According my trusty Oxford American Writer’s Thesaurus, the following are synonyms for ‘pedant’: dogmatist, purist, formalist, quibbler, hair-splitter, casuist, sophist and nitpicker. Given that theologians study dogmatics, doesn’t that tend them towards pedantry? And if so, how could I say in my last post that church planters need to be theologians in order to contextualize the gospel?
Theologians are as risk-averse as actuaries, so how can they contextualize the gospel successfully?
The answer, somewhat surprisingly, brings us back to Wesley! (Who would have thunk it?)
Jesus, the name that charms our fears
When you think about that line from Wesley’s hymn, it’s taking a tremendous risk isn’t it? I mean, if the people of his day were used to responding to their fears by the use of household magic and private incantations and other nefarious options, then wasn’t Wesley in great danger of misrepresenting Christ by describing him as a charm that wards off fear?
This is, of course, the great problem for the gospel preacher in every age: every step you take towards the other person—every time you decide to adopt their world view to make your point—are you really undermining the message?
It appears to me that all real theology is risk-taking. Or, to put it another way, all good gospel preaching is risk-taking. Whenever we choose to express the gospel in our own words, we are theologizing, and therefore are placing ourselves in danger of losing the essence of what we preach. Yet, without doing just that, we will never communicate with anyone.
So tell me: what risks have you seen people make in trying to contextualize the gospel? Which ones have worked and which ones have failed, and why?
Hi Grimmo.
I think I disagree with you.
Only good theologians are careful. Many others are totally reckless.
Many modern ivory tower theologians are just flushing the Scriptures down the toilet in an effort to be more contextually appealing.
They don’t realise how risky their behaviour actually is.
Hi Andrew,
I agree with everything that you said. It’s just that I’m not sure that that’s exactly my point. The sentence is part of the overall argument.
I think that I’m trying to deal with the perception that theology belongs in the ivory tower and that gospel preachers aren’t theologians. Any statement of the truth apart from the actual words of the Bible is an attempt at contextualization and is inherently risky.
Good preachers need to be good theologians in order to take good risks and communicate well.
Yeah we are in a agreement. I must have just been confused about who that sentence was referring to.
Aren’t there certain timeless truths that are relevant to every human society and condition? It seems to me that there are quite a few of these floating around that need no contextualization at all.
Some spring to mind:
1. We are all born.
2. All who are interested in this question are currently alive.
3. We will all die
4. We will certainly pay tax.
And that is before we even begin to ask questions about what the Bible teaches. When I start to think about timeless truths in Scripture, the list just gets longer and longer.
1. We were all created.
2. We will all die, except for those who don’t.
3. We will all rise from death (with the exception of the exception mentioned in ‘2.’)
4. We will all be judged.
5. We will all be judged by God.
6. The Lord Jesus, who was born about the time of the birth of Christ, lived, and then died not long after the birth of Christ, is the one who will judge us.
7. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
8. Anyone who begs the Lord Jesus for forgiveness will be spared the judgement of God.
9. We all have hairs on our head.
10. They are all numbered.
11. We are more important than the hairs on our head.
12. There are people who are leaders.
13. God put them there.
14. We should respect our leaders.
This list is a bit random, and not really in order of importance. I’m of the opinion that they are all timeless truths taught by the Bible, and that they represent the atom at the tip of the iceberg of timeless truths that the Bible teaches (although I do believe that atoms and icebergs also represent truths that need some degree of contextualization, or at least explanation, in order to make sense).
But if I were a conservative theologian, I think I would stay with those timeless truths, and possibly try to discover a lot more, until I ran out of them.
Meant to add timless truth 8a., that God the Father will sne the Holy Spirit through the the Lord Jesus to all who fulfil the requirement implied by timeless truth 8., namely, begging for forgiveness from the Lord Jesus.
This one is necessary because, without the operation of the Holy Spirit, any timeless truth that actually matters is undiscoverable.
Maybe a parallel could be drawn with translations of the Bible?
Most (all?) of the folk reading this probably rely on the ESV as their primary translation. It is as near as possible to a literal translation as I (a layman) understand it, while still being readable.
The Message on the other hand (and at the other extreme) probably has its uses, but preaching/teaching is most likely not one of them. (Door-stop comes to mind.)
What am I trying to say then? The more you contextualise, the risk of diverging from the truth of scripture. Of course it helps to suggest how to put Bible theory into practice, but is there much risk in that?
I think a good preacher/teacher preaches from a good translation of the Bible and primarily pulls threads together from other places in the Bible to help our understanding of the chapter/verse he’s talking about.
All that said, I’m not a preacher, so stone me if I’ve missed something
Hi Gordo,
Yes, except that even your list is an example of contextualization.
Grimmo,
You must be using the word ‘contextualization’ in a way that my cultural upbringing hasn’t led me to expect.
What do you mean?
Hi Gordo,
I think pretty much the meaning that I used in the original post.
Grimmo,
And a fine meaning it is, too. I see its relevance to the calm/charm distinction you drew, but not to one of the 15 or so timeless truths I listed.
Hi Gordo
I agree with Grimmo. For example, “We are all born” will not mean the same to a Buddhist as to an atheistic materialist.
At any rate, even a “timeless truth” or list thereof does not present the gospel in the way that the Scriptures do. You are taking the risk that, in your presentation of bite-size propositions (which may or may not be easier for some hearers to grasp), you lose the storyline of relationship between God, Israel and humanity that in expressed through poetry, psalms, parables, intensely personal epistles, narrative, etc, as in the Scriptures.
Gordo,
I don’t think I can put it much better than Rob!
Interesting.
<i>For example, “We are all born” will not mean the same to a Buddhist as to an atheistic materialist. </i>
Are these different understandings a result of cultural difficulties, requiring that we contextualize the gospel accordingly? Or are they sinful delusions that need to be repented of?
You can probably guess that my answer will tend towards the latter.
Yes, but you have failed to deal with the fundamental point. Even if they are sinful delusions that need repenting of, you still have to explain what you mean.
And unless you just spend your whole time just reading the text of the Bible out loud, you are taking part in contextualization. (In fact, I hope you’re reading aloud from the Greek and Hebrew Gordo).
But let me put it another way. When you preach, do you illustrate? Do you seek to apply the text? Do you use different words to speak to the undergrads at Cumberland from the ones you use at the morning congregation at Carlo?