"Contextualization" has been hijacked by heretics
The term "contextualization" has been hijacked by heretics. It used to mean something good and right in missiology. These days there are folks who are saying that, unless you are willing to abdicate certain doctrines, you are not truly contextualizing. It used to be more obvious that such a stance was heresy.
To contextualize, in its simplest understanding, is to place in a context. Referring to the Gospel in a missions setting, it is explaining the Gospel in ways that it can be best understood in the recipient's context. Referring to a secular application, it is a natural part of business to market a product in an understandable and appealing way to new or foreign audiences. In either case, the particulars of the product do not change. The vocabulary and presentation approach leading to someone understanding and "buying" the message may change. In the case of the Gospel, there are essential non-negotiables even in vocabulary (though differences in language).
The problem is actually not one of sincerity. The hijackers didn't intend to become heretics. In fact, they are so sincerely undiscriminating that they probably don't even realize that they are heretics and would deny it. Alas, that doesn't change the truth. Ah, now there's an important phrase: "that doesn't change the truth."
Here's what's happened, in our humble perspective: Some contexts are very difficult. Potential recipients are literally trained to react negatively, sometimes violently negatively, towards the Gospel and anything Christian. Well-meaning Christian communicators are flummoxed by lack of results. So, they explore compromise --- sometimes at every level. When they reach a level of compromise of the message that they begin to see "remarkable" results, then they tout this newly discovered level of "contextualization" as the greatest invention in Christian missions since the Great Commission. "Finally," they say, "we have the key to all these Gospel-unreached-peoples."
Where do they cross the line from a biblical Gospel to heresy?:
- when they say that other "holy writings" can be regarded by "new believers" on the same level as the Bible
- when they say that any extra-biblical prophet or founder can be regarded in any way as a messenger of God
- when they equivocate the deity of Jesus Christ in any way
- when they say that it's OK to keep all the former religion's forms, "just Jesus-ize it"
- when they knowingly permit "new believers" to retain superstitious beliefs, black magic, shamanism, etc. and just add a veneer of Bible and Jesus to it
We used to call that "heresy" in the form of "syncretism". It's certainly not contextualization in the truest, proper, and historical sense of the word. We should call this hijacked "contextualization" what it is and seek to restore this hostage term back to its rightful place in missions.
User login
Syndicate
Comments
this is what some call "C-5"
You are right; they don’t think they are being heretical. They are sincere. They rightly try to get rid of misunderstandings and stumbling blocks (western culture), but have gone overboard in avoiding hard doctrines.
But the lack of results flummoxes them. They also speak one way to Christians and another way to the folks they seek to reach. They don’t realize they are being duplicitous. This is what Paul rebuked Peter for in Galatians 2:11-21 – an example of hypocrisy and taking I Corinthians 9:19-23 too far. He was not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
They equivocate on the Deity of Christ, The Trinity, and justification by faith alone, it seems. They make the process too long and almost never get to the destination. (Seekers are still seeking after 10 years, etc.; with no church, no discipleship; no preaching of repentance and the C-5 group is saying baptism is not necessary for discipleship, and they think "church" is a western building).