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.