Rob Bell has been described as many things, but one that I agree with is that he is a contextualizer.
Contextualization is a term that sprung to life in this past century in mostly Western countries but within the last 30-40 years was introduced to other cultures and countries where it is taking off like wildfire. The history of the contextualization movement is a fascinating read and leaves many reeling as to what it is and why it's important.
Very simply, contextualization describes the effort to transmit, embed or implant a message from a culture foreign to the culture that is receiving the message by using mediums and cultural cues that will allow the receiving culture to understand and appropriate the foreign message. This message is seen as a necessary element to the receiving culture's health or a survey of need's assessment. For Christians, that message ends up being the Gospel, another term very difficult to agree upon among the historic orthodox Christian traditions.
So there you have it, two vastly important terms that are both difficult to understand, difficult to define and are claimed and ratified by insiders who disagree sharply with each other regarding the words, their practice and their definitions.
The reason, it seems, that so many insiders to Christianity within the West are bothered by Bell, isn't as much that he is a false teacher or a heretic, but that he has redefined the message through the past decade of preaching a successfully contextualized message. His contextualization competency for Western culture is through the roof. He took the Gospel and reshaped it's delivery in such a way that many have come to understand its depth and reality in ways that very few had been able to do for this generation prior to him. Whether we agree on his conclusions or not, I believe we can agree at least upon his uncanny ability to communicate effectively through contextualization to a new generation of thinkers, churchgoers, skeptics and newly converted.
With that said, this video ends with this question, "how far is too far?" That is the million dollar question when it comes to contextualization and the Gospel. Many don't doubt the need for contextualization but there is definite disagreement on how far is too far.
When does the contextualization become too accommodating to the culture? Who gets to determine when too far is too far? Who determines whether we have gone far enough? What does Scripture say directly to this issue? How how did the church fathers, the early church, the disciples, Jesus and Yahweh practice contextualization or did they?
In my opinion the best place to look for these guidelines is in Scripture and there we find that contextualization was taking place. That's not disputed as much as the parameters for contextualization is.
The questions that surround good contextualization are as follows;
1. How was contextualization practiced in the N.T. and by whom?
2. How was contextualization practiced in the O.T. and by whom?
3. What parameters for contextualization are directly addressed and which ones are implicit to the methods used but not described?
4. Is the Medium the Message and if so, how far is that taken in either Testament?
5. Does the Message of the Gospel change/transform/mature in any way based upon the methods of contextualization used to communicate it?
6. If there is change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
7. If there isn't change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
8. How far is too far?
9. How do we measure if we've not gone far enough?
Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are two writers who have addressed these questions as they relate to Scripture, specifically within the Old Testament.
Peter Enns addresses these issues at his website, www.biologos.org and his newly created website for the book that got him "uninvited" to the Education Institution that he was teaching at, at this website, www.iandibook.com.
Kenton Sparks' book God's Words in Human Words is summarized in four very good lectures here. He also has a great article explaining his position here.
Kenton and Peter write and speak about the issue of God accommodating himself to humanity thereby practicing a form of contextualization that seems to be a good starting point for discovering these parameters. There has been controversy surrounding both of these authors and their work for sure, but as far as I know, only from the conservative evangelical camp, the one with the most to lose if Sparks and Enns are right. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize but as far as I have researched that is the case. Those that offer their critiques may be valid at some points, but anytime a contender defends that which they have a vested interest in, their discernment is that much more suspect. That is true of any discipline, denomination, camp, arena of thought or special interest group, and thereby true of me and what I write. That doesn't completely undermine the process of discernment but it is a qualifier that can't be ignored when discerning truth and the bearers of it.
Contextualization - how far is too far and has Bell gone too far or have others not gone far enough? Only time will tell. I for one echo my father's thoughts - I would rather make the mistake of going to far than not going far enough. At some point, the swing of orthodoxy does push you off, but from which side do we find it easier to remount from? I guess that depends on how far you have or haven't gone.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slowwitted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid beforehim." - Leo Tolstoy in The Kingdom of God is Within You: Christianity not as a Mystic Religion but as a New Theory of Life
Contextualization is a term that sprung to life in this past century in mostly Western countries but within the last 30-40 years was introduced to other cultures and countries where it is taking off like wildfire. The history of the contextualization movement is a fascinating read and leaves many reeling as to what it is and why it's important.
Very simply, contextualization describes the effort to transmit, embed or implant a message from a culture foreign to the culture that is receiving the message by using mediums and cultural cues that will allow the receiving culture to understand and appropriate the foreign message. This message is seen as a necessary element to the receiving culture's health or a survey of need's assessment. For Christians, that message ends up being the Gospel, another term very difficult to agree upon among the historic orthodox Christian traditions.
So there you have it, two vastly important terms that are both difficult to understand, difficult to define and are claimed and ratified by insiders who disagree sharply with each other regarding the words, their practice and their definitions.
The reason, it seems, that so many insiders to Christianity within the West are bothered by Bell, isn't as much that he is a false teacher or a heretic, but that he has redefined the message through the past decade of preaching a successfully contextualized message. His contextualization competency for Western culture is through the roof. He took the Gospel and reshaped it's delivery in such a way that many have come to understand its depth and reality in ways that very few had been able to do for this generation prior to him. Whether we agree on his conclusions or not, I believe we can agree at least upon his uncanny ability to communicate effectively through contextualization to a new generation of thinkers, churchgoers, skeptics and newly converted.
With that said, this video ends with this question, "how far is too far?" That is the million dollar question when it comes to contextualization and the Gospel. Many don't doubt the need for contextualization but there is definite disagreement on how far is too far.
When does the contextualization become too accommodating to the culture? Who gets to determine when too far is too far? Who determines whether we have gone far enough? What does Scripture say directly to this issue? How how did the church fathers, the early church, the disciples, Jesus and Yahweh practice contextualization or did they?
In my opinion the best place to look for these guidelines is in Scripture and there we find that contextualization was taking place. That's not disputed as much as the parameters for contextualization is.
The questions that surround good contextualization are as follows;
1. How was contextualization practiced in the N.T. and by whom?
2. How was contextualization practiced in the O.T. and by whom?
3. What parameters for contextualization are directly addressed and which ones are implicit to the methods used but not described?
4. Is the Medium the Message and if so, how far is that taken in either Testament?
5. Does the Message of the Gospel change/transform/mature in any way based upon the methods of contextualization used to communicate it?
6. If there is change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
7. If there isn't change/transformation/maturation to the Gospel, how does that contribute to the definition and communication of the Gospel and the definition and practice of contextualization?
8. How far is too far?
9. How do we measure if we've not gone far enough?
Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are two writers who have addressed these questions as they relate to Scripture, specifically within the Old Testament.
Peter Enns addresses these issues at his website, www.biologos.org and his newly created website for the book that got him "uninvited" to the Education Institution that he was teaching at, at this website, www.iandibook.com.
Kenton Sparks' book God's Words in Human Words is summarized in four very good lectures here. He also has a great article explaining his position here.
Kenton and Peter write and speak about the issue of God accommodating himself to humanity thereby practicing a form of contextualization that seems to be a good starting point for discovering these parameters. There has been controversy surrounding both of these authors and their work for sure, but as far as I know, only from the conservative evangelical camp, the one with the most to lose if Sparks and Enns are right. If I am wrong about that, then I apologize but as far as I have researched that is the case. Those that offer their critiques may be valid at some points, but anytime a contender defends that which they have a vested interest in, their discernment is that much more suspect. That is true of any discipline, denomination, camp, arena of thought or special interest group, and thereby true of me and what I write. That doesn't completely undermine the process of discernment but it is a qualifier that can't be ignored when discerning truth and the bearers of it.
Contextualization - how far is too far and has Bell gone too far or have others not gone far enough? Only time will tell. I for one echo my father's thoughts - I would rather make the mistake of going to far than not going far enough. At some point, the swing of orthodoxy does push you off, but from which side do we find it easier to remount from? I guess that depends on how far you have or haven't gone.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slowwitted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before
good questions. i like that last quote. it's hard to remain childlike and open to being wrong and learning something new :)
ReplyDelete