|
Monday June 21, 2010 ~ 33 Comments
I planted my first church in 1988 in the inner city of Buffalo, New York. I was planting a church way before church planting was an "in" thing to do. When I would tell people I was planting a church, they would look at me with a blank stare and ask if I was planting because couldn't get a "real job." I was 21 years of age. I didn't know anything about church planting. I graduated from college with a degree in biology and chemistry, and I went to the inner-city, multi-racial, urban poor people of Buffalo and just started knocking on doors and telling people about Jesus. I wore a suit and a tie and occasionally carried my Bible door-to-door. I might as well have ridden a bicycle and worn a backpack and said I was with the Mormons. God was so gracious and patient with me as a young man who didn't yet have a good grasp on how to approach the culture He had sent me into, and by His grace we were able to plant a church. But it was so hard. It took us years to grow the church to a place where it could be self-sufficient and self-supporting. I believed in church planting, but I knew I needed to become effective in making the gospel known and developing the church in areas where churches were desperately needed. Around that time, there was a pastor in California who was getting a lot of attention for his strategy and effectiveness in making disciples. He was part of my tribe, so I started communicating with this guy, Rick Warren. Rick and I continued these conversations until I was finally able to get to a conference out in California. While there I started to understand the importance of understanding culture. Regrettably, I concluded that the key to culturally relevant church planting was in Hawaiian shirts and shoes without socks. So when I was going to plant my second church in Erie, Pennsylvania, a city that is part of the snow belt that gets about least ten feet of snow each year, I showed up as a culturally relevant church planter wearing a Hawaiian shirt and shoes without socks. I found out very quickly that Warren's cultural relevance didn't connect with my culture. (And, to be fair, I should add that Warren does not wear Hawaiian shirts anymore... and I did not when I preached there last fall-- even though I was tempted!) Over time, it became clear to me that we need to not only understand that culture matters, but that the particular culture we are in must be properly understood so we can best preach the gospel, make disciples, and function as the church. I learned that as a pastor, then studied it more in my Ph.D. work (intentionally doing my Ph.D. in missiology to explore these issues), and then in my writing. So, I am passionate about this issue. Now, my personal example is an example of a minor cultural concern. I'll be addressing much more weighty issues in the days to come. Yet, it is important to first define culture. What is culture? There is a lot of talk about culture, but not always much clarity about what it really is. People shout about culture, but we have to think discerningly about what it is and how we engage culture. Harvie M. Conn has a helpful article in the Evangelical Dictionary of Missions. There he says, We use the term "culture" to refer to the common ideas, feelings, and values that guide community and personal behavior, that organize and regulate what the group thinks, feels, and does about God, the world, and humanity. It explains why the Sawi people of Irian Jaya regard betrayal as a virtue, while the American sees it as a vice. It undergirds the Korean horror at the idea of Westerners' placing their elderly parents in retirement homes, and Western horror at the idea of the Korean veneration of their ancestors. It is the climate of opinion that encourages an Eskimo to share his wife with a guest and hides the wife of an Iranian fundamentalist Muslim in a body-length veil. The closest New Testament approximation for culture is kosmos (world), but only when it refers to language-bound, organized human life (1 Cor. 14:10) or the sin-contaminated system of values, traditions, and social structures of which we are a part (John 17:11).
Why Does Culture Matter? Through my experiences in church planting in Buffalo and Erie, I learned an important lesson in church planting-- a mistake that unfortunately is made all too often today. Too many church planters plant in their heads and not in their communities. This happens in two ways. Some are Bible-only types, and others are model-inspired-- and both make the same mistake of ignoring their culture. It is easy to develop a solid, theological grasp on the essential components of the church, and the nature of the gospel without understanding the ways in which a biblically-defined church will look and function in differing cultural contexts. The Bible-only folks are convinced they only need to know Scripture in order to reach the people in a given community. I think we all need more scriptural fidelity, but unless they can also exegete the culture they will be ill-equipped to identify idols and understand the ways in which sin has brought ruin to the community. Others see an effective model of church flourish in one context and believe they only need to replicate that in order to reach the people in their context. They too avoid the hard work of studying their culture, and instead seek to import the work and conclusions drawn from a different context. Both types are hard at work primarily planting and leading in their head instead of their communities. This is bad missiology that disregards the importance of knowing and engaging culture. Posted on June 21, 2010 at 8:26 PM ~ 33 Comments Tagged with: Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter
Share This Post            33 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed,
This is great stuff. Thanks for bringing it out here.
There is one aspect of this discussion that I feel needs to be emphasized and that is that I feel like when we talk about culture we oftentimes feel that this gives us license to assume we know our neighbors based on an assumed homogeneity. I would say to my people in our church plant, "Yes, these people might be very similar but don't assume you know them without asking. Love them enough to simply get to know them without assuming you know who they are. Assuming you know them based on cultural studies might actually be a detriment because they might not fit that picture. Everyone is NOT the same."
Do most people in Madison lean liberal in politics? Sure, but you can't know FOR SURE, so ask. Assuming you know too much about culture might be good but it might not help you get to know your neighbor. Assuming too much might actually be a barrier.
I can't love a culture (way too big) but I can love my neighbor. Knowing a ton about my culture might help me love my neighbor but it also might not. He/she might not fit into the typical culture so I have to ask. Don't assume.. ask, which communicates love and humility.
Thoughts?
z
One thing about the local culture which drives the local community is that it is highly nuanced and takes a few years of living in the community to really understand the community.
Only at this point of understanding can a church truly begin to shape its local community in lasting ways.
I think it's great that you are bringing up the topic of cultural relevance! We served in church planting ministry in Central Europe for a number of years. One of my pet peeves were supporting churches who expected culturally relevant ministries from their missionaries, but failed to practice it themselves.
A few years ago I was asked to teach on evangelism in our church. When I submitted my plan for a course entitled "Culturally Relevant Evangelism", the staff suggested I change the title to something people would understand. I decided to stick with the title and teach them what it meant.
Just a couple of things I would like to address here, Ed. First off, I grew up in Erie and would love to know what church it is that you planted there. Would that have been in the early 90's?
The second thing is something that a previous commenter brought up. It does take some time to "figure out" what a particular culture's idols happen to be.
Being a pastor in a SBC church, I find it difficult to sometimes rectify that I am looking to see what the idols are in my community when I need to "pull down" the idols that are in my church. Any thoughts?
Jim
Ed,
Really nice way of reminding us that culture is the air we breathe, the dirt we walk through, the songs we sing, the things we read, the activities we participate in along with those living near us. Culture may have, as you note, some evil aspects, but it is not as monolithic as we like to think. To borrow one of your well worn images - like the church, banging on culture is also as easy today as hitting one of those "low hung pinatas on cinco de mayo."
Look forward to this series.
Zach,
Thanks for coming by and the comment. I will have more thoughts throughout the series, but ultimately, we "engaged the culture" and "relate to our neighbor."
I think both are important.
James, the name of the church is "Millcreek Community Church."
Ed
Ed,
I certainly agree. Both/and. I fear though that oftentimes the emphasis is simply on learning about your culture and sharing in it without actually speaking any content. We both know we need both, but I fear (at least in my circles) we fail to emphasize the content of The Gospel. Thanks!
I have to completely disagree with this article. Again, as all other contextualists, the mistake is that you create your assumptions on statements such as, "From my experience....."
Rather your analyzation should be, "The Bible says...."
I'm sorry, but I've read the Bible through and through, and frankly don't see culture as important to God as much as it is to our postmodernism. In fact, I think the only culture God is concerned with is His own. Righteousness, Holiness. There are the values of God that he is calling out to us to share.
In fact, when you break the rules of a culture it is called taboo. What else can sin be then?
Instead of calling people to their own culture, and certainly instead of calling them to our own cultural roots, let's call them to the culture of the Kingdom of heaven where there is no Jew, Greek, Scythian, etc....
If I am not dying daily to my Americanism, being sanctified and acculturated to the Kingdom of Heaven daily, then can the Spirit of God be in me?
Now is contextualism all wrong? No. But when you start off with the assumption that culture is valuable, you've already made an idol of it and focused on the culture rather than the gospel.
Playing with contextualization, C5 scales, Emergent Church, Common Word/Ground, and Insider Movements is like a teenager asking the question, how much can I get away with before what I am doing is called Sex. It's pure sinfulness.
Rather, focus on the glory of God, and His gospel, and He will draw, call, and use His Holy Spirit to make the movement. The power is in God, not in our works, strategies, and methodologies.
Check out http://biblicalmissiology.org for a great journal discussion what is biblical contextualization.
Mark, I think you are missing the point. No one here (to my knowledge) is saying that we are celebrating or worshiping the culture. In fact, we are against this culture and any other culture that would set itself up against the Kingdom of God.
But as Paul said, "To the weak, I became weak so as to win the weak. To the wise, I became wise to win the wise. I became all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some." That's what I think is being said here. We need to understand that people are not necessarily going to walk into our church buildings looking for Jesus. We have to take Jesus to them. That's what I see is being said in this post.
Jim
Wow. You've read the Bible "through and through" and don't see culture as important? Paul certainly didn't feel that way.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+9%3A19-23&version=NIV
Hey Jonathan,
The concept of 'culture' is a modern creation. Paul certainly didn't think about it in any of the terms people nowadays discuss it.
Being wise to the wise is not a cultural statement. Paul never changed or adjusted the gospel to fit culture. In fact, Acts 17 would show the opposite. If Paul were concerned with culture, he wouldn't be calling the greek sophists ignorant which was extremely offensive to them. He did not pander to their preconceptions. He told the gospel, clearly, and powerfully. It offended all, some turned, some laughed, some left, some were saved by the Holy Spirit of God. But the gospel remained the same and God was glorified.
Analyzing the New Testament and projecting Anthropology, Sociology and Postmodernism on it really isn't useful.
Mark,
Righteousness and holiness are not traits born out in a vacuum. They are not designations you get to give to yourself based on a decision you make or an ideal you hold. They are relational attributes. Certainly they derive from our relationship with God through Jesus, the Christ. But they are also born out in the relationships we share "in" our culture with others/neighbors. Our living in the sight of others will garner the description "right standing" or "holy" or "different" for the sake of Christ.
To suggest Paul did not acclimate his methodology to the culture in which he presented the Good News of Jesus seems to be a premise you have agreed to a priori. For example, for Paul a Jew to sit with women by the river - the place of prayer - was certainly to make some personal shifts culturally.
Banging the label postmodernism as the bogey man of Ed's intention sounds more like coming over with a pre-determined agenda rather than to hear him out completely as he unfolds both his experience and his reading of the Scriptures. Anyone who knows Ed knows his commitment to the authority of Scripture.
The sons of Issachar were applauded because they understood their times - that could easily be read, "their culture."
Before blowing off this series, stay with it and let's see where Ed goes.
Mark -
I probably am missing the heart behind your comment and may have missed something in Ed's post so please forgive if this is so. My heart is not to be acrimonious.
Contextualization is vitally important to communicate the Gospel. If you do not study and understand the local culture that you are ministering to you will miss how they value and interpret life.
Paul recognized this in Acts 17. He tells the Areopagus that God is not far from them "as some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed your offspring.'"
Paul is connecting the Areopagus to the timeless truth by using the expressions of their local culture in ways that they would understand. This is the value of local culture.
God in his common grace allows people like the Athenians express themselves through their local culture to reflect his image in many different ways, but for one singular purpose: to draw men to him.
As his instruments, it is our job to pick up on those common grace cues and connect them to the deep and timeless truth of the present age so that God can draw men to himself.
David,
Take a look at this article, it responds to what you just said: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2010/06/01/is-your-view-of-people-biblical-or-humanistic-lessons-from-acts-17/
As to the other comments today.
I am not arguing whether or not contextualization in some form is useful. I am not arguing understanding culture is useful either. Certainly in my years of experience in the mission field I have done one thing or another to be accepted easier.
I am arguing the role that contextualization has on the gospel. Contextualize the culture to the gospel if you must, but contextualizing the gospel to culture, shows great hubris. To say, that God almighty didn't plan on Muslims understanding the gospel when He inspired His word is great folly. God knew exactly what He inspired when He inspired it. The Word of God doesn't need to be changed to be understood by a culture. It simply needs to be preached.
Contextualize yourself, your clothes, and cooking habits, I don't much care about that. But don't touch God's gospel or Word. It's not yours to touch.
The reason I have not waited for the rest of Ed's parts is simply because I think perhaps he can use those parts to address some of these issues. I'm sure he thinks he's Biblical. Perhaps He is. All the better to take this chance to hash out these issues.
But also proponents of the Insider Movement say they are Biblical as well. So do Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses. My point is that without sharpening, how can we discuss these things?
Zach,
I love your gospel-centered emphasis (which is also why I like your blog). We will talk more about the centrality of the gospel.
But, for what it is worth, we don't change the gospel because we don't own it. For that matter, we don't need to "make the Bible relevant" or "make God relevant." They already are... but contextualization matters because we are not.
Todd,
Culture is always an easy target. And, I always find it amazing that people who preach against culture often are unaware that they are living in culture.
David,
This is well stated:
Contextualization is a tool. Clear gospel proclamation is the goal. We must not confuse the two.
Mark,
Thanks for dropping by.
Your final comment seems more helpful than the first, which started out by saying, "I have to completely disagree with this article." Then, you said that, "I think perhaps he [Ed] can use those parts to address some of these issues." So, I am going to choose the final comment as the best comment. ;-)
You mentioned "C5 scales, Emergent Church, Common Word/Ground, and Insider Movements," none of which I mentioned, so I am such you were so much disagreeing with me but rather wanted to speak against contextualization. Fair enough, though in your final comment you seem to affirm it in some cases.
We WILL discuss many of those in the coming posts, though I assume you are referring to the John Travis’ C1-C6 contextualization scale when you mention "C5 scales." We will definitely come back to that one.
But, contextualization is not, to use your term from your first comment, "pure sinfulness." It is both difficult and important.
To quote Dean Gilliland,
Contextualization matters to those concerned about clear gospel proclamation.
All,
Thanks for the good input. Feel free to opine, but also do not let the conversation be dominated by responding to one view (including mine). Feel free to discuss, consider, and dialogue.
More in my next post...
God bless,
Ed
Mark,
You have yet to explain the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 when it was referenced to you twice now. If you can kindly explain what Paul means in this passage verse by verse according to your views on contexualization being sinful. Thanks.
If you were to replace the word 'culture' with the expression 'the prevailing local ways of being and doing', might that let you get rid of a lot of the tension people feel about treating it as an idol?
This was the most eye opening part to me... "identify idols and understand the ways in which sin has brought ruin to the community."
Thanks Ed!
- Kevin, Jax Fl
The FIRST ORDER is knowing the Scripture. There is overwhelming evidence that those who occupy the pews are incredibly deficient in thier knowledge of Scripture and their ability to offer a sound apologetic. There is minimal value in understanding the culture when you have no message that is rooted in TRUTH!
Ed,
If you define culture as "bad," then we should not care about it, engage it, etc.
If you define it well (see the definition in the post), then you should care about it, engage it, etc.
But, what is interesting is a rash of people who now want to say that we should not consider "local" culture and context but only the "culture of heaven." That's a mistake, in my view.
Feel free to carry on without me... I'm teaching on God's mission at the Church of God triennial meeting in Decatur, IL today.
Ed
I quite liked the definition in the post. My only addition to it would be a sense of change over time. I do a lot of youthwork, and some parts of youth culture in our area have changed dramatically over the last decade.
Give 'em the gospel in Macon county!
No one has mentioned yet Jesus' example. I mean Paul is great and all, but I'm pretty sure the gospel itself is the ultimate model for contextualization. God took on the Jewish culture. Jesus accepted some things, redeemed some things, and rejected some things. I think the very nature of the gospel shows us how to contextualize.
If you want to stop all contextualization I wander what language you should speak and where you should buy your clothes. The King James Version was, after all, a major step forward in contextualization in it's time. And I think it was for the sake of contextualization that many of our tradition stopped wearing the collar and put on a tie.
Ed, I've been reading your blogs and benefiting from them, but before now I have not been reading the discussion. My loss. I'm grateful for the effort that you put into your blog as well as the thoughtful comments of your guests!
Remember, Sumter, SC and Myrtle Beach! ;-)
Lots of Posts.
First my replies to Ed,
In my first posting I did say, "Now is contextualism all wrong? No. But when you start off with the assumption that culture is valuable, you've already made an idol of it and focused on the culture rather than the gospel."
What I meant by that, is that Culture shouldn't be the focus. Gospel should be the focus. I'm heavily involved in foreign missions, and I can't tell you how many classes/trainings are given on culture, language, etc... But none on gospel. It is easier for me to count the number of Missionaries I know who do know how to present the gospel, as the number of those who know all about contextualization and all the techniques and strategies, and yet fumble terribly on presenting the gospel itself are uncountable. This is simply because we have focused on culture not on the gospel. I think rather, that if you focus on the gospel (not just head knowledge) and living that out, preaching, teaching, displaying, that then godly and natural contextualization comes from that. Because it's not contextualization, but rather grace. And through grace, God Himself has 'contextualized' Himself to us.
I never said contextualization is sinful, what I said was, "Playing with contextualization, C5 scales, Emergent Church, Common Word/Ground, and Insider Movements is like a teenager asking the question, how much can I get away with before what I am doing is called Sex. It's pure sinfulness."
These are not Biblical contextualization, these represent an attitude of how to play/mess with/manipulate the standard God has made, and consider how we can literally change the gospel, change the standard and as a result effect the numbers of converts to Christianity. These strategies clearly display the attitude that if we make Muslim Friendly translations of the Bible (aka Remove Son of God & father terms) then we can add more to the Kingdom. It's an attitude of trying to be on the edge, frontier as close to the heresy line as possible. It's the Adam attitude of It's just one bite of an Apple, what harm can it do in comparison to the wisdom we get? These are the attitudes that are 'pure sinfulness'. Not contextualization, but the attitude of many famous contextualists, and the resulting strategies they create. Rather, the focus should be what is the purpose of Missions! Nothing but the glorification of God Almighty, Father, Son and Spirit. Let God save souls. For if there is any view in my mind that thinks how eloquent my gospel presentation, how much knowledge I have results in more salvations gaining people entrance into heaven, or how fumbling I am, or how stupid I am results in less and damns people to hell, these are the views of Works-based Theology, and are sinful. This is what is pure sinfulness.
Erik,
As for 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Any passage that is taken must be looked at through and through properly and hermeneutically. Just take a look at Corinthians itself. It was a church riddled with syncretism where the culture Paul was calling the church to (God's culture) was being mixed with the culture of the Corinthians (Idol worship culture). Paul was very clear that idolatrous culture of the Corinthians was demonically controlled. Paul was clear, painfully clear not to mix the gospel (God's truth and culture) with the world's culture, for in truth all cultures are idol worshiping cultures. To have nothing to do with the idol worship of the unbelievers. To be above reproach. Idol worship was the culture, it had everything to do with how the people lived.
So, on that note and background, let's look at it.
1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (NIV)
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
ANALYZATION: Verse 19: Does Slavery have anything to do with culture? No. It is a status position in life, a forced occupation. The Bible clearly teaches us to be servants to one another. Biblically, we are called to be slaves to one another. Does Paul think he actually does the winning? No. He is just using metaphor here. The Bible clearly teaches that God does the winning. Verse 20: Paul is a Jew, Judaism here is referring to the religious aspect of Jewishness. This is the law. Judaism is the foundation of Christianity. While theologically there is some disagreement, it certainly is not considered falsehood/idolatry. Paul explains the relationship but changing it from a discussion of Judaism to law and under law to not under the law (grace). Paul is not taking on any particular culture, rather he is basically sharing the gospel with those in Judaism, which is based in truth. This is important, Paul could not become a Artemis worshiper to reach Artemis worshipers. However, he did become like one in the lack of law (Verse 21). Because we all come to Christ the same way, no matter where you are, and that's grace, as no one can come to God through the law. Every Jew must come through grace. Every Artemis worshiper must come through grace. Verse 22: Has nothing to do with culture. weakness spreads throughout all culture. When Paul again says I become "all things to all men" he is not saying this literally. He hasn't and he wouldn't. He wouldn't become a murderer to reach murderers. He has rules and parameters by which he does these things, and these rules and parameters are in the Word of God, they are God's Culture.
None of what Paul did, in his mind, or should in ours, has anything to do with man's culture. It had everything to do with following God's culture of service, servanthood, meekness, holiness, and grace. Paul's focus wasn't on man's culture. His focus was on God's culture and His glory.
Thoughts on a definition of Culture:
Defining culture anthropologically is different than defining culture given a biblical background. This is where a lot of the confusion stems from. The reality is that academia has so infiltrated theology, that now we use terms like culture, people groups etc.... and look for verses to support them and give them as much significance as the academic world gives them, thinking that it gives the Bible some value in the eyes of academicians.
So what is culture? Culture is a direct effect of the fall. Before the fall was God's holiness and righteousness as law. You can call this a culture, God's culture. But innovation of culture is a product of the fall. Culture is also an abstract concept, purely academic. It doesn't really exist. It really only exists on a singular level. But really when it's on a singular level, it's not culture, but a person. The reality is there is no such thing as American culture. As in Plato's allegory of the cave, that is a concept. A perfect ideal, that doesn't exist. There is no single American that is the American culture. Every person is unique different and has their own sets of values, standards, expectations, etc... Thus there are not 10,000 people groups (cultures) that are unreached, there are 4 billion different people who are unreached. Culture is merely a form of generalization and categorization.
So back to what is culture. It is the set of social rules and expectations that a person has that helps them interact with others, in particular, with the sinful other. It deals with how to gain honor (pride) or to shame others, how to create retribution, and how to avoid the physical & negative effects of the fall. Culture is man-centric. And like total depravity, is totally deprived, in that it is all about man. Culture cannot be redeemed. Just like any category cannot be redeemed. It has no soul to be redeemable. Only people can be redeemed. So like man, culture is totally deprived, and without the Holy Spirit to redeem the person, is so tainted with sin that culture cannot do good. This is the only conclusion you can derive if you believe in total depravity, and believe it is man who makes culture.
If you believe God made culture (good luck finding that in the Bible) then you will possibly come to some different conclusion.
The entire purpose of God's redeeming work is to draw out of this total depravity, those He has called, made anew, in His image again, and make them citizens of His kingdom, and His children. In effect, His culture is what will reign us, and we will embrace it. Biblically, the view if heaven is NOT multicultural. Revelation paint a very uniform view of heaven. We all worship in the same manner. There is no African section, no American baptist section sitting, no charismatic section waving banners... No, we bow and sing the same songs. We dress the same way. The beauty is the glory. Not us. The Bible doesn't value diversity, it values God. I can't count how many times people say that verses like Revelation 5:9 describe how God wants diversity in heaven. The verses do not say that. That is our postmodern culture saying that. It clearly says, that God is calling people FROM every nation, tribe, tongue. It doesn't say they are going to be looking, behaving, worshiping the same way they did on earth, in heaven. Are people going to look chinese, caucasian, hispanic, african, etc... in Heaven? We have no Biblical evidence of this. We can only know what the scriptures say. It seems to me the scriptures show only a very uniform culture in heaven, that is the Kingdom culture of God.
I appreciate Ed's article, and look forward on seeing how he continues the future parts.
I wrote a really long and argumentative post that so eloquently proved my point. But after I finished, I realized it was self-gratifying and prideful. So I copy/cut the whole thing. :(
I'll replace my masterpiece with a humble admonition to Mark to try to communicate a definition of "culture" that doesn't contradict itself so that you may be better understood (by me). I think I hear what you are saying, but its hard to be sure because the way you're saying it doesn't make sense to me. What you are saying may be important, but because we don't agree or understand each others' definition of "culture" or "contextualization" then I can't really know.
Also, you've introduced a new concept that I think could be an important discussion too-- Diversity in the Kingdom. But I already see that you have a different definition of diversity than I do.
In conclusion, culture "is the set of social rules and expectations that a person has that helps them interact with others..." And I think it is important to carefully understand and lovingly relate and react to people in the context of their culture.
I have worked with many who crossed cultures physically but seemed to demand that the local culture adapt to the cultural peculiarities they brought with them from somewhere else.
I served in Southwest Kansas almost 20 years ago well after the oil field boom. I discovered there had been SBC Churches in the area running 200-300 that had closed when the oil fields went bust. The Churches had been good at reaching the transplanted Oklahoman s and Texans but miserable in reaching Kansans. I had been assured that they were mostly white, spoke English, and lived in the USA.
When I moved into Wisconsin the Churches were mostly filled with Southern Transplants and Pastor-ed by Transplanted Pastor's. The Churches were small and refereed to God's country as being from where they came from. The local population I interviewed did not know an SBC Church was in their neighborhood. Careful not to change the Gospel we attempted to begin at a point better understood by those we desired to reach. The resulting response to the Gospel and growth of our Churches is unmistakable evidence we are seeing people from Wisconsin come to faith in Jesus Christ, join His Church, and become active participants on mission for Jesus Christ.
Without a true transformation of a person when the place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior and LORD there is not reason to attempt to look at how to best impact the Culture with the Gospel. Finding the best way to confront this culture with the truth of the Gospel requires a best attempt and continuing adjustments to understand the culture.
Hey guys,
It can easily be seen that several comments use very different definitions of the words "contextualization" and "culture". This is cool. But Ed was very quick to define these words and define them well. So insert his definition when reading these words.
When we properly contextualize the Gospel, we will neither alter the message or attitude from which it should be shared. The message is straight Bible; the attitude is humility, reverence, and urgency. What may change is the method of delivering that solid, unwavering message in that Godly, Christ-like manner.
To change the message of the Gospel makes it not the Gospel. To change the attitude or manner of heart is to enter into the sharing in pretense, which God will use but still be disappointed in me. Frankly, either one is wrong to change.
When Jesus spoke to the women at the well, he broke certain cultural notions but used her cultural understanding to lead her to who he was. Christ used her culture. Sin is a largely misunderstood or disregarded word today. A church word that closes ears and hearts. But you ask if they have told any lies or stolen anything, you can lead them to an understanding of sin in terms they already know. Then you simply tell them the consequences and show them Christ according to the Bible. You get the gospel in terms to which they can relate and terms which are no less severe.
I love these discussions and I'm glad some of the tension have been removed. We are brothers aiming for the sharing of Christ. Why fight with a semi-closed mind when we can search the scriptures together to the furtherance of the gospel and glory of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior?
Grace and Peace,
James H
To clarify,
I have no problem with sin or the use of the word. We lead them to a Biblical understanding of what sin actually is before God not the largely preconceived notion of what sin is before culture.
And my statement: this is cool.
I was referring to the opinions on the definitions not the practicall or Biblical use of them. Terminology defines theology. If I say one thing and you think another, then we are in trouble. So, we must often contextualize our word choices according to the audience.
Hopefully that cleared up some of my lack of proofreading on this one.
Grace and Peace,
James H
PS-Ed, I love the word choices for the security words! They all remind me of the Bible...community and wooing, lovely and all...haha good stuff!
Hi all,
Very interesting discussion. I think what would help me further on this topic is to start with one aspect of culture, i.e., language. Diversity of language arose from man acting in sinfulness with the tower of Babel. Thus one could argue that language is a component of sinful culture. One might view the empowerment of the apostles to speak in the language of the listeners as to some extent "redeeming" culture, but lets put this aside for a moment. What language should we communicate the gospel in? English would be a poor choice, Latin might be slightly better, but Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew better still. Why did the Hebrew scriptures get translated to Greek?
I know my case here is simplistic, but is not translation a type of contextualization? If so, is it not possible that there are other elements (yet to be agreed upon) of cultural contextualization that are reasonable, if not necessary?
If I were to teach in a church in a community where graduating high school was a wonderful accomplishment, or in an area where many have at least college if not post graduate education, shouldn't the way I teach be compatible with the educational level of the people we are trying to reach?
Aren't the idols we are attempting to expose different in different communities and cultures? We aren't usually preaching or teaching about wood or stone carvings when we speak of idols. Instead, we need to understand what a particular culture has raised up in their hearts over the Lord that needs to be replaced with the truth of the gospel.
Again, I recognize that these may be simplistic arguments but I would be interested in other posters responses. Thanks.
CJ
Thanks for your postings on a critical topic. Wanted to let you know about my series of blog articles that started a few weeks ago also on contextualization. In terms of specifics, I deal mostly with the Hindu context. However, I am also trying to discuss the concept more generally. All the posts are being featured at the Lausanne Movement's Global Conversation site as well as on my own blog.
First posting here: http://conversation.lausanne.org/conversations/detail/10385
Blessings,
Cody Lorance
Trinity International Baptist Mission
Hi Ed,
Have you read To Change the World by Hunter? If so, have you published your thoughts online or elsewhere regarding his view of cultural change and his challenge to the common idea of transforming culture? I guess I'm curious to get your opinion along the ideas of how we engage culture. Should transforming culture be an aim of Christian mission?
Thanks!
Patrick
Cody,
Glad to see your series. I read through them and will continue to do so.
I'd invite you to dialogue here with us as well. I will be posting every Monday for a while.
Thanks,
Ed
Ed, you have written, “What this means is that "culture" itself is not evil, but a composite of good and evil (as understood biblically) values and vocations, customs and creations, beliefs and behaviors that characterize a particular people in a particular place.” I would just add the phrase “at a particular time” in order to account for the dynamism of culture – one of the most difficult aspects of pursuing contextualization is this ever-moving target. That is, culture is not static. It changes over time and from generation to generation.
Also, “Too many church planters plant in their heads and not in their communities. This happens in two ways. Some are Bible-only types, and others are model-inspired-- and both make the same mistake of ignoring their culture.” Quite right. I like this point. I’m reminded of Gilliland who talks about the goal of contextualization being “to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation” (2000, p. 225). I posted a while back “Contextualization in Church Planting Missions: What is it?” at http://tibm.org/contextualization-in-church-planting-missions-what-is-it
Excellent article. Very useful for teaching too.