« Gratitude for the Trustee System | Main | Interview with Dr. Albert Mohler »
Principles of Contextualization
Posted by Wes Kenney | November 10, 2007
Lest you think that nothing else happened at the trustee meeting of the International Mission Board earlier this week, we are pleased to offer for your consideration and critique five “principles of contextualization” adopted by trustees at the meeting. A quick reading will show that these are at least partly a response to concerns raised about the Camel Method. Do they do the job?
PRINCIPLES OF CONTEXTUALIZATION
- We affirm that the Bible is the only infallible text that exists. It is appropriate to evaluate all other books by the Bible. We encourage our personnel to search the Scriptures daily to see whether the principles presented by any text or teacher are true (Acts 17:11). Content that is in accord with biblical truth should be embraced. What is contrary to sound doctrine should be rejected.
- We affirm that there is a biblical precedent for using “bridges” to reach out to others with the Gospel (Acts 17:22-23). The fact that Paul mentioned an aspect of the Athenians’ idolatrous worship was not a tacit approval of their entire religious system. He was merely utilizing a religious element of their setting (an altar to an unknown god) to connect with his hearers and bridge to the truth. Similarly, our personnel may use elements of their host culture’s worldview to bridge to the Gospel. This need not be construed as an embracing of that worldview. It should be noted that Paul not only used their system to connect, he also contrasted elements of it with the truth. Our evangelism must go beyond bridges to present the whole unvarnished truth of the Gospel (1 Corinthains 15:1-4).
- We affirm an incarnational approach to missions that is bound by biblical parameters. Following the example of Him who became flesh (John 1:14), it is appropriate that our personnel continue to tailor their ministry to their setting. The Apostle Paul likewise embraced this approach, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22b). We advocate the learning and appropriate utilization of language and culture. Constant vigilance is required lest contextualization degenerate into syncretism (1). Where linguistic categories and cultural mores are deficient, these must be challenged and corrected with biblical truth (2).
- We affirm both the sufficiency and unique nature of biblical revelation (2 Timothy 3:14-17). We deny that any other purported sacred writing is on a par with the Bible. While reference to a target group’s religious writings can be made as a part of bridge-building, care should be exercised not to imply a wholesale acceptance of such.
- We affirm the need to be ethically sound in our evangelistic methodology (2 Corinthians 4:2). Becoming all things to all men in an incarnational approach does not necessitate an ethical breach. Jesus instructed his disciples to be as “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16). We are to be wise in our bridge building. We are to be harmless in our integrity as we hold forth the truth ( 3).
_________________________
Notes
- In John Travis’ spectrum of contextualization, C-4 would be the extent of indigenization accpetable for IMB personnel (”The C1 to C6 Spectrum.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34. [4]:407-408).
- For example, the theological construct represented by the term “Allah” in the Qur’anic system is deficient and unacceptable. However, the primary issue is not the term. The same name is used by devout Christians and it represents a sound, scriptural view of God. In fact, historically, the Christian use of “Allah” predates the rise of Islam. The missionary task is to teach who “Allah” truly is in accord with biblical revelation.
- Integrity requires, for example, that we not imply that a false prophet or a body of religious writings other then the Bible are inspired. There is a level of contextualization that crosses the line of integrity. Our Board has dismissed personnel who have refused counsel and deliberately positioned themselves beyond that line.
Topics: Camel Method, IMB Issues |
November 10th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Wes, “What is contrary to sound doctrine should be rejected.” To a lay person, who has a grasp of what “sound” doctrine is, could this be interpreted in a multitude of ways? selahV
November 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Sister Harriette,
Great question. I suppose that anything could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. If I were to tell a woman that she has a face that would stop a clock, then tell my wife that when I look at her face time stands still, would I be saying the same thing?
It all depends on how it is presented and how the one saying it intends it to be. I think. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
November 10th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Tim…oh, my. this could be another one of those, could you explain this to me. or that doctrine is sound as far as I’m concerned and how many are in favor of it raise your hand. geesh. it’s really hard for these folks to write a bullet-proof statement for we diverse people of the Book, isn’t it? I’m glad I’m not them. selahV
November 10th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
wes,
this sounds like a step in the right direction in this matter. looks good to me.
david
November 11th, 2007 at 7:03 am
Sister Harriette,
If you would look at footnote #1 I believe it explains the main concern, it does for me anyway. That footnote explains the level of contextualization that is accepted by the IMB to engage people groups. Thus, the revamping of the Camel Method should make it fall into this level C4.
Blessings,
Tim
November 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Wes,
As a guy who is “neck-deep” in these issues in North America, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to these points . . .in the context in which they were written:
1. I am 100% in agreeement. Just wish they had added the terms “inerrant” and “authoritative” as well. Any effort at genuine Gospel mission begins with this presupposition about God’s revelation of Himself.
2. As a whole, I appreciate this statement, although it could be interpreted that the trustees are saying there is no truth in other belief systems, which would seem to be contrary to what Paul says about the pagan world in Romans 2. To be sure, salvation cannot be found in any other system. However, many from other faiths have discovered truths via general revelation, and such truths have found their way into the respective religious texts of these groups.
That said, I certainly agree that our bridge building with other cultures must go “beyond” our common agreements with them and toward the Gospel, otherwise we betray our entire reason for being on the field.
3. Yes . . .absolutely, there is a real danger in syncretism. The only thing that disturbs me about this statement is that there isn’t an equally strong warning against “sectarianism.” Though there is passing reference to it, it doesn’t appear to me that this statement puts sectarianism on equal grounds with syncretism, and one is just as dangerous, ungodly, and dishonoring to Jesus as the other.
I’ll admit at this point that I know little to nothing about the “Camel Method” debates that have taken place in the blogosphere. I just haven’t had the time to invest in that one. But if, as you suggest, these statements are in reaction to “Camel,” then I may have found the issue in this third statement. Perhaps the emphasis is on syncretism more than sectarianism because this statement is a “reaction” to a possibly problematic evangelistic strategy? I can’t tell for sure, but my experience has taught me to be very careful about taking a reactionary approach to theological issues. Reactionary theology is ultimately irresponsible theology.
Again, not accusing anyone of anything here . . .just a few observations.
4. I totally agree! Good choice of words that indicates appropriate deliberation.
5. This one is very tricky on the “real world” mission field, but nonetheless neccesary to try and attain.
Overall, good stuff! I do appreciate you guys reporting on the more “positive” side of the Springfield meeting
November 11th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Tim, Wes, Robin and Joe, (I include Joe because he is one of ya’ll)
I have a huge confession to make. A bunch of the language within all this requires me to go look up words and try to place the definition back into the text to comprehend the actual statement’s intent. I know that isn’t how it is for you learned fellas, and I’m not trying to play duh-stupid. I’m sincerely wondering what it means and how it affects the missions.
Is there anyway you gentle brothers could help me out here? I’ve got a group of readers on my site that email me with questions and I really don’t want to steer them wrongly. I’ve done pretty good at explaining the “letter” we Baptists exchange between churches. And Wes’s post at his blog really helped me alot.
Folks may not realize it, but lots of folk (adults) who have joined churches recently, and are considering joining our churches really want to know what things mean. And yeah, I know. Their local church ought to explain it. But some folks don’t like to feel ignorant for asking what to others is obvious. Me? well, I already know I’m ignorant and the only way I’ve ever learned anything is to read and ask questions when I don’t understand what I read.
Sometimes that gets me in big trouble because many folks don’t like folks asking questions. I appreciate you, Wes, for telling me I even had a great question. I only asked it because of all the discussion on the internet about what doctrine is sound and what doctrine isn’t.
Appreciate you fellas. I miss your blog, Robin. selahV
November 11th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Harriette
When I entered seminary I had a dictionary on my desk to look up words I did not understand. That was 10 years ago. Today, I have a dictionary on my desk to look up words I don’t understand. If any blogger claims they have arrived and has no need of explanation concerning any issue that comes up or they have no need to learn something new whether it is a word or an idea, then I believe they miss the point of being a Christian. Even Paul claimed to not have laid hold of it yet. So we are both in good company.
If you have any questions, first go to your pastor. If you want other opinions, you can just email any or all of us at SBC Today. You might find varying answers.
Concerning my blog, it just might come back up early next year depending on my work load.
Thanks and God Bless
November 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
IMB trustee (and SBTS professor) Dr. Hershael York has commented on these principles on his blog, providing some much-needed illumination on the C1-C6 scale.
The highlight of his post for me was the following sentence:
Click here to read Dr. York’s post.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Brother Robin,
You can use dictionary.com and get the same information. That is what I do. I always need a dictionary. :>)
Sister Harriette,
You have nothing to be ashamed of. I believe you are baiting us on some of this stuff. Either you know more than you are letting on, or you are a quick learner. Either way you always find a way to get ahead of the curve. :>)
Blessings,
Tim
November 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Robin…thanks for the kind words. good to know you use a dictionary, too. When I use to read Nathan Finn and some of his bloglinks, I spent more time with the dictionary than reading the blogs. Those men are whew wee smart. I’m not really ashamed of being ignorant. Just wish I’d spent more time reading than watching the Home and Garden channel sometimes. Don’t watch it at all anymore. Thanks to Peter, I’d rather read blogs and books suggested by blogs.
Tim, thanks for the dictionary.com link. I usually use AOL since that’s in my tool bar, but it’s always good to have another source.
As to me baiting you guys, I’m sure I have no idea what you mean.
But seriously, I know from reading all of you–even the ones who disagree on stuff that I agree with. Sometimes it’s very hard to understand when ya’ll start talking in code with all those football mascot names and stuff. But when I’m not grasping the pigskin as I should, I go looking for a seasoned quarterback to help me get a handle on stuff. I truly appreciate Peyton Manning, even though Tom Brady is my king. then again Tony Romo is who I’ve really got an eye on the future of those Dallas boys. oooh. I’m off topic. sorry. 
Thanks for your help. I shall speak to my pastor on the issue. Also one of our ministers has children serving in Nicaraugua, so I bet he’d have a great grasp on what it means. Blessings to you all. selahV
November 11th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Is it just me, or does footnote (2) above not say basically the same thing Wade Burleson said in response to another trustee’s comments about the Camel method?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Thanks Wes for this post,
It is always good to discuss these matters. I like the flow in point number two. Paul was very aware of the various cultural trappings and used those cultural biases to prove the point of the Gospel. That is,… the Gospel is outside of us, it comes to us, and it is always effective.
In our day, many are tempted to use the culture biases or even cultural freedoms to prove how effective the culture may be in propping up the Gospel message. It should give us great assurance to understand that the plan of God is never in the control of men, but always in the control of God. Simply preaching and clarifying the Gospel is power enough.
In other words, we should not worry so much if our bridges are polished and pretty, …but we should be concerned that the Gospel is preached in complete context and with clarity.
Blessings,
Chris
November 12th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Wes,
I read Dr. Yorks’s comments as well. The notes that are part of the document that you display here as the Principles of Contextualization - were they part of the adopted document or are they added for clarification? I’m asking because if they are part of the document, then C1-C4 are clearly identified as limits. Otherwise, there is room for interpretation of the document. As someone who has worked with the c1-c6 scale, does this note say that c4 is where the missionary can go, or the church they are planting, or the place a new believer can be at before he is a “real believer”? I’ve not seen the scale used in this context before. We’ve used it in the context of “he’s a c4(or 5 or 2) believer.” I’ll wait to see how this questions answered before I comment on my feelings about the document.
November 12th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Excellent thoughts and great clarification. I very much appreciate the IMB’s position statement.
Steve
November 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I am surprised that they quoted 1 Corinthians 9:22, when it has nothing what soever to do with cultural contextualization. It has to do with the fact that Paul was a Jew but he was saved in the same way that Gentiles are saved, the same everyone is saved.