Stand To Reason Newsletter “The Grand Design: A Quantum Leap”
by Greg Koukl®
November/December 2010
Below is an article that discusses some assertions science is making and is relevant to my last comments posted in reference to Newbigins’ Chapter 3 of Foolishness To the Greeks. Please take some time to read and comment at your leisure.
Author’s Foreword:
Sometimes, news from “the other side” can be frightening, especially when coming from scientists with impeccable credentials. Here, for example, is the latest flash: The laws of physics explain everything. The scientific account is complete. Therefore, miracles are impossible, theology is unnecessary, and God is superfluous. When brilliant men like Oxford mathematician Stephen Hawking (A Brief History of Time) and Cal Tech physicist Leonard Mlodinow make dogmatic declarations like these based on the weird world of quantum physics, it stops us in our tracks. Men of this stature making statements of this breadth can easily take the wind out of our sails. Their credentials are so impressive and their subject matter so obtuse, the temptation is strong to wave the flag of surrender and retreat into our prayer closets.
In their new book, The Grand Design, Hawking and Mlodinow aim to use science not just to becalm our efforts as Christian theists, but to sink our ship. You do not need to master quantum mechanics, however, to see the problems with these scientists’ assertions. Just read this issue of Solid Ground carefully. I do not address the physics proper. It is out of my ken. Other, more able men—like Hawking’s erstwhile colleague Roger Penrose and philosopher William Lane Craig—have already weighed in against Hawking and Mlodinow. I am capable, however, of recognizing when a point commits suicide. And even a cursory examination of the theories in The Grand Design show they self-destruct quickly.The authors’ own philosophical musings defeat them before they even get to the science. Einstein famously said,“ The problem with us scientists is that we are very poor philosophers.” In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow prove him right. When you are done with this issue of Solid Ground, I think you will see that in spite of their credentials, they offer nothing to give a thoughtful theist pause.
The Grand Design: A Quantum Leap
By Greg Koukl
Quantum physics. Ugh. The term itself is enough to make grown men weep and send theologians scurrying. It can also send chills up the spine of the
Christian marshalling evidence from science for the existence of God.
Stephen Hawking is the “quantum king.” The Lucasian professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, his Brief History of Time, published in 1988, sold nine million copies. According to The New York Times, Hawking is “the most revered scientist since Einstein.”1So when
Stephen Hawking says quantum physics renders philosophy dead, theology unnecessary, and a Creator superfluous, the temptation is strong to roll over and wave the white flag of surrender.
Down the Rabbit Hole:
Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, coauthored with Cal Tech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, makes all those claims, and more. One can’t read very far in the book, though, without wondering if he’s just stepped over the edge and tumbled down Alice’s rabbit hole.
It’s the feeling I had reading the transcript of an airing of “Larry King Live” when King, Hawking, Mlodinow, and Deepak Chopra opined about the book. At many points the discussion moved beyond esoteric to borderline incoherent. Here, in no particular order, is a sampling of the panel’s comments on “nothing”:
Hawking: Gravity and quantum theory cause universes to be created spontaneously out of nothing. [Non-being creates being?]
King: Who created the nothing?… Where did the nothing come from? [“Nothing” is created?]
Mlodinow: According to quantum theory, there is no such thing as nothingness. [Is this news, that “nothing-ness” is not a thing?]
Chopra: Vashishtha said, infinite words come and go in the vast expanse of nothingness, which is consciousness…. I believe this nothingness is not an empty void. It’s the womb of creation. [What this means is anybody’s guess.]
If you’re confused by these remarks, you’re not alone. Hawking’s erstwhile colleague, Roger Penrose, said, “Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense.” Physicist John Wheeler (who coined the term “black hole”) said, “If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it.” Richard Feynman—cited frequently in Hawking’s book—famously quipped, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
Suicide #1
I think I can safely say, then, that anybody who makes dogmatic assertions based on their interpretation of quantum mechanics is simply wishing on a star, even an esteemed mathematician like Stephen Hawking.
There’s another reason no one needs to fear the quantum physics trump card. Philosopher William Lane Craig points out that, though the equations of quantum mechanics seem sound, there are nearly a dozen different interpretations of how the abstract math plays out in the real world, and all have equal claims to legitimacy.
Even so, the basic assertions of The Grand Design deserve a response. When Larry King asked Stephen Hawking to state the most important point in the book, Hawking answered, “That science can explain the universe, and that we don’t need God to explain why there is something rather than nothing or why the laws of nature are what they are.”
In particular, Hawking and Mlodinow claim:
• Philosophy is dead.
• The laws of physics explain—and therefore determine—everything.
• Miracles are impossible.
• There is no free will.
• Objective reality does not exist.
• God is not necessary to explain the existence or the order of the universe.
As you will soon see, Hawking’s arguments fail completely. He stumbles badly out of the starting gate—his foundational claims are doubly self refuting—and his contention that the universe doesn’t need God comes to nothing.
Philosophy R.I.P.
When I was eight years old, I ran away from home. Unhappy with parental restrictions, I thought I could fend for myself. While my mother wrung her hands and wept, my father calmly granted my request for freedom. He emptied my piggy bank into my pocket, shook my hand, and wished me well. I soon learned (in about two hours) that liberty came with a price, one too dear for a youngster to pay. I needed my parents.
On the opening page of his book, Stephen Hawking the scientist tries to run away from home. “Philosophy,” he writes, “is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
Suicide #2
What Hawking doesn’t realize is that science cannot live on its own. It needs its parent, philosophy. The metaphor is apt because philosophy as a discipline not only gave birth to science, it also guides and guards the scientist so he does not get lost along the way.
Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What science is, how it operates, and what boundaries constrain it are each features of philosophy, not of science itself. For example, in chapter three Hawking lists the virtues of a good scientific model.
A good model…
• Is elegant.
• Contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements.
• Agrees with and explains all existing observations.
• Makes detailed predictions capable of falsifying the model.
The list is a good one. The tally, however, is not the product of science, but of philosophy, specifically the philosophy of science. The scientist who dismisses philosophy does not thereby rid himself of its task. He merely condemns himself to do the philosopher’s job poorly.
Stephen Hawking proves as much by spending the first 63 pages—one third of his book—wrestling with philosophical questions (the title of his first chapter is “The Mystery of Being”) before he even begins to address the science proper. He pontificates on free will and determinism, reality and illusion, right and wrong, reason and logic—but he does so artlessly and, as we’ll see, hazardously.
Albert Einstein once quipped, “The problem with us scientists is that we are very poor philosophers.” Stephen Hawking proves him right. Had he taken philosophy more seriously, he might not have stumbled so quickly. In his second chapter, “The Rule of Law,” Stephen Hawking argues a point about physics that, if true, dooms the rest of his work to utter insignificance.
Physics Is Everything:
I once witnessed a magnificent spectacle created by falling dominoes. Legions of little blocks standing in formation morphed into a stunning work of art when the creator of the massive puzzle gave the first domino a flick. As one by one each domino fell against another in succession, a marvelous panorama unfolded before my eyes.
The picture that appeared was not the result of random events. It was determined beforehand by the specific order of the dominoes and the constraints of the laws of physics. Repeat the exact set-up, repeat the exact result.
Purely physical systems behave like that sea of toppling dominoes. Physical objects “collide” with each other throughout the universe in very precise ways based on their initial conditions and governed by uniform natural law. This is what allows science to operate in the first place. The deterministic
nature of physical systems makes experimental repeatability possible.
Generally, science acknowledges two kinds of causes. The first is the kind of cause determining the configuration of the collapsing dominoes— event causation. The second (the finger flick) is the kind of cause that initiated the cascade to begin with—agent causation (a human agent, in this case).
Hawking and Mlodinow characterize the first kind of cause as “scientific determinism” (SD). Here’s how they describe it: “Given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past. This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God.”
If Hawking is right about scientific determinism it is impossible for him to know it.
Quite right. These two sentences sit side by side for a reason. By stipulating that natural law “fully determines” every event in natural history, the authors aim to squeeze God permanently out of the equation. Simply put, physics is everything. “The scientific account is complete,” Hawking told Larry King. “Theology is unnecessary.”
For Hawking and Mlodinow, though, event causation governs everything—even human choices. Determinism is absolute. There are no exceptions, even human ones. Everything, including human nature, must submit to the sovereignty of physics:
Since people live in the universe and interact with other objects in it, then scientific determinism must hold for people as well….
Do people have free will?...Though we feel
that we can choose...biological processes are
governed by the laws of physics and chemistry
and therefore are as determined as the orbits
of the planets….
Our physical brain, following the known laws
of science…determines our actions, and not
some agency that exists outside those laws.
So it seems that we are no more than
biological machines and that free will is just
an illusion.12 [emphases added]
It’s hard to believe brilliant men like Hawking and Mlodinow do not see how destructive this move is to their own case, but I think you will see it readily.
Let me put the question this way: Did the laws of physics determine the order of the words on the pages of The Grand Design? Or did Professors Hawking and Mlodinow make that call? Did they ponder the evidence for their theories, consider the implications of the facts, posit conclusions, then choose the right words and select the precise order that would best communicate their views and persuade readers of the rationality of their own ideas?
Note that each of the emphasized words above denotes free acts of will made by conscious agents. Without genuine freedom, then pondering, considering, positing, choosing, selecting, communicating, persuading, and reasoning would all be impossible in the sense that we normally use those terms.
Therefore, in light of SD, the authors would have to opt for the first alternative—ultimately, the laws of physics wrote the book that bears their names no less than the laws of physics determined the arrangement of rocks resting on the surface of the planet Mars.
They have no other choice (no pun is intended here; I mean this literally). Remember, the only causation Hawking & Mlodinow allow for is event causation—dominoes fatalistically falling—which is rigidly deterministic.
The Big Squeeze:
If Hawking is right about SD, then it is impossible for him to know it. Knowledge is a combination of true belief based on adequate reason.13 But reason plays no role in deterministic systems. Hawking’s convictions would not be conclusions, but rather the inevitable results of natural law compelling the molecules of his brain to cause his body to dictate the words that appear on the pages of The Grand Design.
Suicide #3
By the authors’ own admission, SD is central to the argument in their book (“This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism”).14 But SD makes arguments themselves impossible because the operation of reason requires free will. Consequently, everything that follows the assertion of SD (including the notion that “miracles or an active role for God” are impossible) tumbles down like a house of cards.
If you follow this point, you won’t need to read any more of this article—or any more of Hawking’s book. There is no reason to turn another page, because nothing that Hawking argues could possibly be known. Hawking could never know if his “M-theory” of the universe were true if his conviction is produced by the laws of physics instead of by the dictates of reason.
By squeezing out free will and genuine human agency in his attempt to squeeze out God, Stephen Hawking squeezes himself out of the picture as well. He disqualifies himself as author, scientist, man of reason (and also humanitarian, kind co-worker, loving husband, etc., but that is a different matter).
The only way out is to surrender SD. Hawking can acknowledge the general uniformity of natural law, but admit the obvious—that agents (like himself) are not subject to its dictates. Rather, they can intervene to change the course of natural events. They can start the dominoes, stop the dominoes, or redirect the dominoes at will.
Clearly, agency is real, and it operates by a different dynamic than the natural order does. Arguments are not subject to the laws of nature any more than the laws of reason can alter the mass of a molecule.
And if human agents are not bound by physics, then why would a divine agent—who arguably authored the laws to begin with—be bound by them? More specifically, how does Hawking know miracles are impossible? He gives no reason. He simply declares it to be so (by asserting SD), and then belittles the alternative.
Leonard Mlodinow told Larry King, “There’s never been in any science experiment…any indication that everything in the universe does not follow physical laws.” But science experiments themselves—having been designed by human agents—are not the product of physical laws, but rather the will of the scientist.
Suicide #4
If Hawking and Mlodinow are right about SD, they are wrong about everything in their book, because knowledge is impossible in the rigidly determined world they affirm. Science itself is undermined by scientific determinism. However, if they are wrong about SD, then they cannot arbitrarily dismiss God as a possible player in the cosmic arena.
The logical implications of scientific determinism cause Hawking’s “grand design” to implode. His theories are doubly dead, however, because they commit suicide in yet another way.
Inside the Goldfish Bowl
In “What Is Reality?” chapter three of The Grand Design, Hawking and Mlodinow ponder the predicament of the goldfish.
The world appears different to a goldfish looking out from the inside of its bowl, than it does to us looking in from the outside. The “lens” of the glass has a distorting affect, bending the light and altering the images that appear on the other side. But which side is distorted, the authors ask, the fish’s or ours?
How do we know we have the true, undistorted picture of reality? Might not we ourselves also be inside some big goldfish bowl and have our vision distorted by an enormous lens? The goldfish’s picture of reality is different from ours, but can we be sure it is less real?
Since “there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality,”18 the answer they give is that there is no way to know. The best we can do, the authors suggest, is simply to formulate a view—a model—that seems to work from our perspective, and leave it at that. Hawking calls this approach “model-dependent realism.”
This language here is misleading, though. In discussions about the ultimate nature of reality, the term “realism” generally means that the external world is real and that it exists, more or less, the way we perceive it to be. Even when there are distorting elements (like goldfish bowls), our perceptive and cognitive abilities allow us to make appropriate adjustments.
However, realism is precisely what Hawking and Mlodinow deny. “How do we know we are not just characters in a computer-generated soap opera?,” they wonder. No model of reality “can be said to be more real than the other.”
“Our perception,” they point out, “is not direct, but rather shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains.” And this distorting influence is impossible for us to escape. All that can be claimed of any scientific theory is that it accounts for the facts better than others, nothing more. It could never be declared true in the ordinary sense of the word.
Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s hypothesis is a costly one, however. Note, first, that this is a radical departure from the canons of conventional science, and Hawking knows it: “Classical science is based on the belief that there exists a real external world whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them.” Without the ability to accurately assess the world, though, what becomes of the magisterium of science?
One also wonders what to make of the inviolability of Hawking’s scientific determinism if he is right about the implications of goldfish bowls.
It seems even SD would have to be demoted to the status of distorted perception. Since scientific determinism “is the basis for all modern science,” that noble discipline is thus assaulted a second time.
Regardless, a much more damaging concern surfaces when we ask the following question: What are we to make of the point of chapter three itself, Hawking’s non-realism? It seems we have two possible choices. We can accept it as true, or we can reject it as false. Clearly, Hawking would have us side with him. But, oddly, he has not left that option open to us—even theoretically—because the minute we agree with him, we prove him false.
Here’s why.
Suicide #5
If Hawking is right that all perceptions are distorted by the lens of the interpretive structure of our brains, then his own theory would be a result of those distorted (and, therefore, unreliable) perceptions. Perhaps, on the other hand, the professor’s theory was the result of a moment of perceptual clarity in which he saw the world as it really was. But if those moments are available to Dr. Hawking, why are they denied to the rest of us?
As it turns out, Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s view is sabotaged in the same way all such postmodern views are: It self-destructs. They claim there are no accurate representations of reality. Then they ground their conviction on “facts” about perception, brain activity, and interpretive structures they take to be true, undistorted, and accurate to reality. Therefore, The Grand Design is refuted a second time, even before getting to the science proper.
A Theory of Everything
For someone like Stephen Hawking searching for a satisfying “theory of everything,” The Grand Design turns out to be a quantum leap of self-defeating incoherence that explains almost nothing.
By asserting scientific determinism, Hawking paints himself into a fatalistic corner where it is impossible for him to know anything at all. By opting for the anti-realism of model-dependent “realism,” he immediately falsifies the SD he has just asserted, defeats his own anti-realist speculations, and undermines everything else that follows. Hawking sabotages his own views three times, and each wound is fatal.
Any sound theory of everything needs to make sense of everything that needs explaining. It needs to account for the existence and order of the universe. It must make room for event and agent causation, and the consciousness that accompanies the ability to freely choose. It must make sense of the laws of logic, the basic reliability of our sensory abilities, and the unique human obligation of morality.
The theories of The Grand Design self-destruct. Hawking offers no coherent view of reality and uses bad science to try to make his case.
And it must speak to the deepest needs of our souls, because they also are a part of “everything” that needs to be explained.
There is a theory that will do it all—the view of reality held by Jesus of Nazareth, a view now called “Christian theism.” His basic understanding of reality resonates with our deepest intuitions about the way the world actually is.
We live in a universe created with a word by an intelligent, powerful, eternal Spirit. The existence of the world is due to His will. The magnificent design of creation is due to His wisdom.
Human beings are made in His image as moral creatures fashioned for a divine purpose. We are able to know which side of the goldfish bowl we’re on because He’s equipped our minds with a perceptual ability that connects us to the real world, making a discipline like science possible in the first place.
If Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are really looking for answers, then Christian theism explains everything that needs explaining: existence, specified complexity (information), the uniformity of natural law, genuine acts of freedom, human dignity and purpose, acts of virtue and vice, rationality, true moral guilt, and ultimate meaning.
It has enough sophistication and explanatory power to satisfy the yearnings of the greatest minds of history—Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, to name but a few—yet enough simplicity in the foundational notions to be grasped by a child.
It also provides the most important answer of all, the solution to the human condition—forgiveness leading to that for which we all deeply hunger, the fullness of existence found only in an eternal friendship with God.
And no quantum leap is necessary to believe. Only a simple step of trust that is consistent with all the facts.
The following is a texted version of the original newsletter in PDF format. Here is the address to view the original:
http://www.str.org/site/DocServer/Enhanced_Solid_Ground_Final_1110.pdf?docID=4982.
"Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered..." Revelations 5:5
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Profile of a Culture: Chapter 2
Question for Consideration:
“As people who are part of a modern Western culture, with its confidences in the validity of scientific methods, how can we move from the place where we explain the gospel in terms of our modern scientific worldview to a place where we explain our modern scientific world view from the point of view of the gospel?”
First we must establish a place of mutual understanding. Do we agree that science and academia embody the language of our modern Western culture? If so, how do we apply this language in terms of the gospel? And how do we objectively gauge our own culture in order to navigate its postmodern landscape?
Given Newbigins' historical accounting of the birth of modern Western culture; a.k.a. the “age of reason”, what is your view of the “enlightenment” he refers to? What would mark such a moment in history to spawn this genesis of thought? Newbigin postulates it is nothing short of a “conversion” experience. What are your views here?
Overview:
The author offers us some insight into what fostered this Cultural Revolution, and lists the influences of Greek sciences, metaphysics and Aristotle thought as chief contributors. Institutionalized educational facilities called universities arose. Classical Renaissance ideology proliferated. The Reformations theological and political conflicts, new science; Bacon, Galileo, Newton, and Descartes philosophy all contributed. The secret of knowledge had been discovered; translated - knowledge is power. If one can control the knowledge, one could control the world. Knowledge was the new blood lust. I say knowledge, not wisdom. Religious creed was dethroned and the science of cause and effect reigned in the stead. Determinism and Newtonian physics were the new masters, impeaching the framework of Divine purpose, order, faith and free will. This new reality substituted the spirituals. In this new world God was found to be obsolete; if one continued to believe at all. Analysis supplanted faith whilst focus was being shifted from the Creator to the creation. Immanuel Kant’s “Dare to know” became the new anthem; lyrics reminiscent of that encounter in the garden where satan says to Eve; “you can be like God, knowing…” - Genesis 3:5. Somewhere in the mid eighteen hundreds, man had become the new gods.
Quote:
“The assumption of these chapters is that the gospel provides the stance from which all culture is to be evaluated.”
“As people who are part of a modern Western culture, with its confidences in the validity of scientific methods, how can we move from the place where we explain the gospel in terms of our modern scientific worldview to a place where we explain our modern scientific world view from the point of view of the gospel?”
First we must establish a place of mutual understanding. Do we agree that science and academia embody the language of our modern Western culture? If so, how do we apply this language in terms of the gospel? And how do we objectively gauge our own culture in order to navigate its postmodern landscape?
Given Newbigins' historical accounting of the birth of modern Western culture; a.k.a. the “age of reason”, what is your view of the “enlightenment” he refers to? What would mark such a moment in history to spawn this genesis of thought? Newbigin postulates it is nothing short of a “conversion” experience. What are your views here?
Overview:
The author offers us some insight into what fostered this Cultural Revolution, and lists the influences of Greek sciences, metaphysics and Aristotle thought as chief contributors. Institutionalized educational facilities called universities arose. Classical Renaissance ideology proliferated. The Reformations theological and political conflicts, new science; Bacon, Galileo, Newton, and Descartes philosophy all contributed. The secret of knowledge had been discovered; translated - knowledge is power. If one can control the knowledge, one could control the world. Knowledge was the new blood lust. I say knowledge, not wisdom. Religious creed was dethroned and the science of cause and effect reigned in the stead. Determinism and Newtonian physics were the new masters, impeaching the framework of Divine purpose, order, faith and free will. This new reality substituted the spirituals. In this new world God was found to be obsolete; if one continued to believe at all. Analysis supplanted faith whilst focus was being shifted from the Creator to the creation. Immanuel Kant’s “Dare to know” became the new anthem; lyrics reminiscent of that encounter in the garden where satan says to Eve; “you can be like God, knowing…” - Genesis 3:5. Somewhere in the mid eighteen hundreds, man had become the new gods.
Quote:
“The assumption of these chapters is that the gospel provides the stance from which all culture is to be evaluated.”
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Desensitization of the Good News: The Unalarming and Palatable Gospel
“Western world has moved away from the view that meaning lies in the author of text, to the autonomous authority of the text itself, to arrive, finally, at the view that meaning resides primarily in the reader or knower in interaction with the text”, D.A. Carson.
At this point it seems we would agree that “contextualization” is a, (excuse the colloquial term), ‘gimmie’. Matthew 9:17 imply it’s a necessary application. “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” (This scripture best references the transition from the old covenant law to the new covenant realities found in Christ.) In terms of 'contextualization' note the wine is not altered, merely the container.
It is also apparent to me, through the various contributions that surround this subject, that by definition, the term “contextualization” has different meanings to different people. Even different applications and associations. Some adhere to its use as a vehicle to transport the unchanged truths of salvation (the gospel), across all cultural barriers. In this setting the contextualization is merely presentation, having no detriment to the call of repentance and surrender put forth by the Gospel. It uses benign terms and practices that culturally fit, yet have no detriment to the truth claims of the gospel.
Others subscribe to a more ‘culturally sensitive’ distinction, where the Gospel is assimilated into the traditions, folklore and possibly religious vernacular of the receiving culture. (See lengthy example italicized & bolded below, taken from a Christian online dialogue concerning contextualization. Note #4 and let me know your response). This may present the ideals of the gospel, or portions of it, within the receptors cultural language, but one may question, is it recognizable as the transcendent truth claim calling all other claims into account? And that is the question put forth into view. And does the Gospel proposed include both the Source and Destination of these Truth claims; in Name, Jesus? As Tim proposed; the Gospels’ authority holds all human cultures ‘suspect’.
Contextualizing the Gospel
Posted on April 27, 2007 by C. Eric Bäck| 5 Comments
I just read an amazing interview with Ram Gidoomal by Andy Crouch at Christianity Today, in my email this morning. The interview is entitled, “Christ My Bodhisatva.” I recommend a thoughtful reading of the full article (click on this link), but here’s a tantalizing snippet. It points us to a careful consideration of what in the Gospel is and is not meaningful to Hindus. By extension it directs us to a thoughtful contextualization of the Gospel for all cultures.
Andy Crouch writes…
You come from a Hindu religious background and attended Muslim schools in Africa, yet you became a follower of Jesus during your studies at university.
At the university, I was out of the family context, with the need for something that could make sense of the wider world in which I found myself. I started reading about Jesus. I was intrigued by the strong basis for his historical existence.
In my cultural context, the biggest religious problem is your karma: your karmic debt. What you sow, you reap. You come to this earth with a karmic account, then you die and you’re reincarnated, and that depends on how you’ve done in this life. When I read about Jesus’ death on the Cross, it wasn’t so much the sacrifice for sin that struck me as the sacrifice for karma. The Christians I met spoke of sin in this life, but that was meaningless to me. Karma was what mattered. So I decided, When they talk about sin, I think of karma, and I believe Jesus died for my karma, so I am going to accept him on those terms.
As my mother and others in my family challenged my faith, I found that biblical concepts were only helpful if they were properly translated. My mother would say, “Jesus is a swear word. They use it in the shop every day. Why do you follow this man?” She had followed a guru called Ramakrishna Parmahansa from India; then she switched to a guru named Radha Soami. One of the functions of a guru is to give you a mantra, but when she went to the initiation, some people got the mantra and others didn’t. She felt some of those who were refused were more deserving than her, and that troubled her.
So when she came to stay with us after our first child was born, she opened one of the Bibles that we had strewn all over the place, and she happened upon this verse, “Whoever comes to me, I will not cast out.” She said, “Your Bible is very strange! ‘Whoever comes to me’—define whoever!” She had a hard time believing that Jesus would never refuse anybody. But that’s the case, I said, because he’s the sanatan sat guru.
Sanatan is a Sanskrit word meaning “eternal”; sat guru means “true living way.” You can put John 14:6 in brackets after that! He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Guru is a living way. There are lots of sat gurus, but try to find a sanatan sat guru. No guru claims to be sanatan. Then she said, “Tell me more about this guru, who will love everybody.” So I said, “Not only is he a sanatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our karmic debt.”
Soli Deo Gloria!
This entry was posted in Evangelism, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.
← Why Were 32 Students Killed?
SBC, IMB, Votes for “Flexibility” in Screening Missionary Candidates →
5 Responses to Contextualizing the Gospel
1. Bryan Harms | December 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Reply
Interesting illustration of contextualization. I will be reflecting on it as I pursue a clearer understanding of contextualization of the gospel. I’m apprehensive, however, of borrowing terms from the host/recipient culture wholesale, however, because they carry their own cultural baggage. I’m not sure that the concept of karma carries enough truth to render it a viable transport for the gospel… although it is certainly a starting point for dialogue.
2. esthertanc | August 17, 2009 at 7:25 am | Reply
Hi. I’m from Malaysia and I was browsing through the net in search for topics on how to incarnate the gospel into each culture here in Asia when I came across your article. You may have written this article a long time ago, but it still impacted me a lot. I like more articles like this, because we really, really need to make the gospel understandable to people in our Asian culture, with our Asian worldview. Good job!
3. Bo Bradbury | June 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm | Reply
Any suggestions on how to contextualize the gospel to Malaysian Muslims?
4. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi | May 12, 2010 at 10:33 am | Reply
You could not understand. Guru accepts everyone. His Holiness has been sent by Almighty God for the redemption of all. So He will not leave anyone.
In Bhagavad-Gita Lord SriKrishna says to Arjuna:
“I taught this immortal Yoga to Vivasvan (sun-god), Vivasvan conveyed it to Manu(his son), and Manu imparted it to (his son) Iksvaku. Thus transmitted to succession from father to son, Arjuna, this Yoga remained known to the Rajarisis (royal sages). It has however long since disappeared from this earth. The same ancient Yoga has this day been imparted to you by Me, because you are My devotee and friend, and also because this is a supreme secret”.
At this Arjuna said: You are of recent origin while the birth of Vivasvan dates back to remote antiquity. How, then, I am to believe that you taught this Yoga at the beginning of creation? Lord SriKrishna said: Arjuna, you and I have passed through many births. I remember them all, you do not remember.1. Radha Soami Faith was founded by His Holiness Param Purush Puran Dhani Huzur Soamiji Maharaj on the prayer of His Holiness Huzur Maharaj who later on became second Spiritual Head of Radha Soami Faith. The prime object of the Radha Soami Faith is the emancipation of all Jeevas (Souls) i.e. to take the entire force of consciousness to its original abode. There is a tradition of succession of Gurus or Spiritual Adepts in Radha Soami Faith. I am one of them as is evident from the following facts or ….
“My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab. Sarkar Sahab later on became Fourth Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ (Agam Geet yeh gawan chahoon tumhri mauj nihara, mauj hoi to satguru soami karoon supanth vichara) but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.”
5. Nirobindu | July 28, 2010 at 5:15 am | Reply
Truth is One. We are many. Our understanding of Truth has to come from the One who is the giver of wisdom. But how do we understand if not our own language, terms and terminology, culture and context?
While contextualizing, be guarded that you be not mislead and misunderstood. So firstly, Study the Holy Scripture prayerfully, be sure that you understand. Translate into your own life. Dive into the culture and let them see Jesus in You.
With this, I would like to shift our attention to a deeper concern, which Tim alluded to: Has the evangelical church, cultured in modern Western thought, in its attempt to appeal culturally, (even within its own borders), presented an impotent gospel? A declawed, toothless version of the gospel message, which focuses on befriending the sinner verses authoritive confrontation and accountability. Has it presented a Gospel indiscernible to the hearers. Indistinct as to its’ call for “metanoia”; radical transformation? Indistinct comparably to other world religions? The complete Gospel however calls for nothing short of a total worldview conversion. Not propagated by adopting a new 'pop' philosophy, but birthed through interaction with the Living God. Here is the litmus test Tim makes mention of - the Gospels intrusive and invasive call for repentance along with its grace for transformation in response to the faith of the recipient.
I am reminded of 3 scriptures;
A) Matthew 10:34, 35; "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
B) 1 Corinthians 14:8; “And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?”
C) Lastly 2 Corinthians 4:3 (NASB); “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,”
That our reliance shouldn’t be on ‘contextualization’ for success, as much as on articulation of the ‘whole’ gospel is an understatement. It is the message of the gospel in entirety that we entrust, (via the Holy Spirit), to bring “metanoia”. Forget this truth or alter its contents and we remove the ‘super’ out of supernatural and 'good' out of the Good News, thus taking God out of the gospel. What comes to mind here is the debilitating of the “good news” in order to be ‘seeker sensitive’. The concern is if the Gospel is not presented wholly and unashamedly, then we encumber those who come to believe by instilling within them a ‘tolerant’ God, Whose ideals are only relevant insomuch as our lives and / or culture find them fitting and reasonable. This type of gospel (if you would dare call it such), comes along side a culture, even enhances a culture, however it does little to empower an individual, let alone a culture, to repentance, saving faith in the Person of Jesus Christ and nonnegotiable obedience, surrender and sacrificial service. In this type of “contextualization”, (and I use this term loosely), love is inflated at the expense of enmity with sin, mercy at the cost of justice and understanding at the price of obedience. God becomes a ‘higher power’ instead of a Righteous omnipotent Creator, and the gospel; a good suggestion rather than objective, authoritive truth.
Perhaps in the end, an incomplete or inaccurate Gospel presented is evidenced by inappropriate “contextualization”? Any thoughts?
P.S. I recommend you guys take time to read the article, “Maintaining Scientific and Christian Truths in a Postmodern World”
By D. A. Carson, that Tim referenced. It’s a treat.
http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/carson.pdf
At this point it seems we would agree that “contextualization” is a, (excuse the colloquial term), ‘gimmie’. Matthew 9:17 imply it’s a necessary application. “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” (This scripture best references the transition from the old covenant law to the new covenant realities found in Christ.) In terms of 'contextualization' note the wine is not altered, merely the container.
It is also apparent to me, through the various contributions that surround this subject, that by definition, the term “contextualization” has different meanings to different people. Even different applications and associations. Some adhere to its use as a vehicle to transport the unchanged truths of salvation (the gospel), across all cultural barriers. In this setting the contextualization is merely presentation, having no detriment to the call of repentance and surrender put forth by the Gospel. It uses benign terms and practices that culturally fit, yet have no detriment to the truth claims of the gospel.
Others subscribe to a more ‘culturally sensitive’ distinction, where the Gospel is assimilated into the traditions, folklore and possibly religious vernacular of the receiving culture. (See lengthy example italicized & bolded below, taken from a Christian online dialogue concerning contextualization. Note #4 and let me know your response). This may present the ideals of the gospel, or portions of it, within the receptors cultural language, but one may question, is it recognizable as the transcendent truth claim calling all other claims into account? And that is the question put forth into view. And does the Gospel proposed include both the Source and Destination of these Truth claims; in Name, Jesus? As Tim proposed; the Gospels’ authority holds all human cultures ‘suspect’.
Contextualizing the Gospel
Posted on April 27, 2007 by C. Eric Bäck| 5 Comments
I just read an amazing interview with Ram Gidoomal by Andy Crouch at Christianity Today, in my email this morning. The interview is entitled, “Christ My Bodhisatva.” I recommend a thoughtful reading of the full article (click on this link), but here’s a tantalizing snippet. It points us to a careful consideration of what in the Gospel is and is not meaningful to Hindus. By extension it directs us to a thoughtful contextualization of the Gospel for all cultures.
Andy Crouch writes…
You come from a Hindu religious background and attended Muslim schools in Africa, yet you became a follower of Jesus during your studies at university.
At the university, I was out of the family context, with the need for something that could make sense of the wider world in which I found myself. I started reading about Jesus. I was intrigued by the strong basis for his historical existence.
In my cultural context, the biggest religious problem is your karma: your karmic debt. What you sow, you reap. You come to this earth with a karmic account, then you die and you’re reincarnated, and that depends on how you’ve done in this life. When I read about Jesus’ death on the Cross, it wasn’t so much the sacrifice for sin that struck me as the sacrifice for karma. The Christians I met spoke of sin in this life, but that was meaningless to me. Karma was what mattered. So I decided, When they talk about sin, I think of karma, and I believe Jesus died for my karma, so I am going to accept him on those terms.
As my mother and others in my family challenged my faith, I found that biblical concepts were only helpful if they were properly translated. My mother would say, “Jesus is a swear word. They use it in the shop every day. Why do you follow this man?” She had followed a guru called Ramakrishna Parmahansa from India; then she switched to a guru named Radha Soami. One of the functions of a guru is to give you a mantra, but when she went to the initiation, some people got the mantra and others didn’t. She felt some of those who were refused were more deserving than her, and that troubled her.
So when she came to stay with us after our first child was born, she opened one of the Bibles that we had strewn all over the place, and she happened upon this verse, “Whoever comes to me, I will not cast out.” She said, “Your Bible is very strange! ‘Whoever comes to me’—define whoever!” She had a hard time believing that Jesus would never refuse anybody. But that’s the case, I said, because he’s the sanatan sat guru.
Sanatan is a Sanskrit word meaning “eternal”; sat guru means “true living way.” You can put John 14:6 in brackets after that! He is “the way, the truth, and the life.” Guru is a living way. There are lots of sat gurus, but try to find a sanatan sat guru. No guru claims to be sanatan. Then she said, “Tell me more about this guru, who will love everybody.” So I said, “Not only is he a sanatan sat guru, he paid for karma. He paid our karmic debt.”
Soli Deo Gloria!
This entry was posted in Evangelism, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.
← Why Were 32 Students Killed?
SBC, IMB, Votes for “Flexibility” in Screening Missionary Candidates →
5 Responses to Contextualizing the Gospel
1. Bryan Harms | December 5, 2008 at 5:46 pm | Reply
Interesting illustration of contextualization. I will be reflecting on it as I pursue a clearer understanding of contextualization of the gospel. I’m apprehensive, however, of borrowing terms from the host/recipient culture wholesale, however, because they carry their own cultural baggage. I’m not sure that the concept of karma carries enough truth to render it a viable transport for the gospel… although it is certainly a starting point for dialogue.
2. esthertanc | August 17, 2009 at 7:25 am | Reply
Hi. I’m from Malaysia and I was browsing through the net in search for topics on how to incarnate the gospel into each culture here in Asia when I came across your article. You may have written this article a long time ago, but it still impacted me a lot. I like more articles like this, because we really, really need to make the gospel understandable to people in our Asian culture, with our Asian worldview. Good job!
3. Bo Bradbury | June 30, 2010 at 8:08 pm | Reply
Any suggestions on how to contextualize the gospel to Malaysian Muslims?
4. Anirudh Kumar Satsangi | May 12, 2010 at 10:33 am | Reply
You could not understand. Guru accepts everyone. His Holiness has been sent by Almighty God for the redemption of all. So He will not leave anyone.
In Bhagavad-Gita Lord SriKrishna says to Arjuna:
“I taught this immortal Yoga to Vivasvan (sun-god), Vivasvan conveyed it to Manu(his son), and Manu imparted it to (his son) Iksvaku. Thus transmitted to succession from father to son, Arjuna, this Yoga remained known to the Rajarisis (royal sages). It has however long since disappeared from this earth. The same ancient Yoga has this day been imparted to you by Me, because you are My devotee and friend, and also because this is a supreme secret”.
At this Arjuna said: You are of recent origin while the birth of Vivasvan dates back to remote antiquity. How, then, I am to believe that you taught this Yoga at the beginning of creation? Lord SriKrishna said: Arjuna, you and I have passed through many births. I remember them all, you do not remember.1. Radha Soami Faith was founded by His Holiness Param Purush Puran Dhani Huzur Soamiji Maharaj on the prayer of His Holiness Huzur Maharaj who later on became second Spiritual Head of Radha Soami Faith. The prime object of the Radha Soami Faith is the emancipation of all Jeevas (Souls) i.e. to take the entire force of consciousness to its original abode. There is a tradition of succession of Gurus or Spiritual Adepts in Radha Soami Faith. I am one of them as is evident from the following facts or ….
“My most Revered Guru of my previous life His Holiness Maharaj Sahab, 3rd Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith had revealed this secret to me during trance like state.
HE told me, “Tum Sarkar Sahab Ho” (You are Sarkar Sahab). Sarkar Sahab was one of the most beloved disciple of His Holiness Maharj Sahab. Sarkar Sahab later on became Fourth Spiritual Head of Radhasoami Faith.
Since I don’t have any direct realization of it so I can not claim the extent of its correctness. But it seems to be correct. During my previous birth I wanted to sing the song of ‘Infinite’ (Agam Geet yeh gawan chahoon tumhri mauj nihara, mauj hoi to satguru soami karoon supanth vichara) but I could not do so then since I had to leave the mortal frame at a very early age. But through the unbounded Grace and Mercy of my most Revered Guru that desire of my past birth is being fulfilled now.”
5. Nirobindu | July 28, 2010 at 5:15 am | Reply
Truth is One. We are many. Our understanding of Truth has to come from the One who is the giver of wisdom. But how do we understand if not our own language, terms and terminology, culture and context?
While contextualizing, be guarded that you be not mislead and misunderstood. So firstly, Study the Holy Scripture prayerfully, be sure that you understand. Translate into your own life. Dive into the culture and let them see Jesus in You.
With this, I would like to shift our attention to a deeper concern, which Tim alluded to: Has the evangelical church, cultured in modern Western thought, in its attempt to appeal culturally, (even within its own borders), presented an impotent gospel? A declawed, toothless version of the gospel message, which focuses on befriending the sinner verses authoritive confrontation and accountability. Has it presented a Gospel indiscernible to the hearers. Indistinct as to its’ call for “metanoia”; radical transformation? Indistinct comparably to other world religions? The complete Gospel however calls for nothing short of a total worldview conversion. Not propagated by adopting a new 'pop' philosophy, but birthed through interaction with the Living God. Here is the litmus test Tim makes mention of - the Gospels intrusive and invasive call for repentance along with its grace for transformation in response to the faith of the recipient.
I am reminded of 3 scriptures;
A) Matthew 10:34, 35; "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
B) 1 Corinthians 14:8; “And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?”
C) Lastly 2 Corinthians 4:3 (NASB); “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,”
That our reliance shouldn’t be on ‘contextualization’ for success, as much as on articulation of the ‘whole’ gospel is an understatement. It is the message of the gospel in entirety that we entrust, (via the Holy Spirit), to bring “metanoia”. Forget this truth or alter its contents and we remove the ‘super’ out of supernatural and 'good' out of the Good News, thus taking God out of the gospel. What comes to mind here is the debilitating of the “good news” in order to be ‘seeker sensitive’. The concern is if the Gospel is not presented wholly and unashamedly, then we encumber those who come to believe by instilling within them a ‘tolerant’ God, Whose ideals are only relevant insomuch as our lives and / or culture find them fitting and reasonable. This type of gospel (if you would dare call it such), comes along side a culture, even enhances a culture, however it does little to empower an individual, let alone a culture, to repentance, saving faith in the Person of Jesus Christ and nonnegotiable obedience, surrender and sacrificial service. In this type of “contextualization”, (and I use this term loosely), love is inflated at the expense of enmity with sin, mercy at the cost of justice and understanding at the price of obedience. God becomes a ‘higher power’ instead of a Righteous omnipotent Creator, and the gospel; a good suggestion rather than objective, authoritive truth.
Perhaps in the end, an incomplete or inaccurate Gospel presented is evidenced by inappropriate “contextualization”? Any thoughts?
P.S. I recommend you guys take time to read the article, “Maintaining Scientific and Christian Truths in a Postmodern World”
By D. A. Carson, that Tim referenced. It’s a treat.
http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/articles/carson.pdf
Friday, September 17, 2010
Imperishable Inheritance
I have one more contribution to make, though I may be putting us at risk of ‘information overload’. I want to include additional insight into this topic of contextualization before moving on into chapter 2 and those that follow. You may have noticed that I have posted opposing views with regards to “contextualization”. This was intentional so as not to bias the blogging and allow each of us to make a decision in good conscience. Below are some comments from John MacArthur and others. This, and the comments as well, are worth the read.
NOTE: Due to the extensive thought provoking content of this book I suggest we make our comments ASAP and move forward in our dialogue of chapters 2 & 3. Your comments do not need to be extensive, but would be appreciated, if at the very least they would be an acknowledgment of your having read the material and this blog. This helps us to gauge the pace through which we want to move. Regardless, I am prepared to discuss each chapter at length if the group is so inclined.
The Test of Biblical Contextualization:
One of the topics that one is exposed to in missiological studies is that of contextualization. At first, something doesn’t seem quite right, and I even wrote on this blog my thoughts when I first worked through it. It seems as though some are trying to “water-down” the Gospel to make it more palpable to carnal men. And to be honest with you, there are preachers and evangelists that are taking the idea too far. In fact, they take it to the point where it is no longer the Gospel but instead a hollow, unfulfilling, and un-remarkable truth.
In some of the circles I run in (i.e. Reformed yet intensely missiological) we stand hard-fast by a more biblical definition of contextualization. We believe strongly that the Gospel is relevant without needing to alter it in any way yet we recognize the pattern of the Lord’s witnesses to his truth and holiness expressed most completely in Christ. From Paul on Mars Hill preaching to the Stoics and Epicureans with their paganism (Acts 17) to Jesus’ method to share the same truth in one chapter to Nicodemus (John 3),(a Jewish Pharisee) and the next chapter with a Samaritan woman (John 4). Paul’s declaration that he has “become all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9 doesn’t mean that he shared a different Gospel but that he recognized differing presupposition and starting points in sharing the same Gospel to different individuals.
John MacArthur’s Stance Made Clear
One individual, John MacArthur, has taken some strong stances against what he defines as contextualization. Often he is misquoted on this, so I thought it would be helpful to look at some of what he’s said on the topic.
“I hear a lot today about the necessity to contextualize the message. If I had any sense, I would be wearing a black t-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it and I would have holes in my jeans and there would be no pulpit here. And I would be wandering from pillar to post up here, we would turn the lights down and change this environment because people need contextualization if they’re going to respond. I haven’t found that necessary, nor am I at all convinced that contextualization means anything or has any value in the church. (Source)
The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is (zip-code ministry). The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel.” (Source — a transcription)
It would seem as though John (MacArthur) has a grave misunderstanding on what careful, thoughtful missionaries are doing in their ministries. It puzzles me that as John reads and preaches from an English bible (which is the very nature of contextualization) he outright disdains contextualization. But to be fair he comments on 1 Corinthians 9 in a way reminiscent of what we would hope for.
How do people think religiously, how do they perceive truth? those are the starting points that Paul was establishing. That’s a far cry from saying that to reach this generation we must do their music, we must dress the way they dress, we must live the way they live, we must be familiar with the baser components of their culture. That’s a million miles from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview. (Source)
John (MacArthur) does correctly recognize that presuppositions is the main concern in contextualization, and for this I want to rejoice. However, John apparently marries the idea of contextualization with becoming like the culture around us. That is the very nature of a misunderstanding that some have indeed applied to sharing the Gospel, but it is not what we should strive for in our ministries.
The Test of Biblical Contextualization
This stance of John’s was brought up in this year’s Together for the Gospel. John mentioned it by name, and Mark Dever spoke next. It was interesting to see them balance one another throughout the conference. Mark spoke on “Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology”. It was a fabulous look at the fundamental nature of the Gospel, and he speaks of those who un-biblically exercise what they perceive as “contextualization” to the Gospel. He then outlines very clearly what true, biblical contextualization looks like (in his point #3 around 40 minutes in).
“Contextualization should never make the Gospel more palatable to the sinner–more acceptable. In fact, one test you can use very practical my preacher friend of whether not a particular attempt at contextualization has been successful is to ask if it has made the offense of the Gospel clearer. There’s a test for appropriately reaching your audience. The Gospel is relevant to every sinner on earth.”
Up until that point I had not heard such a God-honoring, biblical, and full definition of contextualization. Mark’s point is the very litmus by which we must gauge not just our contextualization efforts but our evangelistic efforts on the whole.
The Need for Balance
We must recognize that fallen humans can take such as an idea as contextualization and pervert it to the point where we must then look and act like the world in order to be “relevant.” However, a careful study of the Scriptures reveals the tool exercised by the biblical characters to bring glory to God through the tireless, and accurate preaching of the Gospel of God through Christ Jesus.
11 Comments to “The Test of Biblical Contextualization”
• Perry says:
6/16/2008
I too greatly appreciate Dever’s understanding of contextualization.
• Keith says:
6/21/2008
Reading over MacArthur’s words, I am disappointed by what appears to be simple-mindedness, like he hasn’t really thought the issue through. Mark’s insight is brilliant: clearer, not more palatable. A simple, beautiful test that I should like to remember. I also enjoyed your insight concerning language; the fact that our Bible is in English and not Greek or Hebrew is, in fact, a type of contextualization.
• Chris says:
6/21/2008
@Keith: Thanks for the comment. It is a good test I want to remember as well.
• David says:
7/9/2008
I think that it is necessary to distinguish between our methods and our message when we discuss contextualization. I lean toward giving MacArthur the benefit of the doubt because the man knows the Bible as well as I can only hope to one day know it, but it seems clear to me that he is being critical of contextualizing the message, just like you are in this post, Chris. He may or may not have clarified between methods and message before or after the snippets you’ve posted, but I think when he says things like “Contextualization is ‘zip-code’ ministry,” he is merely criticizing those who would seek to contextualize the message according to the zip code.
The degree to which we contextualize our methods according to the zip code is debatable, but contextualizing the message is not. Christ and Him crucified. Period. And, though I really can’t speak for MacArthur, I think he would agree.
• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Thanks for the response. I do say in this post that contextualizing the message is not problematic, but it’s when we compromise the message there are problems. So, am I right to say that you’re ok with contextualizating but not compromising?
• David says:
7/10/2008
I think that any contextualizing of the message is compromising the message. The message is the Gospel, and because we all descend from Adam and inherit his sin and his curse, and because we were all created by the same God and need the same Christ and His Crucifixion, no contextualization of the message is necessary.
Arabs in the Middle East and rich kids in Beavercreek, Ohio need the same Gospel. The only contextualization that we need is in “becoming all things to all men” to gain a hearing with sinners and in expressing the one Gospel in their language.
• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Well, I would disagree that there is never an opportunity to contextualize such as the passages I mentioned above (John 3,4; Acts 17). You might enjoy an earlier article I wrote where I went in-depth on defining contextualization.
Remember, as mentioned in this post, the very fact that you read an English translation is a contextualization of God’s revelation.
• Elenore says:
3/19/2009
I’m late on getting into the discussion…I just stumbled on this article. All of us today have received a somewhat contextualized Gospel. I assume we’re not hearing it in Aramaic. And for Americans or Brits, it was probably in some westernized religious framework. Good contextualization guards the message so that what the original messengers communicated is understood truthfully. If we fail to contextualize/adapt appropriately, the hearer either may not understand or may misinterpret resulting in a changed Gospel, which is not the Gospel. That is, if he even bothers to listen or read. Failing to contextualize communicates that we have to change our culture, not our hearts. THAT is a changed Gospel!
Reply
• Chris says:
3/19/2009
@Elenore: Very well said!
• Jonathan says:
5/24/2009
I don’t know MacArthur, but in his defense, I think what he is referring to in the comments quoted above is not that he is against contextualization but that he is against the wrong type of contextualization. (as made clear through his reference to the people saying he should wear a t-shirt and jeans) Also I have heard him on more than one occasion encourage people to read the Bible in the original language if they can, and I’m certain that he does so on a regular basis.
Good thoughts though, thanks for sharing.
• Fred says:
10/22/2009
“Christ and Him crucified. Period” hmmmm. Sorry, David, you just emphasized the need for contextualization. First, and foremost, the Incarnation of Christ. God chose to contextualize his redemptive story by coming in the form of a man, why? Because it fits the context. Had he come as a superman, a bird, an ape, it would mean nothing to us. God contextualized.
And then CHRIST CRUCIFIED. If ever there was a contextualized statement it is that. Have you been to any crucifixions lately? No. Well, it certainly fit the CONTEXT of the Roman world Christ entered. Had Christ been gassed, electrocuted, it wouldn’t have really fit. But of course, if God entered our context it would make more sense than crucifixion. We only know about crucifixion because God used this very specific contextual form.
Forms are not meaning, they are simply forms. Meaning is deeper.
(I like this one)
Above content link: http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2008/the-test-of-biblical-contextualization/
Ending Remarks:
For many of us these writings on contextualization, extraction and syncretism seem somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps because, at this time, we have no notion of personally becoming involved in cross cultural evangelism. Missions is not an option for us or interest. But let me point out that the world we presently live in has changed. Canada particularly has greatly diversified ethnically. (I have included below a couple of sites with information concerning our immigration statistics. Have a look at the charts.)
Canadian Immigration Stats:
http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/statistics.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada
Quote:
“Immigration since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of visible minorities from the developing world… During the Mulroney government, immigration levels were increased. By the late 1980s immigration has maintained with slight fluctuations since (225,000–275,000 annually). Currently, most immigrants come from South Asia and China and this trend is expected to continue.”
This said, Canada can no longer be characterized in the same way it was 40+ years ago. Foreign languages, religious beliefs and their cultures have taken up residency and changed the demographic climate. In short, the mission field has come to us. Canada has become an example of “Domestic multiculturalism”. This means native-born citizens don't have to leave Canada to experience a wide variety of cultures from around the world. However it hasn’t stopped there. It has evolved into something else.
Excerpts taken from Suite101: Canada's Domestic Multiculturalism: Great White North Rich in Global Subcultures http://www.suite101.com/content/canadas-domestic-multiculturalism-a50182#ixzz0znSCKEKM
Our book focuses on how to present the gospel to modern Western culture. To discover the books application to us personally one must understand what the culture we live in looks like.
In an article titled “The New Canadian Ethnicity and Culture: How Young Canadians Are Changing a Generation”; a new Canada is arising that is distinctly different. Tech savvy urbanites. Ethnically generated but not necessarily entrenched. Here are some quotes from an article linked below.
“Identity politics is dead, and with it the outdated models of ethnicity and race. Canada's new generation of young, educated, urban elites is defining Canada. Public intellectual Alden Habacon is among a growing trend of observers who argue that “identity is dead.” … Habacon asserts, “We've out-grown the mosaic model of multiculturalism. . . hybridity is also an outdated concept.”
New Diversity In the New Canada
Diversity, according to these young, educated, mostly stationed in urban centers in Canada, argue that none of the previous models of cultural diversity can account for our unprecedented ability to negotiate our identities and navigate the cultural spaces. Not only have people of different ethnicities value their ancestry differently, the mainstream Canadian society has changed significantly as well.
… ethnicity might be the first thing one sees in a Canadian, it's not the only thing. Regardless, this new and changing definition of ethnicity does not mean ethnicity is discounted and irrelevant. Rather, it is other cultural influences that defines ones experience – and hence, identity – in mainstream Canada.
Complex Web of Cultures and Identity Politics
While arguing that identity politics is outdated and anachronistic, Habacon proposes a new model for cultural identity, or “schema,” where one envisions individuals as dynamic identities that move through a complex web of cultures. Because of this new phenomenon, cultural Navigators view themselves as the product of these networks, available to them through a host of influences, which includes a mixture of immigration, family roots, and residency in other cities of the world.
Cultural Navigators as Cultural Ambassador
Canadian cultural navigators not only desire this new form of cultural modernism, particularly in the arts, media and public life, they swim in it. They are mobile, young, educated, value their ethnicity, but are not ultimately not defined by it. As a result, what we are witnessing is a new Canada that looks substantially different from the old Canada.
Read more at Suite101: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-canadian-ethnicity-and-culture-a120283
So what does all this mean for us? Well apparently a new culture is upon us which is both the offspring of global cultural heritage and postmodern thinking. In fact this new Canadian may exemplify the Postmodernist mindset more than any other. In light of all this, perhaps we may conclude that this book is more relevant to our present situation then we first proposed.
Please post your comments online. Thank you.
NOTE: Due to the extensive thought provoking content of this book I suggest we make our comments ASAP and move forward in our dialogue of chapters 2 & 3. Your comments do not need to be extensive, but would be appreciated, if at the very least they would be an acknowledgment of your having read the material and this blog. This helps us to gauge the pace through which we want to move. Regardless, I am prepared to discuss each chapter at length if the group is so inclined.
The Test of Biblical Contextualization:
One of the topics that one is exposed to in missiological studies is that of contextualization. At first, something doesn’t seem quite right, and I even wrote on this blog my thoughts when I first worked through it. It seems as though some are trying to “water-down” the Gospel to make it more palpable to carnal men. And to be honest with you, there are preachers and evangelists that are taking the idea too far. In fact, they take it to the point where it is no longer the Gospel but instead a hollow, unfulfilling, and un-remarkable truth.
In some of the circles I run in (i.e. Reformed yet intensely missiological) we stand hard-fast by a more biblical definition of contextualization. We believe strongly that the Gospel is relevant without needing to alter it in any way yet we recognize the pattern of the Lord’s witnesses to his truth and holiness expressed most completely in Christ. From Paul on Mars Hill preaching to the Stoics and Epicureans with their paganism (Acts 17) to Jesus’ method to share the same truth in one chapter to Nicodemus (John 3),(a Jewish Pharisee) and the next chapter with a Samaritan woman (John 4). Paul’s declaration that he has “become all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9 doesn’t mean that he shared a different Gospel but that he recognized differing presupposition and starting points in sharing the same Gospel to different individuals.
John MacArthur’s Stance Made Clear
One individual, John MacArthur, has taken some strong stances against what he defines as contextualization. Often he is misquoted on this, so I thought it would be helpful to look at some of what he’s said on the topic.
“I hear a lot today about the necessity to contextualize the message. If I had any sense, I would be wearing a black t-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it and I would have holes in my jeans and there would be no pulpit here. And I would be wandering from pillar to post up here, we would turn the lights down and change this environment because people need contextualization if they’re going to respond. I haven’t found that necessary, nor am I at all convinced that contextualization means anything or has any value in the church. (Source)
The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is (zip-code ministry). The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel.” (Source — a transcription)
It would seem as though John (MacArthur) has a grave misunderstanding on what careful, thoughtful missionaries are doing in their ministries. It puzzles me that as John reads and preaches from an English bible (which is the very nature of contextualization) he outright disdains contextualization. But to be fair he comments on 1 Corinthians 9 in a way reminiscent of what we would hope for.
How do people think religiously, how do they perceive truth? those are the starting points that Paul was establishing. That’s a far cry from saying that to reach this generation we must do their music, we must dress the way they dress, we must live the way they live, we must be familiar with the baser components of their culture. That’s a million miles from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview. (Source)
John (MacArthur) does correctly recognize that presuppositions is the main concern in contextualization, and for this I want to rejoice. However, John apparently marries the idea of contextualization with becoming like the culture around us. That is the very nature of a misunderstanding that some have indeed applied to sharing the Gospel, but it is not what we should strive for in our ministries.
The Test of Biblical Contextualization
This stance of John’s was brought up in this year’s Together for the Gospel. John mentioned it by name, and Mark Dever spoke next. It was interesting to see them balance one another throughout the conference. Mark spoke on “Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology”. It was a fabulous look at the fundamental nature of the Gospel, and he speaks of those who un-biblically exercise what they perceive as “contextualization” to the Gospel. He then outlines very clearly what true, biblical contextualization looks like (in his point #3 around 40 minutes in).
“Contextualization should never make the Gospel more palatable to the sinner–more acceptable. In fact, one test you can use very practical my preacher friend of whether not a particular attempt at contextualization has been successful is to ask if it has made the offense of the Gospel clearer. There’s a test for appropriately reaching your audience. The Gospel is relevant to every sinner on earth.”
Up until that point I had not heard such a God-honoring, biblical, and full definition of contextualization. Mark’s point is the very litmus by which we must gauge not just our contextualization efforts but our evangelistic efforts on the whole.
The Need for Balance
We must recognize that fallen humans can take such as an idea as contextualization and pervert it to the point where we must then look and act like the world in order to be “relevant.” However, a careful study of the Scriptures reveals the tool exercised by the biblical characters to bring glory to God through the tireless, and accurate preaching of the Gospel of God through Christ Jesus.
11 Comments to “The Test of Biblical Contextualization”
• Perry says:
6/16/2008
I too greatly appreciate Dever’s understanding of contextualization.
• Keith says:
6/21/2008
Reading over MacArthur’s words, I am disappointed by what appears to be simple-mindedness, like he hasn’t really thought the issue through. Mark’s insight is brilliant: clearer, not more palatable. A simple, beautiful test that I should like to remember. I also enjoyed your insight concerning language; the fact that our Bible is in English and not Greek or Hebrew is, in fact, a type of contextualization.
• Chris says:
6/21/2008
@Keith: Thanks for the comment. It is a good test I want to remember as well.
• David says:
7/9/2008
I think that it is necessary to distinguish between our methods and our message when we discuss contextualization. I lean toward giving MacArthur the benefit of the doubt because the man knows the Bible as well as I can only hope to one day know it, but it seems clear to me that he is being critical of contextualizing the message, just like you are in this post, Chris. He may or may not have clarified between methods and message before or after the snippets you’ve posted, but I think when he says things like “Contextualization is ‘zip-code’ ministry,” he is merely criticizing those who would seek to contextualize the message according to the zip code.
The degree to which we contextualize our methods according to the zip code is debatable, but contextualizing the message is not. Christ and Him crucified. Period. And, though I really can’t speak for MacArthur, I think he would agree.
• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Thanks for the response. I do say in this post that contextualizing the message is not problematic, but it’s when we compromise the message there are problems. So, am I right to say that you’re ok with contextualizating but not compromising?
• David says:
7/10/2008
I think that any contextualizing of the message is compromising the message. The message is the Gospel, and because we all descend from Adam and inherit his sin and his curse, and because we were all created by the same God and need the same Christ and His Crucifixion, no contextualization of the message is necessary.
Arabs in the Middle East and rich kids in Beavercreek, Ohio need the same Gospel. The only contextualization that we need is in “becoming all things to all men” to gain a hearing with sinners and in expressing the one Gospel in their language.
• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Well, I would disagree that there is never an opportunity to contextualize such as the passages I mentioned above (John 3,4; Acts 17). You might enjoy an earlier article I wrote where I went in-depth on defining contextualization.
Remember, as mentioned in this post, the very fact that you read an English translation is a contextualization of God’s revelation.
• Elenore says:
3/19/2009
I’m late on getting into the discussion…I just stumbled on this article. All of us today have received a somewhat contextualized Gospel. I assume we’re not hearing it in Aramaic. And for Americans or Brits, it was probably in some westernized religious framework. Good contextualization guards the message so that what the original messengers communicated is understood truthfully. If we fail to contextualize/adapt appropriately, the hearer either may not understand or may misinterpret resulting in a changed Gospel, which is not the Gospel. That is, if he even bothers to listen or read. Failing to contextualize communicates that we have to change our culture, not our hearts. THAT is a changed Gospel!
Reply
• Chris says:
3/19/2009
@Elenore: Very well said!
• Jonathan says:
5/24/2009
I don’t know MacArthur, but in his defense, I think what he is referring to in the comments quoted above is not that he is against contextualization but that he is against the wrong type of contextualization. (as made clear through his reference to the people saying he should wear a t-shirt and jeans) Also I have heard him on more than one occasion encourage people to read the Bible in the original language if they can, and I’m certain that he does so on a regular basis.
Good thoughts though, thanks for sharing.
• Fred says:
10/22/2009
“Christ and Him crucified. Period” hmmmm. Sorry, David, you just emphasized the need for contextualization. First, and foremost, the Incarnation of Christ. God chose to contextualize his redemptive story by coming in the form of a man, why? Because it fits the context. Had he come as a superman, a bird, an ape, it would mean nothing to us. God contextualized.
And then CHRIST CRUCIFIED. If ever there was a contextualized statement it is that. Have you been to any crucifixions lately? No. Well, it certainly fit the CONTEXT of the Roman world Christ entered. Had Christ been gassed, electrocuted, it wouldn’t have really fit. But of course, if God entered our context it would make more sense than crucifixion. We only know about crucifixion because God used this very specific contextual form.
Forms are not meaning, they are simply forms. Meaning is deeper.
(I like this one)
Above content link: http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2008/the-test-of-biblical-contextualization/
Ending Remarks:
For many of us these writings on contextualization, extraction and syncretism seem somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps because, at this time, we have no notion of personally becoming involved in cross cultural evangelism. Missions is not an option for us or interest. But let me point out that the world we presently live in has changed. Canada particularly has greatly diversified ethnically. (I have included below a couple of sites with information concerning our immigration statistics. Have a look at the charts.)
Canadian Immigration Stats:
http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/statistics.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada
Quote:
“Immigration since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of visible minorities from the developing world… During the Mulroney government, immigration levels were increased. By the late 1980s immigration has maintained with slight fluctuations since (225,000–275,000 annually). Currently, most immigrants come from South Asia and China and this trend is expected to continue.”
This said, Canada can no longer be characterized in the same way it was 40+ years ago. Foreign languages, religious beliefs and their cultures have taken up residency and changed the demographic climate. In short, the mission field has come to us. Canada has become an example of “Domestic multiculturalism”. This means native-born citizens don't have to leave Canada to experience a wide variety of cultures from around the world. However it hasn’t stopped there. It has evolved into something else.
Excerpts taken from Suite101: Canada's Domestic Multiculturalism: Great White North Rich in Global Subcultures http://www.suite101.com/content/canadas-domestic-multiculturalism-a50182#ixzz0znSCKEKM
Our book focuses on how to present the gospel to modern Western culture. To discover the books application to us personally one must understand what the culture we live in looks like.
In an article titled “The New Canadian Ethnicity and Culture: How Young Canadians Are Changing a Generation”; a new Canada is arising that is distinctly different. Tech savvy urbanites. Ethnically generated but not necessarily entrenched. Here are some quotes from an article linked below.
“Identity politics is dead, and with it the outdated models of ethnicity and race. Canada's new generation of young, educated, urban elites is defining Canada. Public intellectual Alden Habacon is among a growing trend of observers who argue that “identity is dead.” … Habacon asserts, “We've out-grown the mosaic model of multiculturalism. . . hybridity is also an outdated concept.”
New Diversity In the New Canada
Diversity, according to these young, educated, mostly stationed in urban centers in Canada, argue that none of the previous models of cultural diversity can account for our unprecedented ability to negotiate our identities and navigate the cultural spaces. Not only have people of different ethnicities value their ancestry differently, the mainstream Canadian society has changed significantly as well.
… ethnicity might be the first thing one sees in a Canadian, it's not the only thing. Regardless, this new and changing definition of ethnicity does not mean ethnicity is discounted and irrelevant. Rather, it is other cultural influences that defines ones experience – and hence, identity – in mainstream Canada.
Complex Web of Cultures and Identity Politics
While arguing that identity politics is outdated and anachronistic, Habacon proposes a new model for cultural identity, or “schema,” where one envisions individuals as dynamic identities that move through a complex web of cultures. Because of this new phenomenon, cultural Navigators view themselves as the product of these networks, available to them through a host of influences, which includes a mixture of immigration, family roots, and residency in other cities of the world.
Cultural Navigators as Cultural Ambassador
Canadian cultural navigators not only desire this new form of cultural modernism, particularly in the arts, media and public life, they swim in it. They are mobile, young, educated, value their ethnicity, but are not ultimately not defined by it. As a result, what we are witnessing is a new Canada that looks substantially different from the old Canada.
Read more at Suite101: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-canadian-ethnicity-and-culture-a120283
So what does all this mean for us? Well apparently a new culture is upon us which is both the offspring of global cultural heritage and postmodern thinking. In fact this new Canadian may exemplify the Postmodernist mindset more than any other. In light of all this, perhaps we may conclude that this book is more relevant to our present situation then we first proposed.
Please post your comments online. Thank you.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Contextualization, Extraction and Syncretism
Continuing the Argument of Contextualization
To begin with I want to share a quote from the notable RC Sproul on this subject. This quotation is taken from the following link: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/contextualize-this/
Contextualize This (Africa Journal #3)
by R.C. Sproul Jr.
“…It turns out we had only one challenge flowing from our different cultures. I had to adjust to this — the constant refrain of encouraging “AMEN!”’s coming from the pews. My problem wasn’t losing my train of thought. My problem was keeping from crying while this refrain preached back to me what I needed to hear. In an age where experts encourage us to contextualize the gospel, what a joy to find that the gospel fits in any context where there are sinners in need of grace. Jesus told us where to preach — Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the outermost parts of the world. Jesus told us what to preach, that through Him our warfare has ended, and we are made the children of God. Nothing could be more simple, nor more powerful.”
Here is a link of John Piper’s response to “contextualizing the gospel”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjPhSTSNYM
Also a link to a web page titled “Faith, Fads, and Foolishness”; read the chats. The reply by Anirudh Kumar Satsangi on May 12, 2010 @ 10:33 a.m. I didn’t get. It may be an example of contextualization gone too far. Maybe someone could explain the angle here for me. I liked Bryan Harms point and there was an interesting point made by Nirobindu.
http://ericback.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/contextualizing-the-gospel/
Lastly I have included 2 excerpts from the Imperishable Inheritance website. This is a long read but food for thought.
Contextualizing the Gospel
Missiology is actually quite difficult and controversial. It questions who we are as follower of Christ and what we know of God’s Word. I will explore a missiological concept known as contextualization and how this helps to avoid detrimental errors in missions.
Contextualization and Missions
The apostle Paul says in His first letter to the church at Corinth:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 1 Corinthians 9:19–22
What Paul is talking about here is contextualization. That is, when he preaches to the Jews, he puts the gospel in the context of that culture. Likewise, when he speaks to the Gentiles he does the same for their respective culture. From this passage, we can see that Paul used the Law of Moses to preach the gospel to the ethnic Jews, and to the Gentiles without an understanding of the Law he used a different method. So, Paul put the gospel in its proper “context.”
I found the following definition of context in communications parlance:
“[C]ontext is the meaning of a message (such as a sentence), its relationship to other parts of the message (such as a book), the environment in which the communication occurred, and any perceptions which may be associated with the communication.” (Wikipedia)
Relating the two quotations, Paul put the gospel message in its relationship with everything around it. If Paul didn’t bother with teaching the resurrection to the ethnic Jews through Old Testament prophecies do you think he would have been successful? If Paul attempted to preach the Old Testament prophecies to the Gentiles with no prior knowledge of it would he have been successful? This is why Paul was so powerful in his missionary efforts and why God raised him as He did. Read when Paul gave his testimony while he was on trial before Agrippa in Acts 26: “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ “And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.‘ Acts 26:14–18 (emphasis added)
When we do not account for the cultural context of those we preach the gospel to then we end up committing the worst of missions errors that being syncretism. Syncretism is when a person attempts to harmonize two opposing ideologies into one leading to the degradation of both. For instance, if I preach the gospel to a Hindu without any consideration of his culture and worldview syncretism will occur. The Hindu will have no problem with Jesus being God, because he already believes that 330,000,000 other gods exist. The Hindu can then get a picture of Jesus and a Bible and put it next to a Krishna shrine and the Vedas. The question then becomes, how do we avoid this from happening?
(Note: the American holidays of Christmas and Easter are also strong examples of syncretism. These holidays are pagan in origin that have been adopted by Christians.)
Escaping Syncretism Through Proper Contextualization
The most effective methodology to avoid syncretism is to use chronological Bible teaching. This is where we teach the Bible, not starting with the gospel, but from Genesis 1 up to the gospel. In fact, how can anyone properly understand the gospel with out an understand of vital topics such as the Fall, the Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Law, and the prophets? It is also important than when we do teach that we are very clear about pointing out differences between the Christian message and that of their culture. So, it’s not enough to say “Jesus is God,” but that Jesus is the only God (John 1:1, 5:18, 10:30–33) and the only way for redemption (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Some object and say this takes to long and go straight to the gospel, but we must remember that it took God 4,000 years to tell the gospel!
The topic of extraction also becomes important. This is where the missionary, after winning a convert, “extracts” the new believer from their own culture and puts them under “missionary watch.” Missionaries have made this mistake for centuries. One example is once converting them they give them a western name and attempt to further “civilize” them. But is this the Biblical model of missions?
At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) it was decided that the Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised. This model we need to bear in mind in our missions efforts; we should eliminate all possible stumbling blocks to accepting the gospel. If we tag on baggage to the gospel like adopting a western name, partaking in solely western forms of worship (study Ethnomusicology), or telling them they must no longer talk to their former friends and family for fear of “falling away” (and I use that lightly because no true convert of God ever falls away, Phi 1:16; 1 John 2:18–20).
For instance, if I were to go over to Saudi Arabia, preach the gospel, win converts (with God’s regenerating work of course), and then extract them from their families and home culture—what good would I accomplish? What a stumbling block that would be! Especially since the goal of the missionary is essentially to work himself out of a job by setting up a local, reproducing church! We must let a convert stay within their sphere of influence, because that will be an incredible testimony to them. It’s not a western missionary proclaiming the gospel—it is their own family member/friend.
Shedding the “Western” Gospel
“Biblically, the contextualization of Christianity is not simply to be the passing on of a product that has been developed once for all in Europe or America. It is, rather, the imitating of the process that the early apostles went through…Christianity is not supposed to be like a tree that was nourished and grew in one society and then was transplanted to a new cultural environment, with leaves, branches and fruit that mark it indelibly as a product of the sending society. The gospel is to be planted as a seed that will sprout within and be nourished by the rain and nutrients in the cultural soil of the receiving peoples.” Charles H. Kraft, Culture, Worldview and Contextualization (quoted from the Perspectives handbook pg. 389)
The gospel, by definition, is supracultural. It is not specific to the west, and it certainly is not something that spread through western means. Contextualization really does challenge how we see our entire faith. It challenges our understanding of the gospel, church, Bible, other peoples, and much more. It is through the process of realizing the true gospel that we can be most effective in our missions efforts for the Kingdom. Keep in mind that the gospel didn’t start in the west, nor is it contained there.
Remember we should lead people to Christ and not Christianity.
Quote by C.T. Studd:
“Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell; I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell.“
Excerpts taken from the following link;
http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2005/contextualizing-the-gospel/
Questions to consider:
1. Missiological extraction: What is your opinion on displacing a new convert out of their indigenous culture?
2. Regarding “Escaping Syncretism Through Proper Contextualization”. First it would be prudent to define what syncretism is. Syncretism is the combination of different beliefs. Quote: “The most effective methodology to avoid syncretism is to use chronological Bible teaching. This is where we teach the Bible, not starting with the gospel, but from Genesis 1 up to the gospel.” What do you think about this? Can you give some scriptural premise for your belief? Can you give an exsample where Christianity has clearly committed this error?
3. Given the arguments above, where do you find yourself with contextualization?
REMINDER TO EVERYONE: Please sign in to the blog website to make your comments> Thanks.
To begin with I want to share a quote from the notable RC Sproul on this subject. This quotation is taken from the following link: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/contextualize-this/
Contextualize This (Africa Journal #3)
by R.C. Sproul Jr.
“…It turns out we had only one challenge flowing from our different cultures. I had to adjust to this — the constant refrain of encouraging “AMEN!”’s coming from the pews. My problem wasn’t losing my train of thought. My problem was keeping from crying while this refrain preached back to me what I needed to hear. In an age where experts encourage us to contextualize the gospel, what a joy to find that the gospel fits in any context where there are sinners in need of grace. Jesus told us where to preach — Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the outermost parts of the world. Jesus told us what to preach, that through Him our warfare has ended, and we are made the children of God. Nothing could be more simple, nor more powerful.”
Here is a link of John Piper’s response to “contextualizing the gospel”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjPhSTSNYM
Also a link to a web page titled “Faith, Fads, and Foolishness”; read the chats. The reply by Anirudh Kumar Satsangi on May 12, 2010 @ 10:33 a.m. I didn’t get. It may be an example of contextualization gone too far. Maybe someone could explain the angle here for me. I liked Bryan Harms point and there was an interesting point made by Nirobindu.
http://ericback.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/contextualizing-the-gospel/
Lastly I have included 2 excerpts from the Imperishable Inheritance website. This is a long read but food for thought.
Contextualizing the Gospel
Missiology is actually quite difficult and controversial. It questions who we are as follower of Christ and what we know of God’s Word. I will explore a missiological concept known as contextualization and how this helps to avoid detrimental errors in missions.
Contextualization and Missions
The apostle Paul says in His first letter to the church at Corinth:
For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 1 Corinthians 9:19–22
What Paul is talking about here is contextualization. That is, when he preaches to the Jews, he puts the gospel in the context of that culture. Likewise, when he speaks to the Gentiles he does the same for their respective culture. From this passage, we can see that Paul used the Law of Moses to preach the gospel to the ethnic Jews, and to the Gentiles without an understanding of the Law he used a different method. So, Paul put the gospel in its proper “context.”
I found the following definition of context in communications parlance:
“[C]ontext is the meaning of a message (such as a sentence), its relationship to other parts of the message (such as a book), the environment in which the communication occurred, and any perceptions which may be associated with the communication.” (Wikipedia)
Relating the two quotations, Paul put the gospel message in its relationship with everything around it. If Paul didn’t bother with teaching the resurrection to the ethnic Jews through Old Testament prophecies do you think he would have been successful? If Paul attempted to preach the Old Testament prophecies to the Gentiles with no prior knowledge of it would he have been successful? This is why Paul was so powerful in his missionary efforts and why God raised him as He did. Read when Paul gave his testimony while he was on trial before Agrippa in Acts 26: “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ “And I said, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.‘ Acts 26:14–18 (emphasis added)
When we do not account for the cultural context of those we preach the gospel to then we end up committing the worst of missions errors that being syncretism. Syncretism is when a person attempts to harmonize two opposing ideologies into one leading to the degradation of both. For instance, if I preach the gospel to a Hindu without any consideration of his culture and worldview syncretism will occur. The Hindu will have no problem with Jesus being God, because he already believes that 330,000,000 other gods exist. The Hindu can then get a picture of Jesus and a Bible and put it next to a Krishna shrine and the Vedas. The question then becomes, how do we avoid this from happening?
(Note: the American holidays of Christmas and Easter are also strong examples of syncretism. These holidays are pagan in origin that have been adopted by Christians.)
Escaping Syncretism Through Proper Contextualization
The most effective methodology to avoid syncretism is to use chronological Bible teaching. This is where we teach the Bible, not starting with the gospel, but from Genesis 1 up to the gospel. In fact, how can anyone properly understand the gospel with out an understand of vital topics such as the Fall, the Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic Law, and the prophets? It is also important than when we do teach that we are very clear about pointing out differences between the Christian message and that of their culture. So, it’s not enough to say “Jesus is God,” but that Jesus is the only God (John 1:1, 5:18, 10:30–33) and the only way for redemption (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Some object and say this takes to long and go straight to the gospel, but we must remember that it took God 4,000 years to tell the gospel!
The topic of extraction also becomes important. This is where the missionary, after winning a convert, “extracts” the new believer from their own culture and puts them under “missionary watch.” Missionaries have made this mistake for centuries. One example is once converting them they give them a western name and attempt to further “civilize” them. But is this the Biblical model of missions?
At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) it was decided that the Gentile converts did not have to be circumcised. This model we need to bear in mind in our missions efforts; we should eliminate all possible stumbling blocks to accepting the gospel. If we tag on baggage to the gospel like adopting a western name, partaking in solely western forms of worship (study Ethnomusicology), or telling them they must no longer talk to their former friends and family for fear of “falling away” (and I use that lightly because no true convert of God ever falls away, Phi 1:16; 1 John 2:18–20).
For instance, if I were to go over to Saudi Arabia, preach the gospel, win converts (with God’s regenerating work of course), and then extract them from their families and home culture—what good would I accomplish? What a stumbling block that would be! Especially since the goal of the missionary is essentially to work himself out of a job by setting up a local, reproducing church! We must let a convert stay within their sphere of influence, because that will be an incredible testimony to them. It’s not a western missionary proclaiming the gospel—it is their own family member/friend.
Shedding the “Western” Gospel
“Biblically, the contextualization of Christianity is not simply to be the passing on of a product that has been developed once for all in Europe or America. It is, rather, the imitating of the process that the early apostles went through…Christianity is not supposed to be like a tree that was nourished and grew in one society and then was transplanted to a new cultural environment, with leaves, branches and fruit that mark it indelibly as a product of the sending society. The gospel is to be planted as a seed that will sprout within and be nourished by the rain and nutrients in the cultural soil of the receiving peoples.” Charles H. Kraft, Culture, Worldview and Contextualization (quoted from the Perspectives handbook pg. 389)
The gospel, by definition, is supracultural. It is not specific to the west, and it certainly is not something that spread through western means. Contextualization really does challenge how we see our entire faith. It challenges our understanding of the gospel, church, Bible, other peoples, and much more. It is through the process of realizing the true gospel that we can be most effective in our missions efforts for the Kingdom. Keep in mind that the gospel didn’t start in the west, nor is it contained there.
Remember we should lead people to Christ and not Christianity.
Quote by C.T. Studd:
“Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell; I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell.“
Excerpts taken from the following link;
http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2005/contextualizing-the-gospel/
Questions to consider:
1. Missiological extraction: What is your opinion on displacing a new convert out of their indigenous culture?
2. Regarding “Escaping Syncretism Through Proper Contextualization”. First it would be prudent to define what syncretism is. Syncretism is the combination of different beliefs. Quote: “The most effective methodology to avoid syncretism is to use chronological Bible teaching. This is where we teach the Bible, not starting with the gospel, but from Genesis 1 up to the gospel.” What do you think about this? Can you give some scriptural premise for your belief? Can you give an exsample where Christianity has clearly committed this error?
3. Given the arguments above, where do you find yourself with contextualization?
REMINDER TO EVERYONE: Please sign in to the blog website to make your comments> Thanks.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Foolishness to the Greeks
There are a couple of terms we need to understand in order to proceed so I have referenced the definitions directly out of the book we are reading.
1. The first term to be defined is that of culture:
Page 3; “By the word culture we have to understand the sum total of ways of living developed by a group of human beings and handed on from generation to generation… a set of beliefs, experiences, and practices that seek to grasp and express the ultimate nature of things, that which gives shape and meaning to life, that which claims final loyalty”
2. The second term we must define is the gospel:
Page 3 & 4; “…the announcement that in a series of events that have there centre in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ something has happened that alters the total human situation and must therefore call into question every human culture.”
3. Lastly the third term to be understood is that of contextualization:
Page 2; “The value of the word contextualization is that it suggests the placing of the gospel in the total context of a culture at a particular moment, a moment that is shaped by the past and looks to the future.”
Contextualization: To Be or Not To Be
Statement:
“The weakness, however, of this whole mass of missiological writing is that while it has sought to explore the problems of contextualization in all the cultures of human mankind from China to Peru, it has largely ignored the culture that is most widespread, powerful, and persuasive among all contemporary cultures – namely, what I have called modern Western culture. Moreover, this neglect is even more serious because it is this culture that more than almost any other, is proving resistant to the gospel. In great areas of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, the church grows steadily and even spectacularly. But in the areas dominated by modern Western culture (whether in capitalist or socialist political expression) the church is shrinking and the gospel seems to fall on deaf ears. It would seem, therefore, that there is no higher priority” - pages 2 & 3.
A couple questions we might ask ourselves are:
1. Is contextualization of the gospel necessary?
2. Can it be taken too far? Is there a limit?
In an effort to present a level playing field I must include some quotes from our author describing the condition of the gospel presented and the authority that the gospel wields from his perspective. You may agree or disagree.
a) It is the author’s opinion that “The idea that one can or could at any time separate out by some process of distillation a pure gospel unadulterated by any cultural accretions is an illusion. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the gospel, for the gospel is about the word made flesh. Every statement of the gospel in words is conditioned by the culture of which those words are a part, and every style of life that claims to embody the truth of the gospel is a culturally conditioned style of life. There can never be a culture-free gospel.” Page 4.
b) “Yet the gospel, which is from the beginning to the end embodied in culturally conditioned forms, calls into question all cultures, including the one in which it was originally embodied.” Page 4.
c) Plus concerning the value and validity of religious experience amidst a modern world view where science / logic are both judge and jury. This is what we face in this culture:
“…but claims to truth have to be tested in the public world where the principles of modern science operate. Here pluralism is not accepted. No question is raised about the presuppositions upon which these scientific disciplines operate. No place is given to the possibility that what was given in the religious experience could provide an insight into truth that might radically relativize the presuppositions of the scientific disciplines. It is indeed true that Christian theology cannot be done properly without facing the questions raised by modern science and by other world religions. But two things are here simply taken for granted, without argument: first, that the essence of Christianity is the same as any other world religion, and second, that all religions have to submit their truth claims to the disciplines of the scientific method.” In other words Newbigin proposes there has been a role reversal where modern Western thinking (culture) has determined reality. In his view the gospel is to judge culture, particularly this modern Western culture, rather than culture evaluating the relevance and authenticity of the gospel. Pages 17 & 18.
d) Finally: “However, if it is truly the communication of the gospel, it will call radically into question that way of understanding embodied in the language it uses. If it is truly revelation, it will involve contradiction, and call for conversion, for a radical metanoia, a ‘U’ turn of the mind…Finally, this radical conversion can never be the achievement of any human persuasion, however eloquent. It can only be the work of God. True conversion, therefore, which is the proper end toward which the communication of the gospel looks, can only be a work of God, a kind of miracle – not natural but supernatural.”
At the onset of this book Newbigin asks the questions of:
“how biblical authority can be a reality for those who are shaped by modern Western culture”
“…what would be involved in the encounter of the gospel with our culture with respect to the intellectual core of our culture, which is science”
“to ask the same question with respect to our politics”
And “to inquire about the task of the church in bringing about this encounter.”
Please feel free to respond to any of the points or questions listed above.
1. The first term to be defined is that of culture:
Page 3; “By the word culture we have to understand the sum total of ways of living developed by a group of human beings and handed on from generation to generation… a set of beliefs, experiences, and practices that seek to grasp and express the ultimate nature of things, that which gives shape and meaning to life, that which claims final loyalty”
2. The second term we must define is the gospel:
Page 3 & 4; “…the announcement that in a series of events that have there centre in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ something has happened that alters the total human situation and must therefore call into question every human culture.”
3. Lastly the third term to be understood is that of contextualization:
Page 2; “The value of the word contextualization is that it suggests the placing of the gospel in the total context of a culture at a particular moment, a moment that is shaped by the past and looks to the future.”
Contextualization: To Be or Not To Be
Statement:
“The weakness, however, of this whole mass of missiological writing is that while it has sought to explore the problems of contextualization in all the cultures of human mankind from China to Peru, it has largely ignored the culture that is most widespread, powerful, and persuasive among all contemporary cultures – namely, what I have called modern Western culture. Moreover, this neglect is even more serious because it is this culture that more than almost any other, is proving resistant to the gospel. In great areas of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, the church grows steadily and even spectacularly. But in the areas dominated by modern Western culture (whether in capitalist or socialist political expression) the church is shrinking and the gospel seems to fall on deaf ears. It would seem, therefore, that there is no higher priority” - pages 2 & 3.
A couple questions we might ask ourselves are:
1. Is contextualization of the gospel necessary?
2. Can it be taken too far? Is there a limit?
In an effort to present a level playing field I must include some quotes from our author describing the condition of the gospel presented and the authority that the gospel wields from his perspective. You may agree or disagree.
a) It is the author’s opinion that “The idea that one can or could at any time separate out by some process of distillation a pure gospel unadulterated by any cultural accretions is an illusion. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the gospel, for the gospel is about the word made flesh. Every statement of the gospel in words is conditioned by the culture of which those words are a part, and every style of life that claims to embody the truth of the gospel is a culturally conditioned style of life. There can never be a culture-free gospel.” Page 4.
b) “Yet the gospel, which is from the beginning to the end embodied in culturally conditioned forms, calls into question all cultures, including the one in which it was originally embodied.” Page 4.
c) Plus concerning the value and validity of religious experience amidst a modern world view where science / logic are both judge and jury. This is what we face in this culture:
“…but claims to truth have to be tested in the public world where the principles of modern science operate. Here pluralism is not accepted. No question is raised about the presuppositions upon which these scientific disciplines operate. No place is given to the possibility that what was given in the religious experience could provide an insight into truth that might radically relativize the presuppositions of the scientific disciplines. It is indeed true that Christian theology cannot be done properly without facing the questions raised by modern science and by other world religions. But two things are here simply taken for granted, without argument: first, that the essence of Christianity is the same as any other world religion, and second, that all religions have to submit their truth claims to the disciplines of the scientific method.” In other words Newbigin proposes there has been a role reversal where modern Western thinking (culture) has determined reality. In his view the gospel is to judge culture, particularly this modern Western culture, rather than culture evaluating the relevance and authenticity of the gospel. Pages 17 & 18.
d) Finally: “However, if it is truly the communication of the gospel, it will call radically into question that way of understanding embodied in the language it uses. If it is truly revelation, it will involve contradiction, and call for conversion, for a radical metanoia, a ‘U’ turn of the mind…Finally, this radical conversion can never be the achievement of any human persuasion, however eloquent. It can only be the work of God. True conversion, therefore, which is the proper end toward which the communication of the gospel looks, can only be a work of God, a kind of miracle – not natural but supernatural.”
At the onset of this book Newbigin asks the questions of:
“how biblical authority can be a reality for those who are shaped by modern Western culture”
“…what would be involved in the encounter of the gospel with our culture with respect to the intellectual core of our culture, which is science”
“to ask the same question with respect to our politics”
And “to inquire about the task of the church in bringing about this encounter.”
Please feel free to respond to any of the points or questions listed above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)