Best Arguments For/Against Contextualization of the Gospel

[powersforgood]

I will soon be relocating overseas, again, to teach English. I have previously worked in a country where there was a significant Christian population, but this time I will be working in a country with a very small Christian population (>5% of the population). While I do not believe the culture is openly hostile to the Christian faith, I am also concerned with being a faithful believe in that context. As such, I have started reading some works on missiology, and the concept of contextualization of the Gospel has come up.

I am somewhat concerned about the idea, but at the same time recognize that it could well be a valid approach. I would like to find some of the strongest arguments in favor of and against contextualization.

 

[TheNorwegian]

On top of my mind:

• Bible translations: The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. But that does not make senes for most English speakers. Therefore it has been translated in order to communicate the Gospel to English-only speakers. When translating you do not copy word by word, but use contextualized ways of communicating the meaning of the original languages
• Incarnation: Jesus was not born as a generic human being, but was born as a Jewish boy into a Jewish family, learning Jewish customs, Jewish songs, etc. God still works by the principle of incarnation. Today the church is the Body of Christ with the call to make disciples of all nations and incarnate some of the virtues of God (love, justice, grace ...)
• You already have a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. Churches in the US do things different than churches in Europe or Africa. This does not mean that the US "way of doing church" is better or worse than European churches - they are just different. If you are not aware of your own cultural contextualisation, you will subconsciously bring that very culture to another culture. This will not help in reaching people for Christ or disciple them

 

[JIMINZ]

I will soon be relocating overseas, again, to teach English. I have previously worked in a country where there was a significant Christian population, but this time I will be working in a country with a very small Christian population (>5% of the population). While I do not believe the culture is openly hostile to the Christian faith, I am also concerned with being a faithful believe in that context. As such, I have started reading some works on missiology, and the concept of contextualization of the Gospel has come up.

I am somewhat concerned about the idea, but at the same time recognize that it could well be a valid approach. I would like to find some of the strongest arguments in favor of and against contextualization.

.
The best advice I could give would be, don't pick up unneeded baggage.

1Co. 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1Co. 2:6
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
1Co. 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

The Gospel message is a simple one, don't complicate it, don't begin to rely on the wisdom of the world.
With all of the different disciplines required in Missiology, you will end up trying to accomplish something in your own power, rather than allowing the Power of God to move upon the heats of the people you will come in contact with, it becomes contrived, planned.

The Apostles were told, when they came to a village where people would not listen, they were to move on.

There will be people who will listen, and there will be people who will not, it isn't up to you, God will do the drawing of men to Himself.

John 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Remember what Paul said when he came into Athens, and went to Mars Hill

Act 17:23
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Paul took what presented itself to him and allowed God to move within him, filling his mouth through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Keeping what you say within Context,

Jas. 3:17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

 

[Tolworth John]

What did your course about living in a different culture teach you? ditto about explaining the gospel to a foriegn culture?

If you haven't under gone missionary training, do you already know of a Christian church in the town you are going to?
If there isn't an english speaking church or one in a language you are fluent in, is there a missionary couple in that town?
If the answer to these question is No, why are you going?
How will you cope with the isolation of being the only Christian in town?
Who is providing you with spiritual support?

As a teacher of 'English as a foriegn language' your job is to teach English.
One of the tools you can use is a good modern translation of the bible as a means of understanding English, you are not there to lecture on Christianity or deliver sermons.
Answer questions on the bible and about Christianity, again your need of theological training from a missionary course is showing.

 

[TheNorwegian]

With all of the different disciplines required in Missiology, you will end up trying to accomplish something in your own power, rather than allowing the Power of God to move upon the heats of the people you will come in contact with, it becomes contrived, planned.

With due respect: This is not very good advice. It is like saying that he can not learn anything from those who have been missionaries before him. A good course in Missiology would bring experience and wisdom from people who have extensive experience. I believe we should learn from people like that. Of course, there are also some bad/les good courses in Missiology, and he should avoid those

 

[powersforgood]

Bible translations: The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. But that does not make senes for most English speakers. Therefore it has been translated in order to communicate the Gospel to English-only speakers. When translating you do not copy word by word, but use contextualized ways of communicating the meaning of the original languages

There might be some push back against this idea. Should the Bible really be translated? (Obviously, I agree it should.) I am also reminded of how some faith traditions (e.g., Islam) consider only the "original" text to be the sacred text and not traditions. (Of course, what other faiths believe don't necessarily apply.)

I think a stronger form of this argument would be an appeal to the use of OT texts in the NT. Perhaps even appeals to the Septuagint might be stronger as well.

Incarnation: Jesus was not born as a generic human being, but was born as a Jewish boy into a Jewish family, learning Jewish customs, Jewish songs, etc. God still works by the principle of incarnation. Today the church is the Body of Christ with the call to make disciples of all nations and incarnate some of the virtues of God (love, justice, grace ...)

I will need to think through this one some more.

You already have a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. Churches in the US do things different than churches in Europe or Africa. This does not mean that the US "way of doing church" is better or worse than European churches - they are just different. If you are not aware of your own cultural contextualisation, you will subconsciously bring that very culture to another culture. This will not help in reaching people for Christ or disciple them

Absolutely agree that we already have a contextualized understanding. There is a slight push back for me against this idea wondering if that's appropriate though. Should we really have a contextualized understanding? Or, as a counter to my own thought, perhaps it's impossible to escape contextualization.

I guess the strongest challenge to this, in my mind and at this stage, would be an acceptance that it is this way but questioning if it should be this way.

Thanks for this. I'll have to play around with these ideas and see if I can find fuller arguments developed in the literature.

 

[powersforgood]

again your need of theological training from a missionary course is showing.

Yes and no. My purpose in making the post is an attempt to open new avenues of potential inquiry into the concept of contextualization. Both those who are theologically trained and those who aren't might have unique ideas or ways of putting something that can open up a new path for my own thought.

With regard to me, I already have a degree in Bible and Theology. My coursework included some training in missions from a particular denominational perspective, but it covered mostly the work and agencies of the denomination rather than a deep dive into missiology. However, my training also recognized that they couldn't teach me everything, so they provided me with the tools to fill those voids. As noted, that's one of the key reasons for my post.

Further, I already have several years of experience in living and working in a cross-cultural context and doing so as an English teacher. Thus, this is not entirely new ground for me. Rather, I am looking to take more proactive, as opposed to reactive, approach in the application and integration of my faith.

To this end, I am already engaged in reading and other conversations. I was merely supplementing those with additional interaction with a broader Christian community.

If you're curious, I am reading the following at the moment:

• Snow, D. English Teaching as Christian Mission: An Applied Theology. (Actually, re-reading.)
• Mayers, M. Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Crosscultural Evangelism.
• Glenny, W. & Smallman, W. Missions in a New Millennium: Change and Challenges in World Missions.

 

[JIMINZ]

What you say here , makes my point.

If you're curious, I am reading the following at the moment:

• Snow, D. English Teaching as Christian Mission: An Applied Theology. (Actually, re-reading.)
• Mayers, M. Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Crosscultural Evangelism.
• Glenny, W. & Smallman, W. Missions in a New Millennium: Change and Challenges in World Missions.

Just imagine how much more effective Paul would have been, if he too had access to these publication?

 

[powersforgood]

What you say here , makes my point.

I am not sure I follow.

I certainly agree with your point to avoid overcomplicating the matter. I also agree that we shouldn't allow ourselves, via overcomplicating the matter, to get in the way of God's ability to work through us in spite of our limitations.

However, it seems that the implication is that reading these works is overcomplicating the matter. That's an opinion I would not share.

Perhaps I've misread? If so, feel free to correct my understanding.

Just imagine how much more effective Paul would have been, if he too had access to these publication?

This question seems rhetorical, but it seems unclear what the answer is intended to be.

 

[JIMINZ]

I am not sure I follow.

I certainly agree with your point to avoid overcomplicating the matter. I also agree that we shouldn't allow ourselves, via overcomplicating the matter, to get in the way of God's ability to work through us in spite of our limitations.

However, it seems that the implication is that reading these works is overcomplicating the matter. That's an opinion I would not share.

Perhaps I've misread? If so, feel free to correct my understanding.


This question seems rhetorical, but it seems unclear what the answer is intended to be.

.
Clarification.

You already know what the Gospel message is, anything that we might do to present this message beforehand is in effect, an overcomplicating, a contriving, a predetermining the presentation, it is at this point we in manage to place ourselves directly in the path of what God wants to accomplish.

God leads us on the path which He has determined we should follow, He therefore is the only one who opens and shuts the doors.

Very simply put, God wants the Glory, therefore let Him move in your life and the Ministry you wish to accomplish, remember, you are the servant.

It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord, for the disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

It was in fact a rhetorical statement, without any other books Paul
did pretty good.

 

[powersforgood]

You already know what the Gospel message is, anything that we might do to present this message beforehand is in effect, an overcomplicating, a contriving, a predetermining the presentation, it is at this point we in manage to place ourselves directly in the path of what God wants to accomplish.

As stated, this has practical and theological consequences which are counterintuitive and unbiblical. For example, does a monolingual English-speaker from the U.S. moving to work in Mexico learn Spanish? If we apply your statements as written, then the answer would be no because we're complicating the work of God. Does the believer do anything at all? Again, as written, the answer would be no. In fact, it would be a direct violation of the Great Commission.

I suspect it's simple imprecision in your language, but as written this is not something I would accept.

However, given that we agree one should not overcomplicate matters, what then are valid and invalid actions for the believer to take? How do we know when we're overcomplicating things?

Should one learn the language? Sure. I think we can both agree that's good and practical. Should one learn the culture? Sure. I think it's important to understand why some Black Americans might be unreceptive to the Gospel (i.e., "white man's religion").

Thus, I don't think being active and doing something is necessarily complicating matters. So, the question becomes: What are the hallmarks or attributes that we can use to identify actions which are complicating or would complicate matters?

 

[JIMINZ]

As stated, this has practical and theological consequences which are counterintuitive and unbiblical. For example, does a monolingual English-speaker from the U.S. moving to work in Mexico learn Spanish? If we apply your statements as written, then the answer would be no because we're complicating the work of God. Does the believer do anything at all? Again, as written, the answer would be no. In fact, it would be a direct violation of the Great Commission.

I suspect it's simple imprecision in your language, but as written this is not something I would accept.

However, given that we agree one should not overcomplicate matters, what then are valid and invalid actions for the believer to take? How do we know when we're overcomplicating things?

Should one learn the language? Sure. I think we can both agree that's good and practical. Should one learn the culture? Sure. I think it's important to understand why some Black Americans might be unreceptive to the Gospel (i.e., "white man's religion").

Thus, I don't think being active and doing something is necessarily complicating matters. So, the question becomes: What are the hallmarks or attributes that we can use to identify actions which are complicating or would complicate matters?

.
The only thing I could say is, The things you need to do or feel you need to do in order for you to fulfill your obligations of teaching and living within another Country, those are the things you should do, but you were asking questions which were of a Spiritual nature, I answered as such.

My answers were, don't fill up yourself with more of mans knowledge, on Who, What, When, Where, and Why, on the accomplishing of your Spiritual Mission, when the time comes, God will give you the "How" to administer His Word.

 

[TheNorwegian]

Absolutely agree that we already have a contextualized understanding. There is a slight push back for me against this idea wondering if that's appropriate though. Should we really have a contextualized understanding? Or, as a counter to my own thought, perhaps it's impossible to escape contextualization.

I do not see how we cannot have a contextualized understanding. Even the fact that we are now communicating in English is a contextualization. According to Revelation there seems to be a lot of different languages in Heaven (Rev 7:9). God loves diversity, including cultural diversity. The Apostle Paul embraced cultural diversity: I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. (1Co 9:20-22 - read it in context). Paul's great gift in contextualization is part of what brought him a lot of problems - it was not only his message that was provocative, but how and where he communicated it.

I believe it is vital to understand your own contextualized background as well as the context where you want to reach people. Knowing your own cultural "baggage" will help you avoid cultural imperialism. Understanding the context you are working, will help you find ways to communicate the message in a way that the hearers will understand.

I have worked in cross-cultural mission for several years now, and I have seen countless examples of missionaries and mission teams make mistakes because they do not understand the context they work in. Sometimes this leads to less fruit than they could have - and in some cases it has been counter-productive, creating problems for indigenous Christians and hindering the spread of the Gospel.

 

[Tolworth John]

Yes and no. My purpose in making the post is an attempt to open new avenues of potential inquiry into the concept of contextualization. Both those who are theologically trained and those who aren't might have unique ideas or ways of putting something that can open up a new path for my own thought.

With regard to me, I already have a degree in Bible and Theology. My coursework included some training in missions from a particular denominational perspective, but it covered mostly the work and agencies of the denomination rather than a deep dive into missiology. However, my training also recognized that they couldn't teach me everything, so they provided me with the tools to fill those voids. As noted, that's one of the key reasons for my post.

Further, I already have several years of experience in living and working in a cross-cultural context and doing so as an English teacher. Thus, this is not entirely new ground for me. Rather, I am looking to take more proactive, as opposed to reactive, approach in the application and integration of my faith.

To this end, I am already engaged in reading and other conversations. I was merely supplementing those with additional interaction with a broader Christian community.

If you're curious, I am reading the following at the moment:

• Snow, D. English Teaching as Christian Mission: An Applied Theology. (Actually, re-reading.)
• Mayers, M. Christianity Confronts Culture: A Strategy for Crosscultural Evangelism.
• Glenny, W. & Smallman, W. Missions in a New Millennium: Change and Challenges in World Missions.

That puts me in my place
Good that you have and are preparing yourself for service abroad.
How will your church here support you?