Do We Need Contextualization?
My previous post on The History Of Belief really got me thinking about the churches dialog on contextualization, which essentially asks, “How do we contextualize the Gospel in order for people to understand and believe it. Armstrong tweaks that notion by shifting the focus back towards following in the Way in order to understand and reveal what we actually believe. We follow in the Way of Jesus so we can then understand and experience if we believe something to be true.
And I think its a more honest approach that in many ways removes the need for contextualizing the Gospel. Here’s why.
The foundational nature of the cross is that it is an event that has already happened. The Good News of grace doesn’t require my belief in order to be true. My belief only makes me aware of what already is. My belief doesn’t make it true historically. It aligns ME to what already IS true.
If the nature of the Good News is found in what has already been revealed (the cross), and our response is simply to accept what happened, not create a transaction that then makes it true, how important is contextualization then? Because the traditional approach to the Good News approaches salvation as a transaction that makes it true upon belief, which then requires a specific way of believing (ex: The Sinner’s Prayer). It seems to me then that the need for contextualization is found in communicating a specific way of believing, which requires a linguistic commonality of understanding between two people (ex: Creeds).
But the nature of the Good News is very simple: There is nothing that can separate us from the love of God. It would seem to me that we reveal that more expressively and concretely through love: to the least of these, to the poor and the oppressed, revealing that God has not abandoned anyone. The truth is made more real not by a way of believing but by the act that reveals its true.
The practice of love then does not really need contextualization because it does not need linguistic connection. When I hold the dignity of another human being, no matter the context, it resonates. It’s true. When that person is my polar opposite, or my enemy, it resonates even louder. So the context can actually accentuate the Good News. And by doing that I reveal my belief to the world without saying much of anything. I express the Good News to be true. That invites others to follow in that Way when they experience it too.
I hope that makes sense. Interested in your thoughts.
Andy
I've been reading these posts on belief carefully,and I spent some time digesting Peter Rollins related post the other day. It coincides with my own thoughts along these lines. I want to keep thinking and really dive into writing about how I've experienced this.
A couple of years ago, I started taking volunteers from Japan (where I live) to Cambodia to share our lives with “the least” (although we often realize that we are also “poor” despite being from the economically wealthy country). Most of the people I've taken have not shared my faith in Christ. Along the way, most come to know that I'm a follower of Jesus, but I don't try to evangelize them during our time together. Honestly, I'm feeling my way along in this process, but my hope is to share truth in what we do together in a way that the Truth I know (that I live out in action) will speak more loudly and clearly than words.
I don't mean to say I've found a formula, but I'm excited that others are exploring what it really means to communicate truth and considering what it really means to believe.
Andy
I've been reading these posts on belief carefully,and I spent some time digesting Peter Rollins related post the other day. It coincides with my own thoughts along these lines. I want to keep thinking and really dive into writing about how I've experienced this.
A couple of years ago, I started taking volunteers from Japan (where I live) to Cambodia to share our lives with “the least” (although we often realize that we are also “poor” despite being from the economically wealthy country). Most of the people I've taken have not shared my faith in Christ. Along the way, most come to know that I'm a follower of Jesus, but I don't try to evangelize them during our time together. Honestly, I'm feeling my way along in this process, but my hope is to share truth in what we do together in a way that the Truth I know (that I live out in action) will speak more loudly and clearly than words.
I don't mean to say I've found a formula, but I'm excited that others are exploring what it really means to communicate truth and considering what it really means to believe.
sarooney
I agree with your conclusions here. To love (according to the truth… or in a way that is aligned with and testifies of God's love) is a powerful thing. Living in the way provides a counter-cultural alternative that is truly otherworldly, no matter what particular cultural context we find ourselves in.
That said, sensitivity to history might be one of the motivations behind 'contextualization' as a concept, and a desire to avoid cultural imperialism/colonialism when sharing the Good News. And I think that's valuable. The truth is that all cultures have elements of darkness (that don't line up with the kingdom of God), but our colonial ancestors assumed that their understanding of Christianity (and therefore, their culture) was free of such darkness. And that part of sharing the gospel was converting people to our culture in addition to faith. Not true.
It's more obvious to us *now* looking back at history, then it was to them at the time. But that should give us pause and remind us to exercise humility. And it's that humility that I appreciate about the desire to contextualize the gospel.
sarooney
I agree with your conclusions here. To love (according to the truth… or in a way that is aligned with and testifies of God's love) is a powerful thing. Living in the way provides a counter-cultural alternative that is truly otherworldly, no matter what particular cultural context we find ourselves in.
That said, sensitivity to history might be one of the motivations behind 'contextualization' as a concept, and a desire to avoid cultural imperialism/colonialism when sharing the Good News. And I think that's valuable. The truth is that all cultures have elements of darkness (that don't line up with the kingdom of God), but our colonial ancestors assumed that their understanding of Christianity (and therefore, their culture) was free of such darkness. And that part of sharing the gospel was converting people to our culture in addition to faith. Not true.
It's more obvious to us *now* looking back at history, then it was to them at the time. But that should give us pause and remind us to exercise humility. And it's that humility that I appreciate about the desire to contextualize the gospel.
Jonathan Brink
Andy, you've captured a little bit on what I think is a misconception about love. We think that when we're loving people we're not sharing truth. Yet I think that love is the highest truth. It reveals the central message of the Good News. It fulfills the Great Command.
Jonathan Brink
Andy, you've captured a little bit on what I think is a misconception about love. We think that when we're loving people we're not sharing truth. Yet I think that love is the highest truth. It reveals the central message of the Good News. It fulfills the Great Command.
Jonathan Brink
Sarah, I'm struggling a little bit to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that our desire for contextualization was in direct opposition to assuming we had all the right answers and now you needed to look like us in the process?
If so, I would still say that we don't need contextualization because we're still dealing with a language issue. Love transcends language in all forms. It doesn't presupposed a change that needs to take place in order for someone to believe. It reveals the change that already exists. It meets people exactly where they are and says, “God loves you.”
Expand your thoughts a little.
Jonathan Brink
Sarah, I'm struggling a little bit to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that our desire for contextualization was in direct opposition to assuming we had all the right answers and now you needed to look like us in the process?
If so, I would still say that we don't need contextualization because we're still dealing with a language issue. Love transcends language in all forms. It doesn't presupposed a change that needs to take place in order for someone to believe. It reveals the change that already exists. It meets people exactly where they are and says, “God loves you.”
Expand your thoughts a little.
Andy
I think you may be oversimplifying the contextualization issue. I don't think it will be clear unless you define what you mean by love. Is it an expressed feeling? A feeling expressed in action? I'm sure you can agree that sincere feelings may be expressed in ways that won't be perceived as loving.
If actions are both intended AND received as love, then it seems to me that the lover must have acted in a way that accurately embodied love in the context (contextualization or incarnational). If you think about Jesus' incarnation, he was born Jewish and spent 30 years growing up into a Jewish man before launching his final 3 years of ministry. Basically, actions (just like words, which are also actions) travel through a context that needs to be taken into account.
I think the tension you feel about contextualizing the gospel is there because people try to use well chosen words to communicate from a distance in order to avoid the risks of love, and that is not love at all.
Andy
I think you may be oversimplifying the contextualization issue. I don't think it will be clear unless you define what you mean by love. Is it an expressed feeling? A feeling expressed in action? I'm sure you can agree that sincere feelings may be expressed in ways that won't be perceived as loving.
If actions are both intended AND received as love, then it seems to me that the lover must have acted in a way that accurately embodied love in the context (contextualization or incarnational). If you think about Jesus' incarnation, he was born Jewish and spent 30 years growing up into a Jewish man before launching his final 3 years of ministry. Basically, actions (just like words, which are also actions) travel through a context that needs to be taken into account.
I think the tension you feel about contextualizing the gospel is there because people try to use well chosen words to communicate from a distance in order to avoid the risks of love, and that is not love at all.
Jonathan Brink
Actually Andy I think love transcends context but can be informed by context. Love is any act that validates, holds or restored a person's dignity towards wholeness. (My definition). Love is an action.
Context can inform love but is not required in order for love to take place. A missionary serving food to the poor does not require context.
My concern for contextualization is about the misuse of it.
Jonathan Brink
Actually Andy I think love transcends context but can be informed by context. Love is any act that validates, holds or restored a person's dignity towards wholeness. (My definition). Love is an action.
Context can inform love but is not required in order for love to take place. A missionary serving food to the poor does not require context.
My concern for contextualization is about the misuse of it.
Andy
Jonathan,
I started to agree that perfect Love transcends context, but then I changed my mind. After all, the Source of Love (the Trinity) created a context for Love. Was creating a context necessary? Perhaps it was (that discussion gets very heady though). What would God's Love amount to without any context in which it would take shape? Isn't even the Trinity a context?
Apart from the topic of whether perfect Love always plays out in a context, our human attempts at love are expressed in contexts. Perhaps we disagree on the nature of context itself. I would say no action can be separated from context, including feeding homeless people. To begin with, we cannot escape our own bodies. Then we act within physical locations in particular times and cultures. For example, I once went with a group of friends to feed homeless people in downtown LA. It was nighttime. We loaded a big pot of spaghetti in a car, drove until we found a bunch of people on a street corner, then piled out and ate together. That attempt at putting love in action was much different than serving plates of food at Union Station in Pasadena (a weekly planned event). Love may have been at work in both cases, but it was expressed and received differently.
If God is Love, then Love doesn't change. Or does it? The discussion of whether context is necessary for love has implications that have been explored by others, including (I think) Juergen Moltmann and Miroslav Volf.
I do appreciate and agree with your essential point that acting in love is inseparable from seeking and communicating truth. By inseparable, I mean we don't need to feel the pressure to use words, but we trust the Spirit for words when they're really needed. Reducing love or truth to mere words that we can manipulate without personal risk from a distance may be more like idolatry than true evangelism (bad news not good news).
Andy
Jonathan,
I started to agree that perfect Love transcends context, but then I changed my mind. After all, the Source of Love (the Trinity) created a context for Love. Was creating a context necessary? Perhaps it was (that discussion gets very heady though). What would God's Love amount to without any context in which it would take shape? Isn't even the Trinity a context?
Apart from the topic of whether perfect Love always plays out in a context, our human attempts at love are expressed in contexts. Perhaps we disagree on the nature of context itself. I would say no action can be separated from context, including feeding homeless people. To begin with, we cannot escape our own bodies. Then we act within physical locations in particular times and cultures. For example, I once went with a group of friends to feed homeless people in downtown LA. It was nighttime. We loaded a big pot of spaghetti in a car, drove until we found a bunch of people on a street corner, then piled out and ate together. That attempt at putting love in action was much different than serving plates of food at Union Station in Pasadena (a weekly planned event). Love may have been at work in both cases, but it was expressed and received differently.
If God is Love, then Love doesn't change. Or does it? The discussion of whether context is necessary for love has implications that have been explored by others, including (I think) Juergen Moltmann and Miroslav Volf.
I do appreciate and agree with your essential point that acting in love is inseparable from seeking and communicating truth. By inseparable, I mean we don't need to feel the pressure to use words, but we trust the Spirit for words when they're really needed. Reducing love or truth to mere words that we can manipulate without personal risk from a distance may be more like idolatry than true evangelism (bad news not good news).
sarooney
Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying (but more in a national/ethnic cultural sense rather than a particular demoninational cultural sense).
But now I'm not so sure that this is how the contextualization concept/debate took shape. So… woops.
Spoke before I researched. Never a good idea to blab on when you don't even know what someone is referring to! 
However, I think we *should* consider those things (cultural imperialism) – but maybe this has nothing to do with your post or your point. Sorry for any misunderstanding or rabbit trails.
Love transcends language – and action is important (probably pre-eminantly important), but I also strongly believe in declaration.
I believe strongly that there is a place for the *declaration* of the truth that already exists (God loves you, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you make any changes) without any necessary transaction (sinner's prayer). I agree strongly with you on that point: that nothing we do makes it true – it already is true. And our loving action proclaims it, but declarations using words have their place too. I think this may be what “preaching the good news” may look like: a declaration, not an invitation. It doesn't matter what you do with it – it's just true. But if you perceive that truth, there *will* be a response! I'm convinced of that. And only if our actions match the declaration… only then can it be proclaimed with authority and authenticity.
So maybe it's both. Love is action *and* declaration.
sarooney
Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying (but more in a national/ethnic cultural sense rather than a particular demoninational cultural sense).
But now I'm not so sure that this is how the contextualization concept/debate took shape. So… woops.
Spoke before I researched. Never a good idea to blab on when you don't even know what someone is referring to! 
However, I think we *should* consider those things (cultural imperialism) – but maybe this has nothing to do with your post or your point. Sorry for any misunderstanding or rabbit trails.
Love transcends language – and action is important (probably pre-eminantly important), but I also strongly believe in declaration.
I believe strongly that there is a place for the *declaration* of the truth that already exists (God loves you, and it has nothing to do with whether or not you make any changes) without any necessary transaction (sinner's prayer). I agree strongly with you on that point: that nothing we do makes it true – it already is true. And our loving action proclaims it, but declarations using words have their place too. I think this may be what “preaching the good news” may look like: a declaration, not an invitation. It doesn't matter what you do with it – it's just true. But if you perceive that truth, there *will* be a response! I'm convinced of that. And only if our actions match the declaration… only then can it be proclaimed with authority and authenticity.
So maybe it's both. Love is action *and* declaration.