Interview: Dean Flemming, PhD and Rick Power

Contextualization

"Contextualization: to think about or provide information about the situation in which something happens."---Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online.

MNU professor of New Testament and missions Dean Flemming, PhD (’75), is a recognized New Testament scholar and authority in the field of contextualization of the Gospel. His book Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission, received a 2006 Christianity Today book award. Having served as a missionary and educator for 25 years in Asia and Europe, Flemming has first-hand experience with communicating the Gospel to various cultures, making him an effective professor on the subject.

Rick Power (’78), is senior pastor of Olathe College Church of the Nazarene. Power also brings a global view to the table from living in China for 16 years and serving as a pastor in Hawaii for four years.

In an interview with Accent, the two discussed contextualization of the Gospel, the need to understand its origin, purpose, and practical application for ministry students and the church at large.

Accent: Dr. Flemming, what is contextualization of the Gospel?

DF: Contextualization is how the Gospel comes to life in the diversity of human cultures and circumstances. We can talk about it from two perspectives. First, it means expressing the Gospel by speaking and living in ways that make sense in a given setting. Second, the Gospel will at times challenge and transform that context.

Accent: Why have some Christians found contextualization controversial?

DF: I think it may be due to at least two factors: fear and misunderstanding. Some Christians are afraid that if you change the way the Gospel is expressed, you are also changing the heart of the Gospel itself. In other words, they think if you change the form, you are necessarily compromising the message. But Christians have been engaged in contextualization from the time of Jesus and the apostles. It’s something missionaries have always done. When we enter a different culture, we need to find ways of telling and living the Gospel that make sense to people. Contextualization should happen whenever the Christian message encounters a new audience. Every time I preach, or teach, or share my faith, the message needs to be shaped in such a way that it connects with that particular group of people.

Accent: So contextualization does not change the Gospel, but changes how it is presented?

DF: That’s right. There’s no “one-size-fits-all” way of presenting the Christian message. When I first taught New Testament in the Philippines, I talked to my students about issues like the assurance of personal salvation and how we can demonstrate that the resurrection of Jesus was a historical event. But as I listened to my students, I realized they had burning issues on their minds that I hadn’t thought much about—like, “What does the New Testament say about poverty and oppression,” and "How does Scripture equip us for responding to spiritual powers?” So I needed to rethink how I taught.

Accent: Have some Christians gone too far in their efforts to contextualize the Gospel?

RP: History is full of examples of people going too far with contextualization. There was a famous controversy in China called the “Rites Controversy.” In the 17^th Century, Jesuit missionaries decided it was okay to allow Christian believers to participate in certain Buddhist rituals in addition to their Catholic beliefs. The exclusivity of the Gospel is sometimes offensive—but if we try to accommodate the desire to combine religions, we’ve crossed a line. Jesus is not one of the ways to God. He is “The Way.”

Accent: Dr. Flemming, how do you handle teaching today’s ministry students the art of contextualization while ensuring they understand its potential pitfalls?

DF: I use Biblical examples and ground what I teach in Scripture. I try to show how the missionaries and writers in the New Testament had great balance between being flexible in expression and firm in their commitment to the one Gospel. But let’s not pretend this is easy. It’s challenging. We need the guidance of the Spirit and the accountability of the Christian community.

RP: Remember that the New Testament was full of contextualization [because it used references to which the readers of its time could relate]. The expression of worship you feel comfortable in, whether traditional or contemporary, is still a contextualization. There was a time when a choir, pulpit and altars were all radical new innovations. People working to find effective tools for ministry were inspired with these ideas.

Accent: So in the U.S. we are encountering some new styles of “church” today. Whether people are meeting in small groups in a coffee shop or a downtown loft, some are asking, “Is that church?”

RP: Culture changes even within a locale. We talk differently to children and seniors about the Gospel. We also have to look at different subcultures and think about contextualization. We expect to encounter it when we travel to another country. But we are kind of shocked when we encounter cultural difference in our own children. From generation to generation, language, worldview and culture changes. Contextualization is a continuous, ongoing phenomenon that we have to accept. Otherwise, we get stuck at a certain point in time and become irrelevant.

DF: Part of the issue is that people accept that missionaries need to do that, but when our own culture changes and we need to find new ways of reaching people and expressing Christianity, it becomes problematic. We don’t like change and we are much more comfortable doing things the same way we did growing up.

RP: I don’t think it’s controversial in many circles. It has been part of missionary work for a long time. I think there’s a general uneasiness in evangelical circles today and in the culture at large. Things are changing so fast. The ground is moving under our feet. People find there’s no equilibrium anymore. So people would like to think that the church is one place where you don’t have to experience change. When we start using the language of trying to be relevant or sensitive to culture, some people take that as a sign that we are compromising the Gospel or trying to sacrifice things which are sacred to us. But it doesn’t mean that at all.

DF: There are occasions when people go too far in trying to be relevant and so they compromise something at the heart of what we’re about--a “gospel” that guarantees God will give us health and wealth, for instance. And when people see examples of that, it’s sometimes easy to think, “Well, that’s the slippery slope and that’s where people are going.” But that’s not necessarily the case. The New Testament provides a great balance between flexibility and holding to the heart of what we are about. For example, we find in Acts a striking example in Paul’s ministry. In chapter 13 Paul is speaking to a primarily Jewish audience in Antioch, and as he’s sharing the Christian message he takes them through the whole story of Israel. He uses quotations from the Old Testament, and then comes to a climax where he shows that Jesus is the promised Messiah, raised from the dead, who fulfills all the expectations that the Old Testament prophets had. Then in chapter 17 he’s addressing a completely different audience. A group of educated, pagan Greeks in the city of Athens, many of whom are philosophers and he uses a different approach. He says, “I’ve been observing that you have many temples in the city, even one that is dedicated to an unknown god.” And he goes on to tell the story of Jesus using language and terminology that would have connected with those scholars. He changed its meaning so it pertained to the Gospel of Christ. Instead of referring to the Old Testament, he uses passages from Greek poets to make the point. But he ends up in the same place proclaiming Jesus as the one who has risen from the dead, even though that’s offensive to many, and many couldn’t accept it. So he doesn’t compromise the message, but he expresses it in a very different way that would have made sense to the people in that setting. I think Christians need to have honest conversations about what is non-negotiable and what is flexible in our ways of telling and living out the Gospel. But if a “church” decides to meet in a coffee shop rather than in a church building, we can’t automatically assume they are watering down the message.

RP: It’s fine to say, “I have my preference in style of music; I enjoy this particular way of doing church,” as long as we acknowledge that the style we prefer is just an outward form of worship. So when your church tries to offer services that appeal to new generation or sub-culture, we can say, “I endorse that; I’m all for it. It might not be my cup of tea, but we need to do that because there are all kinds of people in the world.”