Here’s a post by Gordon Cheng that suggests that Paul’s address to the Athenians in Acts 17 doesn’t really advocate contextualization (be sure to read the comments). What do you think?
As for me, you’ll know if you read this blog that I’m a bit more in the contextualization camp – but in terms of defending my position exegetically (defend from scripture – sorry for the jargon) I need to give it a bit more thought.
Alright peeps – your turn (and remember no essay length comments!)…
hello! i luv your site, and I’m glad to meet another Christian blogger! stop by mine @ http://scripture4u.wordpress.com
Keep in the Faith!!
-neogotchi
Hi Stephen.
I read the exposition of Gordon Cheng, and he has some good points. I am not quite sure on what side I am on this issue, for I am not quite what “Contextuallisng” is. Could you offer a definition seeing that you are so involved with using it?
Contextualization is the process which is built upon the understanding that although the word of God is unchanging truth it is still written within a context and not only do we have to investigate that context in order to determine meaning but we also need to investigate our own context(s) in order to faithfully convey the message. Contextualization is the process then by which we adapt elements of the message and the manner in which it is conveyed in order to make it relevant and understandable in a particular contemporary context. Its what most foreign missionaries spend a lot of their time doing.
Thanks.
Can you give an example of which missionaries “adapt elements of the message” and “the manner in which it is conveyed in order to make it relevant”?
Sorry to be picky like this, I don’t want to make you frustrated, just want to see what is meant by these terms.
Also, what do you mean by MAKING the message relevant? Isn’t it relevant already?
When you read the gospels and Jesus makes an illustration – is it always immediately relevant to you personally as it stands? Or do you need to identify the truth which the illustration is presenting and ‘contextualize’ its meaning for yourself. Let’s use an example that is both relevant to you and me just as it probably would have been to a first century reader. Jesus often uses the shepherd picture to illustrate his care for his followers – now we both get the meaning because we know what shepherds are and how they function. However what if you tried to explain John 10 to an inner-city kid from New York who has absolutely no concept of what a rural shepherd is?
So in order to convey the meaning and make it relevant (which is really another way for saying: make it understandable in categories familiar to the reciever) you need to contextualize the metaphor of a shepherd into something more understandable for the kid. Obviously there are many different degrees to how far the contextualization should go – and that’s really where the debate lies. I think whether people like it or not they all, in some measure, contextualize the biblical message. Its more the parameters of the contextualization that are the issue.
Tim Keller has two helpful talks on contextualization you can download them here and here.
Thanks Stephen.
I will look at those talks when I get the time, but there are 2 more questions I want to ask.
1. What are the dangers of contextualising?
2. Are there any boundaries to avoid error? i.e. are there rules to be used in contextualising a passage so as to keep the message the same?
Obviously one can over-contextualize the message to the point that in an attempt to be relevant it has ceased to be true. If there were a clear set of rules then there wouldn’t be debate – hence the current situation. One person considers their message to be true and well contextualized whilst the next person looks at that and says they’re selling out the gospel – its very tricky.
Sometimes the phrase Cultural Relevance is also used.
With regard to the other dudes blog, I think he assumes quite a few things into Paul’s tone and motive (though only as many assumptions as those who use it to promote contextualisation I’m sure) and honestly i just don’t know that there is a spot on 100% biblical basis for being culturally relevant.
But at the same time I think most of us would agree that the need for contextualisation is huge, and i would argue that everyone who is trying to be an effective Christian has to dabble in it.
I mean where is the biblical basis for the use of technology or media in the church? how about dealing with ADD or OCD or conditions like that? Heck can we biblically justify speaking english or using hymn books or having stained glass windows or a click track in our services?
They were all cultural decisions made carefully to help churches be effective at telling the Good News. and unless we can find biblical reasons not to use certain methods, then I am all for being Culturally Relevant, while remaining doctrinally sound.
For me that Acts passage with Paul and the Stoics was always about finding a scripture to back up an obvious need… in other words for me it was identifying a need for contextualisation and then finding a scripture that seems to fit it, rather than that being the obvious 1st thing you get from reading the passage.
Leonard Sweet says the only way for Jesus to be the same yesterday, today and forever, is for the church to make sure our message and methods are fresh and alive. I would tend to agree.
also while I’m feeling nice and agitated (not really
) i would argue that to paint a picture of the Kingdom of Heaven, The idea of T’shuva, The glory of repentance, The end of Injustice and the redemption of creation, all takes getting inside the framework, thought patterns and behaviors/trends of whatever culture you find yourself placed in. To get the ‘Love’ and heart behind the factual truth takes effort…
Whereas i would argue that simply telling someone they are going to hell unless they believe in Jesus needs little to no understanding of culture.
Yet Paul does also do hit and run evangelistic campaigns in some of the towns he visits in Acts where he has little time to get ‘inside the framework, thought patterns and behaviors/trends’ of the cultures he comes upon. Now based upon his letters I’m presuming that at times he called people to repent and believe in order that they might not face the coming wrath. Paul didn’t always have the luxury of being able to contextualize and neither will we – does that prohibit us from calling sinners to repentance? I think not.
For sure, though i do believe God raises up Christians in every culture so that ”all of them heard in their own language”
That being said I do think we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope which we profess. and at the same time i want to face God one day and be able to say with all sincerity that I gave the people He put in my path a sincere and full opportunity to respond to the Good News, as opposed to merely stating some the facts.
Honestly I think we’re on the same page with this one
I saw this open forum a while ago and didn’t think I had time to do a full-on exegetical defence of contextualisation. ( I see no-one else has risen to the challenge either.) I guess Paul’s actions in circumcising Timothy for the sake of the Jews in the area (Acts 3:16) and his willingness to “become all things to all men” (1 Cor 9:20-23) would make for a reasonable defence. When Jesus speaks to the people using stories, illustrations etc. that they identify with and can therefore understand, I’d say that contextualisation is implicit. Recently I read a passage where contextualisation seems to be explicit. See Matt 17:24-27, where Jesus tells Peter to go and catch a fish and take the coin in its mouth to pay the temple tax “so that we may not offend them”. If contextualisation is about gaining a hearing for the message by adapting oneself to the norms and expectations of the culture – wherever they are not opposed to Scripture – then Jesus set the example. I suppose that doesn’t address the contextualisation of the actual message… but the message always comes through a messenger so contextualisation affects both.