- zach: thanks man...i ...
- Chris Case: http://themaste...
- zach: Chris, what was...
- Todd Burus: Simple answer, ...
- ron cole: I guess the pro...
- Chris: Its funny you p...
The Contextualization Conundrum
Recent posts by Phil Johnson and Andrew Jones, with added statements by John MacArthur, have recently caused a bit of conversation about the topic of Contextualization. Phil has a good exegesis of the text regarding Mars Hill, which he says has been basically bastardized by the emerging church to support cultural assimilation.
Andrew Jones had a nice retort to Phil, pointing out that the emergents, in general, aren’t interested in assimilation (at least how Phil defines it) but are interested in the Gospel transforming culture, one of Neibuhr’s five relationships of Christ and Culture. He also defends that context matters.
If this discussion is going to go anywhere, the one thing that has to be defined from the start is culture. I thin MacArthur and Phil Johnson have a different definition of culture than others, which might be at the heart of this controversy. Culture can’t be as strictly defined to represent the religious practices of the people in the culture represented. I’m not even sure if religious practices are always the major player in cultural definitions, though they are still significant. Although definitions vary, Merriam-Webster does a decent job when it says that culture is “the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations” Therefor, culture has to stand above and beyond just the religious practices of the people. Of course their is fallout from their practices that effects their culture, but does the religion in America dictate the fact that American culture is by-and-large fairly greedy? If so, is that Christianity’s fault, the major religion during the most prosperous times for this country? See, there’s a distinct difference between the larger term for culture, and the religious practices. Capitalism is part of our culture. Christianity is part of our culture. Individualism is part of our culture.
I do agree with Phil that Paul is in no way affirms the practices of the Athenians, but what he criticizes is STRICTLY their religious practices and not their culture as a whole. If anything, Paul’s philosophical reasoning itself is an endorsement of their cultural practices. This where I strongly agree with Andrew, and I think Paul was highly aware of this fact… context matters. I don’t know how you can look at 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and not make a case for contextualization:
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (ESV)
Paul is simply contextualizing his message to the people of the time. As Andrew points out, many missionaries have practices a lack of contextualization and have just hindered themselves in the spreading of the gospel, requiring Native American converts to learn English to worship God, bringing church organs to Africa for worship as opposed to accepting local instruments and musical styles. We have to be very careful when we talk about culture. The question should simply be: does this practice stand against what the Gospel teaches and not does this whole CULTURE stand against what the Gospel teaches. Mostly because cultures are not easily defined and a concrete Christian culture has never existed. If anything, when attempts to create it have happened, its been pretty poor. Paul knew that the worship of other Gods was not glorifying to God, so he told them that, but he used their cultural entrapments of debate and reason to get there.
So, when talking about contextualization, I am all for it, but that does not mean the message needs to change, just the communication of the message.
THE GOSPEL IS ALWAYS RELEVANT, BUT THE DELIVERY MUST ALWAYS BE CONTEXTUALIZED.
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
cool. i think another element is that Phil is a pastor and I am a missionary and we probably both come from different angles with different concerns.
but its an important argument.