What is Contextualization?
from the context-matters
dept.
If you've been hearing any of the current debate
in the church, there is some contention about what it means to contextualize the
gospel. I've been listening to Timothy Keller's talk about "Being
the Church in our Culture" which is about where Christians should
live, understanding the gospel, living counter-culturally, doing their jobs
well, and being servants. Then as an after-thought, he adds cultural
contextualization, which is probably a good way to go at
it.
Here's the main idea. As Christians, we want to relate to our culture, but there's a risk to morally selling out to that culture. Yet, on the one hand we have a tendency to sell out due to the natural aversion to being rejected for what we believe, or on the other hand, we shy away to prevent ourselves from getting dirty. In order to avoid rejection, we attempt to conform, in order to avoid getting dirty, we avoid "that dirty culture." Granted, it can be effective if we conform the correct way and disastrous if we conform the incorrect way. Here are some examples:
Approach A - Incorrect (no contextualizing at all):
Here's the main idea. As Christians, we want to relate to our culture, but there's a risk to morally selling out to that culture. Yet, on the one hand we have a tendency to sell out due to the natural aversion to being rejected for what we believe, or on the other hand, we shy away to prevent ourselves from getting dirty. In order to avoid rejection, we attempt to conform, in order to avoid getting dirty, we avoid "that dirty culture." Granted, it can be effective if we conform the correct way and disastrous if we conform the incorrect way. Here are some examples:
Approach A - Incorrect (no contextualizing at all):
• Ignoring what people want to know about
God.
• Giving irrelevant answers that cannot be
comprehended by them.
• Telling people the truth, even when they
don't like it.
In the above scenario, there is no attempt at cultural contextualization. The truth is spoken, but it is not done in a way that can be comprehended by the listener. Not only that, but the truth that is received offends them.
It's similar to churches that refuse to update their hymns, topics, and architecture (and the like). Hymns, topics, and architecture do not not save, so why hold on to them with a death-grip? These things are just a preference and do not in and of themselves contribute to a saving message of truth. Yet the truth can indeed be given in this context. There's nothing that we can do about the offensiveness of the truth. It must remain offensive.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "sectarianism."
Approach B - Incorrect (selling out):
In the above scenario, there is no attempt at cultural contextualization. The truth is spoken, but it is not done in a way that can be comprehended by the listener. Not only that, but the truth that is received offends them.
It's similar to churches that refuse to update their hymns, topics, and architecture (and the like). Hymns, topics, and architecture do not not save, so why hold on to them with a death-grip? These things are just a preference and do not in and of themselves contribute to a saving message of truth. Yet the truth can indeed be given in this context. There's nothing that we can do about the offensiveness of the truth. It must remain offensive.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "sectarianism."
Approach B - Incorrect (selling out):
• Asking people what they want to know
about God.
• Conform the answer so that it can be
comprehended by them.
• Telling people what they want to hear
about God.
In an attempt to get the next generation into their seats, many churches will update their hymns, topics, and architecture (and the like) in order to appeal to this generation. But these churches take it one step further and the truth gets updated as well. The message is compromised in order to make an end-to-end conformity to the culture.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "syncretism."
Approach C - Correct (updating & contextualizing):
In an attempt to get the next generation into their seats, many churches will update their hymns, topics, and architecture (and the like) in order to appeal to this generation. But these churches take it one step further and the truth gets updated as well. The message is compromised in order to make an end-to-end conformity to the culture.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "syncretism."
Approach C - Correct (updating & contextualizing):
• Asking people what they want to know
about God.
• Conform the answer so that it can be
comprehended by them.
• Telling people the truth, even when they
don't like it.
Like the previous example, an attempt is made to appeal and contextualize to this generation. But instead of compromising the truth, it is upheld and allowed to remain offensive. This will turn some people off and they will leave. But the offensiveness of the message has an attractional quality all it's own that doesn't need our help.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "missional," although churches that use Approach A and B probably also think they're being missional too.
Fact is, Approach A and C are both effective for the same reason. However, Approach A is only effective in spite of the efforts not to conform the styles. What's sad is that churches who use Approach A accuse churches that use Approach C of using Approach B. At the same time, churches that use Approach C accuse the churches that use Approach A as being less effective than they could be. It's all just one big plank/speck issue.
Over time, Approach B may die off or take off and perhaps become a cult, depending on the situation. What's ironic is that Approach A will also eventually die out. Approach C eventually becomes Approach A over time, and a new manifestation of Approach C comes along and the new fundamentalists start pointing fingers all over again. If only we could step back and see the entire process is under God's sovereign rule.
Like the previous example, an attempt is made to appeal and contextualize to this generation. But instead of compromising the truth, it is upheld and allowed to remain offensive. This will turn some people off and they will leave. But the offensiveness of the message has an attractional quality all it's own that doesn't need our help.
Theologians sometimes call the above scenario "missional," although churches that use Approach A and B probably also think they're being missional too.
Fact is, Approach A and C are both effective for the same reason. However, Approach A is only effective in spite of the efforts not to conform the styles. What's sad is that churches who use Approach A accuse churches that use Approach C of using Approach B. At the same time, churches that use Approach C accuse the churches that use Approach A as being less effective than they could be. It's all just one big plank/speck issue.
Over time, Approach B may die off or take off and perhaps become a cult, depending on the situation. What's ironic is that Approach A will also eventually die out. Approach C eventually becomes Approach A over time, and a new manifestation of Approach C comes along and the new fundamentalists start pointing fingers all over again. If only we could step back and see the entire process is under God's sovereign rule.
Posted: Wednesday - October 18, 2006 at 09:14 AM |
Distractions