Contextualization and Consistency
I've been doing some reading, writing and thinking these days about contextualization. I've also been carefully re-reading a number of NT books including One and Two Corinthians. Anyway, people frequently appeal to Corinthians, particularly (ICor 9:19-22) to demonstrate that Paul the former Pharisee turned Apostle to the Gentiles was himself a contextualizer, willing to become all things to all men. Indeed he was, if by contextualizer we mean one who labored to communicate clearly the gospel to people raised in a different culture. But maybe Paul's contextualization invites further scrutiny.
Contextualization is primarily about communication, and we communicate not only with words but also in many other ways. The more I look at Paul's life, the more I see that not just his words, but his life choices also communicated something very clearly about the gospel and how servants and stewards of the gospel ought to adjust their lives so that their lives (and words) do not create unnecessary barriers to the clear communication of the gospel. Paul contextualized for sure, but the gospel was always the controlling reality not the "target" culture, audience or recipients. For Paul, the Apostolic life was one of nearly constant self-denial, suffering, difficulty and one which appeared extraordinarily foolish to every unregenerate person in every cultural context he encountered. He characterized his team's life and ministry this way: we're like trash, garbage, the offscouring of the world! I Corinthians 4:13. Interesting contextualizer, this Paul!
All pioneer church planters (and all gospel ministers) are first of all stewards of the gospel and servants of Christ. Only secondarily are they contextualizers of that gospel. That is why in Corinth and in writing to the Corinthians, Paul emphasizes how DIFFERENT was his life and his communication from that which was popular and acceptable in Corinthian culture. He seems to have chosen work as a manual laborer in a culture that esteemed "white collar workers." Interesting! He seems to have rejected the preferred patterns of religious discourse in Corinth. Hmmm.... As a steward of the gospel and a servant of Jesus Christ, his hands and tongue were in some sense tied and he was not free to live in certain ways. He refused to use certain techniques or communicate in certain styles-- styles that might have been more appealing in that Corinthian context. The best Paul could ever aim for was to be an acceptable outsider, and even then usually he was not accepted.
So, when he says he became "all things to all people", we know that this didn't mean that he contextualized in order to win acceptance of his message, or to fit into the culture, or to be the hippest Apostle or the celebrity communicator in Corinth. No, Paul's contextualization was limited in purpose. The purpose was clear communication through a life consistent in word and way of living, living and speaking in a way consistent with the gospel (2Cor. 4:1-12) So, if by contextualizer we have in mind someone who tried to fit like an insider into the local Corinthian culture, to talk just like the Corinthians, to adopt the communication techniques that would be most appealing to the Corinthian context, then I'm afraid Paul was not a contextualizer. If by contextualizer, we mean someone willing to make hard choices about how to live and communicate so that the gospel is clearly understood and not confused, then that is Paul the gospel contextualizer.
Paul was very careful both about what his words and his life communicated. Indeed, Paul consistently appeals to the consistency between his life and his words, his message and his manner. He understood that his lifeway (life choices) could confuse or cast doubt on the gospel truths he claimed to believe. He urges others to follow his example as a contextualizer whose life and words communicate clearly the same gospel to God's glory. This means that the NT must also include some guidance about ways of living and communicating (contextualizing?)that are not consistent with the gospel message we seek to communicate. It might be fun to list those next time, particularly if you get the list started in the comments sections below....
Comments | RSS Subscribe
While Paul did not contextualize in the ways that many today do, would you say that it is necessarily wrong to do so? More specifically, if the Gospel message is not being sacrificed for the acceptance and popularity of the culture, would you say it is all right to contextualize aspects of a ministry to a particular culture or people group?
Thanks for the great article and for giving your thoughts on the topic.
Tyler, great questions. Let me try to respond. First, we are all contextualizing all the time. Charles R. Taber gives this definition: "Contextualization is the effort to understand and take seriously the specific context of each human group and person on its own terms and in all its dimensions-cultural, religious, social, political, economic and to discern what the Gospel says to people in that context". It involves discovering in the Scripture what God is saying to these people". I think he means also to include the communication of what God is saying to a people. We could offer another definition, but this one works OK.
So, I think we all HAVE to consider the context in which we are trying to communicate the gospel with our words and deeds and we make adjustments based upon that context, even if it's as simple as speaking a mutually intelligible language. Usually it involves a great deal more than language, though.
To do this well, I would think we need first to recognize Jesus as Lord over our lives and our cultural background and context. He has the authority to correct or accept, to refine and to adjust everything about us, including our cultural preferences and habits and especially the way that we communicate with words. So, of course He should also be Lord over our contextualizing.
Customs and cultures (ours or others!) are not necessarily neutral. They must be evaluated in light of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life. We need to know the Scriptures well and the culture well, but the Bible has authority to judge every idea, custom, practice or idea. Creation means that God is at works through cultures. But sin has made a mess of every culture.The Bible and the gospel of Jesus Christ are the grids through which we filter all our contextualizing efforts.(2 Timothy 3:16)
So, I would say to the extent that a person recognizes Jesus Lordship over all aspects of culture and prayerfully and intentionally filters culture and ministry decisions thru the Word, then they could be contextualizing well. But this does require godly discernment and study of cultures and some are better at it than others. Of course it would depend upon their hermeneutic as well; if we don't understand the Scriptures rightly, then they can't serve as a proper grid or filter under Christ's Lordship.
I don't have anyone in mind as I write this but for what it's worth...Those who are uncritical and not terribly discerning when it comes to evaluating cultures and contexts in light of Scriptural teaching, doctrines or principles will tend to do contextualization poorly. So would those who don't know the whole Bible well and who don't work hard at applying biblical truth to new situations. So, also would those who think that we don't need to contextualize or make any effort to bend our ways in order to communicate the gospel well, as if one culture was suitable for all people in all situations. And of course those who afford to culture the authority that belongs alone to Christ and His Word will not do it well.
Culture is an interesting animal, domesticated and yet wildly dangerous at the same time.
William Larkin says this "Christians, because they desire to evangelize all people and because their basic identity now is in Christ, can encounter almost any culture, participate in it, and seek to identify with persons in it (1 Cor. 9:9-22). . . . Also like Paul, Christians today will be at pains to be sure that their identity in Christ is in authoritative control of their cultural relationships. They may seek to identify, for instance, with those outside the law, but in such a way that they will always show themselves to be “under Christ's law” (1Cor. 9:21). " God in creation and salvation relates positively to cultures. He can include renovated cultural borrowing as part of his revelation. He calls men and women to live out their new life in Christ in their given culture, though they are no longer of it. God relates negatively to human cultures by judging both the ethnocentrism they foster and the religious power center which energizes them. He calls his people to replace the false religious center with Jesus as Lord and to live as God's model culture, the church, in the midst of their culture."
So, yes, it's right and necessary to contextualize to a particular culture if we do it critically or reflectively under Jesus Lordship and if we expect Christ to correct and judge aspects of that particular culture as well as use aspects of the culture to glorify Himself. But at the end of the day, we're still sinners and we won't get it right all the time.
Thanks for the response. I really appreciate the effort you put forth to explain how we can be discerning in this process. I agree wholeheartedly with you when it comes to filtering culture (both ours and others) thru the lens of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ. Thanks again and God bless!
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made while writing this post. I am hoping for the best work of the same from you in future;
bakeca milano
Thanks for this read mate. Well, this is my first visit to your blog! But I admire the precious time and effort you put into it, especially into interesting articles you share here!
annunci personali.
I am also currently interested in contextualization.
I do believe contextualization depends on each culture and people group. Specifically, how does contextualization get played out in the world urban cities where culture is more alike than different?
Among my questions, how much of Christian history are we giving up in relation to contextualization in a culture? For example, NT is difficult to understand without the OT. For modern Christians, is it realistic to only give them the Bible for their spiritual growth or is it best to also give them some of the last 2K years of Christian history. St. Augustine's theology has stood the test of time but many other great Christian thinkers have come beyond him and also, he was just an amazing thinker. What danger is there to give those growing Christians who are just as educated and cultured as we are the same access to Christian history that we find profoundly deepening in our relationship with God and our understanding of scripture? Do we believe that they are not capable of deciding for themselves with the HS what is edifying to their own Christian walk? Do we deny them the tools they need to fight against modern worldviews or religions that seek to find inroads in their Christian walks?
Thanks, to shearing this nice information, I really appreciate your thinking, & i will visit again for getting more updates.
Lenovo Laptop | buy Blade Server
Thanks, to shearing this nice information, I really appreciate your thinking, & i will visit again for getting more updates.
Lenovo Laptop | buy Blade Server
Post new comment