|
Tuesday July 20, 2010 ~ 20 Comments
The desire for contextualization is often driven by a hope for clear gospel communication. (I've touched on this a bit in part 1 and part 2 of this series.) However, agreement on our calling to make the gospel known to make disciples will only help us to see the need for contextualization if we define it properly. Contextualization is not so easy to define because people use the word differently in different traditions. Yet, as I did when defining culture, I think it is important to consider how evangelicals define and use a term if we are to have any meaningful conversation in the evangelical community. Thus, we look again to The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, where Gilliland explains that contextualization is a tool to "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" (Gilliland, Dean. "Contextualization." In The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Ed. Scott Moreau. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000). There are other variants of that view and I will not try to address each one. For that, I would suggest reading Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models by David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen. And, it should tell us something that whole books would be written on the subject. Thus, all definitions of contextualization address communication. Gilliland says elsewhere, "Contextualization is, first of all, concerned with communicating by appropriate and understandable means that salvation is in Jesus only." (Cited by Darrell Whiteman in "The Function of Appropriate Contextualization in Mission" in Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles Kraft. William Carey Library, 2005). Though communication is not all that contextualization includes (as subsequent installments will discuss), it is a central part of the concern. What is Contextualization? Most generally, to contextualize is to place something in a particular context. Thus, I would say that any definition of contextualization must include presenting the unchanging truths of the gospel within the unique and changing contexts of cultures and worldviews. This requires us to retain the nature of the truth and the integrity of the message while explaining and applying such things in the necessarily unique or specific ways that enable hearers to understand and respond. Maybe Pictionary will help me make this point. Most of us are familiar with the classic party game, Pictionary. The "artist" gets a name of a person, place, or thing and he has to draw the picture so that his team can guess it, without ever using any words to help. Imagine if I was playing a game of Pictionary at a party. I am assigned to draw the person President George W. Bush. So, in efforts of simplicity and speed, I draw a picture of a bush. I'm playing with a pretty quick crowd, so they guess it right away. "BUSH!!!" They've partially got the answer, but not all of it, so it doesn't count. So, I start pointing at the bush and make hand gestures, moans, and grunts (but no words). I use my hands to say, "that's right, but more." Again, the crowd is smart, so they can see the clue has something to do with a bush so they start guessing. "Tree!... Plant!... Green!... Photosynthesis!... Oxygen to carbon dioxide!... Krebs Cycle!" (I told you they were smart.) Now, they're getting way off base, but I can't say anything, so I just keep pointing at that bush. I point at it harder and harder and keep gesturing and grunting and, at this point, I'm getting mad. The others never get it. I know what it is. I know they should know it. It is so obvious. But they don't. I get frustrated, and yet, I never gave another clue. Too often, I think this is what many evangelicals look like in the twenty-first century. For example, many today in American culture want to talk about "spirituality," but are unfamiliar with the gospel and not warm to the idea of spiritual absolutes. Some well-meaning Christians hear the spirituality talk and want to move people to the gospel, but the unexplained theological language and the old evangelistic approaches that were targeting a different worldview amount to noise that leaves the hearer in the dark trying to guess. It's like we, as believers, start communicating through our gestures and grunts, but they don't get it. We wind up giving clues that lead them in circles, and not to the truth. We know the answer, and we want them to know the answer, but we just can't make a solid connection. Without contextualization, the words and arguments we use can amount to ineffective clues. We Already Contextualize Let's be clear about this issue of contextualization; everyone does it. Everyone. Whether or not they use the term, all have contextualized, because every presentation of the gospel must be given to a particular audience, in a particular culture. If you share the gospel with others, then you are contextualizing. You either do it properly, or poorly. For example, you do it poorly when you are attempting to share Christ with the unchurched person in front of you, but present the gospel as if you're speaking to someone who is already familiar with the claims of Jesus. You can't just jump into "Jesus died to save you, and his resurrection demonstrates that he is who he said he is" because the person first needs to know about the one true God, their sin before him, and who Jesus is and what he has done. A person must first know they are lost before they will be found. I am fairly certain most of you will agree with the previous two sentences. If you do, you believe in contextualization, which is placing the gospel in a particular context. We may argue about the amount of contextualization, but we cannot argue with the need for such (assuming the definition mentioned earlier). We can also turn the example around. The de-churched southerner who has grown up in an evangelical church where the Scripture is preached might not need convincing that the Bible is God's word, or that he or she is a sinner, but he or she may simply need clarity on the new birth, or how one responds to the gospel (personally via faith and repentance). Contextualized Communication and Clear Gospel Proclamation Contextualization is necessary because while the human condition and the gospel remain the same, people have different worldviews which in turn impact how they interpret themselves, the world and the things you say. People who care about contextualization care because they want a clear gospel proclaimed AND understood. It's one thing to know the gospel, but it's another to make the gospel known. And making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed. So when we want to communicate the gospel and deal with categories like God, man, Christ and faith we must not only know them well, but also how to effectively make them known to the people God has sent us. Knowing where to begin and how to explain the truth to particular people are issues of contextualization. We are already contextualizing. Let's do it well. Posted on July 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM ~ 20 Comments Tagged with: Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter
Share This Post            20 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 |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amen. I love your Pictionary analogy. Like any good preacher worth his salt, I'm going to steal it, with proper credit of course. :)
I would add just one thing: contextualization may be one of the silent killers inside a church body. If God's people don't know how to read people, listen to where they are spiritually, and know a bit about their struggles, they will never know which parts of the Gospel to emphasize so that Gospel becomes unmistakably clear.
Like the Pictionary example, if the believer does not contextualize, he walks away discouraged, the non-believer confused, while the devil snickers in the background.
Moreover, if the believer has a bad experience because he did not contexualize, then that may be the last time he tries to share the Gospel. The non-believer chalks it up to another Christian that didn't listen or get to know him and tried to ram Jesus down his throat ... and the devil snickers.
Let's keep the devil from snickering.
Ed,
Here's where I have a problem with your views on contexualization.
You wrote, "People who care about contextualization care because they want a clear gospel proclaimed AND understood."
If I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that it is up to me, the presenter, to make the gospel understandable to the presentee. I thought that was the job of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).
Is there no room in your missiology for a supernatural transaction to take place between the Holy Spirit and the one who is hearing the gospel?
I don't really think you're intentionally trying to dimish the role of the Holy Spirit here, however, what's coming across is more of a man-dependent approach than a God-dependent approach. Technique seems to triumph the supernatural.
Les
Ed, thanks for this series on contextualization. For me the strongest biblical proof of the need for contextualization is the presence of four gospels in the canon of the New Testament. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus was contextualized for diverse audiences in the 1st century--Jewish, Roman, Gentile and late 1st century. Each worldview called for emphasizing different parts of the one message.
While our attempts will not reach the level of authority and inspiration of those four, we do have their model to follow. Thanks for the care and persistence you are demonstrating in urging us to discuss this needed topic.
David,
Thanks. I find it helpful since words mean different things to different people.
If we just take a little time to understand how people think we can better communicate what they must know.
John,
Good point.
Les,
Only the Holy Spirit can bring about regeneration, but I do believe we should seek to be understood as we are the messengers of the good news.
That is why missionaries learn language and culture when they go overseas-- and we should learn from them today. Paul models that for us when he engages the worldview of his hearers in his sermons in Acts (to Jews at Psidian Antioch, Pagans at Lystra, and Athenians at Mars Hill).
So, I see an important difference between our desire to communicate our message clearly and seeing the message "received by faith."
Others,
Feel free to weigh in... I will be gone for a while today, but I always enjoy the dialogue.
And, a reminder, be sure to read the post before you comment, follow the blog rules, and give your thoughts, not just a Q&A.
Thanks,
God bless,
Ed
This series of posts has been very timely as I have been discussing this issue with a team-mate here in Thailand. We focus on university students and planted a church almost ten years ago. The diverse subcultures here and the constant changing of the country leaves us asking weekly the question "how can we best tell them about the good news of Jesus". We don't feel we have arrived at the best method or presentation, and maybe never will, but this does not leave us speechless nor hopeless among our new friends as we love on them. Just last week my partner who has lived here for twenty years said he feels he is just now cracking the surface when it comes to sharing the gospel in an understandable way...not referring to language of the tongue but of the heart. Thanks for your perspective Ed!
"If you share the gospel with others, then you are contextualizing. You either do it properly, or poorly."
The way I see it, proper contextualization doesn't happen by accident. We've got to do the work of cultural exegesis.
Yes, God alone does the saving, but as His means, we have the responsibility of going and telling. We can't claim to be obedient if we preach incoherently.
People often warn of the dangers of contextualization, but a lack of contextualization leads to bad theology, forced "christian" subculture, and isolationism.
Les,(in my best cordial and non-accusatory voice,) do you really believe that we can just "preach" the gospel in any language we choose and claim to be obedient to the Great Commission?
Contextualization is indeed hard work. I think that's why many pastors don't do it. It's easier to expect the audience to conform to your presentation than adapt your presentation to the worldview and circumstances of your audience.
E. Goodman,
I believe that God's Word will not return to Him void but will accomplish the purpose for which He sends it. (Isa. 55:11).
I believe that the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the throughts and intents of the heart. (Heb. 4:12)
I believe that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17)
I believe that the devil does not snicker when the gospel is presented no matter how poorly worded. I believe the devil trembles when God's Word is proclaimed whether in a large group setting or one-on-one.
I believe that God can use any presentation of His gospel through His Word to save sinners.
The danger I see here is that people in the pew will be reluctant to share the gospel because they haven't contextualized it properly. I see a danger that this way of thinking will discourage, not encourage Christians to witness.
Les
Great thoughts everyone. Thanks for sharpening my saw. Les - I agree with you wholeheartedly on the Scripture you quoted and based on that I can understand your comment about the devil.
So let me try to explain where I am coming from another way.
One of the things that I have learned while mentoring dozens of people how to share the Gospel is that when they did not seek to hear or understand the person before being understood themselves, the results were always immediately negative. The believer comes away frustrated and the unbeliever's negative perceptions of Christianity are reinforced. And the devil thinks to himself, this is great, I have created a lot of confusion thus I have hindered someone trusting Christ right now so he snickers.
The cases when I have witnessed people trusting Jesus, contextualization (understanding where people are coming from before being understood) is a contributing factor. The presenter is able to "talk the language" of the person they are talking with so the Gospel is proclaimed clearly and heard clearly.
To help make this point, suppose a non-english speaking Chinese person showed up and proclaimed the Gospel to any of us in Manderin Chinese.
We won't understand a lick of it for obvious reasons. The same is true in many of our sub-cultures today. Though we might all speak English, many don't understand a lick of what we say ... even though in our minds we are being clear.
All I am suggesting is that if you what to be an effective verbal witness, you must understand where others are coming first so that you can help them connect the dots in their lives.
Peace.
When I read it, it seems to me that Paul is dealing with contextualization in the book of Galatians ... that it has useful points to make about the supposed conflict between indigenous culture and imported religious tradition.
Les,
I think that is a fair concern. There is an important balance there.
David Zook,
That's a helpful example.
Ed
Ed said- "...making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed..."
I agree with this idea. And as a bonus, I think what is happening may be a good thing. Even though making the gospel known may be more complicated, it is also simplified. In my experience, it is much easier to make the case for the holiness of God when I come to it from the fallen-ness of man. Since the secular culture has not been (to use Matt Chandler's description) 'inoculated against the gospel', I have a better (at least more common) opportunity to take that approach.
One of the things I used to worry about was how much more secularized our society was becomming. I failed to realize, just like Uzzah when he tried to push the ark of the covenant back on the ox cart, assuming his hand was less defiled than the mud below, that our 'christianized' culture was in no less danger of the fires of hell than our secularized culture is, and it is getting a whole lot easier to demonstrate the difference between culture and the holiness of God than it used to be.
Ed said- "...making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed..."
I agree.
As a result of this, I think proclaiming the gospel is easier, even though it is more complicated. The reason is (to borrow Matt Chandler's terms) many more people in our culture have not been 'inoculated against the gospel'. In my experience, it has been easier to argue for the holiness of God when coming from the idea of the fallen nature of man. When the 'bad news' is assumed, sometimes the good news gets lost in the moralism. Since our culture no longer assumes any bad news, this part needs to be a component of the gospel message, and as Chesterton said, sin is the one part of the gospel that can be empirically confirmed...people don't need much convincing of the fallen nature of man, even though culture tells us we are all basically good.
I used to worry a lot more about how secularized our culture and country are becoming. I don't do that so much any more. When Uzzah made the mistake of putting out his hand to keep the ark of the covenant from falling off the ox cart, he assumed that his hand was less contaminated and polluting to the throne of God than would be the mud on the ground below. In the same way, I assumed our 'christianized' culture was better off than our secularized culture. Wrong idea. Both are in the same danger of the same fires of hell. And as the culture becomes more secularized, it is sure getting easier to demonstrate a difference between the profanity of culture (and those who live in it) and the holiness of God.
SDG
Sorry about the double post...the first one disappeared in the 'preview' process so I re-wrote.
One of the best examples of contextualization I have found was in the book Bruchko. Since I don't have it before me, I have taken the following text from the Wikipedia entry for Motilone Bari (the people Bruce Olson was a missionary to) to recount how he explained the gospel to them:
"In 1962, a Scandinavian-American teenager named Bruce Olson came to live with the Motilone, learning their language and culture. Initially, some of the Motilone believed that Olson might be the tall man with yellow hair from the prophecy, but as he did not carry a banana stalk, they soon abandoned that belief. One day in 1965, Olson's pact-brother Bobarishora cut open a banana stalk, and the leaves inside splayed out, like the pages of a book. Olson pointed to his Bible and said, "This is God's banana stalk!" Olson recounted a Bari legend he had learned, about a Motilone man wanting to help a group of ants build a good home, but because he was so big and different, the ants scattered in fear. Miraculously, the man was transformed into an ant, and as an ant, he was able to show the other ants how to improve their home. Olson used that story to describe how God became incarnate in Jesus, and "walked our trail." Olson described the death of Jesus, and his resurrection, and told the Motilone that the Bible tells the story of Jesus."
I wonder though... does anyone have any contemporary examples where contextualization has been effectively used to present the gospel successfully?
Let me rephrase that last paragraph:
I wonder though... does anyone have any contemporary examples where contextualization has been effectively used to present the gospel to mainstream American culture or subcultures?
Hi Ed, I think this is a very good and important series of posts. I was actually just reading the 4th part in Google reader and was about to quote you and link the post on my blog, when I realized the URL wasn't working and the post was gone. Don't know if it's broken or if you're editing, but I hope you'll go ahead with that post, as I believe it provides some important clarification to the issue of contextualization and engaging culture.
God bless,
Brian
Brian,
It's coming... just forgot about my commitment to do an interview with Kerry.
Expect it tomorrow. It's already done-- just waiting to be published.
Ed
Joshua - you might find these stories interesting:
http://charismamag.com/index.php/features2/395-unsung-heroes/8847-jesus-with-an-iced-latte
http://www.cmaresources.org/article/discipleship-movement_an-army-of-ordinary-people
http://www.cmaresources.org/article/sharing-the-truth-in-a-postmodern-context
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2008/fall/11.34.html
Thanks, David. Those were good articles.