Saturday, September 09, 2006

Are We Inhibiting Movements to Christ?

The latest issue of Mission Frontiers has a super article about contextualizing the gospel. Here is one quote:

"...we often introduce the gospel into another culture with signficant amounts of cultural and religious traditions associated with it. This 'baggage' makes it harder for a new people to embrace the gospel because they see it as a foreign cultural and religious system, rather than a relationship with the person of Jesus that they can pursue within their own cultural and religious traditions." (Bob Goldmann)

4 Comments:

At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin,

Unfortunately, I have a far more negative assessment of Goldmann's article. Of course, I cannot go into all of my thinking about his piece in these comments, but here are a few thoughts:

1) He asserts a postmillennial optimism. Taking the parables of the yeast, the mustard seed, and the sower, he posits rapid kingdom growth. And since we are not seeing this swift expansion, we must be doing something wrong. I find this line of thinking too simplistic. Are we perfect? Of course not. Should we continually evaluate our service to the Lord? Absolutely. But must these kinds of movements necessarily result? I don't think so.

2) He synthesizes ethnic and religious identities. Therefore, they can remain in their "ethno-religious identity" while being a disciple of Jesus. In other words, there could be a Muslim follower of Christ or a Hindu believer in Christ. To be blunt, I do see a need for "extracted communities." What is the church? The "called out." As the Apostle Peter tells us, we are sojourners and exiles (1 Peter 1:1, 2:11).

3) His call for "comprehensive self-contextualization" is troubling. Theology is supracultural, and the worldwide body of Christ needs to pursue God's truth together. The problem is not contextualization--it is essential. But saying "foreigners are unreliable guides for what is appropriate for believers in a particular enthno-religious situation" is going too far. Even his use of Acts 15:28 doesn't support his position. The church leaders did assert their views in certain areas of behavior (abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality).

4) Ultimately, his foundation is flawed. Where does he turn when developing a strategy for effective missionary service? In a word: pragmatism. Why should we follow these seven dimensions of acceleration? Because they work. I look at these dimensions and ask, "What does Scripture say?" Using a biblical lens, some of Goldmann's points are valid while others are not.

My conclusion? I believe it is always helpful to evaluate our ministries in light of our faithfulness to Christ and His Word. Unfortunately, this is not the route Goldmann takes.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Kevin P. Larson said...

I found the same things troubling that you did. However, I think his overall point was helpful.

 
At 10:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin,

Thanks for the clarification! I wondered if you had some caveats when posting Goldmann's article.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider his overall point? The need for contextualization? That we should avoid unnecessary "baggage" in bringing the gospel to a culture? Then I agree wholeheartedly!

I love the article that Justin Taylor pointed out earlier this month: "The Nature and Function of Theology" by David F. Wells. As he says, "The issue today, it needs to be said in conclusion, is no different in principle from what it was in the sixteenth century. The Protestant Reformers insisted that the Word of God must be free to speak unhampered by tradition or by the limitations of experience."

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger Kevin P. Larson said...

Overall point?

Keeping the gospel and church free of inhibiting, unnecessary cultural baggage.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home