I thoroughly enjoyed this article by Heibert. I was excited as I read it because in my heart of hearts I am on so much of the same page. The overview of the past methodology certainly helped to set the stage for WHY we need the change that we need and WHAT and HOW that change can come about. The only questions that remain are WHO and WHEN. I pray that the WHO is us and the WHEN is now.
That being said, I would like to make a few statments about the response of Geisler. Far be it from me to decry the inteligence of such an acclaimed man as this. He has more education in his pinky that I have in my whole body and my response is in no way meant to be disrespectful. What I read however, concerned me deeply. All of the responses where great and helpful excep this one and it truly read to me like someone who had a bur in his saddle. While he did affirm some of the statments of Heibert, he proceeded to then state that Heibert had basically given up the inerrancy and infallability and completeness of the scripture for the sake of bringing people to Christ. However, I would like to bring out the following quote as direct proof that he does anything but what he has been accused of:
While the Gospel is distinct from human cultures, this does not set the two in opposition to each other. Rather they are two seperate but interrelated realities. Divinve revelation was given to humans in particular social and cultural contexts, but that the gospel is not to be equated with any of these contexts.
From this principle it also follows that we dare not equate the gospel with any himan theologies. Our theologies are our partial human attempts to understand Scripture in our particular contexts, but the gospel trancends them all.
It is difficult in a pluralist world to affirm the truth of divine revelation. BUT, as E.S. Jones points out, we are called not to be God's lawyers but to bear bold witness to what we know - that Jesus Christ is the only way to God and His kingdom. If we truly believe this, then to affirm other ways is to withhold from people knowledge of the way to eternal salvation. (Emphasis added by myself)
Again, I want to state that while I do not have the full education that some consider necessary, I do believe that I grasp the concept of these paragraphs. I understand Heibert to say that while the gospel and culture are both realities they are not polar opposites but interrelated. He then goes on to say that the Gospel is above our theologies and our culture. At this point you could extrapolate that he was taking the stand he is being accused of but you must finish reading. As we see so often in scripture taking a statment out of its context is dangerous. In truth, we can manipulate man's and God's words by taking them out of context (for proof examine the prosperity gospels prevelant in today's society). If you finish Heibert's line of thought, he completes his position by reminding us that our responsibility is to be BOLD witnesses for the truth of Christ.
So where does that leave us with contextualization. For me at least, as I stated in my last post on the issue, I fully believe that we MUST be contextual as Paul was while retaining and relying on the Biblical inerrancy and infallability and truth to guide us. I am struck in this instance by the encounter between Philip and Nathaniel in the first chapter of John. Philip tells Nathaniel the truth, Nathaniel doubts, but it is Philips response that interests me. Philip does not launch into a theological debate, he doesn't talk about the baptism of Jesus, John's position on Jesus or even the few things that he has seen since he himself has walked with him. He simply replies, come and see. So here's the thing, we relish our theologies, our positional statments, our edicts and directives and we expound on the works of men beyond belief, when based ont he authority of Scripture, we simply need to SHOW people Christ and get out of the way of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus himself cannot make it more plain, "if I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself" (John 12:32, HSCB). Recently I had the opportunity to go through the CAMEL training for witnessing to Muslims. Through this experience I was able to understand the issue of contextualization more clearly. Until this point, in many ways, I would have stayed in Geisler's way of thinking. This training opened my eyes to the reality that you can go and preach theology until you are blue in the face, but until you get to where these people are, you are simply preaching to hear your own voice. Years ago I would have considered it against everything I believed in to study the pages of the Qu'ran, however without the understanding of what, why and how they believe, I will never be able to relate to them on their own terms.
I love the statment made by Heibert:
A missionary encounter occurs when the church embodies the comprehensive demands of the gospel as an alternative way of life to the culture in which it is set and thereby challenges the culture's fundamental assumptions.
Here's what I get out of this statement and why I love it so much. If I go back to witnessing to Muslims. I learn their culture, the bridges from their beliefs to the Bible, introduce them to the "before scriptures", point out how the Qu'ran itself points them to seek understanding from the "before scriptures" and be relative to the muslim people, but I do not become a Muslim, instead I lay the straight stick of the Gospel beside the crooked stick of Islam and let God take control. In other words I offer them an alternative. I do not decimate their culture, I simply trust that as they seek God, are discipled by other believers, and search the truths of scripture that the things that are inherent in their culture that are against the scripture will fall away. Compare my life, at one point I lived in culture, I went along with all of the cultural expectations of a Southern White Male. However, as I began to study the scripture, the Spirit convicted and those things began to fall away as I was changed into the new man I have become.
As I close, I would like to again state that I truly enjoyed Heibert's commentary, his candor, and his faithfulness. Until more Christian's begin to think along these lines, the command to reach our Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Ends of the Earth will suffer. I close with this quote from Heibert:
Critical Contextualization seeks a balanced approach in which missionary interaction with societies is both true to the Bible and sensitive to the cultures of the particular people groups.
Comments