Contextualization: Theological and Cultural Issues in Evangelical ModelsBy Gary J. Ridley, DMiss, SEND U Missiologist

INTRODUCTION:

Contextualization has been a missiological discussion since the middle of 1970s. There are numerous books and articles discussing the contours of contextualization. Early definitions of contextualization saw it as a cross-cultural communication process but recently an emphasis on living out the faith is being added as seen in Moreau’s latest book on contextualization:

In short, contextualization can be described as “the process whereby Christians adapt the forms, content, and praxis of the Christian faith so as to communicate it to the minds and hearts of people with other cultural backgrounds. The goal is to make the Christian faith as a whole – not only the message but also the means of living out of our faith in the local setting – understandable.” 1

Contextualization is not just an issue in cross-cultural settings. As Kevin Vanhoozer points out, “Theology is always contextual.”2 Contextualization begins at the point of interpretation in all cultures. Jackson Wu writes, “Contextualization cannot be defined merely in terms of communication or application. I suggest that contextualization refers to the process wherein people interpret, communicate, and apply the Bible within a particular cultural context.”3 Whenever we are engaged in theology (interpreting, communicating, and applying the Bible) we are engaged in contextualization. Whether we are aware of it or not we are doing contextualization not just on the “mission field” but wherever we interpret, communicate, and apply the Bible. This is always done in a context.

Although contextualization is a factor in all theologizing in every culture, it remains a focal point in cross-cultural ministry. As David K. Clark points out:

Initially, for pragmatic reasons, as the gospel enters a new culture, cross-cultural communicators must take the lead in contextualizing the message. In the end, however, contextualization places responsibility for theologizing – for interpreting and applying Scripture to particular contexts – in the hands of the church of those particular cultures. So I say that contextualization is more than decoding and encoding transcultural truth. It is more than artful communication. It is actually doing theology in the new context. It is not just communicating theology as conceptualized in the thought forms of a contemporary missionary-sending culture in the linguistic dress of a

1 A. Scott Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012, 36 (italics original).2 Kevin Vanhoozer, “’One Rule to Rule Them All?’ Theological Method in an Era of World Christianity.” In Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity, ed. Craig Ott and Harold Netland, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, 107.3 Jackson Wu, One Gospel For All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization, Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2015, 8.

1

receptor culture. Contextualized theology happens best when each people group takes responsibility for “self-theologizing.”4

Cross-cultural missionaries must engage in contextualization if the gospel is ever to be understood and embraced in a new culture. Furthermore in the discipleship process they must assist growing believers to learn how to “do theology” in their culture. This is neither automatic nor simple. The goal of contextualization is that the church in any given context expresses and practices biblical truth in ways that neither distort that truth nor render it unintelligible within that culture. Or as Craig Ott has written, “…the goal of contextualization remains the same, namely faithful communication of, reflection upon, and living out the Christian faith in ways appropriate to specific contexts.”5

The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe the crucial theological and cultural issues in contextualization to guide the thinking and practice of SEND International members. The author does not presume to speak for all SEND missionaries and recognizes that there will be differences of opinion on some of the details.

We will proceed by exploring theological issues and then the cultural issues in contextualization. For as Scott Moreau has written, “Contextualization is at the ‘mixing point’ of gospel and culture.”6 It is important that contextualization keep these ingredients in their proper place. Gospel and culture are not equal contributors to the process. If we simply mix the gospel and culture, then syncretism will result and we will have another gospel. The gospel as revealed in the Bible must be the controlling ingredient. The unique and authoritative revelation of God in the Christian Scripture is the starting point of evangelical contextualization. So first we identify the theological issues in contextualization which must define the mixture. The cultural issues are the forms in which the truth of revelation is expressed. After articulating the theological and cultural issues we will bring them together with guidelines for synthesis and practice.

THEOLOGICAL ISSUES:

1. Revelation.

If Jackson Wu is right when he says “Contextualization fundamentally begins when we interpret the Bible”7, and I believe he is, then it is essential that we understand what the Bible is. SEND International’s statement of faith begins, “We believe in the plenary and verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible as originally given; that it is the only infallible Word of God, and the supreme and final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.” Contextualization is a matter of faith and practice so it follows that SEND holds that the Bible is the supreme and final authority in contextualization.

Foundational to this commitment to the authority of the Bible is the belief in a personal God who is a speaking God who has voluntarily revealed himself. D. A. Carson writes:

The point to emphasize is that a genuinely Christian understanding of the Bible presupposes the God of the Bible, a God who makes himself known in a wide diversity of ways so that human beings may know the purpose for which they were made – to know and love and worship God, and so delight in that relationship that God is glorified while they receive the matchless benefit

4 David K. Clark, To Know and Love God: Method For Theology, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003, 113.5 Craig Ott, “Globalization and Contextualization: Reframing the Task of Contextualization in the Twenty-first Century”, Missiology: An International Review, 2015, Vol. 43(1), 43, 44.6 Moreau, 2012, p 19.7 Wu, xxii.

2

of becoming all that God wants them to be. Any genuine knowledge human beings have of God depends on God’s first disclosing himself.8

God has taken the initiative in revealing himself. The Bible is not a record of “enlightened ones” but the self-disclosure of the true God who created all that is. Evangelical theology has kept a distinction between the Holy Spirit’s work in inspiration and his work in illumination. Inspiration occurred at the point of writing as the writers were “carried along” (2 Peter 1:21). The Holy Spirit illumines the reader enabling them to understand and obey the Bible. The twelfth thesis in Carl F. H. Henry’s God, Revelation, and Authority states, “The Holy Spirit superintends the communication of divine revelation, first as the inspirer and then as the illuminator and interpreter of the scripturally given Word of God.”9 He writes, “…the Bible emphasizes the once-for-all nature of special revelation and inspiration as occurrences of restricted divine initiative, and on this basis establishes the unique position and authority of the prophets and apostles.”10 As to the Spirit’s work of illumination, Henry writes, “In short, the Spirit’s ‘revelation … to us’ moderns does not signal a contemporary impartation of new and original revelation, but rather the Spirit’s enlivening to us individually of the objectively given special biblical revelation or of general revelation already present in nature and conscience.”11 and “The Spirit illumines the truth, not by unveiling some hidden inner mystical content behind the revelation …, but by focusing on the truth of revelation as it is. The Spirit illumines and interprets by repeating the grammatical sense of Scripture; in doing so he in no way alters or expands the truth of revelation.”12 The work of the Spirit in illumination is never at odds with his work inspiring the Scripture. Revelation occurs at the point of writing and does not continue as the text is read.

The Bible is uniquely God’s special revelation. God does reveal himself through creation and human conscience but this is limited. Romans 1:19, 20 assert “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. …” (ESV). Subsequent verses point out that mankind has rejected and distorted the knowledge of God that comes through general revelation. There is no special revelation outside of the Christian Scriptures. While there are truths expressed in the writings of non-Christian religions, these are not evidence of special revelation but are reflections of general revelation or as in the case of the Koran reflect contact with stories from the Bible. These truths serve as points of contact rather than common ground. “Evangelicals value both special and general revelation. Of the two, however, we assign to special revelation a normative role in determining religious truth.”13 Contextualization that is Evangelical proceeds from a commitment to the unique special revelation status of the Bible. Harold Netland writes:

The doctrines of creation and revelation have significant implications for how we think of religious others. For example, given God’s general revelation and the fact that all people bear the divine image, we should not be surprised to find elements of truth and value in other religions. There is no reason to maintain that everything taught by non-Christian religions is false or that there is nothing of value in them. … We can think of the religions as displaying, in varying degrees, a rudimentary awareness of God’s reality through creation and general revelation. This is not to suggest that God directly revealed himself to, say, Buddha or Mohammad, or that the sacred scriptures of the non-Christian religions are divinely inspired. Not at all. But it is to

8 D.A. Carson, “Approaching the Bible,” in Collected Writings on Scripture, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010, 21.9 Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol. IV, Waco, TX: Word Books, 1979, 129.10 Ibid. 154.11 Ibid. 275.12 Ibid. 283.13 Moreau, 68.

3

acknowledge that the founding figures of other religious traditions, as human beings created in God’s image and recipients of general revelation, had varying degrees of understanding of God’s reality that is reflected in their teaching and practices. But such understanding is partial and often distorted.14

If we view the teachings and writings of non-Christian religions as special revelation, we are practicing syncretism. Special revelation is a category limited to the Christian Scriptures.

Contextualization that is authentically evangelical begins with a commitment that God has created all there is and has spoken and that the Bible accurately communicates to us that we may know and love him. All of Scripture makes us “wise for salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15) and supplies us with “all things pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3).

2. Man’s ability to understand truth, the nature of language, and communication theory.

Carl F. H. Henry writes:

Revelation in the Bible is essentially a mental conception: God’s disclosure is rational and intelligible communication. Issuing from the mind and will of God, revelation is addressed to the mind and will of human beings. As such it involves primarily an activity of consciousness that enlists the thoughts and bears on the beliefs and actions of its recipients.15

Scripture as ‘intelligible communication’ from God to mankind presupposes that it is understandable. Man’s ability to understand what God has said stems from being created in God’s image. A theistic worldview best explains the possibility of knowledge. God has created all there is, including man’s mind. He has organized man’s mind to think logically and given us language to be able to communicate our thoughts and come to know and understand reality. God is the first to use language in creation and communicates with the first man and woman. The God of the Bible is a speaking God who creates mankind with the gift of language to communicate with him and with other humans.

Henry writes:

… the biblical revelation has noteworthy implications for the purpose and nature of language. God’s creation of humankind for personal fellowship with him influences a general theory of the origin of language and its uses and capacities. … God has endowed humankind, as the crown of his creation, with a rationally structured basis of interpersonal communication that enables humans to convey and validate truth claims about God himself and about created reality.16

He further identifies several implications of this biblical view of language:

Language has a cognitive function; it is serviceable as a means of God’s revelation to man and of man’s communion with God; it can and does convey an informed interpretation of divine reality; it is an instrument for expressing God’s disclosure of his nature and will; intellectual and moral maturity requires familiarity with scripturally given propositions.17

God’s word does not reveal everything for we are finite and sinful and are not capable of exhaustive understanding. But we can understand what God has revealed. Deuteronomy 29:29 states, “The secret

14 Harold A. Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission, Downers Grove: IVP, 2001, 332,33315 Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, Vol. III, 248.16 Ibid. 401.17 Ibid.

4

things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (ESV). The ‘things revealed’ inform our understanding and shape our action.

Scott Moreau notes that there is a contention among evangelical missiologist that he calls “the Evangelical Contextualization Divide.”18 That divide relates to how one views critical realism. Essentially critical realism acknowledges that reality exists and that we can have real though not exhaustive knowledge of it. Hiebert writes:

The semiotic foundation for critical realism is Charles Peirce’s theory of signs. … Peirce argues that signs are triadic. A sign does point to some external reality, and it evokes an image or thought in the mind. In other words, signs liken the objective world outside to our subjectively constructed worlds inside. While different cultures construct different internal maps of reality, all of them must correspond in significant ways to that external world or humans cannot exist. Thus all our knowledge is partial and approximate – reality is much greater than we can grasp. It also means that we can check to see whether our mental maps or models correspond to reality in essential ways … Critical realism affirms a real, objective world and historical facts that transcend cultural constructs of it. It also affirms that knowledge has a subjective dimension to it.19

For those wishing to read more detail about critical realism see note.20

Moreau labels the two sides “correspondence critical realism” and “dynamic critical realism.”21 The former championed by Paul Hiebert, the latter by Charles Kraft. Moreau summarizes the difference:

In summary, both critical realist positions affirm that truth (or REALITY) exists and is beyond complete human understanding. Hiebert, following a traditional evangelical approach, focuses on the content of that reality. Kraft argues that the traditional approach focuses exclusively on static content and in contextualizing we must add a focus on the process of constructing meaning (especially God’s ongoing work of revelation in the people).22

Though Moreau sees these as options within evangelicalism, this writer thinks that ‘dynamic critical realism’ departs from the evangelical view of revelation. It departs by extending revelation as a process that continues when reading Scripture today. It is a failure to distinguish between the Spirit’s work of inspiration and illumination.

‘Dynamic critical realism’ in part stems from a theory of communication that moves meaning from the text or message to the recipient. Certainly the recipient has the final say in what he understands the meaning to be, but that does not mean he controls or determines meaning. There is always the possibility of misunderstanding the meaning of a message (it happens every day in my house). If the recipient determines the meaning, then there is no such thing as misunderstanding. D. A. Carson addresses this issue:

18 Moreau, 316.19 Paul G. Hiebert, Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008, 274.20 Paul Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.21 Moreau, 82.22 Ibid.

5

My point, then, is that in the real world, for all the difficulties there are in communication from person to person and from culture to culture, we still expect people to say more or less what they mean (and if they don’t, we chide them for it), and we expect mature people to understand what others say, and represent it fairly. The understanding is doubtless never absolutely exhaustive and perfect, but that does not mean that the only alternative is to dissociate text from speaker, and then locate all meaning in the reader or hearer. True knowledge of the meaning of a text and even of the thoughts of the author who wrote it is possible, even if perfect and exhaustive knowledge is not. That is the way things work in the real world – and that in turn suggests that any theory that flies in the face of these realities needs to be examined again. 23

Any communication theory that locates meaning in the recipient and not the text as intended by the author diminishes God’s self-revelation.24

3. The priority of biblical theology.

Jackson Wu writes, “Good contextualization seeks to be faithful to Scripture and meaningful to a given culture. It prioritizes biblical theology and interpretation.”25 This priority flows out of our commitment to the Bible as God’s self-disclosure in human language. Carson gives a basic distinction between biblical and systematic theology: “In short, it [biblical theology] is primarily an inductive discipline that tracks the Bible’s story-line. By contrast, systematic theology asks and answers atemporal questions: What is God like? What is a human being? …”26 Systematic theology is contextualization. It addresses questions raised within a cultural context and it needs to be built on biblical theology. Each cultural context will develop its own systematic theology built on a biblical theology. There is a progression from exegesis to biblical theology to contextualized systematic theology. Tracing the story-line of the Bible pays attention to the progressive nature of God’s self-disclosure. The Bible is not a collection of truths from which we choose what we like. It is a comprehensive story of creation, fall, redemption and glorification. We cannot proclaim the New Testament without the Old Testament background. Wu writes:

… we contextualize gospel presentations by being mindful of the implicit narrative that both permeates the entire Bible and presumes the necessity of Israel’s story. This is why biblical theology is so important. The grand biblical story interconnects countless themes in a balanced way such that proper emphasis is given to primary themes.27

Contextualization that is authentically Evangelical starts with a commitment to “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3 ESV) that is grounded in the self-revealing God of the Bible and mankind’s ability, as created in his image, to understand what God has said.

CULTURAL ISSUES

23 D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996, 103.24 To read more on communication theory see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.25 Wu, 8.26 Carson, 1996, 542.27 Wu, 122.

6

1. What is culture?

Culture is "The more or less integrated systems of ideas, feelings, and values and their associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people who organize and regulate what they think, feel and do."28 Cultures are produced by humankind reflecting the group’s ‘ideas, feelings, and values’. Because mankind is made in the image of God, every culture will display goodness. Yet because mankind is fallen every culture will reflect evil and rebellion. D. A. Carson observes:

Christians cannot long think about Christ and culture without reflecting on the fact that this is God’s world, but that this side of the fall this world is simultaneously resplendent with glory and awash in shame, and that every expression of human culture simultaneously discloses that we were made in God’s image and shows itself to be mis-shaped and corroded by human rebellion against God.29

There is no culture that is given by God. In the present world no culture escapes this mixture of good and evil because culture is produced by humans. Truth and goodness in any culture reflect God’s image and general revelation. Culture is not an avenue of special revelation. Even Jewish culture does not avoid this judgment. Every culture will have ‘ideas, feelings, and values’ that have their roots in God’s general revelation and his image, yet even these will be tainted by man’s corruption and rebellion.

The ‘ideas, feelings, and values’ of our culture do not trap us within our own culture. All mankind shares basic humanity as image bearers so, while we have different languages and cultures, we have a lot in common. Culture and language are learned behavior. Learning one language and culture is a door not a roadblock to learning other languages and cultures. That does not mean that it will be easy or even ever complete but it is a quality of humanity.

Culture is constantly changing. My culture differs from my parents’ culture as well as from my children’s culture. So in a sense it is a moving target. Yet there will be some continuity in cultural change. The pace of change accelerates as cultures interact.

2. Worldview.

Worldview is a term that is associated with culture. It is often described as the core of culture. Hiebert writes, “Worldviews are part of cultures. They are the substructures on which cultures are built.”30 As the substructure of a culture, a worldview plays a vital role in the contextualization process. Hiebert explains further:

A worldview is the most fundamental and encompassing view of reality shared by a people in a common culture. It is their mental picture of reality that “makes sense” of the world around them. This worldview is based on foundational assumptions about the nature of reality, the “givens” of life, and clothes these belief systems with an aura of certainty that this is, in fact, the way reality is. To question worldviews is to challenge the very foundations of life, and people resist such challenges with deep emotional reactions. There are few human fears greater than a loss of a sense of order and meaning. People are willing to die for their beliefs if these beliefs make their death meaningful.31

28 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985, 30.29 D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, 49.30 Hiebert, 2008, 80.31 Ibid. 84.

7

A worldview is not the sum of many cultural parts. It is the configuration by which we seek to interpret those parts.32

Contextualization of the gospel is calling for a fundamental change in worldview. The quote from Hiebert demonstrates the seriousness of our task. We are calling people to change their foundational assumptions from the writing and teaching of other religious systems or from a secular mindset. “In short, the good news of Jesus Christ is virtually incoherent unless it is securely set into a biblical worldview.”33 This is serious business for the God of the Bible will not allow compromise. He will not share his glory as creator and redeemer with any rival (Isaiah 44:6-8).

Carson writes about the necessity of a biblical worldview in presenting the gospel:

What I am arguing is that without this kind of structure [the Bible’s plot-line] the gospel will not be rightly heard. The doctrine of Creation establishes the grounds of our responsibility before God: he made us for himself, and it is the essence of our culpable anarchy that we ignore it. The doctrine of the Fall establishes the nature of our dilemma: by nature and choice we are alienated from God, deceived, justly condemned, without hope in the world, unless God himself delivers us. All our ills trail from this profound rebellion. … In a similar way we could work through all the major turning points of redemptive history to establish the framework which alone makes the good news of Jesus Christ coherent.34

Worldviews like culture do change as the basic assumptions are challenged by the experience of life. A culture is not locked in its worldview though it is possible that surface level changes take place and are reinterpreted by the core assumptions. Hiebert notes that, “Worldviews change in two ways: through growth and through radical shifts.”35 Biblical contextualization requires a radical shift.

3. Globalization/Glocalization.

The advances of communication, international commerce and travel have brought the world into more interaction and interdependence. We live in a ‘global village’ where we know almost immediately what is happening on the other side of the world. Almost everyone knows someone who works and travels internationally. Yet “Studies show that despite globalization, local and regional identities play crucial roles in the lives of most people. In response to this, the term glocal has been introduced to refer to the fact that people live locally, but participate to varying degrees in the emerging global networks of goods, services, and information.”36

This interaction between global and local is called hybridization by some. Craig Ott writes:

Hybridization refers to the process whereby the local is fused with the global. We are not all becoming the same, and the local retains a certain priority. People do not entirely surrender their cultural identities in the face of global influences, but they do adapt some of them, assimilating elements from other cultures and rejecting others. … Thus many people experience multiple identities further complicating the concept of culture altogether. … Hybridity is experienced in many active and passive ways by different peoples, and is subject to many diverse and unequal forces, some not so benign. This means that no single model will be

32 Ibid. 275.33 Carson, 1996, 502.34 Ibid. 504, (italics his).35 Hiebert, 2008, 316.36 Paul Hiebert, The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009, 118,119.

8

adequate, but rather each cultural context will need to be studied and understood on its own terms.37

Cultures are always changing but globalization accelerates this change and at times leads to a reaction. Revitalization movements which seek to restore traditional cultures have been common when cultures contact each other. Dominating cultures in colonial times were seen as threats to tradition. Now globalization with its secularizing tendencies can spark violent reaction.

The ever changing context of globalization creates new opportunities for Evangelical contextualizers. Craig Ott comments:

There remains only the fixed point of Scripture by which contextualization can seek to guide the process of culture change. This reality pushes the contextualizer to a more radical and more courageous return to Scripture and a more thoroughgoing surrender of his or her own (presumed) cultural moorings and assumptions.38

The priority of the Bible as God’s special revelation in contextualization (as argued for above) receives reaffirmation in the wake of globalization.

SYNTHESIS AND PRACTICE:

1. Bringing Bible and Culture together.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. What the Bible says, God says. Our theology is our understanding of what the Bible teaches in our cultural context. The Bible is authoritative; our theology holds authority only so far as it accurately reflects Scripture. Theology is always contextualization. David F. Wells writes:

It is the task of theology, then, to discover what God has said in and through Scripture and to clothe that in a conceptuality which is native to our own age. Scripture, at its terminus a quo [starting point], needs to be de-contextualized in order to grasp its transcultural content, and it needs to be re-contextualized in order that its content may be meshed with the cognitive assumptions and social patterns of our own time.39

Wells recognizes that Scripture is written in a cultural setting that is foreign to our culture. For example, when Paul exhorts the Romans “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16), we de-contextualize the form to an appropriate cultural form for a warm greeting. I would add that meshing the content of Scripture with the cognitive assumptions and social patterns will include challenging and correcting those assumptions and patterns.

Culture is the product of mankind who is made in God’s image. Though culture is marred by sin it remains the context in which God acts and speaks. Mankind even after the fall is able to understand and respond to God’s word. Human cultures develop from the background of general revelation which according to Romans chapters 1-3 is universally rejected and/or distorted. Religious systems and texts will reflect both general revelation and the corruption of man’s rebellion. Non-Christian religions will

37 Craig Ott, “Globalization and Contextualization: Reframing the Task of Contextualization in the Twenty-first Century”, Missiology: An International Review, 2015, Vol. 43(1), 48,49.38 Ibid. 52.39 David F. Wells, “The Nature and Function of Theology”, in The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, ed. By Robert K. Johnston, Atlanta: John Knox, 1985, 177.

9

contain elements of truth which are remnants of general revelation. But the religious systems as a whole express man’s rebellion of self-made religion.

The Bible meets all cultures of the world as God’s special revelation. The Gospel, which cannot be separated from the whole of Scripture (Old and New Testaments), gives true knowledge of God and his gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. The Bible corrects false interpretations of general revelation and supplies additional information that can only come from God himself.

2. Evangelical models.

Scott Moreau develops a map of Evangelical models using the categories of the role of the initiator and the flow of the method40 from his analysis of 249 examples of evangelical contextual models and practices in print.41 His ‘map’ identifies the percentage of the examples that fit each of his categories. Moreau’s primary category in his map is the role of the initiator of contextualization: Guide (36%), Pathfinder (29%), Herald (13%), Facilitator (10%), Restorer (7%), and Prophet (5%).42 His secondary category is the flow of the method: Linear (35%), Dialogue (32%), Cyclical (7%), Organic (18%), Not clear (8%).43 He sketches these out briefly in his book with a chapter on each initiator role. I encourage you to study Moreau’s book for a basic introduction to the models of current evangelical contextualization.

3. Evangelical methods to follow.

I will describe two methods of contextualization that in my estimation provide a way to practice contextualization so that the Bible itself is heard as God’s self-revelation in every culture in understandable ways.

a. Paul Hiebert’s Critical Contextualization:

Paul Hiebert’s ‘Critical Contextualization’ is probably the most well-known method that spells out specific steps in the process. ‘Critical Contextualization’ involves four steps in dealing with old beliefs, rituals, stories, songs, customs, art, and music. The first step is to gather information about the old custom/belief; “Local church leaders and the missionary lead the congregation in uncritically gathering and analyzing the traditional beliefs and customs associated with some question at hand.”44 Hiebert emphasizes the importance of keeping this step descriptive and avoiding any judgment. Criticism at this point in the process will likely drive the practice underground.

The second step is to study the biblical teaching that relates to the custom/belief. It is crucial at this stage to help the people understand the Bible in light of the biblical worldview, “… if the people do not clearly grasp the biblical message as originally intended, they will have a distorted view of the gospel.” 45 The new believers will grow in their maturity by involvement in this process as they learn skills in Bible study.

The third step of ‘Critical Contextualization’ “is for the people to critically evaluate their own past customs in the light of their new biblical understandings and to make decisions regarding their response

40 Moreau, 2012, 181-199.41 Ibid. 181.42 Ibid. 199.43 Ibid.44 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, 88.45 Ibid. 89.

10

to their new-found truths.”46 This step will benefit from both the etic (outsider) perspective of the missionary but must give priority to the emic (insider) perspective of the local people. Hiebert comments:

It is important here that the people themselves make the decision, for they must be sure of the outcome before they will change. It is not enough that the leaders be convinced about changes that may be needed. Leaders may share their personal convictions and point out the consequences of various decisions, but they must allow the people to make the final decision if they wish to avoid becoming policemen. In the end, the people themselves will enforce decisions arrived at corporately, and there will be little likelihood that the customs they reject will go underground.47

In the fourth step the local people create a new contextualized Christian practice. This may involve modifying the old practice, substituting a practice borrowed from another culture, or creating a completely new practice that communicates the biblical truth in that context.

Criticism of this method has been made as follows:

… Hiebert’s article does not focus on initial evangelism and church-planting but presupposes the presence of an indigenous church, with the missionary simply a dialogue partner with an indigenous church doing the contextualization. In Hiebert’s prescription for contextualization, there is no procedure in place for identifying and critiquing inappropriate patterns introduced by foreign missionaries.48

‘Critical Contextualization’ does indeed presuppose the presence of an indigenous church. It is a process for helping the church practice the “fourth self: self-theologizing.”49 While the four steps do not speak to the home culture of the missionary, I do not see why a perceptive missionary would not see the implications of the need to apply the evaluation process to his home culture. As the above article points out, Hiebert has written elsewhere of the need for missionaries to assess their own cultural perspectives:

Missionaries and transcultural church leaders from around the world are called on to be mediators in doing global theologizing. They must help theologians from different cultures understand one another deeply and become more self-aware of their own cultural perspectives. They are also called to mediate between formal theologies and the lives of ordinary Christians in churches.50

In Seminaries we need to begin by examining the worldview of the culture in which we ourselves live and how it shapes the way we think. We need to compare this against a biblical worldview in order to transform ours in light of the gospel. Only then will we guard against civil religion and against becoming captive to our culture.51

46 Ibid.47 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985, 187.48 Eunhye Chang, J. Rupert Morgan, Timothy Nyasulu, Robert J. Priest, “Paul G. Hiebert and Critical Contextualization”, Trinity Journal, 30:2 (Fall 2009) p. 205.49 Hiebert, 1994, 46.50 Paul G. Hiebert, “The Missionary as Mediator of Global Theology” in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity, ed. By Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006, 307.51 Hiebert, 2008, 320.

11

In conversion and discipling at the worldview level in mission settings, we should examine not only the worldviews of the new converts but also of ourselves as missionaries, for in the past we have been shaped more by modernity than by the gospel. In a sense, missionaries experience a double conversion – we learn to see the world through the eyes of others, and we learn to see the way in which we have learned to see reality. Both worldviews are brought under the scrutiny of the gospel, and both must be transformed by it. Seeing the world through two sets of eyes relativizes both and makes it easier for us to see the deep changes that are needed in our own worldview as well as in those of the people we serve.52

Discipleship of new believers must include practical Bible study skills and hermeneutics in order to equip emerging leadership to ‘self-theologize’.

b. David K. Clark’s Dialogical Method:

David K. Clark summarizes his understanding of contextualization as follows:

In sum, discerning theological contextualization addresses the concerns that arise in particular cultural contexts. It responds to these issues from Scripture. It demands obedience and spiritual sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s voice. It permits initial answers to emerge and take shape. It seeks dialogue with Christians in other contexts. And then it allows feedback loops to lead back to Scripture for fresh insight and wisdom. This dialogue leads to theological understandings that are both genuinely contemporary and solidly biblical. This is evangelical contextualization.53

He suggests seven possible steps:

1. From within the culture, with its own values, beliefs, practices, and dilemmas, Christians raise questions and issues.

2. Christians offer initial responses to these questions by relating them to themes and texts from the biblical teachings. They will begin with what they know of Scripture. Their concern will lead them to explore and interpret unfamiliar biblical passages. (Here they use the tools of biblical studies to direct their grasp of the Bible’s message. They will not get absolute readings of the Bible, but will gradually gain increasingly clear, well-justified understanding of relevant texts.)

3. As the process goes on, Christians seek to obey what the Bible teaches on the questions at issue. They look for new applications of God’s Word to their lives and contexts. They cultivate sensitivity to the voice of the Spirit in all things. The reading of Scripture does not just lead to, but also requires as its presupposition, an open heart toward God.

4. They permit the Bible to judge the cultural viewpoint from which questions arise. They ask whether Scripture deals with the issue, but from different perspectives or in different categories. They ask whether the Bible challenges their questions instead of answering them.

5. Out of this initial attempt to relate biblical teaching to cultural issues in a spirit of humble obedience, Christians allow certain themes for a culturally relevant theology – a contextual theology – to emerge. They begin formulating their theological framework.

6. Christians in one culture discuss their findings with theologians in another culture, either in time or in space. Maybe the “other culture” is a distant era of time. Theologians from the

52 Ibid. 321.53 Clark, 122.

12

past who struggled with parallel questions might have wisdom to offer. Maybe the “other culture” is a far-off place. Theologians from the other side of the world who grapple with similar issues could suggest ways to interpret the Bible more faithfully or resolve the questions more authentically.

7. But Christians return to the Bible (and again, Scripture is understood with increasing clarity through the tools of biblical studies) to evaluate the emerging theology and continue the dialogical cycle.54

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:

Contextualization is the expression and practice of the Triune God’s special revelation in the Bible within a particular cultural context. The expression and practice within any cultural context is not a creative synthesis between Scripture and culture. The Christian Scriptures control the expression and practice so that the results are what was intended by the Holy Spirit. Priority is given to Biblical theology built on careful exegesis of the text. The goal of contextualization is that what God has revealed in the Christian Scriptures is understood and practiced within a given culture as God intended. Evangelical contextualization is committed to the uniqueness of God’s special revelation in the person and work of Jesus Christ made known to us in the Bible. Culture is the arena in which the meaning of the Christian gospel is expressed and practiced not a source of that meaning. God’s special revelation (the Bible) is the only source of the meaning of the gospel.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:

1. The author argues that truths contained within non-Christian traditions and writings fall under the category of general revelation rather than special revelation. What are some of the implications of this for contextualization among the people groups SEND works in?

2. What are some implications of stating that all systematic theology is contextualization?3. How can we equip the emerging church leadership in other cultures for the task of self-

theologizing?4. What are some implications for viewing culture as a product of man vs. being God-given?

Works Cited:

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

__________. Christ and Culture Revisited. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

__________. “Approaching the Bible.” Collected Writings on Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010.54 Ibid. 114(italics original).

13

Chang, Eunhye, J. Rupert Morgan, Timothy Nyasulu, Robert J. Priest. “Paul G. Hiebert and Critical Contextualization.” Trinity Journal. 30:2 (Fall 2009): 199-207.

Clark, David K. To Know and Love God: Method for Theology. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2003.

Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority Vol. III& IV. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1979.

Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

__________. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

__________. Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts: Affirming Truth in a Modern/Postmodern World. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999.

__________. “The Missionary as Mediator of Global Theology.” In Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity. Ed. By Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

__________. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

__________. The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009.

Moreau, A. Scott. Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2012.

Netland, Harold A. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001.

Ott, Craig. “Globalization and Contextualization: Reframing the Task of contextualization in the Twenty-first Century.” Missiology: An international Review. 2015, 43(1): 43-58.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in this Text?: The Bible, The Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

__________. “’One Rule to Rule Them All?’ Theological Method in an Era of World Christianity.” In Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity. Ed. By Craig Ott and Harold Netland. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Wells, David F. “The nature and Function of Theology.” In The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. Ed. By Robert K Johnston. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Wu, Jackson. One Gospel For all Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2015

14