PHD - what I hope to work on!

My hypothesis is that it can be demonstrated in Scripture that Paul wasn't the only one that practiced contextualization.  I believe that the entire Canon of Scripture lays out a pattern of Incarnation, Contextualization and Indigenization (I/C/I). By recognizing this pattern both in the meta-narrative of Scripture and in the micro-narratives, I hope to demonstrate the principles that should guide  I/C/I as they are based in the OT and NT and are practiced by both Yahweh and Christ.  By setting the foundation that way, more discernment will be available for those of us who are called to discern how to practice I/C/I in our context - whether that is an ethnic context, generational context, geographical context, etc...

My approach will be to address the patterns and forms that Yahweh used like the Law, circumcision, mythic genres, Temple worship, Wisdom Tradition, etc...  that were originally co-opted by Yahweh from the ANE (Ancient Near East) culture surrounding the Jews.  By demonstrating that nothing or very little of the patterns that Yahweh employed to reveal himself, to form a people, and to transform them was original to him then I can demonstrate that our call is to do the same.  I hope to establish patterns of I/C/I that are exemplars for us.  God chose to reveal himself through the forms, patterns and functions of human society, a society effected by the Fall and yet a society that still retained the effect of the Imago Dei.

The forms and patterns are completely born from human origin and co-opted by God in the process of Incarnation.  Once Incarnation takes place, then Contextualization can begin.  Once contextualization has laid the foundation the move then is towards Indigenization of the redemptive elements that God has introduced into the co-opted forms and patterns.  The goal of I/C/I is not only to transform the people that use those forms and patterns to convey meaning, belonging, community and worship but to transform the forms and patterns themselves. 

For example, in the ANE, animal sacrifice and entrails were used in worship to the gods.  The entrails of a goat were used to also discern the future.  There is about a 1000 year tradition of annals that record how the spots, coloration, shape, etc... of a goat's liver show  how future events are going to take place.  What's interesting is that "parts" of an animal were very important to ANE culture and had purposes that other parts could not.  In the OT law, the same is true but the difference is that the ANE cultures were doing this first before God ever gave the Law.  Before the Law, the Jews were following the ANE cultures in these practices of animal sacrifice.  I realize this is not new to you but to get to the point of what I want to do, I just wanted to lay the groundwork. 

So when Yahweh instructs the Israelites to do many of the same patterns and forms of worship as their ANE neighbors, he does it very similarly but always with an element unique to him that is like a mustard seed which when it works its way out, it finally takes over the ground it was planted in.  The unique element that God introduces into the patterns and forms is what I'm after.  In the sacrificial system of Israel the liver and entrails commonly used to discern the future by their ANE neighbors was set apart as holy unto the LORD.  Yahweh instructed that those parts of the animal be totally and utterly burned up and consumed and that they were holy to the LORD.  The reason, of course, was to take away the ability of the Israelites to use the Jewish sacrificial system to "tell the future" and turn to their newly co-opted patterns and forms back into divination/extispacy (telling the future through animal entrails) because that ability only belongs to Yahweh.  The interesting thing is that Yahweh used the very forms and patters used to tell the future to undermine its idolatry and then turn the worshipper towards him.  The question then stands what forms or patterns exist today that we use in the same idolatrous way that we could employ with I/C/I in order to undermine the idolatry and then worship Yahweh. 

So first I have to establish that the patterns and forms that Yahweh instituted are similar/same to the ANE patterns and forms and why that's important (Incarnation & Contextualization).  Then I will identify the unique aspect that Yahweh introduces within the patterns and forms that is unique to Him that actually effects the long-term tranformation.  After that I will display how these two movements eventually create a foundation for a people to be markedly different in their orientation in worship, ethics and perspective while still maintaining their common identity within the common ANE culture of the day (In the world but not of the world = Indigenization) 

In my understanding, the battle against contextualization is not so much a battle against contextualization itself as much as it is a battle against this process I've described and the recognition that God is not a purist and has no "pure" forms or patterns that he uses in order to reveal, reform and redeem.  In actuality, He cannot use a pure form or pattern because he chooses to work within the realm of humanity.  Because there are no "purist" forms or patterns in the realm of humanity and because he won't circumvent humanity in order to accomplish his purposes (humanity in its fullest sense with a few exceptions) and because he structures his revelation around the strategy of accommodation, it is impossible to have a pure form or pattern to communicate with. 

For example, the book of Revelation is the only book that uses the word "Worthy" in ascribing worship to God.  This is because in the Imperial Cult/Emperor Worship of the Roman Empire - Caesar had begun to require that he be heralded in that way - that he is "Worthy!"  So John, writing Revelation, picks up a contemporary image or a "cultural text"  that would ascribe glory to a human thought to be a god and co-opts it as a term now reserved for Christ.  So the written, inspired and revelatory words in the book of Revelations are actually contextually borrowed terms that are concerned with worship and idolatry. 

Eventually, I would like to demonstrate that from the foundation of how Yahweh practiced this pattern, Christ did the same, Paul did the same, Peter did the same, Mark, John, Luke all did the same to varying degrees.  Because they did it we should do it but the question is how?  I believe the "how" can be established in the development of Yahwehism in the O.T. 

I believe that this pattern is also the pattern employed by Satan but for destructive purposes.  The pattern itself is not redemptive, it needs to be done redemptively because of how Satan can do it destructively.  God in his infinite wisdom, co-opts humanity's forms and patterns for his redemptive purposes but so does Satan for destructive purposes.  The difference is that as the Trinity and the New People practice these patterns, we actually do it to create as well as co-opt.  We are inherently creative beings alongside the Trinity.  Satan cannot create - he can only co-opt or hi-jack and I believe that watching us create and co-opt infuriates him (just a guess).  His fury finds its way by hi-jacking destructively what God and humanity are doing redemptively and in so doing - he is attempting to divert attention and distort reality/truth in order to deceive (Garden conversation).   We join him in that distortion when we sin. So at the end of the day, what Satan has done to hi-jack must also be rehi-jacked from him as a way to, again, hi-jack redemptively. 

I believe that a redemptive pedagogy (androgogy/anthropogogy)  and an evolutionary/developmental ethical theory can be established from this pattern as well as an understanding of how to discern what God has been doing historically in the development of a New People participating in the life of the Godhead as we all anticipate the New Creation.

The actual work will focus more on the O.T. forms and patterns at this point in order to establish the foundation for later work in these other areas.   

Lastly, I think the "win" - if we were to identify one or two, will be the ability to establish a God who contextualizes more than most are comfortable with and that ethnicity (tribe/tongue/nation) is an everlasting pattern of differentiation between peoples who are at the same time united in Christ. This is because the goal of Incarnation and Contextualization should lead to Indigenization so that the dialogue between tribes, tongues and nations can be done with mutuality, love, respect, reciprocity and synergistic dynamism.  We all have something unique planted within our differentiations that the others need, as we need them, and when that all comes together, a greater awareness of truth, love and who God really is will come to life like never before.  These categories of differentiation are, I believe, perpetual because this differentiation of relationships lasts into the New Creation (Rev. 7) even though the relational dynamics of marriage and family don't (Jesus' argument with the Sadducees).