Context

I intended to write on this yesterday, but I didn't want to just tack this on to what was already a very random post. So, before I succumb to the black hole of thallium stress tests (my project due thursday), allow me to give a few quick (ha!) thoughts on contextualization. In case you're wondering, yes, this is highly influenced by Bosch.

Sure, contextualization is good. We should do it. But, not so fast!! If only it were that simple my friend. What do you mean, contextualization??

The idea is that when we present the gospel we should make it applicable to the context/setting/life experience of whoever we are talking to. This goes for our own culture as well. If we hope to not suck at presenting the gospel (evangelism), we have no choice but to try and connect it to those we are talking to. For all the talk of getting back to the first century church that we occasionally hear, the truth is we can't. This is one of the breakthroughs in theology over the past fifty years: the realization that the only gospel that exists is the contextualized gospel. The Word we believe in always puts on flesh. And, that's all fine and good, but what does it mean man!? . . . . .

Bosch points out four different forms of contextualization. The first two fall under the subtitle of "indigenization". Which is jargon for making something indigenous or native. Indigenization encompasses translation and inculturation. Translation is obvious. We take what we know and translate it. We find the closest words and micro-concepts in the receiving culture and do our best to fit the message we're bringing into them. This is great for a first step, but ultimately it leaves out one fact . . . . the message we are taking to them has been translated into our language and culture first. Often this has taken place over hundreds of years, and in the process the message (gospel) has done quite a bit to reshape our culture. In short, the message we are giving them is not one that was translated for us. For us it was inculturated. Maybe translated at first, but translation is only a stepping stone. It is inferior to inculturation. Any missionary who has any sense can testify that it is better that they preach in the local language than trust a translator. So, hooray inculuration.

The next two forms fall under the subtitle of socio-economic contextualization. If you are a filthy rich Western preacher taking the gospel to the dirt-poor, impoverished mine workers of Bolivia, chances are your message will not be truly respected. Maybe they'll act like they buy it in hopes it will pull them out of the hell they live in at the moment, but it's doubtful the seed you sow will last very long before it withers. Under socio-economic contextualization we have two different forms. First there is what we can call contextualization "from above", or evolutionary. This is where the beneficent (and patronizing) nations commonly found in the West triumphantly listen to the gospel call to die to self, and sacrifice their dreams of owning a cabin in Colorado (since they already have three other properties and two cars per family member) to better the poor wretched lives of people in other countries. They travel far to build houses for impoverished peoples. Taking three times as long as any of the skilled, unemployed workers in that country would, and doing half the job in the process. They do this so they can return home to tell their friends and family of the horrible things they have seen "over there", and inform them of how miserable they must be because they only eat two meals a day and don't have air-conditioning in their church building. The way to contextualize in this situation is to "develope" their country/economy, or politically advocate some kind of trickle down economic growth that will help these people. But the truth as Bosch points out is that this maintains, and more often then not, increases the gap between the rich benefactors and the poor margins who depend on them. It gives the illusion of contextualization, but rarely actually acheives its name.

The other side of this is "from below" contextualization, or revolutionary contextualization, which takes shape in liberation theology, feminist theology, etc. The gist is that the ones needing to repent are not the people being preached to, but the ones doing the preaching. When we go on missions, the ones needing the gospel (read, needing to be evangelized) are the missionaries themselves. And, to some extent I find this to be an inevitable truth. Most people in missional contexts spend much of their time realizing their own depravity and sinfulness. Yet, "from below" theology demands more. It demands that those in the West who have claimed the gospel as their own for so long should realize the poor as having more right to determine theological truths than those of their own context, since the poor were Jesus' favored segment of society. In the end revolutionary contextualization becomes "anti-contextualization", but only if the pendulum is allowed to swing freely.

So, what do we mean by contextualization. I say all four can be good with moderation (imagine that). We should humbly respect all cultures, realizing our gospel is dressed in American clothes. We can't expect it to be respected in other places. We should expect that it won't be. We can translate, but only in humility. Translation is always inferior to inculturation. Our goal is to allow the gospel to make sense while it simultaneously shifts and molds their culture to what Jesus (and not we) would have it be. This is what leads to evolutionary contextualization as those indigenous Christians placed in more affluent and powerful levels of society exert their influence. We also realize the value of the marginalized, and listen to their voice, caring for them as Jesus did. Those with wealth and power realize part of their conversion is seeking the good of the poor at the cost of their own comfort and pleasure. While, the poor and subserviant realize part of their conversion is not giving in to the role of victim, and never letting the feeling of powerlessness convince them to give up their God given power.

With all that said, there is an easier way to say it all. First a non-contextualized gospel is dead. The Word becomes flesh and makes its dwelling among us. To not contextualize is to confine the Word to a page and it won't live there. So whatever setting we are in (context) we have to allow the Word to live and dwell there. Second we must realize that no matter where we are, the gospel is for us and is calling us to repent (read change). If we have greed in our hearts we must die to that. Greed applies to the rich and the poor. If we are arrogant (rich) we must change. If we are bitter (poor) we must change. No matter where we are, the gospel that dwells with us demands we do things differently. True contextualization means that Jesus speaks our language, and then in words we understand he convicts us of two truths:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions giving to the poor so your treasure will be in heaven. Then come, follow me."

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute (oppress) you. . . Be perfect as your Father is perfect."

Simply put, contextualization is refusing to play favorites with God's love and truth.