By You may not have heard the term before, but contextual theology is a prominent message from the emerging church. In his book, Models of Contextual Theology(1992), Stephen B. Bevans defines contextual theology as:
. . . a way of doing theology in which one takes into account: the spirit and message of the gospel; the tradition of the Christian people; the culture in which one is theologizing; and social change in that culture, whether brought about by western technological process or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice and liberation.1
In other words, the Bible in, and of itself, is not free-standing—other factors (culture, ethnicity, history) must be taken into consideration, and with those factors, the message of the Bible must be adjusted to fit. As one writer puts it, “Contextual theology aims at the humanization of theology.”2 But two questions need to be asked. First, will the contextualizing of Scripture cause such a twisting of its truth that it no longer is the Word of God, and secondly, is Scripture ineffective without this contextualization? To the first, I give a resounding yes! And to the second, an absolute no. The Word of God, which is an inspired work of the living Creator, is far more than any human-inspired book and has been written in such a way that every human being, rich or poor, man or woman, intelligent or challenged will understand the meaning of the Gospel message if it is presented in their native language; and thanks to the tireless work of missionaries for centuries, the Gospel in native languages is becoming a reality in most cultures today.
Dean Flemming is a professor at MidAmerica Nazarene University and the author of Contextualization in the New Testament. In his book, he defends contextual theology:
Every church in every particular place and time must learn to do theology in a way that makes sense to its audience while challenging it at the deepest level. In fact, some of the most promising conversations about contextualization today (whether they are recognized as such or not) are coming from churches in the West that are discovering new ways of embodying the gospel for an emerging postmodern culture. 3
These “churches in the West” Flemming considers “most promising” are the emerging churches. He would agree with Bevans’ model of theology, but he has an answer to the emerging church’s dilemma. He states:
Many sincere Christians are still suspicious that attempts to contextualize theology and Christian behavior will lead to the compromising of biblical truth . . . we must look to the New Testament for mentoring in the task of doing theology in our various settings.4
There’s good reason some Christians are suspicious. But it can seem harmless at first because Flemming suggests the answer is in the New Testament, which he believes should be used as a prototype or pattern rather than something for doctrine or theology. New Testament theology is always open for change, he says, but we can learn how to develop this change by studying New Testament stories and characters. The premise Flemming presents of contextualizing Scripture is that since cultures and societies are always changing, the Word must change with it and be conformed to these changes. But I would challenge this. The Bible says the Word is living, active, and powerful:
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
And if the Word is this powerful, then it is stable and eternal as well. God, in His magnificence, is the Author of Scripture, and He surpasses time, culture, and societies. Contextualizing says people and cultures change, and therefore God’s Word must change. But, on the contrary, it’s people who need to change to conform to Scripture. If we really believe that the Bible is God’s Word, this would be clear to see; but if we think to ourselves that the Word is not infallible, not inspired, then contextualization would be the obvious expectation.
While certain parts of the Bible may be read as poetry (as emergents suggest), for indeed the Bible is a beautifully written masterpiece, it is also a living mechanism that is not to be altered—rather it alters the reader’s heart and life. It is much more than putting words around people’s experiences as emergents suggest.
The Bible tells us God is always right; it is man who is so often wrong. When we rely upon human consensus, we will end up with man’s perspective and not God’s revelation. This is a dangerous way to develop one’s spiritual life—the results can lead to terrible deception.
Brian McLaren put it well when he admitted it isn’t just the way the message is presented that emerging church proponents want to change . . . it’s the message itself they are changing:
It has been fashionable among the innovative [emerging] pastors I know to say, “We’re not changing the message; we’re only changing the medium.” This claim is probably less than honest . . . in the new church we must realize how medium and message are intertwined. When we change the medium, the message that’s received is changed, however subtly, as well. We might as well get beyond our naïveté or denial about this.5
The Woman at the Well
If you listen to the emergent conversation long enough, you will hear a recurring theme: Christians are wrong to confront unbelievers head on with the Word of God. We should instead lay aside our desire to preach or share the truths from the Word and spend more time developing relationships and friendships with the unchurched (a politically correct name for unsaved). They often use Jesus as an example, saying He did not confront people but always accepted them for who they were.
One example is in Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church. In his chapter titled “The Church Arrogantly Claims All Other Religions are Wrong,” Kimball refers to the story where Jesus is sitting near a well by Himself (the disciples have gone to the nearby town), and he talks to a Samaritan woman. Kimball alters the story by saying:
He [Jesus] stopped and asked questions of the Samaritan woman (John 4) and didn’t just jump in and say, “Samaritans are all wrong.”6
But Kimball is wrong. Jesus did the exact opposite! He didn’t ask her any questions, and He confronted her straight on—something Kimball says (throughout his book) is a terrible thing to do to an unbeliever. Listen to Jesus’ words to the woman:
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (John 4:21-26)
Kimball largely bases his premise on the reasoning that Christians should not do or say anything that might offend unbelievers, even if that anything is truth and Scripture.
The fact is, Jesus did confront people with the truth, as did His disciples (as well as the Old Testament prophets). And why did He? He told the woman at the well the reason:
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. (John 4:10)
There is no question about it, the Word of God is offensive to the unbeliever just as I Corinthians 1:18 states:
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
And again in 2 Corinthians 2:15-16, when Paul explains the attitude he encountered when witnessing to unbelievers:
For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life.
If Paul had been adjusting (contextualizing) the Word of God to fit the culture and context of the lives of those he spoke to, he would not have said “the aroma of death leading to death.” He took the spiritual state of these people very seriously, and he had full confidence that God’s Word, unaltered and unchanged, could reach into the heart and soul of any person who would receive Christ by faith. Whether a person is young, mentally challenged, or of a different culture or ethnic group, the Gospel is God’s Gospel, and He made it so that all who receive it by faith will understand His love and forgiveness and have eternal life. . . .
While reaching today’s generation for the cause of Christ is something we as Christians should all desire, we must remember Jesus Christ challenged us to follow Him and be obedient to His Word. Scripture commands us to “be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2). But emergent/New Spirituality advocates are leading followers in the opposite direction, teaching that the Word of God needs to be conformed to people and cultures instead of allowing it to conform lives through Jesus Christ. Reimagining Christianity allows a dangerous kind of freedom; like cutting the suspension ropes on a hot air balloon, the free fall may be exhilarating but the results catastrophic.
Notes:
1. Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, Seventh Printing, November 2000, http://www.cca.org.hk/resources/ctc/ctc94-02/1.Yuzon.html), p. 1.
2. Paul L. Lehmann, “Contextual Theology” (Theology Today, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1972, http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1972/v29-1-editorial2.htm).
3. Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 14.
4. Ibid, pp. 14-15.
5. Brian McLaren, Church on the Other Side (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000 edition, formerly titled Reinventing Your Church), p. 68.
6. Dan Kimball, They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), p. 167.
When I first started wanting to read the word at around 30 yrs. old, I was given a copy of the Living Bible because I couldn’t stand reading the KJV. I remember tossing it into the corner in frustration. I thought who talks like that and sometimes the sentences seemed to go around in circles. I started reading the LBV morning and night, I loved it. I remember one night I was reading it and I all of a sudden i realized to my amazement, that the fear and anxiety inside of me, that I had most of my life was gone! Praise God! I thanked God right then and there for the LBV. I now read the KJV and others, but I still look at the LBV and other versions to help me get a better understanding. Whether it is a bad version or not, God used it to help me get started! Praise God!
Contextualization today leads to capitulation tomorrow. Those who were promoting contextualization 15-20 years ago were among those endorsing the “Christian” response to “A Common Word” and promoting Chrislam a few years later.
If we allow this and adhere to this “contextual theology” then we have to accept the teachings of Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Many teach that they have new ideas for today. They were “inspired” with new teachings. It is conditioning many to eventually accept what we know to be sin, but is now culturally considered “normal/natural.” You cannot be deceived if you read the word of God. I appreciate sites like Lighthhouse , because they are up on all the evil that tries to infiltrate the Church and most especially, the Christian mind and heart.
In other words, we are either going to adjust ourselves to fit the Truth, or we will adjust the Truth to fit ourselves — or our culture. The latter is one definition of heresy.
Continued… A few years back I had found what I thought was a good small church. (Some things were discovered later and changed and that’s another story.) I put an ad up on a neighborhood internet posting site (Nextdoor), an invitation to celebrate Easter at church and it was a nice way to post the Gospel message as well, which I did. Of all people to respond, none of the hundreds of atheists around here (who did gripe about my stuff at times in replies), but of all it was a ‘Christian’ lady, who of course was going to an emergent church, whining about how people already know it’s Easter, and that we ‘need to be building relationships’ first, and be ‘loving,’ etc. etc. So I replied and told her that no, we don’t need to be building relationships first in order to share the gospel. Jesus said to share it with ‘every creature’ in the Great Commission, and obviously we don’t have time to build a relationship with ‘every creature’ first. We had a civil discussion for a while, I shared Bible verses and she was just brainwashed to the point of being drowned in deception. I continued sharing the gospel on that platform, needless to say. But it just goes to show how well the devil has ‘God’s’ servants doing his work for him!
Yes, that sort of thing is just another trick of the enemy. The apostles needed to do and know absolutely nothing in order to preach the gospel as missionaries, except for the language! We see example after example of that in the Bible. All that is necessary is the conveying of concepts, such as that all have sinned and need to repent, be redeemed, etc. The message applies to all regardless anyway. I’m not saying it doesn’t help to know some stuff at times or that we can’t use it to the advantage, but it is not necessary. All that is needed is the conviction of the Holy Spirit. It is just another trick to get people to ‘cross the bridge,’ plain and simple.
I am so tired of the emergents and their big, contrived words that they think will impress congregations. They sound like lawyers. With its emphasis only on the N.T. and discarding of the O.T., the natural results will be replacement theology with a disdain for Israel and the Jewish people and God’s promises to them. God’s Word never changes, it is eternal. God keeps His promises. Anyone who tampers with scripture will have to endure the punishment in Revelation 22:19. We must pray fervently for the humility and repentance of all Christian leaders. We must come to Jesus in humility and simplicity, like a small child.
An excellent article that made me physically uneasy. The new ways the enemy is using to infiltrate the church is the oldest of his ways. The crafty serpent attracting Eve to the forbidden fruit…’’did God really say…?’ It is the red herring fallacy to change the topic or to get one’s focus off of the truth of sin, repentance and redemption. Local pastor just wrote a book and preached in successive Sundays and traveled to many other churches highlighting race relationships. To simplify the message forge a relationship with someone who doesn’t look like you. Show grace and honor to everyone because we’re all made in His image. That is fine and dandy, of course we show grace to everyone but seeking to understand another’s culture doesn’t heal the land or people’s hearts. Just pay attention to the current political climate. No where is it highlighted in the Bible that Jesus sought someone out because of the color of their skin or race etc. Simple preaching of The Word becomes secondary with a few one line verses thrown into a sermon to make one’s point. If the congregation was trained as the Berean’s to search scripture in context then there would challenges to the message.
Contextualization started with the use of “dynamic equivalents” being touted as “translations, which they are not. These “versions” as they should be called are developed by a method called “thought for thought translation”, thus the term dynamic equivalent. The NIV, Living Bible etc. have abandoned the tradition of accepting the “verbal plenary inspiration” of God’s Word, a tradition that says each and every word is inspired, in the order they were given, not just the over-arching ideas found within. Once someone heads down the dynamic equivalent road they have abandoned God’s Word. Accounts in God’s Word are not “bible stories” open to paraphrasing, they are GOD’S OWN ACCOUNT of what transpired. I hate it when a preacher/teacher starts with “the story of…” they are not stories!
Contextual Theology and the”emerging church” are false teaching not found in Gods Holy Word. It is man made. Again, The Lord Jesus did not come into the world to change society, governments, culture, or struggles for equality. He came into the world to seek and to save sinners that were lost. For ALL have sinned. ALL of us. Color of skin matters not. Rich or poor matters not. Free or slave matters not. Salvation is about your soul and where you spend eternity. Thank you Lighthouse for fighting the only battle that matters. Were will we spend eternity? The Lord Jesus Christ and the Word of God holds all truth. Trust Him today.