Stetzer. On. Contextualization.

Confused about what it means for churches to "contextualize"? Wondering where the line is between being hospitable to unbelievers and being "seeker-sensitive" (in the more pejorative sense)? Still trying to figure out what "missional" really means? Read Stetzer's series "Calling for Contextualization."


Calling for Contextualization (Part 1)

Calling for Contextualization: The Need to Contend and Contextualize (Part 2)

Calling for Contextualization: Knowing and Making Known the Gospel (Part 3)

Calling for Contextualization: Untangling Cultural Engagement (Part 4)

Calling for Contextualization: Indigenization (Part 5)

Calling for Contextualization: Loving and Hating the World (Part 6)

Calling for Contextualization: The Contextualization Spectrum (Part 7)

Calling for Contextualization: Ruining and Recovering Relevance (Part 8)

Stetzer on Contextualization and Cultural Engagement

Ed Stetzer writes with wisdom and discernment in this recent post on contextualization. I'm glad to see him address the desparaging rhetoric about "engaging the culture" which leaders such as John MacArthur and Thabiti Anyabwile have recently used. Stetzer, who (with me) respects both of these brothers and agrees with much of what they are saying, provides some helpful (and charitable) clarification:

I don't actually believe that John or Thabiti believe that everything in culture must be rejected, but sometimes our rhetoric encourages some to adopt a posture to culture that works against the very mission of the church. And, it seems to me that a well-thought approach to cultural engagement would be exceedingly helpful in our theologically minded communities . . .

It is impossible to be entirely distinct from the culture in which one lives. Everyone connects with and interacts with the non-Christian culture that surrounds them. When we talk about "engaging culture" we simply mean that one needs to interact with the people, ideas, beliefs, customs, values, et al. intentionally, carefully, and biblically. Here, I think we can all agree. But this means that we cannot make disciples and work out our "pastoral concern" apart from engaging culture.

Amen.

Near the end of the post, Stetzer point us to Joe Thorn's six rules of cultural engagement:

1. Be present. ... Being present means being a part of the community God has sent you to, not just the community he wants you to help create. Do you know the people, the local issues and struggles, the values, practices and interests of your neighbors? ...

2. Practice discernment.
... It is not always time to be the culture warrior, nor does Jesus call us to be spiritual pacifists. Sometimes we must fight, sometimes we share things in common, but we are always looking to heal.

3. Develop your theology.
You cannot be a culture engager if you are not a theologian. ...to speak to the culture of sin, the gospel and the character of God requires that we understand these things.

4. Find courage.
Engaging the culture in this way demands great personal conviction. Like Jesus and the apostles, preaching the gospel in word and deed will both lead to you being favored as a helper, and hated as a meddler. ...

5. Speak clearly.
To properly engage your culture, whether rejecting what is evil, or receiving what is good, you must speak the language of the culture. ...

6. Love.
... most of the time you will not only be engaging ideas, but people; people made in God's image... It is not appropriate to claim we love our neighbors without a real demonstration of that love.

Near the end of the post, Stetzer gives this helpful and clarifying summary statement:

The call to contextualize is not a call to gospel compromise and syncretism, or living thoughtlessly and recklessly. The call to contextualize and engage the culture is simply an implication of being called to preach the gospel and make disciples.

Read the whole thing.

Contextualization

This is an insightful post on contextualization from Peter Beck over at The Gospel Coalition blog.

There’s much discussion taking place these days about the problems in the church. No one is questioning if there are problems. The questions are about how to resolve the problems.

Perhaps the biggest question is the one of contextualization. Like the so-called worship wars of the late 80s and 90s, the battle lines are being drawn between the pro-contextualization forces and the no-contextualization forces. Since the debate is over the nature of the church and her presentation of the Gospel, this battle may be coming soon to a church near and dear to you.

First, a word of clarification: contextualization is any attempt to communicate the Gospel in a manner that is in accord with the culture in which it is presented. Contextualization is nothing new. The church has been doing it for millennia. The church in county seat Arkansas looks nothing like the church in Algiers. Each church represents the unique characteristics of the dominant people group in its locale. That’s contextualization.

The debate, however, has arisen as to how much we can and should contextualize. Can we change the method without changing the message? Some say “yes” we can and must. Others say “no,” arguing that any attempt to do so would violate the message itself.

As happens so often in these types of discussions, both sides are talking and no one is listening. The pro-contextualization camp believes that the church must change our methods, if we’re going to reach the unreached in America. If that means tattoos, tweets, and tom-toms, so be it. The no-contextualization camp retorts that such moves are little more than the ways of the world cleaned up for church. To do so, they believe, is to cease being in the world but not of the world.

I’d like to offer a word of advice/caution/concern/observation for both believers on both sides of this coin.

Contextualization is not capitulation.

First, to the pro-contextualization camp, those who follow or admire the emerging church model: Those who oppose your methods are not opposed to you. They’re for the church. Their heart beats for it. Their opposition is not locked in the past with the traditions. They are worried about the damage that has been done to the bride of Christ in the past and they want to make sure that it doesn’t happen again on their watch.

So, listen to them. You don’t have to agree but you do have to acknowledge their concern. Speaking to the 21^st century audience means speaking the 1^st century message in the vernacular of today. However, the church is to be in the world but not reflect it. Be careful that you don’t lose your saltiness, in the biblical sense, while appealing to the tastes of the world. Contextualize, we must. Capituate, we can’t.

Second, to the no-contextualization camp: Not all contextualization is capitulation. You contextualize every day. You wear suits and ties, not robes and turbans. Your sermons are amplified not by the natural acoustics of a distant Gallilean hillside but by electronics. Likewise, your worship is accompanied by pianos, guitars, and organs, not pan flutes, lyres, and shofars. You have adopted, without comprising the Gospel, the tools and tastes of your culture. You have contextualized with compromise.

Remember, those who seek to contextualize in ways beyond your comfort zone are not out to destroy the church. They love the bride of Christ as much as you. They love the traditions of the bride, perhaps, a little less. So, don’t be condemning without being discerning. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Will some make egregious errors? Unfortunately, yes. Will they kill the church? Jesus promises that no one can.

So, let’s work together. Let’s honor Christ’s prayer for unity, unity not in conformity to one model of church but unity in love for the church. Let’s protect the church from the wiles of the world. Let’s project the church to the people of the world. We can, and we must, contextualize but we must never compromise. The Gospel is too important to keep to ourselves. The church is too valuable to surrender to the enemy.

Keller on Contextualization

Darryl Dash has posted an interview (second of two parts) with Tim Keller (HT: Steve McCoy) that is well worth reading. I thought Keller's answer to the question below was especially wise and helpful.

How do we change in order to contextualize without changing the gospel?

That is the practical question in ministry. If you under-contextualize your ministry and message, no one's life will be changed because they'll be too confused about what you are saying. But if you over-contextualize your ministry and your message, no one's life will be changed because you won't really be confronting them and calling them to make deep change.

If this scares you and you say, "Well then let's not even try it," then you have to remember something: to over-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of their culture, but to under-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of the culture you come from. So there's no avoiding it.

There's far more to say about this subject, but I'll just give you one bit of advice. The gospel is the key. If you don't have a deep grasp on the gospel of grace, you will either over-contextualize because you want so desperately to be liked and popular, or you will under-contextualize because you are self-righteous and proud and so sure you are right about everything. The gospel makes you humble enough to listen and adapt to non-believers, but confident and happy enough that you don't need their approval.