If anything is going to be useful to a missionary, it must be Biblical. And if it is Biblical, then it must have a strong foundation in the Bible. So, the question remains, is contextualization in the Bible. All it takes is a Concordance to prove that this long word does not appear in scripture, but does the proper idea of contextualization appear.
Here, I want to make a point. Most liberal missionaries, start this discussion with the following verses: 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
With this starting point they say that we must become just like others to reach them. But, they conveniently miss a phrase in these verses: “being not without the law to God, but under the law of Christ”. They forget that though somethings in style, form, and presentation can be changed, they are not lawless. If they change the message or methods of the Bible, they are just opening the door to syncretism. They will not have a faith that is relevant to the new person, but a new faith!
With this point made, lets move to the Bible, which is the sole authority for faith and practice. Does the Bible make a case for context or against context? We will bring three witnesses to the stand, and let the Bible speak for these witnesses and their actions.
The first Witness is… Jesus Christ himself.
Jesus Christ being Himself totally God, is not limited to man's culture. He is the embodiment of heavenly values, teaching, and truth. We see in his earthly ministry, that he always placed the truth of the Bible over the culture of man, even Hebrew culture. We see an example of this in Matthew 15:1-6
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Here we see that Christ strongly condemns the braking of scripture to make way for tradition and/or custom. This passage is speaking against syncretism, not context. Does context, have any place in Christ’s ministry?
The scripture does tell us that Christ did put his message into a context. It was put into Jewish world view. Jesus spoke Aramaic, though Greek and Latin, where the world wide languages.
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus Christ, wore clothes, wear prayer shallows, beard and sideburns, all in the manner and custom of the devote Jews. This is how the women at the well in Samaria, knew right away that Jesus Christ was a Jew, and that is why she thought he would condemn her for being a Samaritan. Christ ministry on this world, was spoken in a thoroughly Jewish context. The forms, styles, language, all prove this.
Also another point to consider is that Christ would vary the mode of his presentation of the gospel depending on the audience. This is seen in the Emmaus road trip, witnessing to the Syrophenician women, and witnessing to Nicodemius.
If Christ could allow His eternal, heavenly message to be shaped and influenced by the audience that he was speaking to, and in no way sin, because he is sinless, then there is a way as a missionary that we can do the same thing.
Witness Number Two… Peter
The Bible tells its reader that Peter had a specific ministry. Though he was the first person told by God, that the Gentiles should be reached, and preached to the first totally Gentile audience. He was given the ministry of the gospel to the Jews.
Galatians 2:7-9 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
This passage does not teach that there are two gospels. For as a person sees in Galatians 1:6-9, any other gospel, that is new or different, is not the gospel at all. This passage tells us that these men had different ministries, and that these different ministries reached people with different world views. The gospel was the same, but the way in which they presented and ministered the gospel was different.
Witness Number Three… Paul.
There is probably no great example for the missionary in the Bible, then the life of Paul. The book of Acts is a divinely inspired history book, that gives us great insight to the methods and means of the New Testament churches. In the book of Acts we can see clear examples of how Paul presented the gospel to different groups under different circumstances. Here, I will site a view example of direct quotes from the book of Acts, to see different ways in which Paul presented the gospel.
Example Number 1
Acts 13:14-43 We see the first full message that Paul preaches of the gospel. They are in a synagogue and preaching to a thoroughly Jewish group. Paul starts the presentation giving Jewish history and builds up through David, to present the coming of Messiah. He quotes many quotations from the psalms, which because of Hebrew worship in the synagogues, most Jews knew these passage by heart.
Example Number 2
Acts 17:22-31 We see the second full message of Paul recorded in the book of Acts. The location is Mars Hill. The audience is mostly gentiles, and gentiles that do not have a Jewish world view. Paul starts with their own idols, and speaks of their altar to the Unknown God. He makes us of quotations of their own secular poets. Brings these points to Christ, and their need for him.
Example Number 3
Acts 21:40-22:1-21 Paul hear is addressing the crowd that has beaten him in the temple. He speaks to them in Hebrew, and the Bible puts an emphasis on this point. He starts by telling them that he was a Pharisee, and gives his Hebrew pedigree; then moves to the way that Christ called him unto salvation.
Example Number Four
Acts 26:1-23 Here we have Paul last recorded sermon in the book of Acts. He is preaching to King Agrippa. Though he is a Jew, and would naturally disdain the king’s herodian lineage, he starts by giving him the proper deference that a person would give to a king. Here he speeches Greek, and comports himself in such a way that would be fitting to the case that he is in.
In these four example we can clearly see a Biblical pattern for contextualization. Paul never changed the message. He preach the authority of scripture, and the clear intent of helping the listener understand the propose of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But in each case, the language, starting point, style, and information used, varied as he presented the gospel to a new audience or people group.
I believe that the use of contextualization is very important. It helps to fulfill the very heart of 1 Corinthians 9:2-22. It allows us, under the law of Christ, to become all things to all people, so that we might WIN SOME!
Also I believe that the danger is very real if a missionary does not learn the context of his listeners. The mission field today is filled with this: unconverted, confused, followers of a Western thinking ‘gospel’.
In the next post I will show how conservative Christians have already embraced this idea of context, in minor ways, but how we need to apply it in a more fully in our modern missions.
No comments:
Post a Comment