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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.