Contextualization and Methodology: the Praxis of Gospel Communication

CONTEXTUALIZATION AND METHODOLOGY: THE PRAXIS OF GOSPEL COMMUNICATION

By John Farquhar Plake

A Paper Presented to the Hiebert Track at the North Central Regional Conference of the Evangelical Missiological Society

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Deerfield, Illinois April 2015

Author Bio: John Farquhar Plake serves as Associate Professor of Missions and Intercultural Studies at Evangel University in Springfield, Missouri. In May, 2015, he will graduate from the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary in Springfield, Missouri with a Ph.D. in Intercultural Studies. In September, he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation, entitled “The Development and Validation of a Theory of Missionary Expatriate Effectiveness among Assemblies of God World Missions Personnel.” Prior to coming to Evangel University, John and his wife, Tabitha, served as missionaries with Assemblies of God World Missions. They also pastored AG churches in Illinois. He holds a M.A. in Missions and Intercultural Studies from Wheaton College and a B.S. in Pastoral Studies from North Central University in Minneapolis, Minnesota. John specializes in missionary training with a focus on training and mobilizing short-term mission teams. John and Tabitha live with their two daughters in Nixa, Missouri.

ABSTRACT

Globalization, urbanization, and migration have transformed contextualization from a missionary issue into a missio Dei issue for the global church. Contextualization is rooted in an outdated model of mission and is plagued by overly complex definitions, which challenge practitioners’ efforts to unite theory and practice. Practitioners are challenged to return to Paul Hiebert’s concept of critical contextualization. Critical contextualization respects both biblical revelation and cultural diversity, bringing them together through the mediatorial work of missionaries, guided by a critical realist epistemology.

After reviewing current definitions, models and issues in contextualization, the author argues that contextualization must be relational, prophetic, reflective, continuous, historical, existential, eschatological, and Spirit-led. The praxis of contextualization is a model in which redemptive action and theological reflection are twin moments of the same event.

Gospel contextualization is both a process and a product. It is central to the life of believers in every society, and it is essential to the propagation of the faith in new socio- cultural settings. The Church and the academy must begin to train Christians and engage communities of faith in the praxis of contextualization as a normative part of their engagement in the mission of God. The result of this process is that the gospel becomes understandable and meaningful within new socio-cultural settings, the Church grows in its understanding and application of the gospel, and the Kingdom of God is expanded to include many who could not embrace a foreign gospel.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

CONTENTS ...... iii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CONTEXTUALIZATION IN BRIEF REVIEW ...... 1

Definitions of Contextualization ...... 2 Models of Contextualization ...... 3 Current Issues in Contextualization ...... 6 Receptor versus Source Orientation ...... 6 Proliferation of Local Theologies ...... 7 Gap between Theory and Praxis ...... 8

COMPONENTS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION ...... 9

Relational Contextualization ...... 10 Prophetic Contextualization ...... 11 Reflective Contextualization ...... 13 Continuous Contextualization ...... 14 Historical Contextualization ...... 16 Existential Contextualization ...... 17 Eschatological Contextualization ...... 18 Spirit-led Contextualization ...... 18

THE PRAXIS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION ...... 19

Why Praxis? ...... 20 Critical Contextualization ...... 21 Cultural Exegesis ...... 21 Exegesis of Scripture and the Hermeneutical Bridge ...... 24 Critique and Response ...... 25 Domains of Contextualized Praxis ...... 26 Recursive Nature of Praxis ...... 27

CONCLUSION ...... 28

APPENDIX A: MODELS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION ...... 29

APPENDIX B: MISSIONS CASE STUDY WORKSHEET ...... 30

iii

REFERENCES ...... 32

INTRODUCTION

Historically, contextualization was considered in terms of the indigenous church, which was always located “over there.” As globalization, urbanization, and postmodern thinking change the face of the Church (Pocock, Van Rheenen, and McConnell 2005,

Jenkins 2007), principles of gospel contextualization have become central to the theological education of future pastors and missionaries, alike. Contemporary students, who are preparing for missionary service, pastoral ministry, and lay church leadership, must be equipped to make the gospel understood in complex, global societies without compromising the power of the gospel to critique those cultures.

Models and definitions of contextualization abound, however, practitioners need methods for contextualized praxis, which engage communities of Christ-followers in the process of incarnating the Gospel in their socio-cultural contexts while submitting to the

Holy Spirit who brings unity to the Church. The praxis of contextualization is relational, prophetic, reflective, continuous, historical, existential, eschatological, and Spirit-led. In this article I review current thinking on gospel contextualization, describe necessary components of gospel contextualization, and propose an outline for the praxis of gospel contextualization.

CONTEXTUALIZATION IN BRIEF REVIEW

The term contextualization has come to prominence in missiological literature since its first use in 1972 (Gilliland 2000). Though the term was initially eschewed by evangelical scholars, due to its origin in conciliar circles, the concept was timely. As colonialism waned and majority world missions developed, there was a need to recognize

that missiology was dominated by Western thought forms and methodologies. The global

Church needed a way to talk about the complex interplay between cultural context, gospel message, and missionary methodology, which allowed each socio-cultural expression of the Church to be an active subject in the missio Dei, rather than relegating the younger churches to the status of objects-of-mission.

Definitions of Contextualization

Definitions of contextualization as a process are rare in the literature. Dean S.

Gilliland (2000, 225) observes, “There is no single or broadly accepted definition of contextualization. The goal of contextualization perhaps best defines what it is.”

Similarly, Darrell L. Whiteman defines contextualization by its function:

Contextualization attempts to communicate the Gospel in word and deed and to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people’s deepest needs and penetrates their worldview, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their own culture. (1997, 2)

Academic arguments over the nature of contextualization led Charles Kraft

(2005a) to abandon the term altogether, in favor of the term “appropriate Christianity.”

Dean Flemming’s approach to contextualization centers on the role and impact of the gospel within societies:

I take contextualization, then, to refer to the dynamic and comprehensive process by which the gospel is incarnated within a concrete historical or cultural situation. This happens in such a way that the gospel both comes to authentic expression in the local context and at the same time prophetically transforms the context. Contextualization seeks to enable the people of God to live out the gospel in obedience to Christ within their own cultures and circumstances. (Flemming 2005, 19)

Certainly more definitions could be offered. Scott Moreau (2000, 2-7) offers 13 separate definitions of contextualization without ever attempting one of his own. In

summary of the available literature, I suggest that contextualization has at least six components:

Contextualization is a process, rather than an event.

Contextualization involves communicating the message of the gospel, which is often described in incarnational terms (Lingenfelter and Mayers 1986).

Contextualization results in the message of the gospel becoming understandable and meaningful1 within a people’s cultural setting.

Contextualization fosters culture-specific responses to the gospel message, which are consonant with the ethics of the Kingdom of God.

Contextualization results in a prophetic critique of socio-cultural beliefs and practices, which are incommensurable with the ethics of the Kingdom of God.

Contextualization enables believers to follow Christ in ways that make sense to non-Christians within their own socio-cultural setting.

Models of Contextualization

Just as definitions of contextualization abound, models of contextualization are numerous. These models can be divided into paradigms, including (1) dogmatic versus existential; (2) apostolic, prophetic, or syncretistic accommodation; (3) translation, adaptation, and enculturation; (4) ethnographic versus liberation; and (5) propositional versus existential models (Moreau 2000, 8-9). Gilliland (2000, 227) employs a similar list of models: (1) adaptation, (2) anthropological, (3) critical, (4) semiotic, (5) synthetic, (6)

1 Some prefer the term “relevant.” I have not used it here in order to avoid explaining relevance theory in communication. For the implications of relevance theory on gospel contextualization, see R. Daniel Shaw. “Beyond Contextualization: Toward a Twenty-First-Century Model for Enabling Mission.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 34, no. 4 (2010): 208–215.

transcendental, and (7) translation. The most common distinction between these models of contextualization is where they begin the process. Some begin with Scripture, while others begin with context. Each model, however, considers both Scripture (gospel) and context, though they do not necessarily give both equal weight.

Moreau (2000) goes on to list seven propositional models of contextualization, and another seven existential models, divided into two camps: dialectical (four models) and relativistic (three models).2 Relativistic models tend to elevate context to the position of arbiter over Scripture, denying the normativity of the Bible. Dialectical models attempt to understand Scripture from the perspective of culture. The strength of these models is that they allow questions to arise from within the thought categories of the culture. The weakness of dialectical models is that they can limit the meaning of the gospel to only those categories that exist within the respondent culture. The possibility of a biblical critique of culture is diminished, though not entirely absent.

Currently evangelical and Pentecostal missiologists tend to favor propositional forms of contextualization, especially Hiebert’s (1987) critical contextualization and

Kraft’s (1979) dynamic equivalence. These models are frequently debated and modified as scholars attempt to capitalize on their similarities while incorporating useful ideas from the dialectical models.

Reflecting on the tendency to see biblical revelation and culture in dialectic tension, Craig Ott proposes an alternative image. He suggests that revelation is akin to

2 For a more detailed description of Moreau’s models, see Appendix A: Models of Contextualization or consult A. Scott Moreau. Contextualization in world missions: Mapping and assessing evangelical models. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications 2012).

light projected against the reflective surface of culture, which may, in turn, focus the light toward the mission and glory of God.3

This conceptualization for globalizing theology can be compared to a parabolic lamp, as familiar to us in a flashlight or automobile headlight. Light emanates from a single focal point and is reflected from a parabolic surface so as to project the light in a single direction. In this analogy, God’s revelation provides the single focal point from which the “light” of theologizing emanates. It is singularly determinative and authoritative. Yet the truth of Scripture is reflected in various ways at differing angles in each cultural context. (Ott and Netland 2006, 324)

Ott’s analogy would be strengthened by incorporating the work of the Holy Spirit in critiquing and shaping culture, thus polishing and shaping the mirror of culture. When the

Hubble space telescope was found to have a flawed mirror, corrective optics were designed to, in effect, put glasses on the telescope, bringing its images into focus (Space

Telescope Science Institute 2012). In the same way, the Holy Spirit illuminates biblical revelation and helps believers adjust their notions of “sin and righteousness and judgment” (Jn 16:8)4.

While Ott’s model of contextualization captures the interplay between gospel and culture, introduces the helpful outcome of missio Dei, and makes room for the working of the Holy Spirit in the process of contextualization, it is also limited. First, Ott discusses this model in the context of globalizing theology, but contextualization encompasses more than theology. Contextualization properly involves the incarnational communication of the entire gospel. While globalizing theology is certainly helpful, it is

3 This notion is similar to fulfillment theology. See Ivan M. Satyavrata. God has not left himself without witness. Edited by Ruth Padilla DeBorst, Hwa Yung, Wonsuk Ma, Damon So and Miroslav Volf, Regnum studies in global Christianity. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock 2011).

4 All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2011).

primarily cognitive, doctrinal, and ethical. Gospel contextualization extends beyond what individuals think or even teach about the gospel, encompassing appropriate responses to and expressions of the gospel in the lives of individuals, families, organizations, and societies. Second, while Ott’s model is parsimonious, it is not particularly praxis- oriented. It leaves practitioners asking how to go about implementing contextualization in this manner. For current models of gospel contextualization to be operationalized, more work needs to be done.

Current Issues in Contextualization

Work on gospel contextualization continues in the academy, primarily in the areas of model refinement and theory development. To borrow a term from psychology, current scholarship in contextualization is focused on construct specification. In other words scholars are debating exactly what gospel contextualization means, where its limits are, and who should be involved in it. Because there are multiple, often competing, notions of what gospel contextualization is (including questions about the nature of the message which practitioners should be contextualizing), there is no consensus about how missionaries and ministers ought to engage in contextualization as ministry praxis.

Receptor versus Source Orientation

Perhaps the most monumental contextualization issue currently under debate in evangelical and Pentecostal scholarship is the question of receptor- versus source- orientation. Kraft (2005a) argues for receptor orientation on the basis that Christianity is primarily a faith, rather than a religion. Therefore, Christian faith may appropriately take root in the religious milieu of any culture. While he acknowledges the possibility of

syncretism when Christian faith is expressed through forms that are antithetical to the gospel, he is concerned that under-contextualization may be the more common problem.

On the source-orientation end of the spectrum, Van Rheenen (2006) and his colleagues contend that syncretism (or over-contextualization) is much more common than Kraft allows.

Paul Hiebert contributes to both books, and to Craig Ott and Harold Netland’s

Globalizing Theology (2006), which is dedicated in his honor. In Globalizing Theology,

Hiebert argues for missionaries to serve as mediators between cultures and churches, which have developed their own local notions of theology (Hiebert 2006). In many ways,

Hiebert’s ideas mediate the divide between the receptor-orientation camp and the source- orientation camp. Critical contextualization respects both biblical revelation and cultural diversity, bringing them together through the mediatorial work of missionaries guided by a critical realist epistemology.

Proliferation of Local Theologies

A second contextualization issue facing scholars and practitioners is the potential fragmentation of the Church, due to a proliferation local theologies. In some ways, this proliferation is due to a failure of contextualization in which there has been too little agreement about Scripture’s prophetic critique of culture. As an example, the insistence of the Episcopal church in the United States that homosexual ministers be ordained and even elevated to the bishopric was seen by conservative Anglicans worldwide as an unacceptable “diminution of the authority of Holy Scripture” (Moorer 2005).

Both Scripture and a worldwide hermeneutical community must play a role in discerning the direction of the Holy Spirit and critiquing the theology and practice of

contextualized Christian churches in every local setting. There is, however, very little agreement about (1) the role of the Church in offering and/or enforcing such critique, and

(2) the manner in which to go about such critique. The hegemonic position of the older churches in the West has contributed to a worldwide failure to engage in global theologizing or critique. Western individualism and embarrassment at the history of colonialism have combined to present cultural and historical barriers to collaboration.

The action of the African Anglican communion in critiquing the Episcopal church of the

United States may signal a new era of worldwide Christian contextualization, led by the churches of the global South.

Ultimately, contextualization must produce local churches which are completely at home in their native soil while simultaneously being in harmony with the worldwide

Church of Jesus Christ. Too much emphasis on local theology tends to be schismatic, while over-emphasis on global theology may produce a religion that is foreign to everyone and at home nowhere.

Gap between Theory and Praxis

Third, contemporary contextualization faces a significant gap between theory and praxis. Darrell Whiteman (1997, 5) observes, “there is still a gap—and at times an enormous gap—between our scholarly books and articles on models of contextualization that we write to one another and the actual practice around the world.” Kraft (2005c) suggests several reasons why contextualization is not implemented more frequently or evenly in missionary praxis:

Contextualization focuses too much on formal theology and too little on felt needs, particularly spiritual power.

Failure to operationalize contextualization, allowing it to remain only theory without practical procedures for implementation.

Well-trained missionaries who do not engage in contextualization due to insecurity, peer pressure, or culture stress.

Poorly trained missionaries and national church leaders who do not understand how to deal with the cultural aspects of their task.

Many non-contextualized or under-contextualized churches appear to be successful (i.e., they are large and prosperous).

Pressures from receiving churches to conform to their Westernized ideas about

Christianity, orthodoxy, and orthopraxis.

Kraft’s perspective is particularly relevant for educators who train ministers, missionaries, and Christian professionals for service in culturally-diverse contexts around the world. His first, second, and fourth points need particular attention from the academy.

Twenty-first century Christian higher education must not continue graduating students who are unable to thoughtfully and skillfully serve as mediators at the intersection of global Christian faith and local culture. Before students can be prepared, though, missiologists must face the challenges of (1) specifying the core components of contextualization and (2) delineating a process for engaging in the praxis of contextualization. The remainder of this paper addresses these two concerns.

COMPONENTS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

Recent literature on gospel contextualization has developed important concepts which support, qualify, and focus previous models of contextualization. These components of contextualization have arisen through the normal process of theological

reflection and critique; however, most have not yet been included in an integrated model of contextualization. Before attempting to outline the praxis of contextualization, I will consider the ways in which contextualization is improved by ensuring that it is relational, prophetic, reflective, continuous, historical, existential, eschatological, and Spirit-led.

Relational Contextualization

Following the example of Jesus in Philippians 2:5-11, missionaries must endeavor to minimize the subjective impact of their cultural heritage and, as fully as possible, be incarnated into the culture of their respondents (Lingenfelter and Mayers 1986).

Sherwood Lingenfelter and Marvin K. Mayers acknowledge that one can never fully empty one’s self of his or her cultural predispositions as Jesus did in his kenosis. Rather, they propose that missionaries become “150 percent people,” who are at home in more than one culture (1986, 24-26). This notion of incarnational ministry complements

Hiebert’s call for missionaries to serve as mediators between cultures (Hiebert 2006).

R. Daniel Shaw (2010) expresses concern that missionary mediation is typically a one-way bridge between the source and the receptor. Eugene Nida (1975) applied communication theory to missiology in the Source-Message-Receptor (S-M-R) model of mission. In the S-M-R model, God is the source, the gospel is the message, and the receptor is the object of missionary communication. The message is encoded through the life of the missionary, who endeavors to live and speak in such a way that God’s message is comprehended and received. The downside to the S-M-R model is that it tends to objectify respondents, leading to a transactional focus on gospel witness instead of a relational focus. “Mission became a matter of knowledge transfer…. The meaning of what God has to say was viewed as bound to the text, in the possession of the

communicator, rather than being relevant to the context where the receptor lived” (Shaw

2010, 209).

Relational contextualization shifts the focus from product orientation to process orientation: from doing to being. In an era of global Christianity, practitioners must become aware that when they enter into relationship with others for the purpose of fulfilling God’s mission, not only will their respondents be changed, the communicators will also be transformed. Shaw (2010, 210) writes, “If the intent of Gospel communication is to enable people to become more like God intended them to be, that is, to display God’s image, then transformation in those who bring the Gospel and in those who hear and ‘receive’ it will move both toward that goal.”

Perhaps one cannot really grow in Christian faith apart from Gospel witness, which transforms both missionary and respondent. In the context of relationship, missionaries come to know the respondent culture and are better equipped to affirm its strengths.5

Prophetic Contextualization

Gospel contextualization which only affirms the strengths of a culture, however, is Pollyannaish and fails to respond appropriately to the sinful nature that is shared by all human beings.6 Contextualization must also be prophetic: willing to confront sin in

5 Not only does contextualization demand that missionaries engage the task relationally, the gospel has implications for the relational dimension of life. For an excellent treatment of this issue see Katie J. Rawson. “Contextualizing the relationship dimension of the Christian life.” In Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles H. Kraft. (Pasadena: William Carey Library 2005, 341–359).

6 For the impact of biblical anthropology on contextualization, see A. Scott. Moreau. INTR 532: Contextualization course notes: Full text version. (Wheaton, IL: Wheaton College 2000, 49–65).

individuals, families, organizations, structures, and societies. Sin is not only an individual issue. Sinful human beings create social structures which reflect, reinforce, and serve their own selfishness. Prophetic contextualization must engage entire societies with the ethics of the Kingdom of God.

Whiteman (1997, 3) argues that contextualization fulfills three functions, which may be summarized as communication, offense, and expression. He suggests that proper contextualization of the gospel is offensive, “but only for the right reasons, not the wrong ones.” He goes on to explain the tension between making the message of the gospel understandable and recognizing that it calls all people in all cultures to conform to the ethics of the Kingdom of God. In the words of Andrew Walls:

Along with the indigenising principle which makes his faith a place to feel at home, the Christian inherits the pilgrim principle, which whispers to him that he has no abiding city and warns him that to be faithful to Christ will put him out of step with his society; for that society never existed, in East or West, ancient time or modern, which could absorb the word of Christ painlessly into its system. Jesus within Jewish culture, Paul within Hellenistic culture, take it for granted that there will be rubs and friction—not from the adoption of a new culture, but from the transformation of the mind towards that of Christ. (Whiteman 1997, 3, Walls 1982, 98-99)

Prophetic contextualization is challenging because all societies resist change when it is being imposed by outsiders. Westerners, who tend to value individual rights, also find it difficult to challenge their cultural neighbors, tending toward either a laissez- faire attitude or its opposite: a patronizing paternalism. Frances Adeney (2007, 33) cautions, “the Gospel message…not only consists of ideas but also is embodied in certain universal values that need to be identified and translated into diverse cultural forms. If

Christian values are not articulated and practiced in fitting ways in a particular culture,

Christianity will remain a foreign religion, set apart from the life and commitments of society.” The task of translating universal Christian values into a particular community

belongs to the insiders: Christians from that society. “Guests and missionaries from other cultures, however, may interact with that process of contextualization, bringing new insights and theological perspectives that can aid or hinder the process” (Adeney 2007,

33).

Reflective Contextualization

As missionaries and their Christian counterparts in neighboring cultures engage in the process of prophetic contextualization, the reflective nature of the contextualization process becomes apparent. When the light of the gospel shines on the beauty and fallenness of another society, missionaries may become more aware of the fallenness in their own society and even in their personal lives. Whiteman refers to this phenomenon as “the personal challenge” of contextualization, “Contextualization changes the missionaries because they will not be the same once they have become part of the body of

Christ in a context different from their own” (1997, 6).

Craig Storti (2001) notes the impact that cross-cultural travel often has on sojourners. Foreign travelers who enter into meaningful relationships with their hosts engage in an eye-opening and horizon-expanding exchange of ideas. Sojourners are often unaware of how much their own values and perspectives have changed until they return to their home countries. Storti (2001, 19) quotes one returning traveler: “I tried to puzzle out [my] society…which I found incomprehensible. Perhaps it is more precise to say that

I did not want to admit that I did understand it. I was horrified at what I understood and in disagreement with many of my society’s basic premises. I did not want to be part of it.”

This experience of reentry shock is normal, and it typically subsides; however, a similar phenomenon can be experienced by missionaries who engage in gospel contextualization.

It can be uncomfortable to realize that traditions which have been uncritically accepted in one’s home country, denomination, or local church might be more cultural artifacts than gospel expressions. Exposure to neighboring cultures prompts missionaries to question their own traditions and failings and to become aware of the greatness of God’s

Kingdom, which is at home in every culture and which unifies all people who will submit to Christ’s lordship.

Continuous Contextualization

Furthermore, gospel contextualization is challenging because it is continuous, rather than temporary. Contextualization requires both adapting culture to the gospel and comprehending the gospel in light of culture. Consequently contextualization is continuous because culture is not static. The change of generations, the passage of time, and increasing contact with other cultures force Christians to reevaluate their collective compliance with and comprehension of the gospel.

Kraft (2005b) observes that contextualization is probably always subideal. The first generation of Christians in a society is often interested in distinguishing itself from non-Christian influences in its own culture. The desire for “separation and contrast”

(Kraft 2005a, 255) is often rooted in a longing for freedom from the spiritual powers and traps of sin which marked converts’ lives before coming to faith in Christ. As important as it is to separate themselves from sinful influences, first-generation Christians are not often concerned with finding culturally-appropriate alternatives to the music, rituals, customs, and social organizations they are leaving. Developing such alternatives takes time, which they cannot afford, and theological reflection, for which they are not yet equipped. Thus, new Christians often uncritically imitate the missionaries who brought

them the Good News. Later, the practices of this first generation of Christ-followers tend to become reified in the minds of indigenous church leaders. Kraft also notes that sometimes:

When large groups come [to the Christian faith] with their preChristian cultural ways largely intact, they may change their behavior and worldview less than they should. They may simply continue practices that honor their previous gods or that are incongruent with Christian moral standards without even knowing that they should change them. Either way, there is much contextualizing to be done in succeeding generations. (Kraft 2005b, 256)

Because of incomplete contextualization among early adopters and because of cultural changes, which mark progress in all societies, Kraft advocates for continuous contextualization (2005b, 257).7

In order for continuous contextualization to become an effective practice in the church, missionaries, pastors, and church leaders must come to understand the process and develop a level of comfort with the praxis of contextualization. Learning to distinguish between form and meaning whenever possible8 can prevent ongoing non- contextualization issues. Kraft notes:

moving away from at least some of a people’s traditions may well be required at some point for true Christian commitment. …What is unfortunate, though, is that people have usually felt they have to dissimulate more by adopting new surface-

7 The contextualization concerns of succeeding generations may be different from one another. Kraft (2005b, 263-272) suggests that first generation believers are often concerned with (1) separation, (2) breaking spiritual powers, and (3) imitating the powerful. Second generation believers may have a greater concern for (1) leadership; (2) relational aspects of Christianity; (3) dependence on literacy, especially in societies with a strong oral tradition; (4) spiritual power; and (5) others issues, such as, leadership, finance, language, geography/demography, re-examining first-generation standards. Third and subsequent generations might find that the following issues need attention: (1) nominalism, (2) nationalism, and (3) issues unaddressed by previous generations.

8The level of correspondence or association between form and meaning falls along a continuum from an arbitrary association, such as the word “dog” in English or the word “perro” in Spanish being associated with an actual dog, to equation on the other end of the spectrum, such as when a judge pronounces a litigant “guilty.” In the latter case, the speech act (form) transforms the defendant into a criminal, thus form and meaning are equated.

level cultural forms…than by learning to express their deep-level commitments within their own traditional way of life. (2005b, 261)

Ideally, Christian faith takes root in and effects transformation at the deepest levels of meaning in a culture: worldview and values (Hiebert 2008). These transformed worldviews then give rise to culturally meaningful expressions, however, this process takes time. The disciplined practice of continuous contextualization provides space for communities of believers to confront reified practices and beliefs which are incommensurable with the gospel of the Kingdom.

Historical Contextualization

As Christian communities practice continuous contextualization, they must consider how their local expressions of faith correspond with Scripture, with the sending culture (relational contextualization), and with the history of the Church. Historical contextualization seeks to critique contemporary contextualization in light of Church history. This critique may either correct or confirm an existing dimension of contextualized faith, or it may catalyze contemporary thinking and compel the local church to take action that it had not otherwise considered.

Hiebert (1987, 108) laments the “ahistorical nature of most discussions of contextualization.” He argues that,

Exegesis and hermeneutics are not the rights of individuals but of the church as an exegetical and hermeneutical community. And that community includes not only the saints within our cultural context, and even the saints outside our culture, but also the saints down through history. To become a Christian is to become a part of a new history, and that history must be learned. (Hiebert 1987, 108)

Historical contextualization may look to the early church councils for direction on core doctrinal issues, such as the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the nature of salvation, or the

work of the Holy Spirit. The ante-Nicene fathers provide excellent perspective on

Christian views of suffering, and the pre-Reformation monastic movements give insight into missionary sodalities.

Especially in Western societies, Christians often have a short-sighted view of what it means to be a Christ-follower. By engaging with Christian history, contemporary churches may avoid faddishness and even schismatic teaching.

Existential Contextualization

Historical contextualization provides continuity with the Church through time, and existential contextualization makes room for the immanent manifestation God’s presence and power. In the process of contextualization, Christian communities must consider how they might make room for God to manifest his power in their midst and how they should respond to his presence.

In a Western context, evangelical and Pentecostal churches need to consider whether and how they are recognizing and cooperating with the Holy Spirit. Fear of excesses and even magical thinking often drive Westerners toward an overly programmatic view of both ecclesiology and worship. Contextualized Christianity must allow for and even seek the active involvement of God who is with us. In a different context, however, the existential component of contextualization may bring a biblical critique to animistic notions of spiritual power. God’s immanence has implications for those who struggle with fear and superstition and for those who too quickly rely on formulaic traditions or naturalistic solutions to their problems.

Eschatological Contextualization

Besides the immanence of God’s presence, contextualization considers the imminent end of times and the fulfillment of His plan for Creation. Flemming (2005) observes that the Revelation provided the churches of Asia Minor with an alternative view of reality from a heavenly perspective. “John’s visions are intended to create a new symbolic world for his readers, one that opposes the Roman imperial worldview that dominated their horizon” (Flemming 2005, 274). In this way, eschatological contextualization asks whether or not Christians in every cultural setting are viewing their world from God’s perspective. The eschatological view of time, life, death, kingdom, suffering, and a myriad of other issues serves to recalibrate the Church and “provide an alternative vision of [the] world” (Flemming 2005, 274). Christians who live under the earthly reign of oppressive governments and even consuming economic systems must remember to engage in eschatological contextualization.

Spirit-led Contextualization

The final characteristic of gospel contextualization that I would like to consider is

Spirit-led contextualization. Though many scholars believe the world has progressed beyond the modern era into a time when people eschew rationalism, I believe that much contextualization is limited to Cartesian thought. Hiebert (1987) notes the impact of structural functionalism and of descriptive linguistics on the development of cultural relativism. In contextualization these tools can be helpful components of analysis, especially when endeavoring to exegete the culture. This new anthropology, however, is most useful for deconstructing societies. Like a mechanic might disassemble an

automobile engine to examine and understand the condition of its component parts, these tools are only descriptive. Cultural relativism provides no standpoint from which to advocate for change. Anthropologists may become zookeepers, fascinated with the diversity of the world’s cultures but lacking understanding of God’s plan for them.

Contextualization may be aided by anthropological tools, but the Holy Spirit gives

Christians the wisdom and the inspiration to know how to reflect Christ through the prism of any culture. The Holy Spirit has been given to the Church to bear witness to Jesus

Christ and to fill Christians with power for witness. Therefore, Christians engaged in gospel contextualization would be well served to pray for the guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit, whose purpose it is to reveal Jesus Christ.

Certainly gospel contextualization has a great number of components. Models of contextualization abound, and effective contextualization is relational, prophetic, reflective, continuous, historical, existential, eschatological, and Spirit-led. Finally, I consider is how Christians may engage in the praxis of contextualization.

THE PRAXIS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

Today more than ever before, cultural diversity and new ideas about spirituality and religion confront missionaries, pastors, and church leaders who may or may not cross a national border to engage people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Contextualization is critical to the process of making the gospel understandable and meaningful to diverse populations. However, Christian educators have not moved contextualization training to the center of the curriculum, leaving it as a complex and integrative branch of missiology, which is rarely discussed except by graduate students and their professors. Thus contextualization affects the thinking of very few and the practice of even fewer

Christians. The Church and the academy must consider how to equip parishioners, pastors, missionaries, and students to engage in the praxis of contextualization as a normative part of their engagement in the mission of God. I suggest that the praxis of contextualization involves the community of believers in the ongoing exegesis of culture and of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, contributing to a critique of traditional cultural practices and the development of contextualized religious practices in all of their dimensions. The result of this process is that the gospel becomes understandable and meaningful within new socio-cultural settings, the Church grows in its apprehension of the gospel, and the reign of Christ is established among people who had previously resisted participation in God’s Kingdom.

Why Praxis?

When I advocate for the praxis of contextualization, I am aware of the overtones of liberation theology that the term might evoke. However, praxis is also a common term in education denoting a connection between theory and practice. Ray Anderson (1993) insists that the Church’s activity on Christ’s behalf should be through the empowerment of the Spirit of Christ, reaching out to individuals, families, and societies in grace and embodying a praxis in which redemptive action and theological reflection are twin moments of the same event. Anderson (1993, 26) writes, “For the church to be both incarnational and Pentecostal in its theology and praxis, it must recover the dynamic relation between its nature and its mission.” Thus, I choose the term praxis because it brings theory and practice together in service of the mission of God.

Additionally, Anderson (1993, 27) points out that, “Praxis is…an action in which the truth is discovered through action, not merely applied or ‘practiced.’”

Contextualization is impossible apart from action because it requires some form of practice upon which to reflect theologically. Truth is discovered through action, which is critiqued, refined, and improved by theological reflection under the guidance of the Holy

Spirit. Thus the praxis of contextualization is always in vivo not in vitro.

Critical Contextualization

Despite its age, Hiebert’s “Critical Contextualization” (1987) is often the starting point or dialogue partner for missiologists developing new models of contextualization.

His work has the advantage of being parsimonious and relatively practical in its orientation. It has also withstood a great deal of scholarly critique intact. I begin a description of the praxis of contextualization with a review of Hiebert’s model and suggest additions for modification and implementation of critical contextualization in

Christian higher education.

Critical contextualization (Hiebert 1987) contains four steps: (1) exegete the culture through phenomenological analysis, (2) exegete relevant Scripture in cooperation with the hermeneutical community, (3) engage in a community-wide (primarily emic) critical evaluation of cultural practice in light of Scripture and decide how to respond, and (4) arrange any new practices into a contextualized ritual that expresses the Christian meaning of the event.

Cultural Exegesis

The first step in critical contextualization (Hiebert 1987, 108) is “uncritically gathering and analyzing the traditional beliefs and customs associated with some question at hand. …The purpose here is to understand the old ways, not to judge them.” This

information-gathering stage is analogous to field work in anthropology where a missionary or church leader serves as the social scientist, and the congregation is a group of informants.

Implicitly, the praxis of contextualization begins with a question or a problem that needs resolution. Contextualization questions arise from ministry among a particular people in a particular time. In this sense, there are no general or universal questions in contextualization. Hiebert observes that, “in each culture Christians face new questions for which they must find biblical answers” (1987, 108). There are no questions-in- general; there are only contextual questions, which give rise to cultural exegesis.

Additionally, cultural exegesis requires what Duane Elmer (2006) calls suspending judgment. “By suspending judgment, I can keep my mind open to alternative explanations for what I see and hear rather than immediately assuming something negative. …Not all judgments are wrong, but most premature judgments are” (Elmer

2006, 50-51).

One conflict that can arise in the cultural exegesis phase of critical contextualization is differing notions of time. Westerners often have a desire to move quickly to a resolution of a question, while those from other cultural backgrounds may indefinitely delay dealing with potential conflict (Elmer 1993). Educators must intentionally slow North American students down by exposing them to the academic disciplines of participatory observation, ethnography, case study analysis, and journaling

(especially when serving in cross-cultural situations). When students learn to record phenomenological data and then engage in post hoc analysis of intercultural situations, they acquire a critical skill in gospel contextualization.

When I was a graduate student at Wheaton College, the Intercultural Studies

Department faculty regularly engaged the students in case study analysis, using a format that was based on Hiebert’s critical contextualization model. Students were assigned readings from Paul and Frances Hiebert’s Case Studies in Missions (1987).9 Using a case study worksheet (see Appendix B), students individually engaged in comparative phenomenological analysis of the cultural factors influencing each party in the case. The entire first page of the case study worksheet is dedicated to this first step in Hiebert’s critical contextualization model. Later, in class, students were asked to collaborate with peers as they worked toward a community-wide understanding of the cultural factors that were influencing the situation.

When teaching undergraduate students, I introduce freshmen to the practice of working case studies. They typically have no formal training in understanding or labeling cultural phenomena, but the practice of working through case studies helps them to (1) be more observant of cultural phenomena, (2) learn from a collaborative community, (3) suspend judgment, and (4) be skeptical of premature judgments. Interestingly, young students regularly tell me that their initial assessment of the situation is almost always wrong. Only as they give time to cultural exegesis do they begin to develop workable solutions to real-life questions.

9 Case Studies in Missions is no longer in print; however, Encountering Mission series of textbooks published by Baker Academic includes relevant case studies at the conclusion of each chapter. These books are appropriate for undergraduate students.

Exegesis of Scripture and the Hermeneutical Bridge

Once the question has been defined and the phenomenology has been explored, critical contextualization turns to exegesis of Scripture (see “Ontology,” Appendix B).

Especially at this stage it is important to work as a hermeneutical community with members from more than one culture or sub-culture. Hiebert writes:

While the people must be involved in the study of Scripture so that they grow in their own abilities to discern truth, the leader must have the metacultural grids that enable him or her to move between cultures. Without this, biblical meanings will often be forced to fit the local cultural categories. The result is a distortion of the message. (1987, 110)

In the example in Appendix B, the process is expanded from simply exegesis of Scripture to including principles from Church history and missiological principles. This broadening of the hermeneutical filter brings relevant information into the discussion that may help the church avoid solutions that are myopic, schismatic, or simply heterodox.

In the classroom, students with broad life experience, familiarity with the Bible, and at least basic understanding of hermeneutics are able to contribute meaningfully to the discussion of ontological factors that affect contextualization. When students analyze case studies, they also benefit from some emotional distance at this point. When students feel an emotional connection with one of the parties in a case study, they are often unable to see any ontological evidence in support of an opposing opinion. When completed carefully, the ontology section provides balanced scriptural support for more than one perspective.

As a practical matter, it is important to encourage the hermeneutical community to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the exegesis of Scripture. The work of the Holy

Spirit includes bringing the people of God to unity and understanding about Christ and

His Body. Excellent scholarship is helpful in hermeneutics, but the finest scholars regularly receive inspiration and understanding by the grace of God through the Holy

Spirit. Contextualization can be challenging, but with God’s help, Christians can engage in the process “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:2-3, ESV).10

Critique and Response

Once cultural phenomena have been understood and biblical exegesis has been conducted, the hermeneutical community is ready to “evaluate critically their own past customs in the light of their new biblical understandings, and to make decisions regarding their response to their new-found truths. The gospel is not simply information to be communicated. It is a message to which the people must respond” (Hiebert 1987, 110).

The response options available to the church include:

Keep the old ways because they are not in conflict with the gospel.

Reject the old ways because they are incommensurable with the gospel.

Modify the old ways by investing them with Christian meaning.

Substitute cultural elements from another society for those in their own culture.

These may be from near-neighbor societies.

Adopt or adapt Christian rites, which may tie the indigenous church to the worldwide, historical Church (Hiebert 1987, Moreau 2000).

Often the basic decision about what to do is less complicated than deciding how to do it. For instance, even if a decision needs to be made about whether to accept or

10 The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001)

reject polygamy in an African tribal setting, the means of implementing the decision must be considered carefully and with the continuing advice of the entire hermeneutical community. A decision to reject polygamy may be deemed the best choice, but it raises questions related to church leadership, the fate of the people who are currently in polygamous marriages, the economics of the community, and more. Insofar as possible decisions must be implemented in a way that makes sense to the wider community and that does not contradict the ethics of the Kingdom.

Whenever possible, the church should consider whether its decision and manner of implementation:

results in unity among believers within the society

convicts or affirms the respondent culture with the authority of the Holy Spirit

(Ac 15:28)

expands the Church’s understanding of the Kingdom of God

is consonant with the history and purpose of the Church

results in increased or more effective participation in God’s mission

reveals Christ in new places and among new people.

Domains of Contextualized Praxis

Hiebert’s critical contextualization provides an excellent foundation for the praxis of contextualization; however, it leaves open the possibility that missiologists and practitioners will engage contextualization too narrowly by focusing primarily on doctrines and ethics. Moreau (2000) follows Ninian Smart’s (1996) phenomenology of religions approach as he encourages missiologists to consider contextualization in six domains, known by the acrostic, DREEM(M)S:

Doctrine: teachings about truth

Rituals: including symbols and ceremonies

Ethics: beliefs and practices regarding right and wrong

Experience: particularly how people experience God or the supernatural

Myth: in the literary sense of stories that illustrate foundational truths

Social: including kinship systems, education systems, economics, politics, religion, associations, and health (KEEPRAH).11

The DREEM(M)S paradigm and the KEEPRAH system for understanding social systems have been helpful to my students by providing mental checklists of areas students might need to understand and consider for contextualization. The Christian faith is not simply a system of beliefs about propositional truths. Neither is it merely an admirable ethical system. Christian faith is totalizing: a message that demands a holistic response from individuals and societies. Broadening the critical contextualization methodology to include a religious phenomenology heuristic improves practitioners’ ability to operationalize theory and create effective contextual responses to the challenge of the gospel.

Recursive Nature of Praxis

Finally, the praxis of contextualization is recursive and continuous. Whiteman states:

The function of contextualization in mission leaves us with three challenges:

11 More recently Smart has begun analysis of the material dimension of religions, which concerns itself with the nature of material objects and how they are valued within a society (Smart 1998). In the area of Christian contextualization, examination of the material dimension might lead to a discussion of whether or how inanimate objects can be influenced by spiritual beings.

1. Contextualization changes and transforms the context—this is the prophetic challenge. 2. Contextualization expands our understanding of the Gospel because we now see the Gospel through a different cultural lens—this is the hermeneutic challenge. 3. Contextualization changes the missionaries because they will not be the same once they have become part of the body of Christ in a context different from their own—this is the personal challenge. (Whiteman 1997, 6)

These challenges force Christians back into the process of gospel contextualization where they experience community and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX A

MODELS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION12

12 This chart was reproduced from Moreau (2000, 39).

APPENDIX B

MISSIONS CASE STUDY WORKSHEET

REFERENCES

Adeney, Frances S. 2007. “Contextualizing universal values: A method for Christian mission.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research no. 31 (1):33–37.

Anderson, Ray Sherman. 1993. Ministry on the fireline: A practical theology for an empowered church. Pasadena: Fuller Seminary Press.

Elmer, Duane. 1993. Cross-cultural conflict: Building relationships for effective ministry. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Elmer, Duane. 2006. Cross-cultural servanthood: Serving the world in Christlike humility. Downers Grove: IVP Books.

Flemming, Dean E. 2005. Contextualization in the new testament: Patterns for theology and mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Gilliland, Dean S. 2000. “Contextualization.” In Evangelical dictionary of world missions, edited by A. Scott Moreau, Harold A. Netland, Charles Edward van Engen and David Burnett, 225–228. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.

Hiebert, Paul G. 1987. “Critical contextualization.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research no. 11 (3):104–112.

Hiebert, Paul G. 2006. “The missionary as mediator of global theologizing.” In Globalizing theology: Belief and practice in an era of world Christianity, edited by Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, 288–308. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Hiebert, Paul G. 2008. Transforming worldviews: An anthropological understanding of how people change. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Hiebert, Paul G., and Frances F. Hiebert. 1987. Case studies in missions. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Jenkins, Philip. 2007. The next christendom: The coming of global Christianity. Rev. and expanded ed, The future of Christianity trilogy. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

Kraft, Charles H. 1979. Christianity in culture: A study in dynamic biblical theologizing in cross-cultural perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Kraft, Charles H. 2005a. Appropriate Christianity. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Kraft, Charles H. 2005b. “Contextualization and time: Generational appropriateness.” In Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles H. Kraft, 255–273. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Kraft, Charles H. 2005c. “Why isn’t contextualization implemented?” In Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles H. Kraft, 67–79. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G., and Marvin Keene Mayers. 1986. Ministering cross- culturally: An incarnational model for personal relationships. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

Moorer, Talise D. 2005. “Spilt in church seems likely over policy supporting gays.” New York Amsterdam News no. 96 (48):6.

Moreau, A. Scott. 2000. INTR 532: Contextualization course notes: Full text version. Wheaton, IL: Wheaton College.

Nida, Eugene A. 1975. Message and mission: The communication of the Christian faith. 2nd ed. South Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Ott, Craig, and Harold A. Netland. 2006. Globalizing theology: Belief and practice in an era of world Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Pocock, Michael, Gailyn Van Rheenen, and Douglas McConnell, eds. 2005. The changing face of world missions: Engaging contemporary issues and trends, Encountering mission. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Shaw, R. Daniel. 2010. “Beyond contextualization: Toward a twenty-first-century model for enabling mission.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research no. 34 (4):208–215.

Smart, Ninian. 1996. Dimensions of the sacred: An anatomy of the world’s beliefs. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Smart, Ninian. 1998. The world’s religions. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Space Telescope Science Institute. 2012. Hubblesite: The telescope: Hubble essentials. Space Telescope Science Institute 2012 [cited August 9 2012]. Available from http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/#we.

Storti, Craig. 2001. The art of coming home. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Van Rheenen, Gailyn. 2006. Contextualization and syncretism: Navigating cultural currents, Evangelical missiological society series. Pasadena: William Carey Library.

Walls, Andrew F. 1982. “The gospel as the prisoner and liberator of culture.” Missionalia no. 10 (3):93–105.

Whiteman, Darrell L. 1997. “Contextualization: The theory, the gap, the challenge.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research no. 21 (1):2–7.