Byang Kato’s Demonology in a Multicultural World 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Byang Kato’s Demonology in a Multicultural World

Introduction

In the preceding chapters, we explored the life of Kato and his efforts pertaining to biblical demonology. But while Kato’s content was sifted and critiqued, we are left with a critical question regarding the audience of demonological discourse. The globe that Kato knew has changed. How does his demonology fair now, in light of these new conditions?
We inhabit a world in transition. For better or for worse, the forces of globalization appear to be unstoppable. Economic and cultural structures are extending beyond their historical and traditional regions. One example raised by Schreiter details that even by the late twentieth century, one particular parish in north Chicago encompassed “fifty-three language groups… five of which held services” in a single church each week.²¹⁹ Cultures are intersecting, and they even mingle in educational, economic, and ecclesiological contexts.
But not everyone views globalization as the apex of a new age. Nadar, a South African theologian, criticizes globalization as a front for Western colonial interests, wherein the world is globalized to further Western ideals and systems.²²⁰ Drawing from the Nigerian author Ukpong, Nadar advocates for a better way. Instead of settling for a Western globalization, she requests that we form a global village. “In Africa, the term ‘village’ implies community and mutuality, both of which – at the very least – include the notions of respect, justice and equity.”²²¹ In other words, due to the multicultural world we enjoy with its richness, we ought to eschew any cultural supremacy in order that a global village (which respects and values every culture without exalting one) may flourish.
The Christian must think critically concerning how to act and speak the gospel in this multicultural context. Moreau calls for a dynamic and comprehensive contextualization, intonating that the difficulty increases in an urban, globalized context. He says:
Contextualization, like local societies, should never be thought of as static. At the very least, each generation of Christians in a culture will need to contextualize the Christian faith in ways that are faithful to Scripture and indigenous to them. In times of radical cultural change (urbanization, acculturation, globalization) the process of contextualizing the faith will be a never-ending one, offering rich opportunity for the people of God to be rethinking and living out their faith in light of ways Scripture challenges them and their societies as they change.²²²
Thankfully, Moreau’s words remind us of the joy of this challenge, as the shifting culture provides us another opportunity to return to the Word of God, instigating meditation and renewing communication.
To Nadar’s concerns, Moreau encourages us to view contextualization as “a two way process in which all sides contribute.” That is, no culture should attempt to gain in the process.
Either in a traditional missionary context abroad or in a multicultural community, we should not aim “to show the members of the second culture how they should express their faith and their lives” based on our cultural affinities.²²³  A multicultural Christian community (e.g. church, parachurch group, theological seminary) requires everyone involved to be culturally sensitive and socially adept, being intentionally reflective to stem the imposition of their own cultural presuppositions.
The difficulty of this contextualization endeavor in multiculturalism is further complicated by the complexity of culture itself. Kraft distinguishes between “surface-level culture” and “deep-level culture.”²²⁴ Surface-level culture pertains to behavior and practices, and deep-level culture relates to thinking and value commitments – worldview. A multicultural Christian community could (and should) graciously embrace many forms of learned surface-culture, creating an elegant tapestry of unity and diversity among God’s people. But the great peril rests in how to respond to diverse worldviews. We should respect different ways of thinking (e.g. different parenting methods), but Christ calls His followers to deny themselves, to repent, and to be renewed in their thinking. As Christians, our culturally conditioned worldviews are not static, and as a multicultural community, in some sense, we continue to grow and share in a common worldview, even as we encounter and enjoy the diversity of various cultures.
The dangers at this point are many. We do not desire the complete destruction of a particular worldview, since culture (both familial and societal) contains elements of God’s common grace. By this, a retention of old religious practices (for the African, European, or Asian) is not implied. We will point out in chapter 5 that religious systems are not merely cultural systems. Rather, religions are tied to supernatural powers, and we must beware of uncritically seeking a “sympathetic perspective” of cultural/religious past, not expecting and encountering allegiance problems in the supernatural realm.²²⁵ (The ease with which we can attempt to claim multiple deities is astonishing.) Thus, the great project is to treasure culture even as we weed out the religious allegiances that are rooted in our cultures. Pre-Christian worldviews (deep-culture) cannot be entirely retained, lest (for example) Africans relegate Christ, not taking Him along “in grave movements – of sickness and death, of plague and suffering in general.”²²⁶ Then because of deep-culture in these times of difficulty, they return to “traditional and well-tried methods of countering the effects of evil and giving assurance in a world of uncertainty and danger.”²²⁷ And the complexity intensifies even as we consider the African worldview, because within Africanism, diversity flourishes, though “there may be similarities here and there…”²²⁸ As Oduyoye testifies, “one cannot use the world culture in the singular.”²²⁹ Many African Christians (and Christians in general) are on parallel but distinct contextualization journeys.
Yet, in the midst of this mixed field of pitfall and harvest in embracing culture, the multicultural community cultivates hope. When we are united together in this simultaneously culture-retaining and self-crucifying expedition, we find in one another the courage, the example to proceed. As we pursue Christ, we are buoyed by the many other Christians from many other cultures who both yield to Christ elements of their culture and retain culture that is good and compatible with Christ.
In this study, demonology is our focus, and while we should be grateful that our current endeavor is not broader, we are faced with the fact that demonology (and the way we relate to the subject) is closely related to culture. How should we understand and discuss demonology in a multicultural context, and how do Kato’s demonological writings hold up amidst these changing times? We begin by assessing the relationship between demonology and culture itself.

The Relationship of Demonology and Culture

Virtually every culture has a category for unseen spirits and demonic beings.  While repelling the accusations of modern Western thought, Ferdinando, in his landmark work on the demonic, argues:
Most peoples, for most of history, have believed in spirits, witchcraft and sorcery. The Ohio State University research project found that some 74% of 488 societies studied throughout the world had possession beliefs, including 81% of 11 African societies studied…. While truth is not established by majorities, the great consensus of most of humanity through time suggests that it may be modern scepticism which is idiosyncratic, and that the burden of proof should fall upon those who deny the reality of such phenomena.²³⁰
Humanity perceives spirits as a reality, even in our supposedly enlightened (Westernized) age, for the “belief in spirits is widespread in the ancient and modern world.²³¹
This nearly universal perspective is displayed in our cultures.  Whether in Kato’s Jaba culture which believes in Kuno (along with a myriad of other spirits) or in a Western culture which squeamishly avoids a so-called “haunted house,” we all have a viewpoint which is grounded in our cultural worldview. But it seems the African mind has a greater attunement to this subject.  For example, the Akan people attest to one peculiar type of spiritual being.
Bediako depicts it as following:
Mmoatia are supposed to be mysterious creatures with superhuman powers, that dwell deep in the forest; they are believed to be tiny, with feet that point backwards; suspending themselves from trees, they wait for an unwary hunter in the pitch darkness of the night. At their head, as their spirit, is Sasabonsam with bloodshot eyes. His name has found its way in Akan Christian vocabulary to designate the devil.²³²

1. Introduction 
1.1 Why Demonology?
1.2 The Personal Background of the Author
1.3 Research Methodology, Parameters, and Goal
1.4 Hermeneutical Considerations
1.5 Terminology
1.6 Culture and Multiculturalism
1.7 An Introduction to Byang Kato: the Context and Content of His Work  and Contribution
1.8 Conclusion
2. The Demonology of Byang Kato 
2.1 Introduction
2.2 An Overview of Kato’s Demonological References
2.3 Non-technical Demonic References
2.4 Technical Demonic References
2.5 Critique
2.6 Conclusion
3. Byang Kato’s Demonology in a Multicultural World 
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Relationship of Demonology and Culture
3.3 The Relationship of Demonology and Multiculturalism
3.4 Byang Kato’s Demonological References and Their Implications for the Multicultural Context
3.5 Critique
3.6 Conclusion
4. Byang Kato and the Relationship of Demonology and Soteriology in His Writings
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Parameters of Soteriology
4.3 Primary Features of Byang Kato’s Soteriology
4.4 Exclusivism and Byang Kato’s Demonology
4.5 Critique
4.6 Conclusion
5. Toward an Evangelical Theology of the Demonic 
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Contributions from Byang Kato’s Demonological Perspective
5.3 The Criteria for an Evangelical Demonology
5.4 The Content of an Evangelical Demonology
5.5 The Purpose of an Evangelical Demonology
5.6 The Challenges to an Evangelical Demonology
5.7 Conclusion
6. Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Study 
6.1 Introduction
6.2 A Summary of Byang Kato’s Demonological Perspective
6.3 A Summary of the Proposed Evangelical Demonology in Chapter 5
6.4 The Practical Consequences of an Evangelical Demonology
6.5 Suggestions for Further Study
6.6 Conclusion
Bibliography
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF BYANG KATO’S DEMONOLOGY AND ITS THEOLOGICAL RELEVANCE FOR AN EVANGELICAL DEMONOLOGY