Contextualization & Hinduism: Why Contextualize? Foundation 4

     First, let me just apologize for the delay in posting.  Life has been interesting these last few weeks.  But, let’s jump right back into it shall we?  For those of you who may be just joining us, what I’m doing here – broadly speaking – is attempting to write just a whole bunch of stuff on contextualization generally and the practice of contextualization among Hindus in particular.  And, I’m trying to begin by laying down a number of theological foundations in answer to the question, “Why should we pursue contextualization in mission?”  Today, I want to provide a fourth and (for now[i]) final foundation to consider.  I encourage you to take some time to consider all four of these foundations together (see links on the right) so that you can get a real sense of the cumulative weight of Scripture on this topic.

Our Need of the Whole Community of Christ

     Here’s what we’ve already established:

·         We want to be like Jesus.

·         We want to reach all people groups.

·         We want to please God.

And we’ve seen how these desires are inextricably tied to the pursuit of contextualization.  That is, the imitation of Christ necessitates an imitation of His incarnation; the Bible believes that contextualization is necessary for reaching the lost; and God is pleased with the long term preservation of at least certain elements of the unique glory and splendor of each and every nation.

     But as we study the Scripture, we note that these three desires cannot be attained nor even meaningfully pursued in isolation from the whole body of Christ.  The word of God teaches that without cooperating “together with all the saints” we cannot attain to “all the fullness of God” (Eph. 3:14-19[ii]).  Likewise that if we want the “world to know” about Jesus Christ we must become “perfectly one” (John 17:20-23).  Finally, that pleasing God isn’t possible apart from a unified church.  For that is where God commands his blessing (Ps. 133).

     So, I submit to you that we followers of Christ need each other.  We need the whole Church.  I cannot imitate Christ without you.  The U.S. Church cannot reach the world without the Nigerian Church.  Asian Christians cannot please God without European Christians.  And I submit further, that without a sincere and global pursuit of contextualization, that kind of partnering and joining together cannot happen—the whole Church cannot be truly whole.

     I say this with 1 Corinthians 12 and a broader-than-typical view of contextualization in mind.  Regarding the latter, I am convinced that when the pursuit of contextualization is motivated solely by evangelism, it is somewhat less than authentic.  We can be justly accused of precipitating a kind of “bait and switch” when we lure in unsuspecting men and women by a contextualized evangelistic message or event only to impose conformity to Western, “established” forms of discipleship and “doing church” once someone has professed faith.  Contextualization, however, is even more for followers of Christ than for those who don’t know Him.  Note that only one of the three previously mentioned Biblical foundations for contextualization is focused on sharing the gospel with non-Christians.  If one could hypothetically conceive of a cultural context that was 100% Christian, pursuing contextualization would still be every bit as critical as it would be for that small band of Christ-followers living in a place where the vast majority of people don’t know Jesus.  Disciples of Jesus must pursue the incarnation in their unique contexts.  The must seek to preserve and enhance those particular deposits of glory and splendor, that God has already made and continues to make in them, with which He desires to be praised and reflected now and even into eternity.  The Word made Flesh must be realized by the people of Christ in every generation, nation, culture, and village—and that for the sake of the whole Church becoming whole.

     And so I come to 1 Corinthians 12, a very familiar passage that I hardly need to say much about.  We are the body of Christ.  And each of us – Mokilese, Garung, Rajbansi, Beja, Punjabi, Korean—are a part of it.  And we need each other.  And if I try to make feet conform to the function and method and appearance of noses, I am essentially saying to the rest of the body, “I don’t really need you, I just need more of me.”  Contextualization says feet can be feet and noses can be noses – and, indeed, should be.  Contextualization says, the body of Christ is whole when each part is fully what God intends it to be and is that in relationship with all the other parts.  We must recognize that if that doesn’t happen, we’re in trouble.  As Paul poignantly asks, “If all were a single member, where would the body be?” (1 Cor. 12:19)

 
Cody:  Let me continue my response to Messianic Bureau International’s list of  “errors” of Christianity.  I dealt with the first two “errors” last time and will finish the list here.  Again, this is a list of the ways in which MBI believes Christians have erred during the past 2,000 years.  For ease of reading, I’ll put the words of the Messianic Bureau International in ALL CAPS:

1.        CLAIMED TORAH (GOD’S LAW) WAS NOT VALID ANYMORE AS A STANDARD FOR CHRISTIANS.

     This is not an orthodox Christian argument.  Torah is as valid as ever to demonstrate to all men that they are law-breakers who deserve the wrath of God (Rom. 3:20).  It is as valid as ever to help the regenerate person to discern the law written on their hearts – that which pleases God – and to faithfully obey it.  It has never been a law that provided salvation (Gal. 3:21)

2.       DEPICTED MESSIAH YESHUA (JESUS) AS EFFEMINATE, NON-JEWISH, AND A BREAKER OF TORAH.

     Hey, don’t like a lot of Jesus paintings either, but bad painting isn’t exactly heresy.  Besides, this statement really seems to reveal a fundamental ignorance of art history and anthropology.  People have always tended to portray Jesus as one of their own.  By way of example, Try these on for size.  The doctrine of the incarnation and the call to be all things to all men for the sake of missions (1 Cor. 9:19-23) should challenge us to consider what it must mean for the Word to take on flesh in any and every culture.  Contextualization people! 

     And, effeminate?  Really? Are you sure you don’t just mean Italian?

3.       TURNED THE GLORY OF MESSIAH OVER TO POPES; MARY AS THE “QUEEN OF HEAVEN.”

Yeah, I agree, that was stupid.  But again, I didn’t do that.  I wonder if MBI is familiar with the Reformation.

4.      GAVE MORE IMPORTANCE TO PAUL’S WORDS THAN YESHUA’S WORDS.

     I find this to be a really troubling statement.  On the one hand, it is just ignorant.  There have been plenty of Christians throughout the ages who have proposed a “canon within a canon” in which the “actual words of Jesus” are emphasized over and above other words.  Martin Luther, for example, did this.  Moreover, every red-letter Bible is essentially doing this very thing.  I mean why are they red?  Any 3-year-old who looks at a red-letter Bible is going to assume that there is something special about the red words.  And what is it?  Why, they are the words of Christ!  But isn’t the whole Bible the word of God?

     The fact of the matter is that the whole canon of Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).  John 3:16 is no more the word of God than Zephaniah 3:16.  The word of God is the word of God.  Suggesting otherwise is inching towards heresy.

My Friend:  It is also my understanding that we need not to offer sacrifices anymore because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.
 

Cody:  Correct.

My Friend:  But what about the other laws and regulations written in the Torah? There's too many of them for me to list here. It seems to me that those are written to govern the everyday life of the Israelites (sort of a theocracy). Are they not valid anymore for us? Should they not be, if they are not cancelled?

Cody:  I think I’ve addressed this.  In what I’ve previously written, so let’s move on.

  
My Friend:  What about the Sabbath? Should it not still be Friday sundown to Saturday sundown?

Cody:  Apply my previous thoughts to this.  I will say that in my meditation on and exegesis of Sabbath commands in Scripture that I don’t see them as mostly about setting aside time for worship but rather primarily about resting.  I don’t really like how people – I think it was the Puritans who started doing it – began referring to Sunday as the Sabbath.  I think for many people, Sunday is a Sabbath rest.  But for those of us in full-time ministry, it almost never is.  I worship then, but I don’t really rest.  Monday tends to be more of a Sabbath for me. 

     I believe that Sabbath commands in Scripture reveal something of God’s purpose in designing us to live balanced lives that are structured around a core dependence upon Him.  I think it is very good as a spiritual discipline for Christians to rest one day in seven.  However, to pursue this in a legalistic fashion falls into the traps mentioned previously. 

     Having said that, the Jewish Sabbath was (and is) the last day of the week (as you mentioned).  As long as you don’t pursue this legalistically nor seek to impose upon another brother’s freedom, you are free in Christ to keep this day as a spiritual discipline.  The reason Christians worship on Sunday is unrelated to the Biblical concept of Sabbath – or at least it should be.  From the early days of the Church, believers worshipped on the first day of the week in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ which occurred on that day (Mt. 28:1, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:2).

 
My Friend:  I know the NT has addressed the issue of kosher food (in Acts 10). Everything that God has called clean we must not call unclean. So, we can eat whatever we want, including those that were called unclean, such as camel, shellfish, etc. But what about eating blood?  

Cody:  The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) handed down some guidelines to the gentile believers that included warnings against idolatry, sexual immorality, strangled food and blood (15:29).  These commands are connected to the presence of Jewish people who are presumed to be living among these gentile believers (15:21).  One of the things you would need to do to understand this passage better is to figure out what was meant by abstaining from blood. Did this mean only well-done steaks were appropriate to eat?  Or is there something else to it?  I’ll let you work through that.  There are plenty of New Testament commands to confirm the evils of idolatry and sexual immorality, so it’s really the apparent food-related issues that pose us some difficulty.  Whatever the case, this is a clear break from Torah-oriented spirituality. 

My Friend:  If Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to cancel it, does it not mean we are still under the Law?

Cody:  The fact of the matter is that as a couple of gentiles, we have never been under the Law.  When you read Paul, there isn’t any question that we fall into the category of those “without the Law” rather than “those under the law” (Rom. 2:12).  Or “those outside the law” rather than those “under the law” (1 Cor. 9:20-21).  So, strictly speaking, gentiles who didn’t convert to Judaism were never “under the law.”  The question then becomes whether or not a pagan who accepts Christ (like me) should then submit to the Law of Moses.  Should we become “under the law?” 

     I think this question is dealt with very, very thoroughly in the New Testament as it was one of the first major controversies in the Church.  The book of Acts tells some of the story.  The clear conclusion that the leaders of the Church came to at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) was that gentiles who follow Christ should not submit to the Law of Moses.  The claim of some was that “it is necessary to circumcise them [gentiles] and to order them to keep the law of Moses” (Acts 15:5).  Peter’s position was strongly to the contrary, “Why are you putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?  But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (15:10-11).  The final decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit (15:28) and took Peter’s side.

     Prior to the Council, it seems that some “Christian Pharisees” had visited some of Paul’s church plants in Galatia and convinced many of the disciples there that they needed keep the law of Moses and be circumcised.  Paul’s letter to these churches offers a clear and stinging rebuke towards the young disciples for believing this heresy.  For the Galatians (gentiles) to put themselves “under the law” was tantamount, in Paul’s view, to “deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ” and “turning to a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6).  The whole letter is probably worth a re-read on this issue.  And lest we think that Paul was only preaching justification by faith, please note that the major problem that Paul confronted in this letter was that the Galatians accepted Christ and received the Spirit by faith but were seeking to grow by works.  His rhetorical question is, “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3).  Moreover, Paul was condemning an attitude that sort of cherry-picked the law.  This was a way of keeping certain parts of the law (like circumcision and the Sabbath) and breaking others all the while presuming oneself to be pleasing to God.  Paul taught that the Law was a package deal (Gal. 3:10, 5:3), if you are under it, you are under all of it.  If you are free from it, you are free from all of it.  It is exegetically and theologically problematic whenever someone divides the Law into categories like “moral law” and “ceremonial law” to suggest that we are, for example, free from the “ceremonial” but not from the “moral law”.  In actuality, the Bible doesn’t make these distinctions.  There is no perceivable difference between laws concerning the cleansing of mildew and laws concerning sexual immorality in the Old Testament.

     So, in short, if you are in Christ, then you are not under the Law.  It is impossible to be both.  The question is, where does my salvation (including election, regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification) come from?  Does it come to me by the grace of God through no works of my own?  Or does it come to me as a reward for my performance of the works of the law?  Every individual many choose either the “grace way” or the “works way.”  The problem with the “works way” is that it can save no one because no one (except Jesus) can keep the law perfectly.  And if we can’t, then the law doesn’t bring salvation but instead reveals to us our just condemnation.  As Paul writes in Romans, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). 

     The last two points of the doctrine of creation are as follows:

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

     It is here, I think, that Biblical theology comes most in conflict with macro-evolutionary ideas.  There is such a concept as “Theistic Evolution” which essentially claims that there is no necessary contradiction between Biblical theology and Darwinian-type evolution.  And, I suppose that if Darwinism is communicated in a way that doesn’t assume atheism or deism (that is, that it doesn’t contradict either of the first two points of the doctrine of Creation), then, up to that point, theistic evolutionists are correct.  One may hold to the principles of macroevolution and still believe that God not only started the process of creation but has remained involved in it throughout history.  However, points 3 and 4 are just much more difficult to reconcile with a Darwinian worldview.

     First, to be faithful to Scripture, one must believe that a radical distinction exists between humans and other forms of biological life.  There is the imago dei (the image of God) concept to contend with in the Bible.  I find it difficult to conceive of a view of humanity that preserves both the belief that humans alone are made in the image of God and that they the biological descendants of other species of primates.  Things get trickier when we move fully into point 4.  According to Scripture, Adam and Eve were made directly by God in his image.  It was an event – this creation, this bestowing of life, this depositing of the imago dei.  If you are an adherent to theistic evolutionary views, I would really like to hear your theologizing on this issue.  If humans are the product of a slow and gradual process of transmutation, when does the image of God come into play?  At what point is a human being a bearer of imago dei and thereby radically distinct from all creation?  I suppose a theistic version of punctuated equilibrium could lend a hand – which could also help us to get two real ancestors of the human race (i.e. Adam and Eve).  But I think that is really stretching credulity.

      A final word here on the importance of point 4.  You may be wondering why is it necessary to affirm that Adam and Eve really were the first humans – our real ancestors.  I know that there are some that read the first several chapters of Genesis metaphorically.  Others try to read it as a science text book.  I don’t think either approach is exegetically honest.  For example, it seems to me that reading chapter one as being about a sequence of 6 literal 24-hour periods is forcing a modern, Western, monochronic view of time upon the ancient, Middle-Eastern, and polychronic audience to which Moses was writing.  Not to mention God’s limitless ability to make what is a “day” to him seem like billions of years to everyone else (2 Pet. 3:8).  But on the other hand, metephorizing the entire contents of the early chapters of Genesis not only reduces the contents to fairytales in the worst way but also ignores the tenor with which the chapters were written.  The person who reads Genesis 1-11 can’t help but confess that the contents were meant to be believed – they were written as history.  There are ages and genealogies, measurements and boring details.  One might take the position that Genesis 1-11 isn’t true, but that it was written to be believed as actual fact seems self-evident.  Moreover, it seems clear that the New Testament authors, and Jesus himself, believed these early chapters to be genuine historical records (e.g. Mt. 23:35, 24:37, Mk. 10:6, Lk. 3:38, Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Heb. 11:7, 1 Pet. 3:20, 1 Jn. 3:12, Jude 14).

     Of course, the biggest problem with denying our literal descent from Adam and Eve is that doing so wreaks havoc to the essential doctrine of original sin.  The doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were made sinless, bearing the untainted image of God.  They then sinned by rebelling against God’s command, thus corrupting the nature within them.  Original sin* refers to the fact that since we are all descended from Adam, we have all inherited a sinful nature.  We are, like David, sinful from birth and conceived in iniquity (Ps. 51:5).  We are not sinners because we sin.  Rather, we sin because we are sinners by nature.  Sin and death, and with it our just condemnation, have spread to all humanity (Rom. 5:12-21).  The doctrine of original sin highlights our inherent and emphatic need of a savior.  We cannot please God, seek Him, or become justified in God’s sight apart from the free and sovereign work of His grace in our lives – without the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:9-20, Eph. 2:1-10).

     So, how can theistic evolutionists reconcile macroevolution with the doctrine of original sin?  If there wasn’t a literal Fall, if there is no literal descent from Adam, where does our sinful nature come from?  I think this is a huge problem for the concept of theistic evolution, and I cannot conceive of a way around it.  One thing is certain, that from birth human beings have an innate proclivity to sin is far more observable than the transmutation of species.   And, at the end of the day, I reject macroevolutionary principles because I don’t find the weight of evidence in favor of Darwinism so compelling as to warrant the kind of theological gymnastics that would be required for reconciling those principles with what I already know to be true – God’s infallible word.

     So that’s where I end my review of the four principles of the Biblical doctrine of creation.  This is where the apologetic battle must be fought for Christ’s sake.  Active creative theism, the imminence and transcendence of God, the imago dei, and the doctrine of original sin are pillars and essentials of the faith one for all delivered to the saints.  And it is the responsibility of every follower of Jesus to earnestly contend for and proclaim these transforming and life-giving truths (1 Pet. 3:15, Jude  3). 

     In a few weeks, we’ll examine the concept of the image of God and attempt to answer the question, “What does it mean that we are made in God’s image?”  But now for something completely different . . . .

[*For more on the doctrine of original sin, read “What is the Biblical Evidence for Original Sin” a brief article by John Piper.]

     Before we leave the topic of creation, I want to spend some time talking about where the real battleground is for those who want to be faithful to the Scriptures.  That is, I want to talk about the Biblical doctrine of creation.  As we encounter Darwinists in our attempt to communicate spiritual truth, I think it is critical that we know where exactly we should be focusing our apologetics.  There are certain battles that we simply don’t need to be fighting. 

     It has often been the case in church history that Christians have picked the wrong fights, often claiming that the Bible teaches things that it does not.  For example, when Galileo Galilei supported the Copernican view of a heliocentric universe, he was charged with heresy and forced to recant his claims.  The Roman Inquisition incorrectly believed that the Bible taught that the earth was in the center of the universe.  This exegetical blunder has long been one of the great historical and unnecessary embarrassments of the Church.

     It is absolutely essential that we understand what the Bible actually teaches regarding the doctrine of creation, so we don’t find ourselves fighting silly battles that are at best a waste of time.  In short, I find that the Scripture teaches four key truths regarding creation that we must understand, believe, and vigorously defend.  I have listed these principles below with several scriptural texts that  support them:

1.   The source and cause of the created world is an uncreated God who is thus supreme and sovereign over all creation (cf. Gen. 1:1ff; Ps. 89:11, 104:24, 148; Isa. 40:25-26, 42:5; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; Rev. 4:11).

2.  After creating the universe, God continued to be actively and intimately related to his creation.  That is to say that God is present and active in the whole universe and in our particular lives (cf. Gen. 1:4, 7-11, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-31, 2:1-3, 5-9, Isa. 41:17-20, 43:6-7; 45:7; 65:17; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 1:3).

3.  God directly created human beings in his own image and thus radically different from the rest of creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:7, 15:49; Eph. 4:24; Jam. 3:9).

4. God created Adam and Eve as the first humans.  They are the real ancestors of the entire human race (Gen. 2:7-8, 21-25, 3:20; Rom. 5:12-21).

      To the extent that Darwinism challenges any of these principles, Christians who desire to be faithful to the Bible have a serious theological motivation for engaging in debate.  Indeed, we must be willing and ready to give a defense of these essential Biblical truths (1 Pet. 3:15).   The good news is that some really great resources like the Case for a Creator, Expelled, and the Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution are available to help us in this battle.

     Now, beyond these four points, I don’t believe there is a strong Biblical exegetical or theological reason for arguing with non-believers.  No one is being kept out of God’s Kingdom because they believe in an old earth or that dinosaurs weren’t contemporary to humans.  There are plenty of “in-house” debates that Christians can have on these kind of side issues, but it is the essentials that we must proclaim and defend in our various mission contexts. 

     To be sure, Darwinism as it is commonly delineated is clearly heretical, a worldview that is undeniably anti-Biblical.  It certainly fails on theological grounds from a Biblical perspective.  But it is worth remembering that on a completely different level, the scientific, Darwinism falls short of glory.  Darwinism tends to be just bad science that cannot withstand real scrutiny and so does not invite any.

     Over the next few blogs, I plan to reflect a bit more on the four principles of the doctrine of creation mentioned above.  For now, I invite you to let me know in the comment section if you think there are parts of the doctrine that I have overlooked and that you feel should be included among the other four.