The Silly Things we Find Profound: Over-Contextualization and the Power of the Gospel

Photo by By Express Monorail

I didn't realize that there was a Desiring God / Passion Conference going on. I see it getting all hashtagged on Twitter and a couple quotes are getting a bit annoying.  In particular:

"The power is not in contextualization; it's in the Gospel" (being attributed to Jason Meyer)

and

"Do you fear over-contextualization or under-contextualization? This is the missionary tension you will always be in." (being attributed to Darrin Patrick)

I find both of these statements to be kind of silly. As for the first, is Meyer suggesting that there are people who believe that the power of salvation is actually located in contextualization?  And, if so, what the heck would that actually mean?  For contextualization to exist as a process, it must have an object.  One cannot contextualize nothing.  That is, when speaking of contextualization, one must inquire as to what exactly is being contextualized.  In this case, we’re talking about the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The gospel, any Christian must confess, is the power of God unto salvation for anyone who believes (Rom. 1:16).  But this gospel, in order for it to be proclaimed, heard and then believed, must be contextualized.  Always!  This is simply not avoidable.  Even something as simple as telling the story of Jesus in English is a form of contextualization (good contextualization if the hearer understands English, bad if he/she does not).  Show me a person who thinks they can share the gospel without contextualization and I’ll show you a person who doesn’t understand what in the world they are talking about.

Which brings us to the second statement, attributed to Patrick, about this idea of something he calls “over- contextualization.”  I know that Patrick likes to talk about this “tension” and has done so before.  But again, this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the concept of contextualization.  What Patrick is talking about is actually called accommodation, which is an older missiological concept based on the question, “How much can we accommodate the prevailing culture without compromising the integrity of our faith and the gospel message?”  This is a fine question, to be sure.  Indeed, it is the question that a lot of people should be wrestling with.  But, it isn’t contextualization.  Contextualization is a later concept that asks rather, “How can we bring the person and message of the Lord Jesus Christ fully to bear inside a given cultural context?”  Contextualization, from a Christian standpoint, is rooted in the Incarnation and is aimed at enfleshing the risen Son of God among every people, nation, tribe and tongue through the witness of His Church.  Thus, faithful contextualization is as insider as Jesus the Jew and as prophetic as Jesus the Messiah.  When Patrick suggests the dangers of “over-contextualization” he implies that too much of it is sometimes done.  Does he actually think that too much of the gospel is being brought to bear on a given context?  Well, surely this isn’t what he means.  I think what Patrick is saying is actually that too little of the gospel is being brought to bear – i.e. under-contextualization and over-accommodation. 

Anyway, the terminology is critical because those of us who intentionally pursue contextualization and adopt an insider trajectory are not usually doing so because we want to be people-pleasers who don’t ruffle feathers.  And these little potent conference quotables too often become little sticks for the uniformed and unreflective to pummel us with.  I can personally testify that great harm and hindrance can be the result.  What the Church ought to be saying is, “We affirm the heart and soul behind insider movement trajectory and contextualization! May we bring the Lord Jesus fully to bear within every cultural context that exists!”  And then, once that is settled, we should have a million prayerful conversations about a million specific forms, rituals, cultural expressions, language and more. 

Responding to John Piper's Response to "The Insider Movement"

The following brief clip has been dubbed "Piper Responds to the Insider Movement".  I have noticed it being kicked around the internet.  I know that it isn't popular to critique John Piper (especially not fun for a big fan like myself), but I feel it is important for someone to do so.  Take a look at the video (about 6 minutes) and then my responses below:

Piper Responds to the Insider Movement from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

There is No Insider Movement
First of all, you can’t “respond to the Insider movement”. It isn't one thing.  This is a foundational problem underlying so much anti-contextualization rhetoric.  Consciously or unconsciously, opponents have created a kind of straw-man that they call “The Insider Movement” as if we all have membership cards or secret handshakes.  But, this simply isn’t the case.  There is much variety of philosophy, theology, missiology and praxis among those who pursue contextualization in mission.  I have found the Cape Town Commitment's statement to be extremely well-crafted and helpful:

So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance. This is a complex phenomenon and there is much disagreement over how to respond to it. Some commend such movements. Others warn of the danger of syncretism. Syncretism, however, is a danger found among Christians everywhere as we express our faith within our own cultures. We should avoid the tendency, when we see God at work in unexpected or unfamiliar ways, either (i) hastily to classify it and promote it as a new mission strategy, or (ii) hastily to condemn it without sensitive contextual listening. 

In the spirit of Barnabas who, on arrival in Antioch, ‘saw the evidence of the grace of God’ and ‘was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord,’ we would appeal to all those who are concerned with this issue to: (1) Take as their primary guiding principle the apostolic decision and practice: ‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God’ and (2) Exercise humility, patience and graciousness in recognizing the diversity of viewpoints, and conduct conversations without stridency and mutual condemnation.

Of course, Piper prefaces his comments about IM by saying “this is what I mean by it” and then providing a description of an IM that includes genuine followers of Christ staying in the mosque, continuing to read the Quran (possibly as inspired), self-identifying as Muslims, etc.  This is certainly a kind of IM, but it is also pretty misleading to not clearly articulate that there is a tremendous amount of variety and difference of opinion on these particulars.  Not everyone who pursues contextualization in the Muslim context would practice these particular forms.  However, by referring to this as a response to “The Insider Movement” (see point 1), there is the suggestion (intentional or not) that this is really what all insider movements are about.

Normal Christianity = Western Christianity
Piper correctly points out that an American banker who comes to know Christ has to change very little of his external cultural forms in order to enter the American Christian community.  Piper says that this is because the American culture is so “uniform”.   What he neglects to point out is just how much of an “insider movement” the American church has been all along.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not suggesting that American church forms have been contextualized to the culture with a tremendous amount of intentionality or missiological insight.  But nevertheless, the contextualization is clearly present.  What American Christians think of as “normal” or “standard” forms of church life or Christian spirituality are forms, rituals, holidays, symbols and theologies that have been either entirely derived from or else heavily conformed to the prevailing culture.  This is simply beyond dispute.

This points to one of the most significant underlying faulty premises of the critics of insider movements.  They presume the orthodoxy and the normative nature of the American/Western Church (and its forms), setting it up as the standard against which all deviations are naturally viewed with skepticism.  They hope to frame the debate as “Normal Christianity” versus “The Insider Movement” and they are largely successful because they are not challenged to demonstrate that the American Church has really arrived at exactly what Biblical faith in Christ should look like.  Moreover, they are not challenged to defend biblically their own approach to cross-cultural mission which we may accurately deem as “outsider movements” – i.e. the systematic extraction of new followers of Christ from their birth communities and colonization of new lands/cultures with Western brands of Christian expression.

Insider Movements vs. Outsider Movements

Piper’s problem is clearly with particular forms that are sometimes used by some IM proponents.  He mentions several things that he doesn’t think are good ideas.  Personally, I know enough about this debate within a Hindu context to know how unwise it is to weigh in on the particulars of the Muslim-context debate.  But, I wish Piper were willing to clearly articulate that “staying in one’s birth community” is a fundamentally good and Biblical ideal.  I wish he were better about distinguishing disagreements regarding particular forms as a fundamentally different debate than the question about “insider” versus “outsider” movements. 

The C-Scale: Here We Go Again

Piper gives credence here to the infamous C1-Cwhatever framing of contextualization debate.  I have expressed elsewhere that I believe John Travis’ scale to be built upon faulty premises.  In short, the scale presumes that rightward/upward movement eventually leads to syncretism, heresy, etc. (whether that happens at C3, C4, C5 or C16 is debated but it certainly happens).  Further, it presumes that leftward/downward movement is inherently safe, orthodox, and God pleasing.  However, people who take the time to actually understand syncretism and heresy and not just hurl them around as epithets will realize that neither requires intentional efforts of contextualization in order to exist.  What is more, the C-scale cannot at all account for the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ (either as a historic reality or as a model for cross-cultural engagement).  These inherent deficiencies to the C-scale call us to discard it as some kind of prescriptive tool to determine “how far we should go”.  Actually, I don’t think this was Travis’s purpose to begin with.  Thus, Piper’s statement about “drawing the line” at C4 isn’t helpful because it assumes the validity of the scale.  What I wish he would have said was something like, “I am unabashedly for the ‘staying in’ trajectory of insider movements, but certain forms that some of them adopt seem to be problematic.  For example . . .”  Further, I wish he’d say something like, “I am unabashedly against the extraction and colonization tactics of outsider movement proponents.”

Is All Persecution Against Christians Persecution for Christ's Sake?

Piper mentions that “all the Muslim converts” that he met at Cape Town 2010 were very upset about insider movements.  First, let me say that I was there too and that Piper clearly didn’t talk to all of them.  In fact one of the plenary speakers was a Muslim-background disciple of Jesus who even presented an insider movement model.  Piper also mentions the persecution argument.  Now this is a very sensitive thing, to be sure.  But let me just say that we should not assume that every Christian who is persecuted is actually persecuted because of Jesus.  I want to be clear again to say that I cannot comment about the particulars of the Muslim context.  But in my (non-Muslim) context, most (not all) of the persecution that we observe against Christians has nothing at all to do with Jesus except in the minds of those being persecuted.  I want to also say that I have never met a practitioner of contextualization who is motivated by a desire to avoid genuine, anti-Jesus persecution.  Such people probably exist and I would strongly oppose such motivation.  In my personal experience, the IM road has led to increasing persecution as those followers of Jesus who seek to stay in their birth community are attacked by outsider movement Christians.  Let me be clear: there is real persecution and plenty of it which is the shameful fruit of rebellion against the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  But we also need to admit that there is plenty of wicked persecution that emerges from all kinds of other motives.

Honesty, Integrity and Biblical Faithfulness

Piper says that “honesty, integrity, and Biblical faithfulness” should be our guidelines.  I couldn’t agree more.  However, too many opponents of contextualization overtly condemn IMs as lacking integrity and honesty.  I reject this idea.  As a cross-cultural worker pursuing a kind of IM, I am motivated strongly by a desire to communicate with the lost with more clarity, truthfulness, and integrity.  I believe that outsider movements are inherently dishonest (though not always intentionally) because they communicate through their methods of colonialism and extraction that the gospel and Christ-following is something other than what it really is. 

Piper says that he wants to hear from “our missionaries” who he believes to be the real experts on this issue.  I appreciate that.  But I hope that Piper doesn’t simply mean that he wants to listen to missionaries that agree with him and then amplify their voices.  Further the notion of creating a policy that draws the line at “C4” is unwise for the reasons I have already stated.  If there are particular forms that his church wants to oppose, they should make those decisions themselves, but please discard the notion that “C4” or “C5” or “The Insider Movement” are tangible and fixed things that can be prohibited.  That’s just not true. 

A Final Thought

Let me close by saying that I appreciate much of what Piper brings to the Church and that I think his statement here is charitable, humble, and marked by wisdom.  I don’t think he fully grasps this issue and the particular nuances that I have articulated above, but he admits as much at the beginning of the video.  It is problematic however that so many opponents of IMs are flooding the internet with a lot of misinformation, bigotry, ignorance, personal attacks, and other general silliness.  And everyone who “retweets” such drivel is culpable. This isn’t a simple issue.  And there are a tremendous number of people who are talking about it that should rather be listening and learning.  Actually, we could all do with a little more listening and learning. 

The Lovely Strangeness of Matt Soerens: "Seeing Our Immigrant Neighbors"

Matthew Soerens is a strange chap -- an American, white suburbanite who has taken to an incarnational-type of life among the immigrant poor here in the seemingly prosperous western burbs of Chicagoland. Pretty cool actually. As I have often said, "When their bedbugs become your bedbugs, then you are doing something right." I mean, I'm not saying that Matt has bedbugs . . . but, well . . . nothing.

Anyway, I like what Matt has contributed in the article linked below entitled "Seeing Our Immigrant Neighbors". "Seeing" is indeed a critical first step in faithful missional engagement among diasporas. Only when we learn to see can we move on to faithful prayer, relationship, advocacy, incarnation, discipleship and the like. I hope you'll read the article below and pay attention to what Matt is saying.  It is, in my opinion, flowing out of genuine and sacrificial experience.  Also, I'd love for you to share in the comment section of your experiences about learning to see immigrants among you. What are some of the best ideas you know of for helping others to see them?

Seeing Our Immigrant Neighbors: "In DuPage County, where I live, about one in five residents is foreign-born, and one in four speaks a language other than English at home. In many neighborhoods, like mine, a large apartment complex easily visible from a major thoroughfare but never noticed by many white suburbanites, the vast majority of the residents are either immigrants or their children. I have started to realize immigrants are all around me, not just in my neighborhood, but at the grocery store, our local public elementary school, and at the Laundromat."

My First Nepali Sermon (Video)

Some people were interested in seeing the video of my very first Nepali sermon.  I spoke on the Good News of the Birth of Jesus.  My focus was on the song of the Heavenly Host in Luke 2.  Translated from the Simple Nepali Version of the Bible, "May they have peace with whom God is happy." The question I reflected on was, "With whom is God happy?"

Now, the recording isn't very good. This is just house sound, so it would have been more clear in person. What is somewhat unique about my approach is my incorporation of Sanskrit chanting.  Enjoy!

Highlights from 2011 Bhutanese-Nepali Christmas Celebration (Wheaton)

I hope your Christmas was a great blessing as you celebrated the birth of the Lord Jesus!  For my family, we spent most of the day with the local Bhutanese-Nepali community enjoying the Prabhu Sri Yeshuko Janmadinum Utsav (Birth of Lord Jesus Festival).  Folks from Chicago, Aurora, and the Wheaton area gathered together for the celebration hosted by TriEak Parmeshwar Mandali.  Here are a few of the highlights (for more videos from the celebration check out my wife's YouTube channel):


(Here's my favorite Nepali Christmas Song. It tells of the Magi who came to Bethlehem to give offerings to Jesus)


(Here's our very cool children's presentation of the Christmas story. You may recognize the narrator.)


(An original Nepali poem about the life of Jesus by Nar Thapa, member of TriEak Parmeshwar Mandali)


(Sitam Magar shared this song as a special guest from Agape Church, Wheaton)


(Here's an example of a dance that was shared by our guests from Chicago)

Be sure to check out all the videos from our program here.

Hallowing Thy Name in All Things: Possessio as the Aim of Contextualization

Thanks to a recent comment on another post by "Jim", I have come across an article by my friend, H.L. Richard. I am posting below a link to the article and strongly encourage any of you that are interested in contextualization issues to take a look. H.L. and I have spoken in my home about the concept of possessio as distinct from the earlier missiological concept of accomodatio. He was the first one to tell me about the Dutch missiologist Johan Herman Bavinck (although I already had 1 Cor. 3:21 bookmarked on my phone's Bible app with just such an application in mind). Anyway, I really love the article that H.L. has written and find myself heartily agreeing with it. Please do check it out. In case you don't have time just now, here is the Bavinck quote that H.L. provides:

Here note that the term “accommodation” is really not appropriate as a description of what actually ought to take place. It points to an adaptation to customs and practices essentially foreign to the gospel. Such an adaptation can scarcely lead to anything other than a syncretistic entity, a conglomeration of customs that can never form an essential unity....We would, therefore prefer to use the term possessio, to take in possession. The Christian life does not accommodate or adapt itself to heathen forms of life, but it takes the latter in possession and thereby makes them new....Within the framework of the non-Christian life, customs and practices serve idolatrous tendencies and drive a person away from God. The Christian life takes them in hand and turns them in an entirely different direction; they acquire an entirely different content. Even though in external form there is much that resembles past practices, in reality everything has become new. The old has in essence passed away and the new has come. Christ takes the life of a people in his hands, he renews and re-establishes the distorted and deteriorated; he fills each thing, each word, and each practice with a new meaning and gives it a new direction. Such is neither “adaptation,” nor accommodation; it is in essence the legitimate taking possession of something by him to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth. (Bavinck, Johan H., An Introduction to the Science of Missions, 1960.)

Anyway, terms like accommodation and adaptation are certainly related to the concept of contextualization (particularly the latter). However, they must not be understood as synonyms for it. Rather, contextualization for the Christ-follower is an intentional imitation of Christ's incarnation and, as Bavink and Richard has pointed out, is aimed at possessio -- of taking possession of all things under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and for His glory. I was reading from an old (non-missiological) book by Alan Redpath and find there a helpful insight. Redpath speaks of the "hallowing of God's name" in all things. He said that as a Christian worker "this concern will be uppermost in everything I do in my Master's name. Whatever service you or I may undertake, our first thought in it all will be, 'Is this for His glory?' Can I write 'Hallowed be Thy name' over that?" (Redpath, Alan, Victorious Praying, 1957.) While it wasn't in Redpath's mind, I believe that this ought to be a kind of operational question for the missionary and Christ-follower who examines some form, ritual, tradition, festival or other element from a given religio-cultural context. "Can I write 'Hallowed be Thy name' over that?" Not as it is perhaps, but as it could be once taken possession of and made to submit to Christ's Lordship. And it should certainly be our aim to write "Hallowed be Thy name" over as much as we possibly can!

It actually takes me back to a worship and missions project that I was involved with years ago in Paris, France. Those were the days when I was sang and played harmonica for a small-time Christian band. We spent a few weeks playing acoustic sets in various subway stations throughout the Paris, especially in the heavily North African parts of town. Of course we used the opportunities to distribute Bibles, Jesus films, and similar items but one of our driving motivations was simply to worship the Lord where he wasn't being worshiped. Yes, we were influenced by John Piper's famous adage, "Mission exists because worship doesn't." I find that same impulse with me today, driving me to take possession of those things, those traditions, practices, forms, and festivals over which I find no banner, "Hallowed be Thy name". I long to engage that thing, whatever it is. I long to bring the incarnate Lord Jesus to bear in, through, against that thing. I long to see that banner lifted up. Over a Nepali baby naming ceremony -- "Hallowed be Thy name". Over a traditional celebration of Dashain or Deepawali -- "Hallowed be Thy name". Over a language like Sanskrit -- "Hallowed be Thy name". Over all things and among all peoples -- "Hallowed be Thy name".

Okay, enough from me. Here is the link to H.L.'s wonderful article:

Mission Frontiers - All Things are Yours: "In a classic text on cross-cultural ministry Paul stated his policy of becoming all things to all men so that by all means he might save some (1 Cor. 9:22). This is sometimes treated as a specialist approach for experts in cross-cultural encounter, but the Bible presents it as a model for all ministry. It is exemplified in the incarnational pattern of Jesus who, due to the Father’s great love for the world, was sent as a true human being into a specific historical and cultural context to announce and effectuate salvation for the world."

Grace to You's "Giving Up to Gain" - latest on contextualization

I want to simply make note of the fact that Grace to You has posted a new article related to contextualization -- well, a post that is really seeking to be against contextualization.  I responded in detail to their first post and I would encourage you to read my comments on that first. The new article posted by Grace to You is entitled "Giving Up to Gain" and it truly doesn't add anything to their case unless you accept the false assumptions set forth in the first article.  That is, particularly for this second post, one must accept that the pursuers of contextualization are "church marketing specialists" who are willing to sacrifice the message of the gospel to gain hearers, to modify its content to suit the world, to compromise its truth instead of calling people to faith and repentance.

Of course, the fundamental problem with what GTY is doing is that they have begun with a wrong definition of contextualization.  They are attacking something which I would agree is bad but inappropriately naming that thing contextualization.  It is something else.


In terms of what GTY offers as interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:19-23, I essentially agree with what they are saying about Paul desiring to give up his rights in order to win others.  But that's exactly what my point was when I argued in the previous response to GTY that this text is most certainly a pro-contextualization passage. Here's what I wrote then:


I would suggest reading it in the larger context of chapter 9 and then comparing the language to the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2.  Is it not clear, that Paul has in mind the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ as he reflects on his own ministry philosophy?  Paul, though free from all, makes himself a slave to all just as Christ, who was in the form of God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant.  What was this slavery for Paul?  It was becoming a Jew to Jews, a Greek to Greeks – all things to all men.  In this, Paul’s vision was clearly Christ who was found and human likeness and was obedient to the point of death on the cross.  So this was not a matter of experimenting with novel new ministry methods for Paul.  It was slavery.  It was a laying down of his rights and life that he might win more people to Christ.


Writes GTY:


So winning people to Christ was his one objective. In order to do that, Paul was willing to give up all his rights and privileges, his position, his rank, his livelihood, his freedom—ultimately even his life. If it would further the spread of the gospel, Paul would claim no rights, make no demands, insist on no privileges.


What GTY fails to see is that included in this -- perhaps even the most obvious implication -- is that Paul was willing to give up his cultural preferences and identity.  He was willing to become a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks -- all things to all people.  To argue that this is not a text describing Paul's pursuit of contextualization as incarnation seems to be really missing the mark.


I guess at the end of the day, I don't really have a huge disagreement with GTY.  I think that what they are opposing -- if it actually exists out there somewhere -- is something that I would also oppose.  The problem is that whatever and wherever it is, it simply isn't contextualization.  I don't care if the proponents of it drop that term here and there -- they just don't know what they are talking about.  They are playing a game and not pursuing the difficult and cruciform road of incarnation.


The whole contention with the Darrin Patrick crowd comes at the same issue from a different angle.  It would seem to me that GTY would be at odds with Patrick on the issue of contextualization.  Of course, I'm not sure.  But I think the fundamental problem here is a poor understanding of the key term.  For GTY, contextualization means essentially to conform to the culture, blend in, sell out the gospel.  Patrick doesn't really disagree with this.  He seems only to offer the modification that "over-contextualization" means to conform to the culture to the point of selling out the gospel.  For Patrick that is contextualization but it is too much of it.


So long as Patrick and those in his school of thought grant that there is a necessary connection between contextualization and slipping into heretical syncretism, the GTY-types can always respond by saying something like, "Why not just stay far away from anything so inherently dangerous?" And this wouldn't be a bad question.


No! This connection must be denied.  Syncretism, heresy, licentiousness and the like are not the special domain of contextualizers for they flow not from the incarnational life but rather from sin, ignorance of the Scripture and sound doctrine, and a deficient commitment to Christ.   One certainly does not have to be involved in contextualization to fall into these pits.  Contextualization is not to be imagined on a continuum with normal, sound, and good Christianity on the "non-contextualized" left and increasingly dangerous examples of contextualization moving off to the right until they eventually fall off into the fires of friendship with the world and hatred toward God.   Contextualization rather has as its model the incarnation of Jesus and its aim the enfleshening of the Christ-life in every historic human context. 


If Patrick and others like him could grasp this, then they might be much more effective in their advocacy and pursuit of contextualization, being thus able to respond to the GTY-types, "You know that's not what we mean by that term don't you?  Not at all."


To the GTY author, perhaps it was John Macarthur himself, again, I'd encourage you to get to know better the people who are really doing the work of contextualization.  I don't know any "church marketing specialists"; I probably wouldn't get along with them very well if I did.  But I can tell you that we pursue contextualization full on and have called many people to repentance and faith in the process.  In fact, just did so this past Sunday.

Answering "Grace to You" on Contextualization

Grace to You, the ministry associated with Bible teacher John MacArthur has apparently decided to target contextualization for the next few days on their blog.  It continues to boggle my mind that there seems to be no end to the attacks on the pursuit of contextualization.  Well, you can read the first edition of their series, “All Things to All Men” here.  For the most part, you can probably guess at my responses based on my previous writings on the subject.  Nevertheless, let me attempt a brief reply.  GTY's words are in italics.

The notion that the church must become like the world to win the world has taken evangelicalism by storm. Virtually every modern worldly attraction has a “Christian” counterpart. We have Christian motorcycle gangs, Christian bodybuilding teams, Christian dance clubs, Christian amusement parks, and I even read about a Christian nudist colony.

The above is a game.  From the first paragraph, it is clear to me that the author either hasn’t interacted with a confessing Christ-follower who is a genuine practitioner of contextualization.  Is he seriously suggesting that a “Christian nudist colony” is a serious example of contextualization?  The above list is designed to shock a particular audience rather than to educate.  It is disappointing to me and others who have paid a great price in order to cross-cultures incarnationally with the gospel.

Where did Christians ever get the idea we could win the world by imitating it? Is there a shred of biblical justification for that kind of thinking? Many church marketing specialists affirm that there is, and they have convinced a myriad of pastors.

Okay, I suppose I must pause here for a moment and admit that there may indeed exist a movement of American Christians (“church marketing specialists”) who do all kinds of stupid stuff under the label of “contextualization”.  But, I would argue that anyone who has the imitation of the world as their goal isn’t practicing true contextualization.  As I’ve said before, Biblical contextualization – real contextualization – is focused on the imitation of Christ’s incarnation.  This is what Paul practiced and it is what must be aimed for today.  We must not fall into the trap (either in our advocacy or in our opposition) of thinking of contextualization as merely a way to market a church.  Properly understood, it has less to do ministry techniques and methods than with spiritual discipline.  The one who has practiced contextualization truly, particularly in cross-cultural situations, has done so at great personal cost.  He or she doesn’t have to be convinced that living incarnationally -- voluntarily giving up ones personal cultural preferences, language, and food for the sake of the gospel – is spiritual discipline.

Ironically, they usually cite the apostle Paul as someone who advocated adapting the gospel to the tastes of the audience. One has written, “Paul provided what I feel is perhaps the single most insightful perspective on marketing communications, the principle we call contextualization (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). Paul … was willing to shape his communications according to their needs in order to receive the response he sought.” “The first marketeer was Paul,” another echoes.

Okay, well people who are reading Paul in this way – as a marketing strategist – are being silly.  But again, this isn’t contextualization as incarnation.  It is marketing.  Marketing is simply not what I am advocating for.  However, before GTY criticizes marketing too much, they should ponder for a moment why they engage in it themselves.  After all, they do market their ministry and resources all the time.  They adapt the form of these things all along the way in order to reach more and more people.  One wonders what exactly they are condemning here.

After all, the apostle did write, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (1 Cor. 9:22, 23). Is that a mandate for pragmatism in ministry?

I’m not sure what is meant by a “mandate for pragmatism in ministry”, however I will say out right that this certainly is a mandate for the pursuit of contextualization.  I would suggest reading it in the larger context of chapter 9 and then comparing the language to the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2.  Is it not clear, that Paul has in mind the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ as he reflects on his own ministry philosophy?  Paul, though free from all, makes himself a slave to all just as Christ, who was in the form of God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant.  What was this slavery for Paul?  It was becoming a Jew to Jews, a Greek to Greeks – all things to all men.  In this, Paul’s vision was clearly Christ who was found and human likeness and was obedient to the point of death on the cross.  So this was not a matter of experimenting with novel new ministry methods for Paul.  It was slavery.  It was a laying down of his rights and life that he might win more people to Christ.

Was the apostle Paul suggesting that the gospel message can be made to appeal to people by accommodating their relish for certain amusements or by pampering their pet vices?

No, of course not.  While there are some people who would perhaps seem to think that this is what is meant by contextualization, it is not what I mean.  Nor is it what anyone that I know means who practices contextualization.  For contextualization to be genuine, it must enable the Christ follower to bring God’s prophetic word to bear on a given cultural context – and to do so in a way that can be understood, preferably (like Jesus did) as an insider to that culture. 

How far do you suppose he would have been willing to go with the principle of “contextualization”?

Paul was willing to go all the way because his model was Jesus who became fully human, fully Jewish, fully Galilean, etc.  The “how far” questions miss the point on contextualization and, I must add, are usually asked by Western Christians for whom the gospel has already been fully contextualized!

This much is very clear: the apostle Paul was no people-pleaser. He wrote, “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). Paul did not amend or abridge his message to make people happy. He was utterly unwilling to try to remove the offense from the gospel (Gal. 5:11). He did not use methodology that catered to the lusts of his listeners. He certainly did not follow the pragmatic philosophy of modern market-driven ministers.

Correct.  He was no people-pleaser.  He didn’t seek to remove the offense of the gospel.  Nor was he intentionally trying to tick people off – he was careful to not add to the offense of the gospel by a failure to be incarnational.  So he didn’t preach in Hebrew at Lystra.  He didn’t preach the same sermon in Antioch Pisidia as he did in Athens.  He didn’t write to the Ephesians in the same style as he wrote to the Philippians.  This was not amending or abridging the gospel “to make people happy”.  This was about discovering how to communicate it with clarity through word and deed. 

What made Paul effective was not marketing savvy, but a stubborn devotion to the truth.

No, actually what made Paul effective was the work of the Holy Spirit.  Not that I am arguing for “marketing savvy”, but let’s be sure on this point.  Effectiveness in ministry comes neither from our “stubborn devotion to the truth” nor our “marketing savvy” but by the sheer grace of God.  That being said, God does, for his glory, bless and honor obedience and the pursuit of contextualization as incarnation is obedience.

He was Christ’s ambassador, not His press secretary. Truth was something to be declared, not negotiated. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). He willingly suffered for the truth’s sake (2 Cor. 11:23–28). He did not back down in the face of opposition or rejection. He did not compromise with unbelievers or make friends with the enemies of God.

I don’t like this paragraph because it is designed to suggest that contextualizers don’t want to proclaim the truth, are ashamed of the gospel, are unwilling to suffer for truth, constantly back down in the face of opposition or rejection, compromise with unbelievers, and make friends with the enemies of God.  Sorry GTY, while this is a problem in the Church is simply isn’t exclusive to those who practice contextualization.  I find it offensive that this is being suggested.  First, walk in our shoes for a week.  If at the end you think that we are ashamed of the gospel or afraid to suffer for truth, feel free to write such things.  Otherwise, I believe that this suggestion should be retracted.

Paul’s message was always non-negotiable. In the same chapter where he spoke of becoming all things to all men, Paul wrote, “I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). His ministry was in response to a divine mandate. God had called him and commissioned him. Paul preached the gospel exactly as he had received it directly from the Lord, and he always delivered that message “as of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). He was not a salesman or marketer, but a divine emissary.

This is more of the same.  It is a straw man fallacy really.  This idea is to present pursuers of contextualization as wimpy Christians who are ashamed of the gospel and afraid to suffer and then to say, “Well, Paul wasn’t like that so contextualization must be bad.”  Sorry, this is just bad and, I believe, irresponsible argumentation.  To the author, I would love to introduce you to a few disciples of Jesus who would blow you away in their boldness. 

He certainly was not“willing to shape his communications” to accommodate his listeners or produce a desirable response.

Of course, Paul was willing to shape his communications and did so to win people to the Lord.  One has only to compare the sermons he delivered in Antioch Pisidia, Lystra, and Athens and ask the question, what accounts for the fact that they are not the same sermon?

The fact that he was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19), beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for the truth’s sake ought to demonstrate that he didn’t adapt the message to make it pleasing to his hearers! And the personal suffering he bore because of his ministry did not indicate that something was wrong with his approach, but that everything had been right!

In what sense does Paul’s persecution demonstrate that he didn’t adapt his message?  I would agree (as would most pursuers of contextualization) that he didn’t make adaptations for the sake of pleasing people.  However, that he adapted his message is incontrovertible.  There has certainly been persecution in church history that has arisen from people misunderstanding the intentions of gospel proclaimers.  However, contextualization also leads inevitably to suffering and persecution just as the incarnation led to the cross.  In fact, I’d suggest that contextualization as incarnation inevitably leads to suffering because it allows people to come in contact with Jesus as the word made flesh for them.  For some, their response will be faith and repentance.  But others will reject this Christ and oppose him – sometimes violently.

So what did Paul mean when he wrote, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel”? As always, the context makes his meaning clear. We’ll be taking a look at what Paul really meant over the course of the next several days. I hope you stick around.

It will be interesting to read the articles to come.  I hope I have time to treat them here on the blog.  However I think there is an ironic sentence in this closing paragraph that is worth a second look.  “As always, the context makes it clear.”  Here, GTY is reminding us of a helpful principle for Biblical interpretation.  However, the principle is more generally applicable.  The context does make the meaning clear.  That is the point of the pursuit of contextualization in the end.  The idea is to use elements native to a particular context to make the meaning of the gospel clear.  What must be understood is that the hearers of the gospel will always use their context to interpret our message.

Okay. Spending too much time on this lately.  Peace.

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.

The Birth of the Lord Jesus (Hindi and English)

Here's a video from a message I gave in the Chicago satsang not too long ago.  The topic is the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ and it is in English with Hindi translation.

The Cape Town Commitment Dismisses the Supposed Link Between Contextualization & Syncretism

I've been stuck on contextualization all week. Which many of you may be happy about. If not, well, seriously, I'm not the only blog in town.

Today, I want to point you to the full statement on contextualization from the Cape Town Commitment. I mentioned yesterday some of its positive elements in light of its definition of "insider movements". Today, I will point to what I believe is an even stronger reason why the statement is so important. You can see my comments in highlighted italics below:


Love respects diversity of discipleship

So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance. This is a complex phenomenon and there is much disagreement over how to respond to it. Some commend such movements. Others warn of the danger of syncretism. Syncretism, however, is a danger found among Christians everywhere as we express our faith within our own cultures. [Here it is. This is such an important thing to point out. There is no inherent connection between contextualization and syncretism. Syncretism is born not out of contextualization but out of poor discipleship or a deficient commitment to God's Word. It thrives most in settings where individuals are not reflective about their faith -- which is rarely the case where contextualization is intentionally pursued by followers of Jesus seeking to incarnate Him in a particular cultural context. As for those who have willfully abandoned a pure and sincere devotion to Christ, whatever they do beyond that should not properly be deemed as contextualization. Contextualization is about the imitation of Christ's incarnation and crucifixion. It is about mission and manifesting the Christ-life to particular peoples in the clearest and most compelling way possible. Any discussion of "how far do you go" is out-of-place and betrays a failure to grasp this essential point. Ask rather, "How far did Jesus go? How human did He become? How Jewish? How Galilean?"] We should avoid the tendency, when we see God at work in unexpected or unfamiliar ways, either (i) hastily to classify it and promote it as a new mission strategy, or (ii) hastily to condemn it without sensitive contextual listening.

A)    In the spirit of Barnabas who, on arrival in Antioch, ‘saw the evidence of the grace of God’ and ‘was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord,’[72] we would appeal to all those who are concerned with this issue to:

1. Take as their primary guiding principle the apostolic decision and practice: ‘We should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.’[73]
2. Exercise humility, patience and graciousness in recognizing the diversity of viewpoints, and conduct conversations without stridency and mutual condemnation.[74]

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.]