I recall a number of years ago, while preparing for a mission assignment, my wife and I attended a missionary training institute in Colorado. We attempted to prepare for the many situational experiences that awaited us in a country and culture that we knew very little about. I recall our discussions about \u201cplace, presence, participation\u201d as if cross-cultural ministry was somehow a three point sermon. We did, in fact discuss and act out some of the anticipated encounters we would have while on assignment. In retrospect, these preparatory learning situations seem shallow and simplistic. In fact, these learning opportunities were meant to help those of us being sent (missionaries elect) to grasp what it meant to be present in a place where we would be engaging a different culture. We live in a place; our presence takes up space; we engage the environment around us that shares our space. These elements comprise the context in which we live and where\u00a0we were going to serve. We were preparing to move into a new context, even though we could not change the reality of who we were. We would have to adapt and adjust to the new context.<\/p>\n
Stephen Bevans in the reading assignments for this week, Models of Contextual Theology<\/em>, clarifies that contextualization is an essential and imperative element in understanding the reality in which we live.[1]<\/a> Bevans indicates that we receive meaning from the context in which we live. We understand reality as \u201cculture-bound human beings\u201d that is, we are shaped and conditioned by our cultural context. As such, ne notes, \u201c\u2026 our context influences the understanding of God and the expression of our faith.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Reading Bevans reminded of the three \u201cPs\u201d in our preparation for the mission field as Bevans added a fourth P, \u201cparticular\u201d in the discussion on contextualization. Being particular shapes and forms what it means to be contextual more than any other element or concept. Being embedded and embodied in a culture means to live among, to engage, to see and be seen, to give and to receive, to empower and be empowered; it is to bring \u201cconcrete reality.\u201d[3]<\/a> We did experience this to a considerable extent while serving in Tanzania. We ate with the people, shared in their fellowship, stayed in their homes; their place and space become ours as we lived life together. \u201cParticular,\u201d according to Bevans is to be incarnate. \u201cIncarnation is a process of becoming particular, and in and through the particular the divinity could become visible and in some way (not fully but in some way) become graspable and intelligible.\u201d[4]<\/a> God incarnate in the world dispelled any question of God\u2019s purpose. Paul wrote, \u201cFor God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things \u2026\u201d (Col. 1:19-20a).<\/p>\n In the article \u201cThe Contextualization of the Gospel,) C. Ren\u00e9 Padilla writes in support of Bevans\u2019 incarnational concept. She also notes as essential the contextualizing the gospel \u201cthat overcomes cultural barriers and reflects the many-sided wisdom of God.\u201d[5]<\/a> She indicates the imperative relationship of the gospel in cultural context. Padilla sees the gospel as encompassing all of life in every cultural context in such a way that all culture is valued and appreciated and ultimately transformed by the Gospel. Padilla writes:<\/p>\n It is only as the Word of God becomes flesh in the people of God, that the Gospel takes shape within culture. According to God’s purpose, the Gospel is never to be merely a message in words but a message to be incarnated in his Church and, through it, in history. \u2026 It is the cultural embodiment of Christ [being] formed within a given culture. The task of the Church is not the extension of a culture Christianity throughout the world, but the incarnation of the Gospel in each culture.[6]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The gospel, then, engages local culture in a transforming way so that cultural nuances become expressions of Christian faith and living.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n In chapter nine, Bevans introduces \u201cThe Countercultural Model\u201d[8]<\/a> as a contextualizing model for theology and faith. This model confronts the reality that often human culture can be so antithetical to the gospel that elements in the culture must be confronted. In this setting, contextualizing the gospel can be culturally offensive and require change rather than transformation. Bevans\u2019 quotes Darrel Whiteman that \u201cGood Contextualization offends.\u201d[9]<\/a> Of course, Whitman qualifies his statement that it is offensive \u2013 but only for the right reasons. I like this model. I believe it is validated in scripture in many places, such as, that the gospel, the Word is like a two edged sword that cuts and severs, laying everything bare (Hebrews 4:12-13). Contextualization should be culturally sensitive, perhaps speaking in love, allowing people to be \u201cconfronted with the offense of the Gospel, exposing their own sinfulness and the tendency toward evil, oppressive structures and behavior patterns within their culture.\u201d[10]<\/a> When I read Whiteman\u2019s article, I was impressed with his definition of contextualization:<\/p>\n Contextualization attempts to communicate the Gospel in word and deed and to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people’s deepest needs and penetrates their worldview, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their own culture<\/em>[11]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n What I like about this is that the gospel meets people in the context of their own culture but it does so at the point of their \u201cdeepest need.\u201d In this sense, radical change can take place without alienation from God, the gospel or culture.<\/p>\n There is much more in the readings for this week. I wanted to focus on the gospel in the local context; my research area is \u201cLocal Church Ministry in a Multicultural Neighborhood: Reconciliation, Restoration, and Reclamation.\u201d The articles by Neville, \u201cThe Bible, Justice and Public Theology\u201d and by Marshall, \u201cParables as Paradigms for Public Theology\u201d are now a part of my master bibliography.[12]<\/a> Perhaps more amazing is that my study on biblical reconciliation concentrates on the exegetical interpretation and application of three scriptures:<\/p>\n My research on biblical reconciliation will expand to consider more deeply justice, restitution and restoration of the victim. Christopher Marshal\u2019s book[13]<\/a> has also been added to my master bibliography and my library. Reading it will wait until this term is over.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Steven Bevan, Models of Contextual Theology<\/em> (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), Kindle, 188.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ibid., 228.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid., 404.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> C Ren\u00e9 Padilla, \u201cThe Contextualization of the Gospel,\u201d Journal of Theology for South Africa<\/em> no. 24, 1978, 12.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Ibid., 29.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Ibid., 30.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Bevans, Kindle 2733.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> Darrell L. Whiteman, \u201cContextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge,\u201d International Bulletin of Missionary Research<\/em>, 21 no. 1, 1977, 3.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Ibid., 2, emphases original.<\/p>\n\n