those who give with open hands," that is, generously.
At Communion the value of the meal shared among members ofthe family
and friends underlines the meaning of the Mass as a celebration of God's
family.

233
Conclusion

Forty years ago the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on the

Sacred Liturgy formalized what was in reality an existing practice in the
church: liturgical inculturation. The constitution did not introduce
something new; it merely codified what had always been there.
Inculturation is as old as the church of Jesus Christ. Two phrases sum up
the thrust of CSL. The first is ''tradition and progress." Inculturation is
a form of progress, and the local churches are invited to embark on it.
However, the constitution desires that progress should be rooted in genuine
tradition. Inculturation must give the assurance that the local church can
trace its origin to apostolic teaching and practice. The question that arises
in the mind of theologians and pastors is how to define the meaning of
legitimate progress and genuine tradition.
The second phrase is ''unity in cultural diversity." Local churches
form a communion of belief, but between them certain diversity exists.
Such diversity springs from the cultural differences residing in local
churches. People do not believe and pray in a cultural vacuum
Inculturation means that the same universal belief is celebrated in different
cultural patterns proper to the local community. The question that needs
to be addressed by liturgists is the role culture plays in the liturgical
unfolding of Christ's mystery. The task of liturgical inculturation extends
beyond confessional diversity. Lutherans and Roman Catholics are called
to renew the worship in their local liturgical assemblies in the context of
their culture and traditions. Forty years have passed, but it is never too
late to start.

234