Hiebert’s essay began very slow for me and it took a couple pages to get close to his train of thought. As I have a heart for missions work abroad, I think I have developed a joy of studying other cultures and learning how to live, as a Christian, within them. The interesting thing to me is that we need to function in this manner in our own neighborhoods. Even when our neighbor is native to our same culture, so many influences effect their worldview.
I have served in other cultures with godly men and women who just didn’t get it. Just like Hiebert discusses in his essay, they didn’t grasp the culture difference and preferred imposing their culture upon others as the “biblical” standard. Americans especially seem to have a tough time moving between cultures. We get upset when doing missionary work in Haiti and these people won’t speak English. So, we speak slower and louder so they will then understand.
I was beyond lost in understanding Hiebert’s uncritical contextualization section. I have no clue what Saussurian semiotics and instrumental epistemology are, but I think I have seen an advertisement on late night TV that cures these problems. I felt unworthy to even continue in reading this essay without understanding the value of his comments.
I feel bad for some of my thoughts on this author and this essay. I flipped ahead and read some of the introductions to this essay’s responses. Hiebert is obviously a tremendous scholar in this field, however, his thoughts come across too scholarly. The topic concerns contextualization and Hiebert isolates the majority of believers, calling them ordinary Christians as compared to the theologians and scholars. I just saw a huge disconnect in the idea and the choice of words used to express that idea.
One thing I clearly remember form my hermeneutics class in seminary is “Context IS King.” That is what I hear Hiebert agreeing with in his section on Ontology. “The gospel is not equated with human theologies (p. 95).”
The first step in doing missional theology should be praying for the people group, not studying humans.
I really like his point that “God starts with us where we are.” Hiebert also had a great point in what he calls community hermeneutics. The best point being that transformational theology should focus on mission.
Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Michael Pocock
I appreciated Pocock’s response to this essay. It really did help me gain a better understanding of Hiebert’s thought process. However, this response was much like the original essay in that it was an insider’s perspective. They both reference other works and concepts that lost me.
See, my understanding of contextualization is that it is real-world Christianity. A believer is called to reach this world with the truth of God’s Word. Contextualization is a way that must happen. How is each culture, really each person going to best understand the life changing message God has for them? Yet, when I read these essays from the “heavy hitters” in this league, I struggle to understand the concepts and words they use; even with my seminary degree. Maybe it is just a personal issue I have about most people being able to pickup an article and follow along with the idea at some level.
Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Darrell L. Whiteman
Whiteman does a much better job of relating Hiebert’s writing to my capability to understand and apply. When external references are used, Whiteman points to them and provides a summary.
Whiteman discusses the areas of contextualization as Hiebert breaks them down in the original article. He uses an example of Muslims in an Insider’s Movement of following Christ. I was unfamiliar with Travis’ C1-C6 tool before reading these writings, but have become more comfortable in understanding the concept after Whiteman’s explanation.
I appreciate so much how Whiteman discusses what Christian first meant in Antioch as compared to it’s meaning today. Even as a pastor, my Facebook info says that I am a follower of Christ, because I too see the disconnect in our society on the term “Christian.”
The world truly has become flat. We have to interact with other cultures. I mean pick up the phone and dial technical support sometime. However, I continue to point to the fact that we can’t ignore those living right next door. This isn’t just about those in foreign lands with foreign believe systems. This is about my neighbor, born here, raised here, considers himself a Christian. How do we reach them with the Gospel?
Whiteman uses the example of Muslim’s following Jesus Christ (Isa) yet continue with normal Islamic practices (mosque, prayer, ect..). Is this contextualized Christianity? Let me bring this question home. How about my neighbor – my good person neighbor – who grew up in the Roman Catholic church and is very active there today? How about that person? They sure understand who Jesus is. They understand the history of the Gospel and the church. They just don’t understand that salvation is completely a matter of grace and doesn’t involve being good enough. How about that contextualization?
A Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Norman L. Geisler
I found myself tracking right along with Geisler in his introduction and points of agreement with Hiebert. However, my ability to enjoy the response was hinder once Geisler began discussing his points of disagreement. Once again, I am reading the prose of uber academia theologica. Is this a book about the shift that needs to happen in Christianity in an effort to effectively reach a lost world? Or is this about justifying the best academic argument to defend a micro-theology?
In the conclusion of his response, including his sections on hermeneutics and apologetics, Geisler got me back on track with him. I appreciated his words here and the way he said them.
A Response to Paul G. Hiebert by Avery T. Willis, Jr.
Hallelujah! Willis was speaking the language that I was desiring to hear in this discussion. First, and for most, the discussion needs to have a foundation in God’s Word. The example of Jesus Christ is the perfect example of contextualization.
Willis’ description of bridges, barriers, and gaps was very insightful on categories that help our missions efforts. The power of the Gospel is incredible and Willis makes a statement that I can so identify with in understanding this power. He says, “The people on both sides of the communicational bridge are transformed by the reality of what they are studying!”
