{"id":57942,"date":"2015-07-23T00:09:54","date_gmt":"2015-07-23T05:09:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/jesuscreed\/?p=57942"},"modified":"2015-07-23T06:26:55","modified_gmt":"2015-07-23T11:26:55","slug":"the-ying-yang-of-contextualization-jackson-wu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/jesuscreed\/2015\/07\/23\/the-ying-yang-of-contextualization-jackson-wu\/","title":{"rendered":"The Yin-Yang of Contextualization (Jackson Wu)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

Jackson Wu\u00a0<\/span>(PhD, SEBTS) teaches theology and missiology in a seminary for Chinese church leaders. Previously, he also worked as a church planter. He has just released his second book\u00a0<\/span>One Gospel for All Nations: A Practical Approach to Biblical Contextualization<\/i><\/a>.<\/i>\u00a0In addition to his blog,\u00a0jacksonwu.org<\/a>, follow him on Twitter\u00a0<\/span>@jacksonwu4china<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The male students in my class agreed, \u201cThe Bible says that men are more important than women.\u201d In Chinese culture, one never wants to provoke a teacher, but that is exactly what they did that day.<\/p>\n

Of all people, my Chinese students should grasp the interdependence of femaleness (yin<\/em>) and maleness (yang<\/em>). The yin-yang<\/em> symbol signifies the balance of contrasts, female-male, dark-light, and perhaps we might add Bible-culture.<\/p>\n

\"Bible-Culture<\/a>When discussing contextualization, evangelicals make a similar mistake as my students. How? By too sharply separating Bible and culture. We ask, \u201cWhat has priority? The Bible or culture?\u201d In Saving God\u2019s Face<\/em>,<\/a> I explain . . .<\/p>\n

The argument hinges on an order fallacy. To ask whether the Bible or culture has \u201cpriority\u201d is unclear. The idea of \u201cpriority\u201d can refer either to temporal sequence (i.e. what comes first) or to authoritative rank (i.e. what has authority). According to the fallacy, it is supposed that whatever comes first temporally has greater authority. To the contrary, sequence is not always supreme. For example, in the apologetics . . . one can easily see how reason initially <\/em>has epistemological authority (over revelation) in its defense of sola scriptura. (SGF, 60)<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the Bible may have ultimate authority (not culture); yet, God reveals himself through human cultures (which already existed). God used cultures to contextualize<\/em> his self-revelation<\/strong>. The fact that culture is sequentially prior to revelation does not undermine biblical authority.<\/p>\n

Afraid of contextualization?<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

\"not<\/a>Evangelical \u201cpurists\u201d get nervous when they hear talk like this. They are afraid of \u201ceisegesis,\u201d reading culture into the Bible. People get so afraid of cultural syncretism (wherein culture usurps the Bible) that they overlook a more subtle problem\u2013\u2013theological syncretism<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span> By this, I refer to the tendency to read the Bible through the lens of our denomination, organization, ministry strategy, etc. and therefore miss so much more of what God reveals in Scripture.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve heard people ask, \u201cWhy can\u2019t we just read the Bible and apply it directly to our lives? Why do we have to contextualize? We have the Holy Spirit.\u201d I wish it were that simple.<\/p>\n

The way we see the world and thus read Scripture is influenced to some degree by countless cultures and subcultures. We can also add an additional layer\u2014history. We don\u2019t interpret the Bible in a vacuum. Two thousand years of church history shape our assumptions about the Bible and even the questions we ask of certain passages.<\/p>\n

We can\u2019t simply claim that the Spirit guards us from cultural influences by illuminating the meaning of a passage to us. First of all, we have to remember that the Holy Spirit guided the biblical writers, who wrote using words, metaphors, and symbols rooted in specific cultures (cf. 2 Pet 1:20, 21).<\/p>\n

Second, whose illumination do we trust? One person might say the Spirit gave him illumination that only affirms believer baptism; another might argue that the Spirit revealed that infants could be baptized. The Spirit only teaches finite, culturally bound people with limited perspectives. We mustn\u2019t try to apply the doctrine of illumination abstracted from the facts of history.<\/p>\n

Interpreting Biblical Text in Cultural Context<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

In my new book, One Gospel for All Nations<\/a><\/em><\/strong>, I not only illustrate the relationship between Bible and culture; I also show why it matters practically for contextualization.<\/p>\n

\"One<\/a>Contextualization fundamentally begins with biblical interpretation. Only then does it concern application and communication. Culture always<\/em> acts as a filter to what we read. This happens even when we read other ancient works in order to grasp the cultures that influenced the biblical writers.<\/p>\n

Sound biblical exegesis is fundamental to the contextualization process<\/strong>.<\/span> We want to understand the Bible\u2019s meaning in its historical and canonical context. We desperately need the humility to acknowledge that we all come to the Bible with a limited viewpoint. We use a cultural lens that invariably causes us to notice some things but overlook other important ideas. Contextualization occurs whenever we interpret the text from within a cultural context, which is always<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Therefore, we need to ask the practical question, \u201cHow do we intentionally<\/em> account for this dynamic when interpreting the Bible?\u201d This is a key question for everyone, including so-called \u201cprofessional\u201d Christians like theologians, pastors, and missionaries.<\/p>\n

We shouldn\u2019t \u201cthrow away\u201d our cultural lens. I don\u2019t suggest replacing a \u201cwestern\u201d lens for an \u201ceastern\u201d lens. Instead, we need to enlarge<\/em> our cultural lens so that we might bring a broader human perspective to Scripture. Although I have fundamental differences with many of K. K. Yeo\u2019s conclusions, he is right when he says,<\/p>\n

\u201c[A] cross-cultural reading is more objective than a monocultural reading of the biblical text.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

How the Bible ALWAYS Frames the Gospel<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

We need a practical model for doing contextualization that is both biblically faithful and culturally meaningful. I make such a proposal in One Gospel for all Nations<\/em><\/a>. I begin with an observation that is only seen when we root contextualization in biblical theology (not systematic theology).<\/p>\n

\"modern-home-decor<\/a>Biblical writers always use at least one of three interconnected themes when presenting the gospel. They are creation, covenant, and kingdom<\/span><\/strong><\/em>.<\/span> These themes derive from the grand narrative of Scripture. Without exception, these three themes decisively frame the biblical authors\u2019 gospel presentation. (I demonstrate this key point more fully in One Gospel<\/a><\/em>.) Within this firm framework, one has flexibility to discuss various other important sub-themes.<\/p>\n

A biblically sound model of contextualization is both firm<\/strong><\/em><\/span> and flexible<\/strong><\/em><\/span>. The Bible provides a firm framework. If this framework does not shape our contemporary gospel presentations, we are not preaching the gospel as the biblical writers understood it, (even if we do teach many correct and important doctrinal truths). In addition, we have flexibility to highlight on other biblical themes in accordance with the needs of the surrounding cultural context.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d like to hear from you.<\/p>\n