The Myth of an Un-contextualized Gospel

You have never heard the un-contextualized Gospel. There is one simple reason: it doesn’t exist. Every Gospel conversation or presentation you’ve ever heard has already been contextualized. If it wasn't, you couldn’t hear it. In a bygone era of the foreign missions enterprise, before anyone came up with the term “contextualize”, people used to speak of “indigenizing” the Gospel. But that term implied that the missionary was seeking to take his own civilized, “pure” Gospel and smuggle it into the receiving culture in native garb. This was all temporary though. The missionaries’ cultural goal was to get the natives to adopt “sensible Christian values”. Of course, this generally meant white, individualistic European and American cultural values. But there was a problem that few missionaries seemed to realize at the time: the Gospel of American and European society had been just as contextualized for them as it had to be for anyone else. This idea only began to be explored in depth later in the 20th century. In reality, the way the Gospel is contextualized in our modern, Western society would look alien to first-century, Near Eastern Christians. Certainly we are not so naive as to think that ours is the first culture that has a grasp on the "pure" Gospel. No culture, including mine or yours, has a monopoly on the Good News. While I’m sure there are more, I want to give you three problems we bring about when we shirk a well-thought-out contextualization of the Gospel. 

A Cultural Superiority Complex

First, by thinking that we possess an “un-contextualized” Gospel, we artificially set ourselves on a plane that does not exist. This is most obvious in the fact that each one of us heard the Gospel in a language we understand. As soon as any particular language is used to convey the Gospel, contextualization has already begun. The claim falters literally as soon as we open our mouths. Nevertheless, it is tempting to assert that ours is an un-contextualized Gospel because it implies the superiority of our own culture. It tickles our pride to think that we have an exclusive claim to the “pure” Gospel. But despite our seeming conviction that the American Evangelical sub-culture is the closest thing to Eden (God save us!), there is no place for bigotry in the body of Christ. To assert that we have an un-contextualized Gospel is to say that the Gospel in its purest form meshes ideally with our Western, individualistic, consumerist way of life. Thankfully, that’s very unlikely.

Yet this underlying assumption of cultural superiority is why some Christians get fidgety when the topic of contextualization crops up. There is an unspoken belief that changing the cultural forms in which the Gospel is presented will automatically lessen or “defile” its purity. Perhaps what we are really afraid of is letting go of the privileged status we’ve given our own preferred cultural forms. We may even be willing to don the trappings of another sub-culture for a short time for the sake of getting our message out, but we are unlikely to admit that these forms are as valid as our own. Fear of contextualization is often just a thin veil for a cultural superiority complex. 

A Shallow View of the Gospel

Secondly, in refusing the endeavor of Gospel contextualization, we rob ourselves of a deeper, more well-rounded understanding of the Gospel. Lesslie Newbigin was a British missionary who lived in the 20th century and served in India for some 40 plus years.  He writes in The Open Secret of a mutual benefit for the missionary and the receiving culture. He warned that we must not see our project of contextualizing the Gospel as merely uni-directional. The missionary himself must allow the unique worldview of the receiving culture to critique his own culturally myopic view of the Gospel. The interaction between the cultures of messenger and listener must, of course, be rooted in the Word of God. We all have a tendency to read the Bible through our own cultural lens. After all, we have no other with which to view it. Sometimes a person from another culture will read the same text we do, but come to a somewhat different conclusion on its meaning or implications. This forces both missionary and “native” to continually return to the Word and re-examine their understanding. Could it be that some aspect of what the missionary had hitherto believed is actually a by-product of his own culture's bias, rather than rooted in the Word of God itself? The interchange of contextualization refines and deepens our understanding; the messenger and the receiver both grow together in the Gospel.

As an American missionary who has been on the foreign field for over a third of my life, I can attest to this reality. Only in stepping outside of our own cultural comfort zones can we come to see the flaws inherent within it. The same is true of the American Christian sub-culture. Too many Christians have begun to view the Gospel through the narrow lens of the American-Evangelical sub-culture. What we fail to realize is that ours is also a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. It's simply tuned to the cultural values of middle-class, Western individualism and consumerism. In taking on the daunting, humbling project of contextualizing the Gospel to others, we also open up the possibility of having our own misperceptions corrected. Contextualization done well and humbly leads to a richer insight into the Gospel for both messenger and receiver.

Incarnation Implications

Lastly, when we refuse to embrace the call to contextualize the Gospel, we are rejecting something in the essence of the Gospel itself. It only takes a cursory reading of the book of Acts to see that the early church took contextualization seriously from the beginning. Those parts of the church which refused the project out of a cultural superiority complex quickly cut themselves off from the power and movement of the Holy Spirit. The Judaizers were a prime example of this.

But there is more. By spurning contextualization not only do we ignore the example of the early church; we contradict the nature of the Gospel. There is no greater “contextualization” than the incarnation of Christ. When God came in the flesh, He showed that there was almost no limit to His willingness to contextualize the Gospel so that we might understand. Jesus was not an ethereal philosophy but a flesh-and-blood man who brought the salvation of God into the cultural context of first-century Israel. His message was was spoken in Aramaic, often couched in agrarian parables sensitively honed to the context of His audience.  

Early in its history, the church rejected a heresy called “docetism”. This heresy taught that Jesus didn’t really become a man. He merely had the outward appearance of a man, but certainly would never soil His perfect “heavenly culture” with the trappings of human flesh. This heresy was roundly condemned at the council of Nicea. All true Christians today readily acknowledge that God Himself unabashedly took on real flesh, conforming Himself to our cultural forms. But the ironic part is that we are often not willing to similarly humble ourselves. We only grudgingly stoop to contextualize the Gospel to others who are culturally different from us—if we do so at all—though the cost for us is much less than it was for Jesus. While we cling to the doctrine of the incarnation, we deny its implications. Christ took on our cultural forms to bring the Gospel to people who would then continue the project of contextualization to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Great Commission itself implies the challenge of astutely, winsomely, humbly contextualizing the Gospel. In the end, the call for Christians to embrace the project of Gospel contextualization is merely a call to follow the example of Jesus. “Everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” (Lk. 6:40)

Review of Center Church by Tim Keller

I can't remember ever winning anything for free in my life.  I recently entered a drawing for a free copy of Tim Keller's Center Church at this blog.  When I showed up at my local post office to pick up a package a month or so later, I had forgotten all about it.  Then I opened the package to find this wonderful surprise inside.  I have to say, having read so far only a third of it (it is by far Keller's thickest book and I am a slow reader), I would gladly pay many times the cover price for this brilliant resource. (Btw, EVERY page in my copy is as marked up as the picture above.  The whole book should just come dipped in highlighter ink. ;)  The only stipulation for those who won the drawing was to write a review of the book during the week of Sept. 24th, hence my review being written before I am actually done with the book.

Full disclosure: I am a Keller fan...  as in he is hands down my favorite living teacher.  I've listened to literally hundreds of his sermons and used some of his materials for courses I've taught in the church I pastor in Ukraine.  For those of you who listen to Keller, you may be wondering how much of the material in this book you've heard before.  So far (I'm on chapter 10), I'd say that I've heard about 75% of the material in the book in various sermons of his, particularly the Preaching Christ in a Postmodern World course he did with Ed Clowney, the Blueprint for Spiritual Revival series, and the Redeemer conferences.  However, the way that this book synthesizes all this incredible material and fills it out makes it not redundant in the least but rather enriching and engaging.  I realize it may sound a bit presumptuous for only having read a third of the book, but in my opinion this could very well be the most important book for ministers to read outside the Bible.  Yes, it really is that good.

The introduction very succinctly lays out the explanation of the title of the book: that proper balance in ministry is necessary for fruitfulness.  The three balances are on the axes of Gospel, City and Movement.  The balance he refers to in each can be summed up in the following premises:

1) We preach neither legalism nor license, but the Gospel (which Keller rightly points out later is technically not "in between" these two options, but a completely different thing all together.)

2) We neither capitulate to culture not insulate from it, but seek to redeem what we can for the sake of the Gospel.

3) We see the church neither as organization completely nor as organism, but as being a hybrid between the two (leaning more towards organism). 

Keller compellingly weaves his own story and experience into the principles in this book.  Yet he steers away from the temptation to make his own experience the rule for ministry.  Rather he takes the idea of a "theological vision" as dictating how a ministry runs.  This is the middle ground between doctrinal foundation and ministry expression.  Keller lays this all out in the intro very precisely (would you expect any less?).  The intro alone is worth the price of the book (all of which can be read on Amazon.  Read it and convince yourself.)

The first section really gets to the theological heart behind everything else presented here.  This section brilliantly lays out what the Gospel is and what it is not.  Keller lays out the difference between the Gospel and legalism on the one hand and anti-nomianism (license to sin) on the other.  This section deals with the plot lines of Scripture and seeing Christ as the resolution to each one.  Keller lays out how the Gospel itself is not merely the key to justification but to sanctification; that we grow spiritually as we more deeply come to see the implications of the Gospel for our lives and believe it.  Additionally, Keller gets into the idea of "Gospel Renewal" (part 2 of the book.)  In this section, he draws heavily on Richard Lovelace's work, Dynamics of Spiritual Revival (definitely on my wishlist!)  This is an incredible section on the marks of true revival (similar points to his sermon series Blueprint for Spiritual Revival, but further expanded.)

The second section gets into the question of contextualization: how should the believer relate to the world and how should they present the Gospel to the world?  He lays out the Scriptural basis for this and lays out an approach for humble yet confident contextualization of the Gospel. Having been a cross-cultural missionary for over 10 years now, this section is fascinating to me and even after having a bit of experience under my belt in hashing through these ideas, I was challenged to re-assess my own contextualization of the Gospel in the culture I minister in.  The truth is that every believer needs to go through this process concerning the culture they are in.  If it is their own native culture, this process becomes all the more necessary.  This section also includes lots of practical examples. 

It would be unfair to really comment further than I have read, though I am certain the rest of the book will be as excellent as the beginning and am looking forward to the rest.  Bottom line: do yourself, the church you minister in, and the city you live in a huge favor and order this book. 

Sanctification with a pickle on top? or, Why Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich

I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between.  "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;)  The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.

It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day.  This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?)  This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.

Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty!  WWJDF?  What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that.  To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side.  The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value.  Yep, you heard me.  Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos.  Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.

Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything.  Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness.  Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods.  Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products?  Good luck.  What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about?  What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands?  What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy?  Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden.  If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes.  Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy. 

Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument.  The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians.  In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.  The issue of the day was buying meat at the market.  Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market.  What was Paul's answer?  Boycott meat?  At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)?  Nope.  He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse."  So much for "moral consumerism".  Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want.  It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against.  Eat it and thank God. 

I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value.  First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods.  If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving?  Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him?  What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal?  The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky.  It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners.  See practical reason #1).  But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.

And here we come to the next point.  The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic.  The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time.  I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism".  Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess.  But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company.  "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM!  Imagine that.  Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.

And here we get back to the Apostle.  He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love.  If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain.  If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him.  If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A.  The point of our freedom is to use it to love others.  Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter.  Why you eat it does.  And the reason in these choices should be because you love others.  If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.

El fin.  Rant, done. ;)  Comments welcome!

playground restoration

This summer our church took on some community service projects. One that we've completed was the restoration of a playground near our house.  As the Lord provides opportunities and resources for these projects, we hope to continue to reach out in this way to our community.  While the group of volunteers from our church was working on this playground, many people approached with amazement and asked why we would do this.  It was a blessing to share with them that Jesus loves our city and He told us to.  In a land where far too often people are happy to get ahead at the cost of ripping others off and the government is primarily concerned only about maintaining power for itself rather than caring for the public, it is truly counter-cultural to serve in a self-sacrificial way.  We believe God is using these projects to reach and convict hearts about the reality of the gospel.  If you'd like to be involved in sponsoring a project, please contact me, or visit our church's giving page.  Below is our vision statement for these community projects and a few pics of the playground we restored this summer.

Vision for Community Service Projects

As we enjoy the free grace and love that Jesus shows us, this necessarily births in us a desire to share that grace and love freely ("freely you have received, freely give." Mt. 10:8).  It is in allowing that grace to not only pierce our hearts but to be reflected through our lives and joining in His work to bless others that our enjoyment of Jesus is multiplied.

God came and gave grace to us who were undeserving and ill-deserving at great cost to Himself. We not only recognize but image that fact in serving others who have not asked for or earned it and at our own cost (of time, talent, and treasure). God "makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." (Mt. 5:45) In this active thanks for His grace, we are further rooted in it, as where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

Through these projects, we seek to live in love in a way that is received as such by those we serve. The most loving thing we could do for a person is to share the gospel with him. However, if he is not open, he will see it as us just trying to cram our opinion down his throat. If we show our love in a tangible way, it will give such a person cause to ask why. Scripture itself says "let us not love only in word and tongue, but in deed and truth." (I Jn. 3:18)

The culmination and goal of this is particularly to reach the world. It is these projects as an outworking of our own delight in Jesus, a manifestation of grace and a tangible act of love that is one way we seek to reach the world with the gospel. These projects will not themselves preach the gospel. However, they are a powerful witness that we as Christians have a truly self-sacrificial love for others and do desire the good of those even who reject us. Our hope is that these projects will be compelling in themselves as a manifestation of the reality of the gospel and open doors to share of the One who is the true Servant. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

Now the pictures...

before:

 in process:

after:

is Allah the God of the Bible?

a fascinating article on contextualizing the Gospel among muslims and the name of "Allah". any one who is interested in missions would probably find this fascinating (at least i did).

Who is Allah?

any thoughts?