Theology-Missions and the Importance of Context

An article I wrote for an Applied Theology course:

Over the last twenty centuries the church of Jesus Christ has attempted to fulfill the great commission by spreading the gospel to and making disciples of all nations. It has met with varying degrees of success. With the recent and rapid acceptance of Christianity by the global south and east the church has been challenged with new theological questions; questions which confront the church to work with a more global, theologically open, and culturally sensitive missional approach. The pattern for missions can be found in the New Testament through the actions of Jesus and of the church which continued his work.

Jesus was not a door to door evangelist providing a thirty second sells pitch for the coming Kingdom of God. He was a man who gathered others around him in close, long term, friendships (e.g. Act 4.13). Jesus ate with his disciples and others with whom he was attempting to influence (Mt 26.20; Lk 5.29). Because of his intimate connection with people there were many who followed him (Mk 2.15). He lived with them so he could influence them. The relationships Jesus built between himself and his disciples were not simply master to student, but friend to friend (Jn 15.15). Jesus built relationships of trust and commitment with his disciples.

When Christ's work was completed he commissioned his followers to pursue his example (Jn 13.1-17; 17.18). The scope of his charge extended to all nations, but he didn't provide many specifics (Mt 28.19, 20; Act 1.8). When the opportunities presented themselves his disciples were faithful to follow Christ's pattern by building intimate, interpersonal relationships. On the day of Pentecost, for example, over three thousand were added to the church (Act 2.41). These new believers were immediately embraced and nurtured in the faith. They began to fellowship with each other by going from house to house and by praying and eating together (2.42). The disciples of Jesus who were scattered due to persecution only ministered initially to other Jews (Act 11.19). As long as Jewish Christians were ministering to other Jewish people; intimacy in relations, as exemplified by shared meals and living arrangements, did not present significant problems.

When men like Paul and Peter, however, began to have success with gentiles problems ensued. The new gentile converts did not share the same Jewish culture. The distinctive lifestyle of the gentile believers was offensive to Jewish Christians - theological questions immediately arose. Did the gentile Christians need to be circumcised? Did they have to abide by the Jewish dietary laws? The leaders of the church could have dismissed these questions and forced compliance based on their Jewish bias, but they understood, after some deliberation and strong debate, that if they would not seek for a compulsory, standardized expression of faith, the gospel would be more easily and rapidly expanded throughout every cultural group in every nation (Ott et al, 2006, 139). At the counsel in Jerusalem a short list of restrictions, primarily dealing with idolatry, were given to the gentiles, which were to help promote fellowship between them and the Jewish Christians (Act 15.19, 20).

So, the early church leaders were able to see that in order to gain a close relationship with the gentile people they had to determine what was essential. They recognized that propagating their Jewish culture would not bring about the success they were looking for from the gentile mission field. The Jewish synagogue was a sufficient proof that a dispersed Jewish population, promoting its Jewish laws, was not widely accepted by the nations by which they were surrounded, although they were an influence and became the springboard for much of the early Christian missionary efforts. The churches great success among the diverse people groups would come from missionaries who made themselves all things to all men (1 Cor 9.19-23), by removing all unnecessary barriers to the propagation of the gospel. The church of Jesus Christ today should set out to make other disciples by relating to the unsaved in all the ways which they can lawfully relate - ways patterned after the methods of Christ and the early church. Ways which do not compromise the pattern of life exemplified by Christ, but also dignify and preserve the people and their cultural identities. When Paul wrote that the old social and racial distinctions between Jews and Greeks were no longer significant he was not saying that they did not continue. Jews and Greeks continued to be whom and what they were, but as part of the new creation their distinctions were not to be advanced as essential (1 Cor 12.13; Gal 3.28; Col 3.11). The culture of Christ was significant and it was to challenge and obliterate the sinful aspects of all cultures it encountered while it allowed for the retention of the morally neutral aspects of each.

For the church today to be what God has called it and Christ has commissioned it to be; it must engage all peoples everywhere with a theology which is more concerned with putting people into Christ rather than conforming them to a particular church, denomination, or culture. Like the counsel in Jerusalem; the present day church should allow cultural diversity within the confines of the character and laws of Christ (1Cor 9.21). Many in the west have failed to evangelize in this way, choosing rather to promote a monolithic faith which is imposed on all believers everywhere. There is certainly a risk to orthodoxy when Christians around the globe are allowed to contextualize theology - the risk is real. History reveals that when the early church became successful and more accepted it fell into syncretism. The risk, however, is not greater than the reward and hegemony comes with its own set of problems. The global church needs to trust that the Spirit of Truth will correct any extreme challenges to orthodox teaching and that, through free expression of the Spirit, lives will be changed and the Kingdom of God will expand. Missionaries need to be humble enough to listen to perspectives that may challenge many of their preconceived, culturally shaped, theological understandings. By so doing the church globally will be strengthened.

By allowing the church to contextualize its theology a dynamic and rewarding interchange of ideas between the global church and its local manifestations will be realized. The local church is more successful because it is contextually relevant. The global church is built up through the insights it gains from a fresh reading of the scriptures which was mandated due to the challenges brought on by the activities of the local church. This theological give-and-take allows Christians to engage more effectively with the local culture while sharing their experiences with other Christians in other contexts (Ott et al, 2006, 174). The writer of Hebrews seems to indicate that God had provided for diversity in the delivery of his message. He writes, "Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets" (Heb 1.1). The words polumerōs and polutropōs in this verse can be understood as referring to the different manners in which something may be done. We cannot override the particularities of a local culture with those of another culture. Strong claims that the Jerusalem counsel did not "seek an abstract, monolithic theological statement [but rather] while maintaining the specific and necessary truth of salvation by faith, they permitted freedom in nonoffensive practices" (Ott et al, 2006, 139). They thereby freed the gospel to expand into every cultural group. Many evangelicals, however, have not allowed for this kind of flexibility and have insisted on a universal, one-size-fits-all gospel.
As mentioned above there is a rich interplay between the local and global church when the local church is allowed to theologize within its context. New cultures provide new perspectives, new perspectives generate new questions, and new questions require a new, fresh reading of the scriptures. This free-flow of ideas and perspectives will lead to a healthier, more open, others-focused church. It will prevent the self-centered, myopic, culture-sanctifying tendencies the church has fallen prey to throughout its history. If the church will maintain a first century model for missions and evangelism it will be infused with new life; life that stems from being more effective at 'making disciples'.

The risk of a contextualized theology is that it can be applied uncritically, and worse, with an unspiritual mind. It can lead to a condition where the "gospel becomes whatever people believe it to be" (Ott et al, 2006, 293). The theological critique and counsel from the body of Christ must be allowed to help give balance to the activities of the local church (Ott et al, 2006, 248). But ultimately the Spirit of God working in the lives of women and men in a local church will be the primary defense against heresy and will produce a community where the prevailing life of faith is manifest (Zuck, 1994, 328).

Jesus claimed that what the disciples would lack because of his departure would be made up by the coming of the Comforter; also called the Spirit of Truth (Jn 14.16, 15.26, 16.7). The Comforter or Counselor that Christ would send in his absence would 'convict the world of sin' (Jn 16.8) and guide the church 'into all truth' (16.13). Do the leaders of the church today trust that the Spirit of God will convict and teach the church? Do they believe that God knows how to build his Kingdom? There will continue to be schisms between North and South, Anglican and Episcopalian, Fundamentalist and Liberal (Jenkins, 2006, 191). If the church, however, will trust the Spirit and humbly listen to each other with an open heart and mind the differences will be minimized and the common goal of seeing the nations blessed by the gospel will be realized. If Paul were alive today he would call for the church to be 'unified in the Spirit.until we all reach unity in the faith' (Eph 4.3, 13).