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