Meet Cultural Intelligence Ambassador, Wilbur Sargunaraj - @wilburworldwide

Today, I want to ensure that all of my readers have been properly introduced to my new friend, Mr. Wilbur Sargunaraj.  Wilbur is known around the world as "India's First YouTube Star" and has several million views on his YouTube channel to prove it.  He's gained his "Simple Superstar" status first through great comedy and music, but I am discovering that this is only the tip of the iceberg for Mr. Wilbur!

What I love most about Wilbur is his role as a global ambassador for "Cultural Intelligence" (CQ).  CQ is a concept that comes from David Livermore, who's book Serving with Eyes Wide Open is something I've recommended for years.  In his passion to bring equality and unity in the context of an increasingly globalized and diverse world, Wilbur is traveling the world on a mission to raise up "First Class" world citizens who know how to engage cross-culturally and treasure people from all backgrounds.

As I've been getting to know Mr. Wilbur recently, I have been delighted to find a man of deep humility who is passionately seeking to use his gifts to make the world a better place.  I find the Lord giving me a deep appreciation and respect for the work he is doing and know that you will also.

Here's a quick introduction "Wilburwood" --

Wilbur's most popular music video: Love Marriage:


A couple very popular CQ videos on how to use Indian, European and Japanese toilets (worlds apart):


The trailer for Wilbur's upcoming feature film, Simple Superstar:


And, most importantly, get a taste of Wilbur's heart for critical global issues by watching "Why Poverty":


I would also encourage you to check out Mr. Wilbur on Facebook and Twitter.

Go into all the world and Westernize it!

Writing of the Puritan era, David Bosch (Transforming Mission) spoke of a rather disturbing idea that was beginning to develop:

Cultural uplift as an aim of mission was still relatively undeveloped . . . . Western Christians believed that their culture was superior to those of non-Western nations, but they did not isolate cultural uplift as a goal of mission.  It was simply assumed that the people would live a better life once God's rule was established over their respective societies.  In John  Eliot's words, it was "absolutely necessary to carry on civility with religion". 


In the generations that followed however . . .

Some decades later Cotton Mather would formulate it even less unequivocally, "The best thing we can do for our Indians is to Anglicize them".  In the subsequent period . . . this view would sometimes be so dominant that it was hard to distinguish between mission and "Westernization."


How about now? What is the difference between the way you engage in mission and the practice of "Westernizing" or "Americanizing" others? Can you imagine the gospel lived out in non-Western forms? Do you think that is still the gospel? Is cultural uplift an legitimate aim of mission?

On our Similarity or Dissimilarity with the World (Guest Blog by Katherine Lorance)

[Today's post is written by a special guest to the blog, my wife, Katherine Lorance.  This is the second installment in a new, potentially long-term series entitled "On our Contextualization".]


One common objection to intentional contextualization centers around the perceived loss of distinctiveness to following Christ.  The argument goes that since people who don’t follow Christ do XYZ, people who do follow Christ should not do XYZ.  Often, XYZ-ing is seen as inherently sinful.  Other times, XYZ-ing is seen as so prevalent among people who don’t follow Christ that, it is argued, people who follow Christ must avoid XYZ-ing in order to demonstrate that they in fact are different.

On the other hand, someone who pursues contextualization looks at a person who doesn’t follow Christ doing XYZ and asks, “Is there some way XYZ can be done to worship Christ?”  Sometimes the answer is no because XYZ-ing is clearly prohibited in Scripture (for instance, you cannot hate your brother in Christ as an act of worship to Jesus).  But what about the other times?

Even the most ardent opponent to intentional contextualization must agree that sometimes doing XYZ can please God.  After all, people who don’t follow Christ eat, sleep, and breathe, but no one is suggesting that people who follow Christ stop eating, sleeping, and breathing.  People who don’t follow Christ pray, give thanks, and sing in worship, but no one would ever tell the Church to stop praying, giving thanks or singing.  On the contrary, the Church is exhorted in Scripture to pray to the Lord, give thanks to the Lord, and sing to the Lord.  It is important for opponents to the pursuit of contextualization to realize that they recognize on some level that similarity alone is not enough to condemn a specific action.

I recently read 1 Kings 18 and I think the account of Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel is one Biblical example that demonstrates what distinctiveness is necessary.  Elijah and the crowd of Baal priests each prepared one bull and arranged some wood.  They did so at the same location and on the same day.  They both called out to the one they worshipped.  Note that the Israelites who observed all this and the prophets of Baal were not at all confused as to whether Elijah was worshipping Baal or worshipping the Lord.  Unlike the 450 prophets, Elijah did not cry out to Baal but to the Lord.  The fire of the Lord consumed Elijah’s offering as an answer to the prayer “that the people may know that you, O Lord, are God.”  What grieved the Lord about the prophets of Baal’s sacrifice was not the bull, the wood, the location, or the day – which were the same as Elijah’s -- but the fact that those people failed to worship Him.  The two sacrifices offered were deliberately similar outwardly but the spiritual attitudes of those offering the sacrifices were completely different.

Some of those concerned with specific Christ-centered contextualized practices being too similar to the practices of people who do not follow Christ seem to emphasize outward actions at the expense of inner attitudes.  In order for the global Church to cooperate and grow to maturity, those who are concerned with the pursuit of contextualization need to accept that the “that’s what the prophets of Baal do” argument is insufficient.  Yes, intentionally contextualized practices should be carefully examined in the light of Scripture – as all of our practices should be, if we desire to be living sacrifices to our Lord.  Let us be careful, though, to avoid dismissing or belittling the unseen turning of hearts toward the Triune God.

Why Contextualize? (Part 5) The Locus of Spiritual Transformation

It has been a long time since I wrote the first four installments of my "Why Contextualize" series.  However, as I spend more and more time in the field engaging the realities of cross-cultural mission and the complaints by some against contextualization, there is another (5th) issue that continues to arise.  Just last week, I was on the road teaching about contextualization and heard the following concern (paraphrasing):

"If new followers of Jesus keep the same customs and cultural forms as they had before they became Christians, won't there be confusion as to who is a Christian and who is not?"

I'm grateful for the question because it brings to light what is a dangerous but nevertheless widely held view among Christians (especially in the West) that being a Christian is something that should result in visible, outward signs which essentially equate to an assimilation with Western cultural forms.  Deep down, far too many of us are still trying to "make a man of our Friday's"-- dressing the "savages" up in suits and ties, handing them black leather Bibles and praising the Lord for the "transformation".

But this is neither desirable nor right.  It certainly isn't the gospel. From a Biblical perspective, the locus of spiritual transformation is not to be found in the external, visible realm of customs, clothing, technology, or dietary habits. Rather, transformation by the Spirit of God is an invisible phenomenon -- the giving of a new heart, the renewal of the mind, a re-born spirit.  To be sure, this all will result in a character conformed to the image of Christ and righteous actions.  But that is not to be equated with Windsor knots, Christmas trees, and Chris Tomlin songs (no offense, Chris).  You simply shouldn't be able to pick out a Christian in a line up and if you can, then you've created a kind of pseudo-Christianity that is just far too easy to fake.  You've created a system in which discipleship is reduced to meaningless attempts to pursue conformity to a set of external social cues and cultural forms.  In which case (and I speak from experience), the label "Christian" becomes little more than a way of saying, "Oh I don't celebrate that festival" or "I don't wear those kinds of bodily adornments".  It is a mockery of the gospel and is simply not the thing for which Christ died.  If cultural change is all you are after, why not become a Muslim or join a biker gang or become a mime?

If instead, we assume that God had something else in mind in the incarnation and sacrifice of His beloved Son,  that becoming a Christian is not tantamount to the abandoning of one's culture and traditions (although they certainly are to be scrutinized by the light of God's revelation), then discipleship also has to become something else.  If a person cannot simply trade in their old holidays for new ones, then true spiritual transformation must be located elsewhere.  The locus of spiritual transformation, we find, thus shifts to the unseen yet unmistakable realm of heart, mind, spirit, and character.  And this is precisely where it should have been all along. Hence:


And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Eze 36:26 ESV)

I leave you today with a lovely and ancient description of what I am talking about.  The following is from a late 2nd Century Christian writing known as the Letter to Diognetus (Trans. by D. Bosch):


Christians are not distinguished from the rest of humankind either in locality or in speech or in customs.  For they dwell not somewhere in cities of their own, neither do they use some different language, nor practice an extraordinary kind of life . . . While they dwell in cities of Greeks and barbarians . . . and follow the native custom in dress and food and the other arrangements of life, yet the constitution of their own citizenship, which they set forth, is marvelous, and confessedly contradicts expectations . . . In a word, what the soul is in a body, this the Christians are in the world.


Amen!  

Darrin Patrick's "Over-Contextualization" Misses the Point

Today I came across an article by Acts 29 planter Darrin Patrick that seems to talk about contextualization.  I noticed that the article was being kicked around Twitter by a number of aspiring planter-types and thought I'd check it out.  Supposedly, the article speaks about the "dangers of over-contextualization," but a closer look at the article suggests that its author doesn't really understand the issue he is trying to engage.  Let's take a look . . .

If you aren’t familiar with Jackass, I can sum it up for you in a phrase: “Don’t try this at home!” Which is another way of saying, “Many young men are morons and are more than willing to prove it in front of a camera and an audience for not much money.” Known for its objectionable humor and its dangerous homemade stunts,Jackass provided an odd gathering tool for a start-up church. But when young men who embodied my target demographic started showing up and engaging in conversation, I felt like a cutting-edge hipster who happened to be a pastor. This was, in my mind, confirmation of my down-to-earth personality and general awesomeness, and I was convinced that I was the best pastor even without an official church in town. This über-missional event would be the beginning of conquering St. Louis for the gospel by means of shrewd cultural engagement. The night was young and the sky was the limit for ministry victory.

Prior to the official launch of The Journey [Patrick's STL-area church plant], we held Bible studies and missional events to encourage our launch team and to draw in non-Christians interested in learning more about our community. One of the most memorable of these “missional events” was the time when I decided it would be a wise to gather all the men of the church in the basement of my home for a marathon viewing of the Emmy-worthy MTV “variety show,” Jackass. We sent out a general invitation to the community, and the response was overwhelmingly positive. Nothing attracts a bunch of dudes to a basement like the opportunity to watch a group of irreverent grown men prolong their adolescence by acting like middle schoolers, all on national television.

And then the wheels came off the church bus...

Patrick goes on to describe the event as having devolved into a chaotic, drunken debacle which did seemingly nothing for the sake of the Kingdom.  It is sad to me that in certain circles (especially hipster, American church-planting circles), such an event is what passes for contextualization these days. Contextualization, from a Biblical and missiological perspective, is related to the incarnation of Jesus Christ and may be understood as the intentional pursuit of incarnational life in a given cultural context.  It has to do with missional "entering in" -- that is, how do I as an outsider to a particular community enter that community as a follower of Christ so as to remove those barriers to the gospel that arise from my foreignness.  Contextualization also has to do with the new disciple's "staying in" -- that is, how does a new Christ-follower in a particular context remain in that context as an insider so as to faithfully live out his/her discipleship among his/her neighbors, friends, and family who are still without Christ.  Contextualization efforts usually fall into one of two overlapping categories.  The first is social-relational contextualization.  That is, what does it mean for disciples of Jesus to live out their commitment to love their neighbors in a particular cultural context so that their loving might be truly understood as loving?  The second category is spiritual-liturgical contextualization which has to do with how followers of Christ can love, worship, serve, and communicate about God and the Bible within their particular context.

The Jackass event, as described, doesn't seem to have had a spiritual-liturgical component at all.  We are given no information about how worship, prayer, Bible study, or other spiritual disciplines were conducted.  There is a suggestion that spiritual conversations may have happened, but we are not told the content.  At best, this seems to have had something to do with the social-relational side of contextualization.  From that perspective, Patrick and company may have had some right ideas.  They considered the community they were seeking to engage and planned an event that would be attractive to them.  While this thinking has something to do with contextualization, it wasn't "over-contextualization" that led to the disaster described.  On the contrary, I would argue that this is an example of "under-contextualization."

For one, it isn't clear to me whether Patrick's group was truly seeking to "enter in" to a new and foreign context.  It seems rather that they were seeking to reach out to a context very similar (if not the same) as their own.  We must remind ourselves that there is no such thing as "Christian culture."  Thus, the simple act of a Christian reaching out to a non-Christian doesn't constitute cross-cultural engagement.  It should be noted, of course, that many Christians have been taught to abandon their cultural context when they come to Christ and have then done so for so long that they feel their original context to be foreign.  Nevertheless, while cross-cultural principles may be helpful in such situations, they really aren't in the same category as say a Filipino missionary serving in Kuwait.

I would thus suggest that what is going on here has to do with the "staying in" side of contextualization.  For Patrick and his fellow Christ-followers, the operative question related to contextualization should be, "How do I live out my faith in Christ within my own cultural context and community?"  I would suggest that the decision to spend several hours watching a television show that they admit to be "objectionable" indicates that they didn't fully examine this question.  Their thinking centered on how to gather a group of non-believing people from their community together.  This isn't true contextualization.  Contextualization would seek to bring those people in contact with Christ and Christ-followers in contextually relevant ways.  So, the corporate viewing of Jackass as a cultural element opposed to Christ and his revelation is antithetical to the pursuit of contextualization because it fails to bring people into contact with Christ.  Writes Patrick:

My failure was classic over-contextualization. Over-contextualization is when you view missional opportunities primarily through a cultural lens instead of a gospel lens. In this instance, I was more concerned with providing a cool, “unchurchy” environment than I was with making sure the environment didn’t reflect poorly on the gospel. The guys I tried to reach needed healthy gospel boundaries around their newly discovered Christian liberty. I failed to provide that for them. I over-contextualized in my approach because I tried to make the gospel submit to the culture rather than letting my pop culture sensibilities submit to the gospel.

I think I basically agree with Patrick's assessment of his experiment with the exception of the phrase "over-contexualization."  As I have been trying to point out, the use of this term indicates that Patrick is missing the point regarding contextualizaiton.  Contextualization, we must understand, always has a context.  There is always the target context and the thing to be contextualized -- i.e. Jesus.  If you forget the latter -- Patrick's real failure -- you are no longer practicing contextualization.

Consider Jesus during his incarnation.  He often opposed certain elements of the 1st century Jewish culture, but he always did so as an insider.  When people got angry with him, the charge was never, "Who is this foreigner coming in here to tell us what to do?"  Rather, the charge was, "Is not he the carpenter?" (cf. Mark 6:1-6).  Pursuing contextualization as an imitation of Christ's incarnation means not simply assimilating with the culture in a purely human sense.  Rather it means entering or remaining in a context as an ambassador of Christ -- bringing Him, his revelation, his prophetic word, his life and love.  Patrick's failure was that he didn't adequately do that.  This is a failure to fully contextualize the revelation of Christ, not some kind of "over-contextualization".

In answer to the oft-repeated question, "How far do we go with contextualization?"  I do not point to fatally flawed contextualization scales.  I point to Christ.  How far did he go?  How human did he become?  How Jewish?  How Galilean?  If we are to imitate His example, we must go all the way.  And going all the way is more than simply skillfully adapting to a particular cultural context.  Going all the way requires bringing Christ and bringing his message to bear in that context -- to give them the opportunity to experience Jesus as the word made flesh for them.

Pioneers Statement on Contextualization

Recently, Pioneers, a major mission organization based in Orlando, Florida, released a "statement on contextualization."  I found the statement on Ted Esler's blog here.  I like the statement and want to commend it to you.  Check it out and let me know what you think in the comment section.  I have included my own comments on the statement in highlighted italics below.

PIONEERS STATEMENT ON CONTEXTUALIZATION

Messengers who bring the Good News have the privilege and responsibility to faithfully communicate the biblical Gospel message. They should model and teach obedience to all the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus PI [Pioneers] workers desire to minister in ways most likely to yield faithful disciples and the reproduction of biblical churches among those with least access to the Gospel. [Maybe the weakest part of the statement is this opening. It grounds everything in the motivation of missional effectiveness. While this is certainly part of why we contextualize. It isn't the full picture. Read my blog series "Why Contextualize?" here.]

We believe God normally desires new believers to remain connected with their social context (1 Corinthians 7:17-24), [This is a strong application for this text.  It is new for me to consider this kind of application, but I like it.] while not compromising biblical teaching in their beliefs or practice (e.g. permanently retaining their former non-Christian religious identity). [I find the discussion about identity to be a bit vague.  I can only guess here about what is meant by "non-Christian religious identity".  The notion of religious identity is not constant across all cultures.  I want clarification here.  Does this mean "anti-Christian" identity.  That is, I'm a blank AND NOT a Christian. But I think the notion of Hindu, Muslim, or Jewish Christ-followers must not be quickly dismissed. Rather these must be taken case-by-case. The implications of living out this creative tension and Gospel witness are best worked out by groups of believers, through prayer and diligent study of the Scriptures, informed by the story of God’s people throughout history and the global body of Christ. [Good. Prayer, the Bible, the Church, and God's work in history all must inform our pursuit of contexutalization.]

This affects key issues, including:

Allegiance:

We encourage believers to live in such a way that those around them become increasingly aware of their wholehearted submission to Jesus as Lord. He calls all believers to a process of transformation into the image of Christ (Romans 12:1,2; Colossians 3:10), giving courageous and respectful testimony of Christ’s work in us (1 Peter 3:14-16). [This is so good I can't even tell you. People around us must become increasingly aware of our wholehearted submission to Jesus as Lord. This REQUIRES contextualization. Where contextualization is not pursued, non-Christians around us don't understand the transformation they see in us as a result of our devotion to Christ. They understand it as a rejection of them and their culture. I really like this statement and want to teach it to those whom I disciple.]

Identity:

We want believers to understand their biblical identity in Christ and his church, and to embrace the implications of that identity as active members of a local community of believers (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:9). [I believe that this is essential but I would want to add that these local communities of believers should be actively engaged in the global body of Christ. I must not deny my brother or sister in Christ anymore than I should deny Christ himself.]

Obedience:

Our passion is to see believers obey all that Jesus commanded (Matthew 28:20). This involves an ongoing process whereby believers are empowered by the Spirit and nurtured through the Scripture (Galatians 5:16-25; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; 1 Peter 2:2,3). [It is important to emphasize that our spiritual nourishment comes by the Spirit through the Bible.]

Worldview and Beliefs:

Believers are intentionally discipled in such a way that their worldview and beliefs are increasingly transformed into conformity with Scripture (Romans 12:2; Hebrews 5:14). [Good. Conformity to Scripture and not to some other standard.]

Suffering:

God grants us suffering in this world to refine our faith, strengthen his church and bring glory to Christ (Phil 1:29; 3:10; 1 Peter 1:7). Together, we recognize that persecution is not to be feared, and “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12; Matthew 10:28; Hebrews 10:32?34). [Clearly, this is a statement that is directed at the notion that some pursue contextualization out of a fear of persecution. I suppose this may be the case. However, I wouldn't call that contextualization. Contextualization is, at its core, about imitating Christ's incarnation and crucifixion. Doing so will not shy away from suffering but rather seek to incarnate suffering -- presenting it in context to the people around us.]

Culture:

All cultures reflect elements of God’s creative goodness and human sinfulness (Romans 2:14,15; 1 John 2:15?17). We encourage believers to live out biblically sound and culturally appropriate worship, witness, relationships and lifestyles (Ephesians 5:15; 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Peter 2:11,12,16,17). [Much more could be said on this point.  However it would probably be difficult to do so without delving too much into specifics.]

Why Contextualize? (Part 3) Pleasing God

As we continue to consider theological foundations for contextualization (there will be four in total before I’m finished), let me provide a third consideration today.  You’ll recall that already we’ve established that the imitation of Christ requires the imitation of Christ’s incarnation through the pursuit of contextualization.  Also, we’ve seen (last week) that the Bible believes that contextualization is necessary for reaching the lost.  A third Biblical motivation to pursue contextualization is found in our commitment to please God.

3. The Commitment to Please God

As followers of Jesus, we want to please God (Eph. 5:10). Now, this third theological impetus for contextualization is very closely related to the first two in that it is certainly pleasing to God when His people imitate Christ and it is pleasing that the lost be reached.  However, I wanted to list this as a separate reason for the pursuit of contextualization because I believe that the case can be sure that God is pleased with the preservation of cultural distinctiveness among the various people groups of the world.

My reasoning here is based primarily on John’s revelation of heaven/eternity.  Now, interpreting Revelation is not always considered a very straightforward thing to do.  But I’m not interested in pinning the tail on the antichrist or predicting when the Cubs might finally win the series.  I just want to consider a couple of ideas from Revelation very briefly and highlight in them some thoughts about the preservation of culture.  

“Every nation, tribe, people and language” 
Here is a recurring phraseology in the book of Revelation (e.g. 5:9-10, 7:9-10, 10:11, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15) that sometimes has positive and sometimes negative connotations.  Depending on the context, it either refers to the comprehensiveness of God’s salvation or else His judgment.  In either case, we are to note that there is not a people group, language, geographic location, village tribe, or political entity to which the reach of God’s unfolding redemptive plan does not extend.  Of particular interest to us are those positive references (especially 5:9-10 and 7:9-10) which highlight the extent of God’s salvation to all peoples.  These references have been famously (e.g. here) used by many as Scriptural foundations for developing mission strategies that focus on reaching all “people groups” (Piper, 1993).

The argument, which I too find compelling, is based on the fact that God has already revealed to John that a countless multitude consisting of those from every tribe, people, language and nation will be ultimately saved.  Thus we may with confidence state that it is God’s clearly revealed will to save some from every people group, and may have faith that our work among unreached people groups will not be in vain since the ultimate success of such endeavors is an already established fact.  That is, an assumption is made that John literally observed distinct ethno-linguistic groups in his revelation of heaven—that he didn’t just mean “a whole bunch of people.”

If we accept this assumption to be true, and I think we should, I believe it proper to consider another application.  For John to have observed distinct ethno-linguistic groups, he must have observed something that distinguished them from each other.  What was it? Of that we can’t be certain.  However, it seems to be the case that, on some level, God chooses to preserve cultural elements – at least to the point that John was able to marvel not at a homogenous, numberless mass, but at a gloriously diverse gathering of every nation, tribe, language and people.

"The Glory and Splendor of the Nations”
A second scene to consider is near the end of John’s revelation.  Here we have the dust of numerous plagues and judgments settling and the emergence of God’s final, glorified Church – His bride.  There is the New Jerusalem, a kind of eternal dwelling place for the redeemed of the Lord, described in breathtaking beauty.  And, at the end of chapter 21, we see a procession of the redeemed going into that city (21:24-27).  Light is emanating from the Lamb and the nations (read: “people groups”, Gk. “ἔθνη”) are walking by that light.  The mental image is something like a parade as each people group marches in.  They are accompanied by their leaders, the magnificent “kings of the earth” and each nation brings their own distinct glory and honor into the city of the King of Kings.  

I see in this image a pretty clear indication that the redeemed from every people group will bring elements of their distinct cultural heritage into God’s eternal Kingdom.  To be sure, these will be those elements, perfected by the Spirit’s sanctifying work, that reflect the manifold glories of God (cf. Eph. 3:10).  There is little Biblical evidence to suggest that after this procession, God will assimilate all this cultural distinctiveness into one culture par excellence.  However, even if this were the case, it remains that in what may be considered to be chronologically “preliminary” scenes of heaven, there is some preservation of cultural distinctiveness.  Does this mean that in heaven we can expect to taste Ethiopian injera, view Balinese painting, or dance to Nepali lok songs? I don’t know.  But I do enjoy the speculation.

“Because God Likes it”
My point in bringing out these Revelation texts is to seek to make the case that in God’s sovereign plan of redemption, He fully intends to preserve cultural distinctiveness on some identifiable level into at least the initial stages of eternity.  What Ralph Winters declared to the first Lausanne Congress proves true.  God has not intended:

"to merge the whole family into a single culture . . . . I see the world church as the gathering together of a great symphony orchestra where we don’t make every new person coming in play a violin in order to fit in with the rest.  We invite people to come in to play the same score – the Word of God – but to play their own instruments, and in this way there will issue forth a heavenly sound that will grow in splendor and glory to God as each new instrument is added.” (Winter, 1974)

And if we ask the reason why God is not trying to merge all cultures into one, we are compelled to believe that there is something about the distinct people groups of the world – each one of them – that He simply likes.  He likes the Beja, the Amdo, the Rajbansi, and the Karenni.  I don’t know what He likes about them.  If it is Beja coffee or Karenni clothes – I can see why.  But I’m eager to watch the parade on that great day when the Amdo of China and everyone else bring their sanctified, perfected and unique splendor before our common King.

From this perspective, we may find a great impetus for the pursuit of contextualization in mission rather than that more historically prevalent missionary impulse to reject and discard cultural forms deemed “pagan” by those who often don’t fully understand them.   If we go into a context with the assumption that there are things here that God likes – that there is a glory and splendor of this people that He wants to preserve—won’t we be more cautious about what we reject and more passionate in our pursuit of Christ’s incarnation?  
Okay, more next week when I explore a fourth and final (probably) theological impetus for pursuing contextualization in mission – our need for the whole Church.

Works Cited

Piper, J. (1993). Let the Nations be Glad: The Supremecy of God in Missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Winter, R. D. (1974). The Highest Priority: Cross-Cultural Evangelism. The Lausanne Movement.