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.