Contextualizing without compromising like Aaron (Part 1)

Contextualizing without compromising like Aaron (Part 1) June 22, 2016

What can we learn about contextualization from Aaron and the golden calf story (in Exodus 32)?

If the term had existed back then, Aaron might have claimed that he was simply “contextualizing.” Yet, we should be clear: the Israelites were not doing contextualization; they were changing and compromising the truth.

Credit: Bing.com (Public Domain)
Credit: Bing.com (Public Domain)

Building on previous posts (part 1, part 2), today’s post offer a few practical suggestions for applying the insights we’ve gained from Exodus 32. (I’ll give 3 today and 2 more next time)

Are we building a golden calf?

1. Practical Compromise

Notice how Aaron and Israel compromised. It was not entirely through their explicit teaching (vv. 5, 8). Rather, by their methods or practice, they compromise the truth.

It is very possible for us to affirm an orthodox statement of faith yet subtly disregard or even undermine it by our manner and methods of ministry.

For instance, we might say that we want to make disciples who honor God will their entire life, yet we only train them in a very specific area (perhaps over looking theological training or marriage and family ministry). Or we affirm the faithfulness of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel as well as the list of spiritual fruit in Gal 5, yet we still measure ministry “success” based on a very narrow metric (e.g. the number of churches they start).

In practice, our methodologies reveal our true perspective and priorities.

2. Beware of “reverse engineering” ministry strategy

Aaron got the response he wanted. The congregation responded rapidly and sacrificially. They became united and seemingly worshipped the LORD (from their perspective). As far as they were concerned, they were following their god and not the plans of a man (i.e. Moses).

However, we don’t want to follow Aaron’s model of ministry. “Success” cannot be reverse-engineered by looking to see whether “it worked.” The basic flaw of pragmatism is that this thinking is prone to settle for superficial results. Methods are uncritically accepted and justified because they are not overtly unbiblical and the people who use them intend well.

I have read a number of case studies that describe supposed or potential CPMs (church planting movements) around the world. I very consistently find that the same problems plague each “movement.” The case studies regularly cite theological weakness and compromise; this creates a ripe environment for heretical teachings and cults.

Nevertheless, the pragmatist persists onward. By reverse-engineering the case studies, they use the same methods that created again those problems that have plagued so many others before them.

3. Theological Evaluation

We should use the Bible to evaluate our methods, not only the message.

I too often hear people contend to say, “There is nothing unbiblical or ‘wrong’ about these methods.” This is quite a low standard. What if Aaron had first considered who God is and how God had revealed himself?

Might he have been more patient with Moses’ delayed return, knowing that the Lord had already waited 400 years to redeem Israel from Egypt?

Knowing that the LORD is the one, true Creator God, he never could have excused a method of worship that undermined that truth, even if that approach seemed more simple and resulted in rapid results. How often do we intentionally wrestle with the theological support for our strategies?

Sure, we might be pursuing a good goal, but “good enough” is not always good enough.


Browse Our Archives