Interpreting “Contextualization”?
What is “contextualization”? It is one of the most popular buzz words in evangelicalism today.
When a word is heard enough times, it’s easy to assume that one understands its meaning. However, what happens when we assume this? For some, prejudices are reinforced without good reason. For others, the concept is oversimplified and effort is not given to solving the hard problems of contextualization.
In Saving God’s Face, I suggest that evangelicals have largely assumed a particular view of “contextualization” that has made it very difficult for us make progress on the subject. In general, contextualization is seen primarily as an act of communication or application. While mention is made to “contextualized theology,” this generally refers to communicating theological truth in a contextually meaningful way.
It is assumed that contextualization is something one does TO theology. It is something that happens after one has interpreted the Bible. I think this is a fundamental assumption that is hindering evangelical attempts to develop comprehensive approaches to contextualization.
Alternatively, I suggest that contextualization most basically is an act of interpretation.
One begins to contextualize whenever one reads the Bible from a particular cultural context. People may get nervous to hear that sort of idea. “Certainly,” they might say, “the meaning of the Bible is unchanging. How can our interpretations change? Isn’t that eisegesis––simply forcing our interpretation into the Bible?” The Bible’s original meaning does not change, but we do. That means we notice new things as our circumstances change. It also means that we naturally overlook or under-emphasize certain aspects of the text that lie outside our common experience.
In humility, we need a model of contextualization that takes seriously this interaction between text, read, and context.
I won’t offer a “definition” now. But I will offer some of the suggestions of others.
In the next post, I’ll give a sample of definitions from mostly evangelical scholars.
Related articles
- Two Kinds of Contextualization (jacksonwu.org)
- Contextualizing the One Gospel in Any Culture – - A Model from the Biblical Text for a Global Context (jacksonwu.org)
- Taking the Context out of the Bible? (jacksonwu.org)
- Why Did Adam Wear a Loincloth? – - Uncovering the Truth about Context (jacksonwu.org)
- The New Covenant in a Chinese Context (Part 1): A Collectivistic Understanding of Identity (jacksonwu.org)
Does Biblical Infallibility Allow Us to Assume the Gospel?
How do fallible people contextualize God’s infallible word? To put it more sharply, does it matter that the Bible is infallible if fallen sinners are interpreting and applying it? Yes. It does.
(This is week 1 of the book giveway. I’m giving away free Kindle books every week. Click here to enter the giveway. For the next 4 weeks, I’m writing about the topics covered in the four major sections of my book, Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame.)
However, this tension must be taken very seriously if what we do and teach is to carry the weight it ought. Consider this simple fact that I think most people would agree with: “The Bible” and “our theology” are not equivalent terms. Our theologies are all fallible. The Bible is not. Although people may admit this, how often does this realization practically affect what we do?
The difference between our theology and what the Bible says can make a huge difference in contextualization. Accordingly, our contextualization methods need to account for that gap in one way or another.
Consider the simple fact that we all read the Bible from a limited cultural vantage point. This naturally affects what we see in the Bible, which then shapes our theology. What if we broadened our cultural perspective, both historically and globally? What else might we see? By noticing a range of news details, our theologies will of course be altered. Sometimes this will mean correcting old views. Other times, the additions will shift what we think is the major and minor idea within a passage.
In the process of contextualization, we don’t change God’s word. However, in the process, the contextualizer may well be changed. Assumptions will be challenged. New questions will arise. Priorities will shift.
Consider how you read the Bible when you first became a Christian. Then, after 10 or 20 years, how did your views change? Were you also able to discern better applications? The difference was not the Bible. The difference was the lens through which we read the Scripture. Increased life experience––our changing context––broadens our lens for reading the text.
Contextualization is possible when we are humble and mature enough to question our assumptions.
We all have assumptions. Why is it humble to questioning our assumptions? To do so acknowledges that we are sinners and that even our heroes (who have shaped our views of the world) don’t get everything right.
In my book, Saving God’s Face, I begin by consider whether or not evangelicals “assume” the gospel and if this assumption actually gets in the way of contextualization.
I recognize that such questions sound provocative. After all, isn’t there only one gospel? Also, if we can’t assume the gospel, then what can we assume? This is a critical point to grasp: our understanding of the gospel is never in the abstract. It always uses metaphors, expressions, symbols, and emphases that comes reflect our culture experience. After all, I certainly can’t understand and communicate the gospel in ways foreign to my own experience.
We have to mind the gap between our understanding of the gospel (our theology) and the Bible’s more robust view of the gospel. Otherwise, we essentially will confuse the two. The consequence then is that we could begin to “judiaze” our listeners in that they will have to accept the gospel on the terms of our own cultural expressions. The terms and concepts we use import with them all kinds of assumptions and values we must be aware of.
Therefore, I suggest a simple idea in my book. If we assume the gospel, then we have already assumed what it is we claim to be seeking––a contextualized gospel. After all, all gospel presentations are contextualized to some context. This raises the question––what is contextualization.
More on that in the next post.
Related articles
Week 1 of Book Giveaway
This is week 1 of the book giveaway. Each of the next four weeks, I’ll discuss a different theme that follows the major sections of my new book Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame. This week, someone will get 3 kindle books.
Contextualization in the New Testament
Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes
A Theological Analysis of Insider Movements
Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to a Christian Worldview
Transforming Worldviews
At the end of each week, I’ll pick a winner at random. I’ll give away books that are related to that week’s theme. If you want to defer for a later prize, you can do that…I’ll even add one more to help your odds, since you gave up your earlier prize.
How do you enter? There are a few different ways.
1. Subscribe by EMAIL or FOLLOW the blog (this gets you 2 entries)
2. Post something about the book on your own blog or Facebook page (2 entries)
—you need to let me know
3. “Like” the Jackson Wu Page on Facebook (1 entry)
–make sure to add a link to my blog as well so I’ll be notified you did it.
4. “Follow” on Twitter (1 entry).
–If you are already a follower, then Tweet something about the book so I can see it.
Misc Notes
** I’ll start adding “entries” starting now. So, if you today enter in one of the ways mentioned, you’ll be entered into the contest.
** Your entries count for the entire four weeks (but you can only win once).
** If you buy the book, then leave a comment or post a blog to let me know. I’ll add an extra entry into the contest on your behalf. You can give away the free one as a gift. Keep the other books for yourself.
This week’s theme is CONTEXTUALIZATION.
In the first big section of the book, I tackle these questions:
1) Do evangelicals assume the gospel?
2) Do evangelicals assume a meaning of contextualization?
3) Why have evangelicals not been able to make more progress in developing a unified theory and method of contextualization?
4) What is the relationship between the biblical text and the cultural context?
5) How does worldview affect contextualization?
6) What is “theological contextualization”?
7) What is the relationship between contextualization and interpretation?
8) How do we actually do contextualization?
This week’s posts will all concern contextualization. Leave your comments.
Who Should Read “Saving God’s Face”?
Is “Saving God’s Face” a book that only “scholars” will understand?
No
.
That doesn’t mean everyone will understand every argument being made. What it does mean is that there is a substantial amount of material that I think anyone could benefit from. Although the book was originally defended as a dissertation, there are definite reasons it is not merely for “scholars.” I’ll mention two.
(By the way, next week, I begin a four-week series that includes my giving away a lot of Kindle books)
1. I purposely wrote the book in order to address a number of practical problems that arise in multiple contexts.
Honor-shame is not a “China” issue. Many people recognize that honor-shame cultures are prominent in Asia, not just East Asia. However, it has become abundantly obvious to me that honor and shame are quite misunderstood by most Westerners; consequently, people don’t realize that honor-shame is a human issue. We may not use that sort of language, but it’s there anyway.
Simple experience first forced me to take notice how important it is for us to take seriously the influence of culture on our theology and ministry, especially when it comes to preaching the gospel. Just for a moment, consider the possibility that most of traditional theology has been done through a narrow cultural sphere. That doesn’t make it wrong by any means. However, what might be not be seeing. How might our cultural limitations also be hindering our fruitfulness for the glory of Christ?
2. The book was intentionally written in such a way that it could benefit a spectrum of rather different people.
At the level of content, consider the main subjects of the main chapters: contextualization, Chinese culture, honor-shame & face (in anthropology, China, the Ancient Near East, and the Bible), and the doctrine of salvation (with particular focus on the atonement and justification). Most people who read from one section probably do not read much from the other sections. Even within the chapter on salvation, I purposely varied my approach between a “systematic” and a “biblical/exegetical” approach.
Stylistically, I wrote the chapters to match the content. The middle chapters are read with greater fluidity that the first and last chapters. The simply reason is that the questions being discussed are different.
I have had multiple college students read the chapters on Chinese culture, Honor-shame, and Face. Although they had no graduate level training, they had no problems in understanding it. The last big chapter requires one to be as rigorous as the “professional” theologian. This means that the discussion can get technical in spots. When writing the book, the opening chapter required my greatest attention at the very end of the process. It probably contains some of the more provocative sections, yet the latter portion of the chapter lays out a method of contextualization, which may be a bit abstract for some people unfamiliar with the topic of contextualization.
In short . . .
This book is written for Christians concerned with understanding the biblical meaning of salvation and with reaching the nations for the sake of Christ. These are not small concerns. This means facing some big questions. That requires we broaden ourselves and engage in discussions with people and ideas unlike our own. During the writing process, I constantly found myself challenged by people very much unlike myself and with whom I disagree on countless issues. I’m grateful for the dialogue.
Related articles
- Introducing My New Book, Saving God’s Face (jacksonwu.org)
- Why “Saving Faith” Means “Saving Face” (jacksonwu.org)
Missiology or Theology? Crossing Academic Cultures for the Sake of the Nations
In order to reach the nations, we will have to cross cultures academically.
What God has joined together . . .
At some point in the past, missiology and theology, as split as academic disciplines. If you examine the literature, it would seem there is a great chasm that few can ever cross. At times, theologians will write on missiology (e.g. Andreas Köstenberger, Peter O’Brien, Christopher Wright). Rarely does it work the other way. This is not surprising. Seminaries tend to train missionaries versus theologians very differently. Missionaries, for example, are not often required to learn the original languages.
I recall once hearing one person criticize a man (who was a good student) for going overseas after seminary. The first gentleman said something to the effect to the student, “Why are you wasting your education? People who can’t hack it go overseas. The bright ones stay in America” (becoming pastors or theologians).
Missiology is Theology
One of the things I appreciated about my PhD studies at SEBTS is that the professors strongly resisted the strong dichotomy between missions and theology. This sentiment was most strongly expressed by Bruce Ashford, who once said that applied theology should be harder than theology because you should not only know what theologians know but also your particular field of application (such as missiology). I couldn’t agree more.
Missiology ought to explain the mission of God, hence theology. A lot of good missiology has tended to focus on anthropology. This is certainly needed for sure. However, I would like to see increasing re-integration of theology and missiology at the academic level. The mission field needs integrated thinkers. Consider for a moment why Paul wrote Romans. He wanted to go to Spain. Therefore, he wrote the book of Romans in large part to secure their support. Martin Kahler was absolutely correct, “Mission is the mother of theology.”
An Integrated Approach to Saving God’s Face
One of the natural questions I can get about my book is this: What kind of book is this? Missiology? Theology? Or . . . ? Yes. My friend, Bruce Ashford, Provost at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary recently sent out a tweet that captures the point: “Interested in atonement, NPP, contextualization, or East Asia? Check out “Saving God’s Face,” by @JacksonWu4China.”
I consider the book an argument by demonstration. Rather than simply argue for some abstract understanding of contextualization/interpretation, etc., the book demonstrates what theological contextualization looks like. What does it mean to interpret Scripture from within a cultural context?
The book is purposefully interdisciplinary, having something It tries to avoid some of the pitfalls of overspecialization. In addition, both the content and style of the chapters vary with the topic. Some might think the discussion on contextualization a bit provocative at times. The chapter on salvation is unavoidably nuanced in places. The middle chapters on Chinese culture and honor-shame try to go beyond mere description. Instead, it seeks to understand the inner logic of concepts like “face,” collective identity, and guanxi.
Related articles
- Introducing My New Book, Saving God’s Face (jacksonwu.org)
- Contextualizing the One Gospel in Any Culture – - A Model from the Biblical Text for a Global Context (jacksonwu.org)
- How Can Oral Peoples Interpret the Bible? (jacksonwu.org)
The Dangers of Being an Evangelical Missiologist
I once had a good friend jokingly say, “I can’t tell if you are a liberal or a fundamentalist.” I think that is one of the nicest things someone could say to an evangelical.
The Protestant Reformation happened in part due to Catholics’ overemphasis on tradition, which had come to trump Scripture as the church’s functional authority. However, we are not for that reason immune to the same tendency.
This is one way some denominations sustain their existence. Everyone within the group expects everyone else to hold certain views, yet many of these ideas are not necessarily clear in Scripture. Yet, if one dares to cross the line and question traditional assumptions, people almost begin doubting your salvation. Think what people would have said in years past if you challenged the primacy of the King James Bible or doubted a literal 7-day, 24 hour, young earth creation account. You would have been branded a “liberal.” In many evangelical circles, people would be more offended if another Christian supports Obama as president than when certain Christian musicians are accused of modalism (a heresy most people don’t know about but which was condemned in early church councils).
This is a human tendency, one of which we are guilty. We make judgments based on association and on whether someone conforms to the group. This is simply classic collectivistic thinking built into humans. However, we have to consider how this gets in the way of good theological and missiological thinking.
Criticizing the Good Guys
When you criticize those you respect or admire, the “good guys” within your theological camp, people automatically assume that you completely reject what they have to say. They then become concerned about what your theology “may lead to.” I see this line of thinking often when evangelicals critique books–they don’t necessary wrestle with the exegesis and arguments, but rather say that are afraid that someone could misuse the book’s teaching. The problem is that people can even misuse the fact that God is love. We can’t do theology out of fear.
I spent a disproportionate amount of time on chapter two of my book because I was aware of these dynamics. It is easy to be misunderstood when you call certain assumptions into question. Others assume they already know where your going with this or that sentence when in fact you want to take the conversation in another direction. Quoting a “liberal” or a “fringe evangelical” makes people wonder if you support their entire way of thinking.
Therefore, the first major chapter of my book, Saving God’s Face, has a key role in the overall argument of the book. It is easily the most provocative chapter. In some ways, it is also the most carefully nuanced section of the book. The latter half is more abstract but it is far from mere abstraction.
The first big question I deal with is whether evangelicals should assume the gospel.
Should Evangelicals Assume the Gospel?
I examine what I consider a problem within evangelicalism, particularly significant for missiological thinking. I suggest that because people too often “assume the gospel,” evangelicals have been slow to make more progress with respect to contextualization. (To be clear, I affirm there is one gospel (Gal 1). I have written an entire article on this point and how to contextualize it.) When we assume the gospel, we have essentially begged the question in terms of what contextualization means.
It’s not so much that all evangelical thinkers are “wrong” as much as many common views are just too limited. They are incomplete and need further developing.
The dangers of being an evangelical missiologists are many. For one, it is easy to fall into the trap of either-or thinking. Something is either completely true or completely false. Second, if your ideas challenge certain fundamental assumptions, you will be looked at with suspicion. For the sake of the nations and the truth of God’s word, we have to rethink these tendencies.
I primarily write for and critique evangelical thinking precisely because< I think evangelicals are key to the well-being of God’s church and his mission in the world.
Are there other issues that you find that you or others use as a litmus test but which is not an over essential to the faith?
Related articles
- Introducing My New Book, Saving God’s Face (jacksonwu.org)
- We Compromise the Gospel When We Settle for Truth
(jacksonwu.org) - Contextualizing the One Gospel in Any Culture – - A Model from the Biblical Text for a Global Context (jacksonwu.org)
God’s Attributes Are Not Unique to Him
In some ways, one might say the one true God is no different from false gods.
In a recent article, translated on Chinese Church Voices, a Xinjiang pastor writes on the topic of discerning true and false gods. He specifically seeks to help churches wrestling with cults like Eastern Lightening. Accordingly, the pastor suggests one focus on the essential attributes of God. He mentions the following:
1. God is spirit. He not only has life but also person-hood.
2. God is infinite, unchanging from everlasting to everlasting and eternally existent.
3. God is complete in himself, faithful, and full of compassion, righteousness, holiness and peace.
4. All things originate and end in God, he is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
This list is full of wonderful truths. I’m thankful for his efforts.
However, as I reflected further, I grew more troubled. It is not that the pastor has said anything that is wrong; rather, the major problem is what it omits. The consequences are serious.
I’ll list my two biggest concerns and then give my thoughts on what causes this problem.
(1) Arguably, many Muslim and certain other religions would claim their god shares these attributes.
(2) There is no mention of Christ in the article, except for a passing reference in a verse cited from 2 Corinthians.
What are some possible causes and consequences behind these problems?
(By the way, I think this pastor is not unique. I think he is typical of many faithful pastors who speak what is true but miss some of the most critical points of Scripture.)
(1) Systematic theology replaces biblical theology.
Many Christians tend to emphasize systematic theology. This is particularly true of those influenced by the Western church, including Western missionaries. The Chinese church has largely adopted uncritically this emphasis.
In time, when people teach systematic theology more than exegesis (i.e. biblical interpretation), then it will not be long before we start to talk about God primarily in abstract terms—such as his attributes. Typically, this is the talk of the systematic theologian, not the Bible itself.
How does the Bible most often describe God?
He is the Lord, “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” He is the God who led Israel out of Egypt, etc . . . . The one true God is the God of history, not philosophy. He is known by what he does in concrete historical and cultural contexts. He is the God of the whole world. Therefore, he is the Creator King who challenges anyone who presumes to have supreme authority over their land or country.
(2) Christ is left out.
In keeping with the previous point, the one true God is known through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Cults can construct a “god” that resembles God in attributes; yet, it is Christ who makes clear the kind of God we serve. Mysteriously, this God entered history, suffered at the hands of his created image bearers, and overcomes all evil and death via the resurrection.
These are not minor points among countless others that could be named. They are essential to knowing the one true God. It is Christ alone that clearly distinguishes the one true God from all other false gods.
I’m not against systematic theology at all. I myself teach two systematic theology courses. The point is one of methodology and emphasis. Systematic theology (and thus our theological traditions) can quickly begin to usurp faithful interpretation of Scripture. This happens whenever we lack exegetical skills or get to busy (or lazy) to do the hard work on biblical interpretation. Functionally, our seminary teachers and pastors trump the Bible in terms of authority. We cannot distinguish their interpretations from the Bible itself.
I appreciate the labor of Christian pastors who want to protect their flock from cults. Yet, this does not mean we can compromise the gospel by settling for truth. We must rethink our priorities, not settling for true truths taught by systematic theology. Instead, I urge us to train people in the process of interpreting Scripture. That is a distinct skill set that is too often assumed or neglected.
Related articles
- Critiquing Creation to Christ (C2C) (jacksonwu.org)
- Taking the Context out of the Bible? (jacksonwu.org)
The Personal History behind “Saving God’s Face”
What is the personal history behind my book, Saving God’s Face?
Why did I write this book?
Years ago, I had a startling realization. Theologians and pastors have long taught on the glory of God and its central importance in the Bible. However, because I was living in East Asia, it also dawned on me that this sort of talk about God’s glory, praising him, and magnifying his name was simply another way of talking about honor and shame. When I looked at most theology and missions-related books, I found that honor and shame seemed to be treated differently. Anthropologists talked about honor-shame, but theologians largely focused more on legal metaphors. I could see both themes in Scripture but couldn’t find help as to how to bring them together.
The problem became more serious for me as I thought about Chinese culture. In Mandarin, the word for “sin” is translated literally as “crime.” Therefore, when people hear the gospel, they were being told, “You are criminals!!” Naturally, people do not understand what they are hearing. In China, as in other countries, people think primarily in terms of “face” and relationships. “Law” is less a prominent theme in daily life.
This raised a number of questions.
Theologically, why have Christians favored law-language when so much of the Bible emphasizes God’s glory and his people not being put to shame? How could I reconcile the gap between these two metaphors, not choosing one over the other? Why did people get nervous whenever I would talk about honor-shame, as if I were denying what the Bible said about law and absolute truth?
Missiologically, how do we share the gospel in honor-shame cultures in a way that both reflects what the Bible really says and does not come across as superficial? How are we supposed to reconcile the conviction that God’s word is absolutely true but that our perspectives are limited? Why has so much been written about contextualization yet there is little agreement about how to actually do it?”
In short, if God’s glory is central to understanding Scripture and living the Christian life yet ancient and eastern cultures have a deep appreciation for honor & shame, then we have to figure out how these cultures can help us to understand the original intent of the biblical authors’.
(In terms of methodology, I’ve written an article elaborating on how contemporary cultures can help us to interpret a text like the Bible, which comes from more ancient cultures. It is called “We Compromise the Gospel When We Settle for Truth: How ‘Right’ Interpretations Lead to ‘Wrong’ Contextualization.”)
Have others written on this topic?
Not exactly. This is why I felt an urgent need to spur a dialogue on the issues I mentioned above. In some form, people in different spheres and academic disciplines have written on some theme discussed in the book. However, on the whole, I constantly found people not seriously engaging with others in other disciplines. No doubt this is due to the increased specialization that within modern academia. To do contextualization, I’m increasingly persuaded a person needs to be a generalist, knowing a decent bit about a number of things though not the world’s expert on any one detail.
In terms of contextualization and specifically in China, much of the literature has been too general in my opinion. I wanted people to have some tangible handles to begin moving forward in the development of theologies, methods, and strategies. It’s just not enough to agree on principles.
Change happens in specifics.
For a sample of Chapter One, click here.
Related articles
- Why “Saving Faith” Means “Saving Face” (jacksonwu.org)
- Having Faith and Saving Face (John 5:44) (jacksonwu.org)
- The Old Testament as God’s Contextualization for Oral Peoples (jacksonwu.org)
- Introducing My New Book, Saving God’s Face (jacksonwu.org)
I’m Giving Away Free Books!
In order to introduce my new book, I’m going to give away all kinds of Kindle books (besides my own).
Read more
Introducing My New Book, Saving God’s Face
I previously announced that my book has been published! It is called . . .
Saving God’s Face: A Chinese Contextualization of Salvation through Honor and Shame .
For a sample, check out Chapter One for free. Click here.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT?
Theologically, the book seeks to understand the doctrine of salvation from the perspective of honor and shame.
In missiological terms, the book suggests an approach to theological contextualization in which Chinese culture helps us to interpret Scripture better. I am not suggesting “eisegesis,” by which we force some contemporary ideas into the Bible. Not at all. As an evangelical, I affirm that there is one gospel and the author’s original meaning does not change because of the reader. Instead, I explore what happens when we cross disciplines, bringing together missions, theology, and biblical studies in addition to both Chinese culture and the Ancient Near East.
We all have a worldview that shapes the way we read Scripture.
Because we are all sinners who come from cultures that are limited, we have to be intentional in the way we interpret Scripture. People generally recognize that their personal theology is not necessarily equivalent to what the Bible may say on a matter. If this is the case, this what are the implications for the way we understand Scripture and preach the gospel?
I hope the book helps people both in the West and the East. There has been a lot of talk about the importance of honor and shame but I have found most of the studies are introductions. In addition, there are countless books and articles that discuss the meaning of the gospel and contextualization. Again, there is agreement at the broadest levels, but we still need to develop more practical approaches to contextualizing the gospel.
WHO? WHEN? WHERE?
It is being published as a part of the Evangelical Missiological Society’s Dissertation Series, published by WCIU Press.
Other titles in the series have included:
Doug Coleman’s “A Theological Analysis of the Insider Movement Paradigm from Four Perspectives: Theology of Religions, Revelation, Soteriology and Ecclesiology” and
Ant Greenham’s “Muslim Conversions to Christ: An Investigation of Palestinian Converts Living in the Holy Land.”
In the coming weeks, I’ll be doing a blog series introducing the various parts of the book. I’ll am also making the introduction available so that people can get a better look at it.
