Cultural Conversation
In the below excerpt Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC (where I go), uses the truth of Christ's INCARNATION as a model for effective ministry and cultural transformation. Taken from an article about the shared theological DNA of effective city-center churches, "The Nature of Contextualization" (ie, Incarnation) is one of six building blocks of this DNA that he outlines. The whole article is great (click on "Cultural Conversation" above to link to it). For me it offered the most recent lines of dialogue in, 1) my personal conversation with God, 2) our Tuesday night conversation with God, and 3) the conversation with God I take part in as a member of the global body of Christ, by stressing that the INCARNATION be made a vital part of a fourth conversation, the secular/cultural CONVERSATION. Incarnation and conversation. Incarnation IN conversation. Very cool.
-----------------------------
(point three in Tim Keller's, "Ministry in the New Global Culture of Major City-Centers")
The Nature of Contextualization.
Contextualization is the incarnation of the gospel in a new culture. Each culture has a worldview or “world story” at its heart. To reach a new culture, the gospel must enter, challenge, and re-tell the story of the new culture. In so doing, there are two equal and opposite errors that can emerge. First, if the culture is not truly entered (that is, if the gospel communication comes in the undiluted cultural form of its sender), then the receptors will experience only a “cultural conversion.” They do not actually encounter God but simply adopt the culture of the sender. Second, if the culture is not truly challenged and re-worked (that is, if the basic idols of the culture are not really removed), then the receptors will experience only a “cultural conversion;” they will simply get a lightly Christianized version of their own culture.
Every expression and embodiment of Christianity is contextualized. There is no such thing as a universal, ahistorical expression of Christianity. Jesus didn’t come to earth as a generalized being; by his becoming human, he had to become a particular human. He was male, Jewish, and working class; he was a socially and culturally-situated person.
So the minute we begin to minister, we must “incarnate” even as Jesus did. Actual Christian practices must have both a Biblical form or shape and a cultural form or shape. For example, the Bible clearly directs us to use music to praise God, but as soon as we choose a specific music to use, we enter a culture. As soon as we choose a language, as soon as we choose a vocabulary, as soon as we choose a particular level of emotional expressiveness and intensity, as soon as we choose even an illustration as an example for a sermon, we move toward the social context of some people and away from the social context of others. At Pentecost, everyone heard the sermon in his or her own language and dialect. But since Pentecost, we can never be all things to all people at the very same time. Adaptation to culture is inevitable.
It is important to note that contextualization is not relativism! As D.A. Carson has said, “No truth which human beings may articulate can ever be articulated in a culture-transcending way—but that does not mean that the truth thus articulated does not transcend culture.” It is important to keep the balance of this statement. If you forget the first half, you will think there is only one true way to communicate the gospel. If you forget the second half, you’ll lose your grip on the fact that nonetheless there is only one true gospel. Either way you will be ineffective in ministry. Paul does not change the gospel, but he adapts it very heavily. This may open the door to abuses; but fear and refusal to adapt culturally open the door to abuses of the gospel just as much. The balance is to not succumb to relativism or to think contextualization is really avoidable. Both are gospel-eroding errors. In summary:
If we over-adapt to a culture we are trying to reach, it means we have bought in to that culture’s idols. We are allowing that culture too much authority. For example, we may take a good theme (e.g. the freedom of the individual in the West, which fits with the “priesthood of all believers”) and allow it to be an idol (e.g. the dominance of the individual which prevents pastoral accountability and discipline).
If, on the other hand we under-adapt to a culture, it means we have accepted our own culture’s idols. We are forgetting that our own version of Christianity is in large part not Biblical but simply cultural.
To the degree a ministry is over- or under-adapted, it loses culture-transforming power. It is, therefore, impossible to avoid the very real dangers of contextualization by simply holding on to the old, familiar ways. That would be as much of a cultural trap as to over-adapt.
City centers are dense and diverse and there are always a lot of new young residents who just moved in to town in order to make their own way. They are often culturally unlike the long-time residents (the corporate and cultural leaders). It is quite easy to fail to contextualize to the city center, to simply offer up a suburban model of ministry (not tapping into the city’s cultural narratives, not speaking in the city’s voice) and still draw a crowd. The church must continually ask itself whether it is really reaching the longer-time residents or simply gathering the outsiders and the short-term newcomers.
-----------------------------
(point three in Tim Keller's, "Ministry in the New Global Culture of Major City-Centers")
The Nature of Contextualization.
Contextualization is the incarnation of the gospel in a new culture. Each culture has a worldview or “world story” at its heart. To reach a new culture, the gospel must enter, challenge, and re-tell the story of the new culture. In so doing, there are two equal and opposite errors that can emerge. First, if the culture is not truly entered (that is, if the gospel communication comes in the undiluted cultural form of its sender), then the receptors will experience only a “cultural conversion.” They do not actually encounter God but simply adopt the culture of the sender. Second, if the culture is not truly challenged and re-worked (that is, if the basic idols of the culture are not really removed), then the receptors will experience only a “cultural conversion;” they will simply get a lightly Christianized version of their own culture.
Every expression and embodiment of Christianity is contextualized. There is no such thing as a universal, ahistorical expression of Christianity. Jesus didn’t come to earth as a generalized being; by his becoming human, he had to become a particular human. He was male, Jewish, and working class; he was a socially and culturally-situated person.
So the minute we begin to minister, we must “incarnate” even as Jesus did. Actual Christian practices must have both a Biblical form or shape and a cultural form or shape. For example, the Bible clearly directs us to use music to praise God, but as soon as we choose a specific music to use, we enter a culture. As soon as we choose a language, as soon as we choose a vocabulary, as soon as we choose a particular level of emotional expressiveness and intensity, as soon as we choose even an illustration as an example for a sermon, we move toward the social context of some people and away from the social context of others. At Pentecost, everyone heard the sermon in his or her own language and dialect. But since Pentecost, we can never be all things to all people at the very same time. Adaptation to culture is inevitable.
It is important to note that contextualization is not relativism! As D.A. Carson has said, “No truth which human beings may articulate can ever be articulated in a culture-transcending way—but that does not mean that the truth thus articulated does not transcend culture.” It is important to keep the balance of this statement. If you forget the first half, you will think there is only one true way to communicate the gospel. If you forget the second half, you’ll lose your grip on the fact that nonetheless there is only one true gospel. Either way you will be ineffective in ministry. Paul does not change the gospel, but he adapts it very heavily. This may open the door to abuses; but fear and refusal to adapt culturally open the door to abuses of the gospel just as much. The balance is to not succumb to relativism or to think contextualization is really avoidable. Both are gospel-eroding errors. In summary:
If we over-adapt to a culture we are trying to reach, it means we have bought in to that culture’s idols. We are allowing that culture too much authority. For example, we may take a good theme (e.g. the freedom of the individual in the West, which fits with the “priesthood of all believers”) and allow it to be an idol (e.g. the dominance of the individual which prevents pastoral accountability and discipline).
If, on the other hand we under-adapt to a culture, it means we have accepted our own culture’s idols. We are forgetting that our own version of Christianity is in large part not Biblical but simply cultural.
To the degree a ministry is over- or under-adapted, it loses culture-transforming power. It is, therefore, impossible to avoid the very real dangers of contextualization by simply holding on to the old, familiar ways. That would be as much of a cultural trap as to over-adapt.
City centers are dense and diverse and there are always a lot of new young residents who just moved in to town in order to make their own way. They are often culturally unlike the long-time residents (the corporate and cultural leaders). It is quite easy to fail to contextualize to the city center, to simply offer up a suburban model of ministry (not tapping into the city’s cultural narratives, not speaking in the city’s voice) and still draw a crowd. The church must continually ask itself whether it is really reaching the longer-time residents or simply gathering the outsiders and the short-term newcomers.
posted by Jessica | 9:22 PM
|
0 comments
n-kär
n