MissionShift - Part Deux

Essay # 2 The Gospel in Human Contexts by Paul G. Hiebert.

     Inasmuch as this book had style borrowed from Dickens’s “Christmas Carol” by essayists addressing Missions Past, Present and Future, Hiebert takes his essay on Missions present and established some bold truths. His style is more like reading Goldilocks. He presents extremes of Minimal Contextualization (Papa Bear) and Uncritical Contextualization to prepare us to swallow everything he is going to feed us in his appreciation of Critical Contextualization.
     Don’t misunderstand me- Heibert is a brilliant man and a legend in his field. I think he is a must read for people who want to comprehend contextualization. However, I, like some of the critics of his position, believe that there are too few tent-poles to hold up his tent. Whether he was intentionally imprecise on these missing markers or simply felt they were unnecessary, it caused his presentation to create concern and discomfort.
     He shines the light on the crude methodology of missions during the colonial period as a reason to study our methods and motives. Again demonstrating the extreme isn’t always a good reason to adhere or depart from a particular conviction.
     It reminds me of those who grew up in tremendous wealth who after serious introspection suddenly think there is great virtue in poverty. Another example would be the politician who highlights the extreme failures of his opponents to make his/her own weakness seem more palatable.
     For Heibert the key weakness seems to cause the missionary to doubt or even despise the impact his own culture had on his view of taking the Gospel in it’s purest form to a new field. He touches on the C-1 through C-6 levels of contextualization proposed by Travis, but doesn’t really clarify his position about which “C” crossed the line into syncretism. He also believes there is no way to compare “belief systems and to test them.” If so, how do you determine success?
     In his essay I felt like we were being taught to see western culture as a hindrance rather than simply a starting point. I like his comments like: “…we need to involve people in evaluating their own culture in light of the Bible...” and “Knowledge of the Gospel makes us responsible to share its message of salvation and transformation with all people…” But there was this constant shadow of guilt by association. Guilt that our cultural heritage must always be a curse in our attempt to be contextually relevant and plant indigenous Christians and churches.
     Pocock’s Response: After giving proper admiration of the author and his essay and previous works, Pocock praises the impact of Critical Contextualization on contemporary missionary efforts in resistant cultures. I enjoyed his summary: “Rigorous biblical reflection by those who are closest to the situation always yields the best results.” However, those closest to the situation can also lose their objectivity in establishing effective and faithful methodologies for contextualization.
     Whiteman’s Response: Also very Pro-Heibert, Whiteman refers to the colonial crudeness of missions as non-contextualization. He also bounces off of the extremes as he summarizes and appreciates Hiebert’s article. He cites the essayists three steps: 1) uncritically study the local culture; 2) study the Scriptures related to the problem area, 3) (indigenous believers) evaluate their own past customs, and then adds the information discussed in this particular essay to have a fourth step: 4) Divine revelation in human contexts. Well, at least they both landed in the scripture, but as Willis and Geisler will point out, the perfect Word of God should be our starting point, not the last resort.
     Also worth noting is how much Hiebert, Pocock and Whiteman give focus to the term ‘the Gospel” rather than the entire Word of God. Whiteman’s Johari window wasn’t especially enlightening, but it gave visual learners a chance to grasp the obvious.
     Geisler’s Response: Geisler cuts right to the chase and gives us points of agreement and disagreement. Agreement: Interpretation of Scripture, Nature/Role of Language, Translation of Scripture, Role of Culture, Objective Nature of Meaning, Universality of Truth, Need for a Metamodel Perspective, Need for Realistic Metaphysics, Nature of the Mission Enterprise. Then he has some areas of disagreement: Scripture: “..fails to note the Bible is an infallible and inerrant written revelation from God.” And states the Lausanne “statement of faith as well as the Chicago statement. Meaning: “Nowhere does Hiebert spell out just how one can avoid total skepticism in his knowledge of God whose Word we proclaim to the nations.” And Truth: Geisler cites Arostotelian principles of logic: law of contradiction, exclusion and excluded middle to point out that Truth is truth in any language or culture. And also notes that Heibert’s comment “No one ever meets universal Christianity in itself” is troubling.
     Willis’s Response: Willis responds to Heibert, then presents Jesus’ model of contextualization. What a divine contrast! The Gospel itself was already presented and modeled to be contextualized. Study the original – what a concept. And as Willis points out we will never be able to completely and perfectly devoid ourselves of our context of origin the way Jesus did (Heb. 1:3; Phil. 2:6-7, and 2 Cor. 8:9). Wilis also notes that theology and anthropology are constructs of man – not God, and “In both, man’s reason attempts to become judge over God’s revelation.” So his solution is 1. Begin with the supremacy of Scripture, 2. Understand the biblical culture, 3. Understand your own culture, 4. Understand the receptor culture, 5. Use oral communication of Scripture, 6. Aim for spiritual transformation, 7. honor indigenous transformation, 8. Practice dynamic equivalence translation and application, and 9. Promote continuous adaptation to their culture. His summary: Allow the truths of Scripture to be Supracultural in order to maintain the integrity of the Gospel when there are conflicts.
     Stetzer’s Response: I got the impression that Stetzer could find himself holding hands with Heibert, Pocock and Whiteman on one side and Geisler and Willis on the other and thus bring together the best of both sides of this debate. He also helps us understand a term that may not be familiar ~ Semiotics. He appreciates how Paul modeled taking the Gospel across cultures without “yielding on the stumbling block of the cross.” Our goal is the same to produce healthy churches that are faithful with the gospel and yet appropriately reflect their cultural context. However, as Stetzer demonstrates, there is still much dialogue or even debate to happen on how to achieve this God-given goal.
     My Humble Opinion: As I saw how people fled from being called Fundamentalists because of the heavy approach that was often used by the militant-extremists, I see people afraid to be associated with groups that have a stigma attached by extremist association. Likewise I think much of the time people who question our methodology in missions may do so under the guise of a science like contextualization, but they become unwilling accomplices in throwing out the baby with the bath-water to appease those who have judged too quickly. Our context of origin is not a curse – it simply a starting point. If we will be honest with those people we are trying to reach, tell them we do not fully comprehend their culture, but we bring a truth that is truth in every culture and be adaptive in our presentation of it, we will see the results we seek.
     I close with an example of a method we used in a culture not too different form our own. The method allowed us to connect and leave a meaningful tool in evangelism with a Central American community during a short-term mission trip. Instead of bringing our English version of a Gospel presentation, we learned an acronym based on a single Spanish word: SALVO (saved). Each letter stood for a Spanish word which explained an essential component of the Gospel message: S= Señor (the Lordship of a God), A= Abismo (the chasm caused by our sin), etc. The result was our short term mission trip – though not fully appreciating the context of our mission, was able to leave a contextually relevant long lasting tool in the hands of the believers we trained there. Another interesting point: In that particular culture, the fact that we came from America (the West), was a help and not a hindrance. We started each door visit with the statement of introduction: “Hi, my name is ________, and I believe God has brought me from the United States to share with you a very important message…” Our context of origin can be a benefit at times. There may be many more times that our recipients would rather us be honest about where we came from and why were are there rather than simply trying to look, and act like everyone they already know.