Dear Editor,
I was bemused and saddened by Tim and Lois Wells’ article in the February edition the merits or otherwise of of en about contextualising the gospel.
When we engage in evangelism we all (I hope!) adapt our presentation and explanation of the gospel according to the context in which we find ourselves. We take care with the language and illustrations we use so that the message is clear to our hearers. That is to say we contextualise, to use the technical term.
In this we follow the apostle Paul who declared that he became ‘all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some’ (see 1 Cor: 19-23 for the full passage). This spurs us on to work hard at really understanding the perspectives of our listeners and the kinds of questions they are asking. It is especially important in cross-cultural evangelism where the worldview and faith background of those we are seeking to reach is significantly different from our own.
To reiterate, we all contextualise. The key question it seems to me is whether our contextualisation is faithful to the Biblical gospel or not.
There are two dangers: the first is that we so adapt our message to fit the context that we are guilty of syncretism. We in effect create a different (read false) gospel. This seems to be the issue that the authors are rightly concerned about.
However, there is an opposite danger of equating our own cultural filters with the gospel itself and insisting that these must be emphasised in order for the gospel message to be authentic. This was the trap the circumcision party fell into and which the apostle Paul condemns.
Where I think the authors muddy the waters is to imply – I believe erroneously – that the proponents of contextualisation whom they quote are promoting different gospels (as in a ‘Western gospel’ or an ‘Eastern gospel’). They are right to assert that there is one malady of the human condition – sin – and one remedy – the cross. On that we are agreed. Yet Scripture gives us a many-faceted picture of this gospel of grace – each resonating with different hearers.
In discussing these issues I find it more helpful to talk about the ‘Western church’ or ‘Western theology’. I am profoundly grateful for my spiritual heritage in the European reformed tradition, with the great strengths it brings to the global church. Yet I am equally grateful for the insights of experienced missiologists in highlighting our Western blind spots. Humility requires that we listen.
A letter like this can only scratch the surface of these important issues. I would welcome a further article from a different perspective to address them.
Yours sincerely,
Catherine Weston, Deacon of Missions, Magdalen Road Church, Oxford
Dear Editor,
I wish to express my full support for your article entitled ‘The contextualised gospel – delightful, doubtful, or damnable?’ The discussion aims at defending the very heart of Christianity. Thank you for publishing this enlightening and most needful critique.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Alan White, By email
Dear Editor,
I was interested to read the article by Tim and Lois Wells in February’s issue, but disturbed by their sweeping conclusions. I agree with some points made but it’s going too far to classify all contextualisation as heresy. Surely there’s both good contextualisation and bad.
A major issue is how to define contextualisation, and that, I feel, was not made clear enough in the article. Contextualisation is not to make the gospel more palatable but more understandable. Don’t we do that almost without thinking in our approach to a child from a Christian home as against an adult who’s never been to church in his life? In fact, there’s contextualisation in the Bible itself. A very good place to see this is comparing Paul’s message in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13 to his message in Athens in Acts 17. The former is to Jews and gives much of the history of Israel, the latter is to Gentiles and focusses on God as Creator without saying anything about Israel. The gospel is adapted to the context of the listeners, though Jesus remains central on both occasions.
In conclusion, we need to engage in contextualisation, especially in engaging someone from a different culture, while always remaining careful not to go beyond Scripture.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Stevens, Cambridge
Dear Editor
On page 14 of the February issue of en is the article from Evangelical Focus / SAT-7 about spiritual fruit among the Amazigh people in North Africa.
The TWR broadcast programme ‘Women of Hope’ in the local language, produced indigenously and generating a significant listener response – helping believers to ‘endure hardship and persecution’ – is encouraging news.
That programme is stated to be ‘contextualised in a manner that speaks to the heart...’. I take it that refers to each episode, encompassing both the gospel and the life of the Christian, being both Scriptural and relevant to their culture.
On page 16 of the same en issue is the article by T and L Wells on Western, Eastern and Southern contextualised ‘gospels’. On the continuum of this contextualisation, they depict one end where essential aspects of biblical truth are denied. The other end would be imposing British cultural values on indigenous believers.
However there are surely valid contextualisations which are consistent with both the truth and relevant to the listeners.
Yours sincerely
Viv Lewis, Abergavenny, Gwent
