Chapter 9 BIBLICAL CONTEXTUALIZATION (圣经的文化处境化)

圣经对人类文化以及福音如何塑造我们与文化的关系有很多教导。我将从三个关键经文入手，这些经文对我在建立圣经观的文化处境化方面提供了重要帮助。

首先，罗马书 1-2 章奠定了文化处境化的基础，即圣经对文化持一种混合的观点。虽然文化中的许多元素是值得肯定的，但我们必须避免在未经福音检验的情况下不加批判地接受文化的某些方面。

其次，哥林多前书 9 章谈到了文化处境化的动机，提醒我们要对文化保持灵活，愿意调整可以调整的部分，以更有效地传达福音信息。

最后，哥林多前书 1 章提供了文化处境化的基本原则，并指导我们如何在肯定文化与挑战文化之间保持平衡。

限制罪的权势

在以赛亚书 45:1 中，我们看到一个有趣的普通恩典的例子：神膏立并拣选了一位外邦君王——居鲁士，使他成为世界领袖。神使用居鲁士的方式，说明普通恩典在文化中的一种表现——它是一种非救赎性的、抑制罪恶的力量。

神赋予所有人（无论他们是否信仰神）一定程度的智慧、勇气、洞察力和良善，使圣灵能够抑制罪的力量与影响，防止世界变得比实际情况更糟糕。

罗马书 1-2 章与文化的混合特性

每种文化都包含好与坏的成分，我们不应仅仅因为某种文化与我们自己的文化不同，就加以全盘否定。虽然这一观点在常识上似乎成立，但圣经是否支持这一观点呢？研究罗马书 1-2 章表明，它确实提供了支持。

每种文化都会回答一些基本问题：我们为何存在？生命中最重要的是什么？世界出了什么问题？如何才能使事情变得正确？每个社会都会认定某种事物为至高无上，并据此塑造其环境。没有一种文化在这些问题上是中立的，因此，从某种意义上说，所有的文化工作都是“约定性的”（covenantal）——即便这些文化假设没有被清晰地表达出来。

罗马书 1-2 章指出，所有人都犯了罪，亏缺了神的荣耀——无论是犹太人还是外邦人，都处于迷失的状态。外邦人可能会将情欲偶像化，而犹太人则可能会把道德正义偶像化。每一种文化都会寻求某种东西来作为自己的依靠，而不是单单依靠神。

然而，罗马书 1-2 章也告诉我们，所有人都具有对神的原始认知。在罗马书 2:14-15 中，保罗指出神的律法被写在每个人的心里。所有人都天然地知道诚实、公正、爱和“黄金法则”的正确性。因为我们是按照神的形象被造的（创 1:26-28），所有人都在某种深层次上知道有一位神，知道自己是神的受造物，理应事奉祂，并对祂负责。这就是“普遍启示”或“普通恩典”——它是一种非救赎性的对神的认知与形象，存在于每一种文化之中。

这并不是拯救的知识。它不会告诉我们关于耶稣或祂所成就的救赎，因为这些只能通过圣经的“特殊启示”来认识。但一般而言，神已经向所有人启示了祂的一部分真理和智慧。

正因如此，以赛亚书 28:23-29 说，任何在农业上有技能的人，能够推动农业科学发展的，都是“受神教导”的。有学者评论这段经文说：“那些被视为发现的事物（如播种的适宜时机与条件、农场管理、轮作等），其实是造物主在向人类展开祂创造的书卷，并向他们启示祂的真理。”

农业只是人类文化的一个方面。新音乐的发展、新技术的发明（如航空、通信的进步）、明智的政治领导——所有这些都来自于神向人类展示祂创造的智慧（参出 31:2-11；雅 1:17）。

罗马书 1:18-25 描述了普遍启示（或普通恩典）如何在人的生命中实际运作。圣经告诉我们，虽然人们在压制真理（v.18），但真理仍持续向他们显明。罗马书 1:20（NIV 译本）写道：“自从造天地以来，神的永能和神性是明明可知的，虽是眼不能见，但藉着所造之物就可以晓得，叫人无可推诿。” 这里的动词“nooumena”（被理解）和“kathoratai”（被看见）都是现在被动态分词，表明神的存在和人对祂的责任是持续显明的。普遍启示不仅仅是一组先天的观念或静态的原则，而是神的真理不断地向每个人的意识施加压力。

每一种文化都是复杂的组合体，其中既有闪耀的真理，也有被罪污染的半真理，甚至是对真理的公然抵抗。每种文化都包含某种偶像崇拜的成分，同时也在一定程度上见证了神的真理。神赋予人类智慧、才能、美感和技巧，并不取决于人的功绩，而是像撒种一样遍洒各地，以丰富、照亮和保存世界。

如果基督徒没有这种对文化的理解，就会倾向于认为自己可以与世界隔绝，过着自给自足、不受世人贡献祝福的生活。而如果基督徒不能欣赏神在更广泛文化中所展现的智慧，他们就可能无法理解为什么非基督徒在道德实践、智慧和技能方面有时胜过基督徒。

罪的教义告诉我们，即便我们有正确的世界观，我们也未必能活出相应的美善。而与此同时，神形象的教义和普通恩典的理解也提醒我们，非信徒也未必如他们错误世界观所导致的那样堕落。

这意味着，我们对每种文化的态度应该是“批判性的享受”与“适度的警觉”相结合。我们应当欣赏各民族文化中的智慧与创造力，并认可、庆祝每种文化中所展现的公义、智慧、真理与美善。但我们同时也要意识到，每种文化都受到罪的影响，特别是偶像崇拜的罪。

传统文化和自由文化都各有其偶像：传统文化往往将家庭或种族抬举为绝对价值，导致种族主义、部落主义、父权制和其他形式的道德主义和压迫。而自由文化则将个人自由视为绝对价值，导致家庭、社区、诚信（包括商业诚信与性道德）的衰落。然而，家庭的重要性与个人的价值和自由，都是圣经世界观的核心内容。

一个连贯且符合圣经的文化观——认识到基督徒是得救但仍有罪的，所有人都被造就却仍受罪影响，所有人都在压制真理但同时又听到和知道真理——将帮助我们以更加成熟的方式进行文化处境化。

什么是文化？
“一条河流属于自然，一条运河则属于文化；一块未经加工的石英属于自然，一枚箭头则属于文化；一声呻吟是自然的，而一个词语则是文化的。”
——H. Richard Niebuhr，《基督与文化》

“文化是……一种规范性的秩序，它帮助我们理解自己、他人以及更广阔的世界，并且使我们能够组织自身的经验。文化的核心是一个由规范和价值观构成的体系……但这些规范和价值观更准确地说是深深植根于我们意识和生活习惯中的‘命令性真理’，以至于质疑它们就等同于质疑现实本身。”
——James D. Hunter，《在枪声响起之前》

“文化……是人类在宇宙中的一切努力和劳作，目的是发掘其财富与资源，并将其投入……某种事物的服务之中。”
——Henry Van Til，《加尔文主义的文化观》

哥林多前书9章与对文化的灵活适应

哥林多前书9章很可能是许多人在思考语境化（contextualization）时首先想到的圣经段落，这是一个值得深思的重要章节：

“虽然我是自由的，不受任何人的约束，但我甘心作众人的仆人，为要多得人。我向犹太人，就作犹太人，为要得犹太人；向律法之下的人，我虽不在律法之下，还是作律法之下的人，为要得律法之下的人。向没有律法的人，我就作没有律法的人（其实我不是没有神的律法，乃是在基督的律法之下），为要得没有律法的人。向软弱的人，我就作软弱的人，为要得软弱的人。向什么样的人，我就作什么样的人，无论如何，总要救些人。我所做的一切，都是为了福音的缘故，为要与人同得福音的好处。”
——哥林多前书 9:19-23

在这段话之前，保罗谈到了“绊脚石”（skandalon），并以哥林多教会的一个争议作为案例研究。犹太基督徒有时会购买曾在偶像祭祀中使用过的肉类。犹太人知道偶像本是虚无，因此认为吃这些肉没有问题。然而，外邦基督徒却因这件事“跌倒”了。他们过去是拜偶像的人，无法在良心无亏的情况下吃这些肉（林前8:7）。当他们看到犹太弟兄这样做时，内心挣扎，有些人甚至被引诱去做他们良心无法接受的事情。

保罗的回应是，犹太人从神学上是正确的——确实，这些肉本身是无害的。因此，外邦信徒的“软弱”良心实际上受到了文化禁忌的约束（林前8:4-5）。然而，保罗仍然劝勉犹太信徒（他称之为“刚强的”）在这种情况下不要坚持他们的文化自由。他们应该放弃吃这些肉，以免因文化上的冒犯而成为外邦弟兄姊妹的绊脚石（林前8:9-12）。在这里，文化适应被视为爱的一种表达。

在哥林多前书 10:32-11:1 中，保罗将这个原则进一步总结：“不拘是犹太人，是希腊人，是神的教会，你们都不要使他跌倒，就好像我凡事都叫众人喜欢，不求自己的益处，只求众人的益处，叫他们得救。你们该效法我，像我效法基督一样。”

在文化适应中保持平衡

在圣经没有明确规定的领域，我们在进行基督教事工时，应当不断进行文化适应——放弃某些态度或行为，以消除不必要的文化绊脚石。例如，我们可能需要避免某些音乐风格、穿着、饮食习惯或其他非必要的文化表达方式，以免让人分心或对福音产生排斥。

同时，在圣经未直接规定的事项上，我们不应将相对的文化规范绝对化。例如，我们不应强制特定的服饰风格，或坚持认为节奏感强的音乐比旋律型音乐更不讨神喜悦，因此必须从敬拜中排除。

神学家 D.A. Carson 在评论哥林多前书9章时指出：

“19世纪，戴德生（Hudson Taylor），中国内地会的创始人（现为海外基督使团），开始留长辫，穿中国服饰，吃中国食物。许多同工嘲笑他。但戴德生深思熟虑地分辨了福音的核心要义（不可妥协）与文化形式（无关紧要），他认识到后者若成为传福音的障碍，就应当调整……这并不意味着所有的文化元素都是道德中立的，事实远非如此。每种文化中都有好的元素，也有坏的元素……但在每一种文化中，福音使者、教会植堂者和基督徒见证人都应尽可能灵活，使福音不会因文化原因显得过于陌生。”

Carson 说：“每种文化都有好的和坏的元素。”如果某种文化元素不会妥协福音，并且能使我们更容易接触他人，那么出于爱与礼貌，我们没有理由不去适应，即使那不是我们的个人喜好。否则，由于我们的缘故，福音可能会显得“过于陌生”。我们必须避免让人因我们文化上的冒犯而拒绝福音，而不是因福音本身的挑战而拒绝它。从这个角度来看，恰当的语境化是一种无私的表现——出于爱，不优先考虑自己的文化偏好或基督徒的完全自由，而是为了让人能够听见并回应基督的呼召。

然而，我们的教导不应消除十字架的冒犯性（skandalon）（林前1:23）。圣经明确教导的真理，我们不能软化或舍弃，否则就不是适应文化，而是向文化妥协。如果我们从不向相对富有的会众讲述社会公义（雅1-2章），我们就是在消除一个圣经的绊脚石。正确的语境化意味着要引发合适的“冒犯”——即福音对罪人的挑战——同时移除所有不必要的文化障碍。这才是语境化的真正动机。

哥林多前书1章与圣经的平衡

尽管罗马书1-2章和哥林多前书9章奠定了语境化的基础和动机，但最有助于理解语境化的经文莫过于哥林多前书1:22-25，它提供了语境化的基本原则：

“犹太人是要神迹，希腊人是求智慧，我们却是传钉十字架的基督，在犹太人为绊脚石，在外邦人为愚拙。但在那蒙召的，无论是犹太人，是希腊人，基督总为神的能力，神的智慧。因神的愚拙总比人智慧，神的软弱总比人刚强。”

在这里，保罗假设文化的复杂性。他向希腊人传福音时，直面他们对“智慧”的偶像崇拜。希腊文化高度推崇哲学、智慧和艺术。因此，一个不靠教育或思辨，而是通过被钉十字架的救主带来的救恩，对他们而言是纯粹的愚拙。

另一方面，犹太文化却高度重视“神迹、能力和力量”。他们不像希腊人那样注重哲学思辨，而是关注行动和成果。他们期望弥赛亚推翻罗马政权、成就大事。因此，一个被钉十字架的救主，在他们看来是软弱和无效的。

然而，尽管福音在不同文化中带来的挑战不同，它也以不同方式吸引人认识基督。蒙恩的希腊人最终明白，十字架才是真智慧——使神既能公义，又能称义信他的人。而蒙恩的犹太人则发现，十字架才是真能力——它战胜了罪、内疚和死亡这些最强大的敌人。

因此，保罗的方法既不是全面批判，也不是完全认同文化。他既挑战文化中的偶像，又肯定它们深层的渴望，并指向基督作为唯一真正的满足。这样的语境化原则，使福音既能对文化提出挑战，又能在文化中找到共鸣。

使徒行传中的保罗讲道

我们已经探讨了在进行文化适应时需要意识到自身的文化预设，也就是我们对圣经及其信息的假设，而这些假设往往只有在接触到其他文化对圣经提出的问题时才会显现出来。我们还确立了一些必要的圣经基础，认识到每种文化都包含善恶交织的特性，同时仍然 affirm（肯定）要将圣经信息适应特定的文化背景。

保罗在《罗马书》1-2章提供了文化适应的基础，在《哥林多前书》9章提出了文化适应的动机，而在《哥林多前书》1章则提供了文化适应的基本模式。然而，真正看到保罗如何进行文化适应，是在他在《使徒行传》中的讲道——在那里，他向不同的群体传讲福音。

保罗如何适应不同的文化？

我们很快就能注意到，保罗调整自己的信息，以便与不同背景的人进行交流。在《使徒行传》13:13-43，保罗在安提阿向信奉圣经的听众——犹太人、归信的外邦人（即受割礼的外邦人）以及“敬畏神的人”（即相信圣经、但未受割礼的外邦人）——传讲信息。在《使徒行传》14:6-16，保罗在路司得对一群乡村的多神教信徒讲话，他们是受传统宗教影响的未受教育的人。然后，在《使徒行传》17:16-34，他在雅典向受过高等教育的异教徒讲话，这些人主要不再相信具体的神，而是持有斯多葛派和伊壁鸠鲁派等哲学思想。在《使徒行传》20:16-38，他在米利都向基督徒长老们做告别讲道，而在《使徒行传》21:27-22:22，他在耶路撒冷向一群敌对他的犹太群众讲话。最后，在《使徒行传》24-26章，他在凯撒利亚向罗马官员腓力斯（Felix）、非斯都（Festus）和希律·亚基帕（Herod Agrippa）讲话，这些人是掌权者，具有犹太文化和异教文化的混合背景。

阅读这些讲道时，我们会立刻发现，保罗的福音讲述方式因听众的文化不同而显著变化。那么，我们可以从中学到什么？

讲道方式的差异

保罗在不同听众面前引用的权威性来源是不同的。例如：

此外，他在不同场合对圣经内容的呈现顺序和重点也有所不同：

谈到罪的问题，保罗的方式也有所调整：

此外，保罗调整了自己的表达方式：

共同点：同一福音信息

尽管保罗的讲道风格千差万别，但他的核心信息始终一致。正如大卫·彼得森（David Peterson）所指出的，尽管没有标准化的“福音讲道模式”，但整本《使徒行传》始终强调，只有一个福音适用于所有人。这福音被称为：

那么，这些福音讲道的核心内容是什么呢？

  1. 认识神的挑战
    无论是犹太人还是外邦人，保罗都告诉他们，他们对神和终极现实的理解是错误的。
    • 犹太人以为自己理解《圣经》，但他们严重误解了神的话。
    • 外邦人以为自己理解世界，但他们错误地解读了自然启示和人的本能。
  2. 罪的挑战
    每个群体都在试图自救：
    • 犹太人靠着律法（徒13:39），
    • 外邦人则倚靠偶像和虚假的宗教信仰（徒14:15）。
      他们都失败了。
  3. 耶稣基督的救赎
    • 保罗向外邦人强调耶稣的复活，以证明祂是神所差来的救主和唯一的君王。
    • 向犹太人，他证明耶稣是实现旧约应许的受苦弥赛亚（参《路加福音》24:25-26）。
    • 无论是犹太人还是外邦人，都被呼召放弃他们的自救方式，因为神已经亲自进入历史，为他们成就救赎。

文化适应的圣经依据

这些讲道为我们提供了一个强有力的圣经依据，说明文化适应是必要的。它们提醒我们，没有一种“普世适用的、无文化色彩的”福音表达方式。

圣经展示了多种不同的方式来传达福音：

很明显，保罗并不认为自己需要在每次讲道中完整地呈现整个福音。他对外邦人采取了一个渐进式的方式，先建立基本的神学概念，而不一定一开始就讲基督的救赎工作。然而，尽管表达方式不同，福音的核心内容始终一致：

因此，文化适应不是妥协，而是一种智慧的策略，使福音能够更清晰地进入不同文化群体的世界观，而不失去其本质和挑战性。

圣经的吸引力

几年前，我读了一本书，该书基于耶稣与富有的少年官的相遇。书中得出的结论是，在传福音时，我们必须先“讲律法以使人知罪”，因为在这段经文中，耶稣刻意让这个自以为义、自满的年轻人意识到自己的罪恶和需要。然而，这本书的论点存在问题，因为这并不是耶稣传福音的唯一方式。在约翰福音第 4 章，耶稣与井边的妇人交谈时，他几乎没有花时间让她意识到自己的罪和悔改的需要。他采取了更温和的方式，重点不是律法，而是他能够满足人的属灵渴求。（耶稣在约翰福音 4 章的行为也可以与他在约翰福音 3 章对尼哥底母的更具对抗性的方式形成对比。）如果我们把任何一种说服方式视为福音传播的唯一范式，事工就会变得没有果效。我们往往没有意识到自己的文化背景和个人性格如何影响我们传讲福音的方式，但仔细留意圣经中福音事工的多样性，会拓宽我们的视野。

性格保守的人可能比圣经本身更强调审判，而性格自由的人可能比圣经更强调无条件的爱。理性思维强的人需要看到叙事的重要性，而喜欢故事的人需要欣赏保罗书信中极为缜密的推理。D.A. 卡森（D. A. Carson）曾撰写了一篇文章，深入探讨了福音的“处境化”（contextualization）。他指出，圣经作者在劝人相信和顺服真理时，使用了多种不同的动机，而不是单一的说服方式。正如宣教学者所指出的，不同性格和文化背景的人推理方式各异：有些人高度逻辑化，有些人更依靠直觉，还有些人则更注重实用性。为了有效说服人，我们必须适应这些差异。卡森列举了八种劝人信福音的动机，我在此简化为六种：

  1. 因惧怕审判和死亡而归向神。《希伯来书》2:14-18 讲到基督救我们脱离对死亡的恐惧。《希伯来书》10:31 说，落在永生神的手里是可怕的事。

  2. 因渴望从罪疚感和羞耻中释放而归向神。《加拉太书》3:10-12 说我们都在律法的咒诅之下。罪疚感不仅是客观的，也会成为良心上的内在重担（如《诗篇》51 篇）。如果我们觉得自己辜负了他人，甚至连自己的标准都达不到，就会感到羞耻和自卑。圣经提供了从这些重担中解脱的方法。

  3. 因“真理的吸引力”而归向神。卡森写道：“真理可能显得奇妙……人们可以看到它的美和说服力。”在《哥林多前书》1:18，保罗说，福音对灭亡的人是愚拙，对得救的人却是神的大能。接着，他论证十字架的智慧是真正的智慧。他在这里进行逻辑推理，让人们看到自己思维中的矛盾（例如：“你们文化中的智慧按照它自己的定义其实并不是真正的智慧”）。他像展示钻石一样展现真理的美和价值，让人欣赏它。

  4. 因内心未满足的渴求而归向神。耶稣对井边的妇人应许“活水”（约翰福音 4:10-14）。这不仅指永生，也指现在能经历的内在喜乐和满足——正是这位妇人试图在男人身上寻找的。

  5. 因实际问题的需要而归向神。卡森提到，这是一种“绝望的需求感”。例如，那位患血漏的妇人（马太福音 9:20-21），那两个盲人（马太福音 9:27），以及许多因实际需求而来到耶稣面前的人。他们的心声是：“我走投无路了！我需要帮助！”圣经表明，耶稣从不犹豫给予帮助，但他也引导他们认识自己的罪，并意识到他们需要从永恒的审判中得救（见马可福音 2:1-12；路加福音 17:11-19）。

  6. 因渴望被爱而归向神。福音书中描绘的耶稣是极具吸引力的人物。他的谦卑、温柔、智慧，尤其是他的爱和恩典，如磁铁般吸引人。伦敦圣海伦主教门堂（St Helen’s Bishopsgate）长期担任牧师的迪克·卢卡斯（Dick Lucas）说，圣经并没有给我们一个无懈可击的论证，而是给了我们一个无懈可击的人——耶稣基督，最终没有人能反驳他。每个人天生都有被爱的需求，清晰展现基督的爱可以吸引人们想要与他建立关系。

这些方法各不相同，有的像“棍棒”（警告和恐惧），有的像“胡萝卜”（吸引和安慰）。有些依赖逻辑推理（如“真理的吸引力”），有些则依赖直觉（如“耶稣的吸引力”和“满足渴求”）。有些关注短期需求（如“实际问题的需要”），有些则关注长期问题（如“避免审判和地狱”）。

结论

卡森总结道：“我们没有权利只选择其中一种动机，并且仅仅依靠它来劝人信主。”传道人和福音工作者的最大危险之一是，我们往往通过某一种特定的动机认识基督，或者我们的群体特别推崇某一种动机，因此，我们自然会倾向于用这种方式劝别人。然而，这样做是不完全符合圣经的。同时，卡森也指出，“在某些情况下，我们可以更侧重某一种动机。”为什么呢？因为正如保罗在《使徒行传》中面对不同受众时调整他的讲道方式一样（对犹太人和归信犹太教者的讲道不同于对外邦人的讲道），我们在传福音时也应该根据听众的情况选择最有效的方式。在长期的教导中，我们应向人们传讲圣经的全部内容，但在初期，我们可以优先使用最能触动听众的经文和方法，使他们愿意聆听福音。

福音与处境化

忠实的福音处境化是“因信称义”教义的直接延伸。在《加拉太书》2:14，保罗因彼得不愿意与外邦信徒同席吃饭而责备他，指出他的行为与福音不符。福音驱使我们走向平衡、符合圣经的处境化。自我义（“我顺服，所以我被接受”）会导致骄傲或自卑，而福音（“我因基督被接纳，所以我顺服”）同时带来谦卑和自信——这两种态度对于正确的处境化至关重要。

此外，只有持守“唯独圣经”的信仰，我们才能真正做到处境化。圣经没有具体规定服饰或音乐风格，因此，我们可以在不违背圣经基本原则的前提下，根据不同文化调整这些方面。

弗朗西斯·谢弗（Francis Schaeffer）指出：“新约没有明确命令的教会形式，都是自由的，应该在圣灵的带领下，按照特定的时间和地点作出调整。”在下一章，我们将探讨如何实际应用处境化，包括三个步骤：进入文化、挑战文化、呼召文化。

讨论与反思问题

  1. 根据《罗马书》1 章和 2 章，文化适应（Contextualization）的基础是什么？
  2. 提摩太·凯勒写道：“基督徒可能会难以理解，为什么非基督徒在道德实践、智慧和技能上往往超过基督徒。罪的教义意味着，作为信徒，我们永远无法完全符合我们正确世界观所应达到的良善。同时，按照神的形象受造的教义，以及对‘普遍恩典’（Common Grace）的理解，也提醒我们，非信徒永远不会像他们错误世界观所导致的那样败坏。”
    • 这种对普遍恩典的理解对我们如何看待文化有什么启发？
    • 这种认知如何帮助我们在与文化的互动中保持平衡？
    • 什么样的关系、属灵操练、阅读和实践能够帮助你在“批判性的欣赏”与“适当的警惕”之间取得平衡？
  3. 文化适应的公式（源自《哥林多前书》1 章）被定义为：“应用福音来挑战并成全每个社会的基线文化叙事。”
    • 这需要既消极地挑战文化中的偶像，同时又积极地肯定文化中的追求和终极价值。
    • 请列举你所在文化中的一个“偶像”。
    • 你认为保罗会如何揭示该偶像的虚妄，同时肯定其背后由神所赋予的正当渴望？
    • 他会如何说服听众，使他们认识到，他们最深层的渴望只能在耶稣里找到真正的满足？
  4. 本章总结了六种圣经中呼召人归向神的方式：
    • 因畏惧审判和死亡而来
    • 因渴望摆脱罪疚和羞耻的重担而来
    • 因欣赏真理的“吸引力”而来
    • 因寻求未被满足的存在性渴望而来
    • 因需要帮助解决问题而来
    • 单纯因渴望被爱而来
    • 在这六种方式中，哪些是你最熟悉、最自然能使用的？
    • 哪些是你觉得最困难的？为什么？
    • 有哪些资源可以帮助你更熟练地运用所有这些呼召方式？

The Bible has much to say about human culture and how the gospel frames our relationship to it. I’ll begin by looking at three key passages that have proved helpful to me in developing a biblical view of contextualization. The first, Romans 1 and 2, provides the basis for contextualization, namely, that the Bible takes a mixed view of culture, and while many elements of a culture can be affirmed, we must avoid uncritically accepting aspects of culture without first examining them in light of the gospel. The second passage, 1 Corinthians 9, speaks to our motive for contextualization, reminding us that we need to be flexible toward culture, ready to adapt what we can to communicate the gospel message. Third, in 1 Corinthians 1, the Bible gives us a basic formula for contextualization and shows us how to keep a balance between affirming and confronting culture.

RESTRAINING THE POWER OF SIN

An interesting example of common grace can be seen in Isaiah 45:1, where we read about Cyrus, a pagan king whom God anoints with his Spirit and chooses for world leadership. God’s use of Cyrus is an example of why common grace is often seen in a culture as a nonsaving, restraining force in the d.a. By giving people, regardless of what they believe about God, a measure of wisdom, courage, insight, and goodness, the Spirit works to check the power and influence of sin in the world and keeps it from being as bad a place to live as it could be.

ROMANS 1-2 AND THE MIXED NATURE OF CULTURE

Every culture is a mixed bag of good and bad elements, and we should avoid rejecting certain aspects of a culture simply because they differ from our own. While this idea seems true at a common-sense level, does the Bible actually give a warrant for it? A study of Romans 1 and 2 suggests it does.

Every culture assumes a set of answers to the big questions: Why are we here? What are therefore the most important things in life? What is wrong with the world? What will put things right? And every society considers something of supreme worth; accordingly, they seek to bring their environment into service to it. No culture is neutral on these matters, and in this sense all cultural work can be said to be “covenantal” - we are all committed to something, even when those presuppositions and assumptions aren’t consciously identified. Romans 1 and 2 get this point across by telling us that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory-that both Jews and Gentiles alike are lost. The pagan Gentiles may make sensuality an idol, but the Jews make moral righteousness an idol-like every culture, they look to something else to justify and save them rather than God.

Yet at the same time we see in Romans 1 and 2 that all human beings possess a primordial knowledge of God. In Romans 2:14-15, Paul states that God’s law is written on the heart of every human being. All people have an innate sense of the rightness of honesty, justice, love, and the Golden Rule.¹ Because we are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), all people know at some deep level that there is a God, that we are his creatures, and that we should serve him and areaccountable to him. There is “general revelation” or “common grace” — a nonsaving knowledge and likeness of God that he grants to all those who bear his image-present in some way in every culture. This is not saving knowledge. It does not tell us about Jesus or what he has done for us, for that can only be known through the “special revelation” of the Bible. But a general understanding of God exists, for God reveals a measure of his truth and wisdom to all.

This is why Isaiah 28:23 - 29 can state that anyone who is skillful in agriculture, who brings forth an advancement in farming science, has been “instructed by God.” One commentator writes about this text: “What appears as a discovery (the proper season and conditions for sowing, farm management, rotation of crops, etc.) is actually the Creator opening his book of creation and revealing his truth.”2 And farining is just one aspect of human culture. The development of new music, new technologies that advance our ability to travel by air or communicate with others, wise political leadership — all of these things are the result of God’s opening his book of creation and teaching us (cf. Exod 31:2-11; Jas 1:17).

Romans 1:18-25 gives a dynamic and balanced picture of how general revelation (or common grace) actually works in people’s lives. We read that the truth is being suppressed (v. 18), but it continues to bear down on us. The NIV translates verse 20 as “Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities… have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so men are without excuse.” But the verbs nooumena (“are being understood”) and kathoratai (“are being seen”) are in the form of present passive participles. In other words, the reality of God’s nature and our obligations to him are continuously present to us. General revelation is not just a set of innate ideas or static principles. It is the continuous and insistent pressure of God’s truth on the consciousness of every human being.

Every human culture is an extremely complex mixture of brilliant truth, marred half-truths, and overt resistance to the truth. Every culture will have some idolatrous discourse within it. And yet every culture will have some witness to God’s truth in it. God gives out good gifts of wisdom, talent, beauty, and skill completely without regard for merit. He casts them across a culture like seed, in order to enrich, brighten, and preserve the world. Without this understanding of culture, Christians will tend to think that they can live self-sufficiently, isolated from and unblessed by the contributions of those in the world. Without an appreciation for God’s gracious display of his wisdom in the broader culture, Christians may struggle to understand why non-Christians often exceed Christians in moral practice, wisdom, and skill. The doctrine of sin means that as believers we are never as good as our right worldview should make us. At the same time, the doctrine of our creation in the image of God, and an understanding of common grace, remind us that nonbelievers are never as flawed as their false worldview should make them.

This suggests that our stance toward every human culture should be one of critical enjoyment and an appropriate wariness. Yes, we should enjoy the insights and the creativity of other peoples and cultures. We should recognize and celebrate expressions of justice, wisdom, truth, and beauty in every culture. But we approach every culture with awareness that it has been distorted by sin and in particular, the sin of idolatry. All cultures contain elements of darkness and light. We can’t simplistically conclude that traditional, conservative cultures are biblical and that liberal, secular cultures are immoral and evil. Traditional cultures have their own idols, often elevating the family or ethnicity to an absolute value-leading to the evils of racism, tribalism, patriarchy and other forms of moralism and oppression. Liberal cultures elevate the individual and the principle of human freedom to an absolute value-leading to the erosion of family, community, of integrity in both business and sexual practices. Yet both the importance of the family and the worth and freedom of the individual are to be found at the center of a biblical worldview. A coherent and biblical understanding of the gospel (Christians are saved but sinners); of the image of God (people are lost but indelibly reflect the nature of God); and of common grace (all people suppress the truth about God but they nonetheless “hear” and “know” it) — provides us with a nuanced understanding of culture. This gives us the basis for contextualization.

WHAT IS CULTURE?

A river is nature, a canal culture; a raw quartz is nature, an arrowhead culture; a moan is natural, a word cultural.
– H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture Culture is… a normative order by which we comprehend ourselves, others, and the larger world and through which we order our experience. At the heart of culture is a system of norms and values… but these norms and values are better understood as commanding truths so deeply embedded in our consciousness and in the habits of our lives that to question them is to question reality itself.
–James D. Hunter, Before the Shooting Begins
Culture… is any and all human effort and labor expended on the cosmos, to unearth its treasures and riches and bring them into… service… to something. –Henry Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture

FIRST CORINTHIANS 9 AND FLEXIBILITY TOWARD CULTURE

First Corinthians 9 is very likely the first Bible passage many people think of when the topic of contextualization is considered, and it is an important one to consider:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. – 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

Prior to this part of his letter, Paul speaks about the skandalon — stumbling block — and provides as a case study a conflict in the Corinthian church. Jewish Christians occasionally purchased meat after it had been used in idol ceremonies. Jews knew that idols were nonentities and therefore believed there was nothing wrong with eating the meat. Gentile Christians, however, “stumbled” at this. As former pagans, they could not eat such meat without feeling spiritually defiled (1 Cor 8:7), and to see Jewish brothers doing this distressed them and tempted some of them to do what they weren’t able to do with a clear conscience.

Paul responds by saying that the Jews were right theologically-indeed the meat was harmless, and thus the Gentile believers with “weak” consciences were being controlled by a strictly cultural taboo (1 Cor 8:4-5). Nevertheless, Paul says that the Jewish believers (whom he called the “strong”) should not exercise their cultural freedom in this situation. They should refrain from eating the meat to remove the merely cultural offense, the stumbling block (1 Cor 8:9-12), from their Gentile brothers and sisters. Cultural adaptation here is seen as an expression of love. Later, in 1 Corinthians 10:32-11:1, Paul lays this out in the form of a principle: “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”

In areas where the Bible has left us free, when we carry out Christian ministry, we should be constantly engaged in cultural adaptation — refraining from certain attitudes or behaviors to remove unnecessary stumbling blocks from the paths of people with culturally framed perceptions. For example, we may need to refrain from particular music, clothing, foods, and other nonessential practices and concepts that could distract or repulse people from clearly perceiving the gospel. Similarly, where the Bible has not spoken, we must not elevate relative human cultural norms to make them absolutes. For example, we should not absolutize styles of dress or insist that rhythmic music is less pleasing to God than melodic music and must be excluded from worship.
D. A. Carson makes this observation about this section of 1 Corinthians:
When in the last century Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission (now the Overseas Missionary Fellowship), started to wear his hair long and braided like Chinese men of the time and to put on their clothes and to eat their food, many of his fellow missionaries derided him. But Hudson Taylor had thought through what was essential to the gospel (and was therefore nonnegotiable) and what was a cultural form that was neither here nor there, and might in fact be an unnecessary barrier to the effective proclamation of the gospel…
This is not to say that all cultural elements are morally neutral. Far from it. Every culture has good and bad elements in it… Yet in every culture it is important for the evangelist, church planter, and witnessing Christian to flex as far as possible, so that the gospel will not be made to appear unnecessarily alien at the merely cultural level.3
“Every culture has good and bad elements in it,” writes Carson. If some aspect of a new culture does not compromise the gospel itself and makes you more accessible to others, there is no reason not to adapt to that element out of courtesy and love—even if it is not your preference. Otherwise, the gospel may, because of you, appear “unnecessarily alien.” We must avoid turning off listeners because we are culturally offensive rather than the gospel. Seen in this way, sound contextualization is an expression of unselfishness. It is choosing in love not to privilege yourself or to exercise your full freedom as a Christian so people can hear and follow Christ’s call.

On the other hand, our message and teaching must not eliminate the offense, the skandalon, of the cross (1 Cor 1:23). What the Bible has clearly and absolutely taught we cannot soft-pedal or discard. If we do, we have not adapted to the culture; we have capitulated to it. If we never speak to our relatively wealthy congregation about social justice - an implication of the gospel (Jas 1-2)—we eliminate a biblical skandalon. Proper contextualization means causing the right scandal - the one the gospel poses to all sinners - and removing all unnecessary ones. This is the motive for contextualization.

FIRST CORINTHIANS 1 AND THE BIBLICAL BALANCE

Though Romans 1-2 and 1 Corinthians 9 establish the basis and motive for contextualization, no single biblical text is more helpful on the subject of contextualization than 1 Corinthians 1:22-25, which provides the basic formula for doing contextualization: Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

Here Paul assumes the mixed nature of culture. He tells us that when he spoke to Greeks, he confronted their culture’s idol of wisdom. The Greek culture put a high value on philosophy, intellectual attainment, and the arts. To the Greeks, a salvation that came not through teaching or reflection but through a crucified savior was pure foolishness. Jewish culture, on the other hand, put its highest value on something entirely different, which Paul describes with three synonyms―miraculous signs, power, and strength. Unlike the Greek culture, Jewish culture was highly practical, valuing actions and results. Rather than discursive thought, the Jewish culture valued getting things done through power and skill. To the Jews, a salvation that came through a crucifixion was weak and ineffective. A messiah should overthrow the Romans; he should do something. A suffering, weak savior made no sense at all to the Jews.

Notice, however, that while the gospel offended each culture in somewhat different ways, it also drew people to see Christ and his work in different ways. Greeks who were saved came to see that the cross was the ultimate wisdom-making it possible for God to be both just and the justifier of those who believe. And Jews who had been saved caine to see that the cross was true power. It meant that our inost powerful enemies — sin, guilt, and death itself — have been defeated.

It is striking, then, to see how Paul applies the gospel to confront and complete each society’s baseline cultural narrative. He does this both negatively and positively. He confronts each culture for its idols, yet he positively highlights their aspirations and ultimate values. He uses the cross to challenge the intellectual hubris of the Greeks and the works-righteousness of the Jews. But he also affirms their most basic collective longings, showing that Christ alone is the true wisdom the Greeks have looked for and is the true righteousness that the Jews have sought. Paul’s approach to culture, then, is neither completely confrontational nor totally affirming. He does not simply rail against Greek pride in intellect and Jewish pride in power; instead he shows them that the ways they are pursuing these good things are ultimately self-defeating. He reveals the fatal contradictions and underlying idolatry within their cultures and then points them to the resolution that can only be found in Christ. This is the basic formula for contextualization. We will now examine how this formula is fleshed out in Paul’s actual ministry practice.

PAUL’S SPEECHES IN ACTS

We have looked at the need to approach contextualization with an awareness of our own cultural presuppositions, those assumptions we make about the Bible and its message that we are unable to see until we are exposed to the questions another culture is asking of the Scriptures. We have also sought to establish some necessary biblical foundations, recognizing the mixed nature of every culture - that there are good and bad elements in every culture - while still affirming the need to adapt the message of the Bible to a specific cultural context. Paul gives a basis for contextualization in Romans 1-2, a motive for contextualizing in 1 Corinthians 9, and a basic formula for contextualization in 1 Corinthians 1. Yet it is in his speeches in the book of Acts that we actually see him engaged in the work of contextualization, communicating the gospel to different people groups.

We immediately notice that Paul is able to adapt his message to communicate with a variety of people from very different backgrounds. In Acts 13:13-43, while in Antioch, Paul speaks to an audience of Bible believers - Jews, Gentile proselytes, and “God-fearers” (Gentiles who believed the Bible and met in synagogues but who had not been circumcised). Then, at Lystra, in Acts 14:6-16, Paul addresses a crowd of peasant polytheists, uneducated folk who still believed in the old gods. Next, while visiting Athens, in Acts 17:16-34, Paul speaks to sophisticated pagans who had largely abandoned belief in literal gods, instead holding to a variety of philosophical views (such as Stoicism and Epicureanism). In Acts 20:16-38, at Miletus, we see Paul delivering a farewell sermon to Christian elders, while in Acts 21:27-22:22, in Jerusalem, he speaks to a hostile Jewish mob. Finally in Acts 24-26, in Caesarea, Paul addresses Felix, Festus, and Herod Agrippa-governing elites with mixed cultural backgrounds and knowledge of both Judaism and paganism.

When reading these addresses, we are immediately struck by how Paul’s gospel presentations differ markedly, depending on the culture of the listeners. What can we learn from them? Our conclusions must be drawn with great care. In every case, we must keep in mind that the biblical accounts of the speeches are fragmentary. In Acts 17, for example, Paul is interrupted before he finishes his message. Nevertheless, with these cautions in mind, we can still detect some patterns in his public communication in Acts.4

First, let’s take a look at the differences among the speeches. Paul’s citation of authority varies with changing audiences. With Bible believers, he quotes Scripture and John the Baptist; with pagans he argues from general revelation and the greatness of creation. The biblical content in his presentation varies as well, depending on the audience. He changes the order in which various truths are introduced, as well as the emphasis he gives to different points of theology. With Jews and God-fearers, Paul spends little time on the doctrine of God and gets right to Christ. But with pagans, he concentrates most of his time on developing the concept of God. With Greeks and Romans, Paul goes to Christ’s resurrection first - not the cross.

When it comes to speaking about sin, Paul is clear in his message to the Jews that the law cannot justify them, that moral effort cannot save them (Acts 13:39). In effect, Paul is saying to Bible believers, “You think you are good, but you aren’t good enough!” However, his approach with a pagan audience is to urge them to turn from “worthless things” -idols - “to the living God,” who is the true source of “joy” (Acts 14:15-17). In effect, Paul says, “You think you are free, but you are enslaved to dead idols.” Paul varies his use of emotion and reason, his vocabulary, his introductions and conclusions, his figures of speech and illustrations, his identification of the audience’s concerns, hopes, and needs. In every case, he adapts his gospel presentation to his hearers.5

Despite all these profound differences, the speeches show several important commonalities as well. David Peterson observes that while there is no standard “gospel presentation,” it is assumed through the book of Acts that there is only one gospel for all peoples. It is called “the good news about the Lord Jesus” (11:20), “the good news” (14:7, 21), “the message of salvation” (13:26), “the message of his grace” (14:3), “the message of the gospel” (15:7), “the gospel” (16:10), “the gospel of God’s grace” (20:24), and “the word of his grace” (20:32). What do all the presentations have in common? What is the common core that Paul shares in his preaching?

In every gospel presentation, there is an epistemological challenge. People are being told that their understanding of God and ultimate reality is wrong. Jews are told that though they think they understand the God of the Bible, they have seriously misunderstood the Scriptures. Gentiles are told that though they think they understand the world, they have seriously misread creation and their instincts. There is only one true God who has created all things. Both audiences are told about a God who is powerful, yet good (Acts 13:16-22; 14:17).

There is also a personal challenge regarding sin and a depiction of the listeners’ fallen condition. Jews are trying to obey the law (Acts 13:39) and pagans are giving themselves to idols and gods that cannot satisfy (14:15). One group is trapped by works-righteousness, the other by a more conventional idolatry. Both audiences are trying to save themselves, and both are failing.

Then there is a proclamation of Christ as the answer and solution to their sin. As David Peterson states, “The messianic kingship of Jesus and its implications remains the core of the message to pagan audiences, though the terminology and approach are very different from the preaching to Jews or Gentiles who were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures.”7 With pagans, Paul emphasizes the resurrection to prove that Jesus is the divine Savior come into the world, the only true King. With Jews, Paul demonstrates that the covenant promises are actually fulfilled in a suffering Messiah (cf. Luke 24:25-26). So both Jew and Gentile are told to turn from their schemes of performance because God has broken into history to accomplish our salvation.

In summary, there is truth about God (“you think you know who God is, but you do not”), truth about sin and our need for salvation (“you are trying to save yourself, but you cannot”), truth about Jesus (“he is the messianic King who comes to accomplish your salvation for you”), and a call to respond to these truths by repenting and believing in him. These speeches of Paul give us a strong biblical case for engaging in careful contextualization. They remind us that there is no universal, culture-free formulation of the gospel for everyone. The Scriptures show numerous instances when gospel truths are brought out in different orders, argued for using different premises, and applied to hearts in distinctive ways. It is clear that Paul does not feel an obligation to give the whole gospel picture to his audience in one sitting. He puts the pagan Gentiles on a very gradual ramp and works to establish foundational principles without necessarily getting to the work of Christ right away. And yet, while these gospel truths are never expressed in the same way to all, it is clear they have the same content — the nature of God as just and loving, the state of our sin and lostness, the reality of Christ’s accomplishment of salvation on our behalf, and the necessity of receiving that salvation by faith and through grace.

THE APPEALS OF THE BIBLE

Some years ago, I read a book based on Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler. The book concluded that when we evangelize, we must always spend time “preaching the law for conviction,” because Jesus in this passage takes pains to bring about a sense of guilt and need in this self-righteous, self-satisfied young man. The problem with the book’s thesis is, of course, that this is not the only example of how Jesus evangelized someone. In John 4, with the woman at the well, Jesus spends very little time trying to bring her to a place of guilt and conviction of sin. He is considerably gentler and focuses not on the law but on his ability to satisfy spiritual thirst. (Jesus’ behavior in John 4 can also be contrasted with his much more confrontational approach to Nicodemus in John 3.) To make any of these forms of persuasion the paradigm for gospel communication will lead to fruitlessness in ministry. We all tend to be blind to how much our own culture and temperament shape how we do gospel ministry, but careful attention to the remarkable diversity of gospel ministry in the Bible can broaden us.

People of a conservative temperament may want to stress judgment even more than the Bible itself does, while people of a liberal temperament may want to stress unconditional love more than the Bible does. Those of a rational bent need to see the importance of narrative, while those who love stories need to appreciate the extremely closely reasoned arguments of, say, Paul’s letters. D. A. Carson has written an article that is a valuable resource for understanding the work of contextualization.2 He argues that the biblical authors use a range of motivations when appealing to their readers to believe and obey the truth. They do not seek to persuade in just one way. As missiologists have pointed out, people of different temperaments and from different cultures reason differently. Some people are highly logical, others more intuitive, and others simply practical. In order to persuade people, you must adapt to these differences. Carson lists eight motivations to use when appealing to non-Christians to believe the gospel. I have combined and simplified his categories down to six:

  1. Sometimes the appeal is to come to God out of fear of judgment and death. Hebrews 2:14-18 speaks about Christ delivering us from the bondage of the fear of death. In Hebrews 10:31, we are told it is a terrible thing to fall under the judgment of the living God.
  2. Sometimes the appeal is to come to God out of a desire for release from the burdens of guilt and shame. Galatians 3:10-12 tells us we are under the curse of the law. Guilt is not only objective; it can also be a subjective inner burden on our consciences (Ps 51). If we feel we have failed others or even our own standards, we can feel a general sense of shame and low self-worth. The Bible offers relief from these weights.
  3. Sometimes the appeal is to come to God out of appreciation for the “attractiveness of truth.” Carson writes: “The truth can appear wonderful… [they can] see its beauty and its compelling nature.” In 1 Corinthians 1:18, Paul states that the gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. Yet, immediately after this statement, Paul argues that the wisdom of the cross is the consummate wisdom. Paul is reasoning here, appealing to the mind. He is showing people the inconsistencies in their thinking (e.g., “your culture’s wisdom is not wisdom by its own definition”). He holds up the truth for people to see its beauty and value, like a person holding up a diamond and calling for people to admire it.
  4. Sometimes the appeal is to come to God to satisfy unfulfilled existential longings. To the woman at the well Jesus promised “living water” (John 4). This was obviously more than just eternal life - he was referring to an inner joy and satisfaction to be experienced now, something the woman had been seeking in men.
  5. Sometimes the appeal is to come to God for help with a problem. There are many forms of what Carson calls “a despairing sense of need.” He points to the woman with the hemorrhage (Matt 9:20-21), the two men with blindness (Matt 9:27), and many others who go to Jesus first for help with practical, immediate needs. Their heart language is, “I’m stuck; I’m out of solutions for my problems. I need help for this!” The Bible shows that Jesus does not hesitate to give that help, but he also helps them see their sin and their need for rescue from eternal judgment as well (see Mark 2:1-12; Luke 17:11-19).
  6. Lastly, the appeal is to come to God simply out of a desire to be loved. The person of Christ as depicted in the Gospels is a compellingly attractive person. His humility, tenderness, wisdom, and especially his love and grace draw people like a magnet. Dick Lucas, longtime pastor at St Helen’s Bishopsgate in London, has said that in the Bible God does not give us a watertight arguinent so much as a watertight person against whom, in the end, there can be no argument. There is an instinctive desire in all human beings to be loved. A clear depiction of Christ’s love can attract people to want a relationship with him.

These are six ways that the biblical authors use to persuade people, and notice what a motley assortment they are. Some are what we might call “sticks,” while others are “carrots.” One is essentially logical (“attractiveness of the truth”), relying on thinking things out. Some are intuitive (the “attractiveness of Jesus” and “fulfillment of longings”), relying on narratives and stories that compel. Sometimes the need is short term (“a despairing sense of need”), while others want to escape judgment and hell in the long term-an equally practical concern!

In conclusion, Carson argues, “We do not have the right to choose only one of these motivations in people and to appeal to it restrictively?” This addresses one of the greatest dangers for us as preachers and evangelists. Most of us come to Christ through one of these motivations, or we are part of a community of people who find one of these motivations to be persuasive. It is natural for us to exclusively use this motivation in our appeals to others. When expounding a particular text, we tend to use our “pet” motivation, even though the biblical author may not. This is a failure to be fully biblical in our preaching. And yet, Carson states, “On the other hand, we may have the right to emphasize one motivation more than others.” Why? “In the same way that the structure and emphases of Paul’s evangelistic addresses could change, depending on whether he was addressing biblically literate Jews and proselytes (Acts 13) or completely biblically illiterate pagans (Acts 17), so the particular motivations to which we appeal may vary according to our knowledge of our audience.”10 Here we see a strong biblical pattern of contextualization. In the long run, we must expose people to all that the Bible says. But, as Carson argues, it is right to lead with the passages and approaches that will be most effective in opening our audience to the message of the gospel.

THE GOSPEL AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

I believe that faithful contextualization is a direct implication of the gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Paul used the gospel of justification on Peter in Galatians 2:14 when he criticized Peter’s failure to be culturally open to Gentile believers. As we have seen, the gospel gives two impulses that lead us toward balanced, biblical contextualization. Religion (“I obey-therefore I am accepted”) leads to pride if we are living up to standards, or to inferiority if we are failing to live up to standards. But the gospel (“I am accepted through Christ-therefore I obey”) makes us both humble and confident at once. And these two attitudes are critical for doing faithful and sound contextualization. If we need the approval of the receiving culture too much (not enough gospel confidence), we will compromise in order to be liked. If we are too proudly rooted in any one culture (not enough gospel humility), we will be rigid and unable to adapt. Only the gospel gives us the balance we need.

A major reason the gospel is necessary for us to do contextualization is that in our default mode of self-justification we tend to turn neutral cultural traits into moral virtues. Some years ago, I performed a wedding in which the groom was from an Anglo culture and the bride from a Hispanic culture. At the hour the wedding was to begin, not only had the bride not arrived at the church; almost none of her family or friends of the family had arrived either. Not until forty-five minutes after the stated hour of the service did the bride and her family arrive at the church. The Anglo guests were filled with indignation about how rude, undisciplined, and insensitive this late arrival was. I heard some mutter, “No wonder those people can’t…” The Hispanic folks thought the Anglos were, as usual, rigid, uptight, and more oriented to goals and schedules than to relationships. What was happening? Each side was moralizing the time orientation of their particular culture.11

The gospel brings about great humility. A heart reoriented by a grasp of the gospel of grace does not have the same need to get a leg up on everyone. Richard Lovelace writes the following:
[Those] who are not secure in Christ cast about for spiritual life preservers with which to support their confidence, and in their frantic search they not only cling to the shreds of ability and righteousness they find in themselves, but they fix upon their race, their membership in a party, their familiar social and ecclesiastical patterns, and their culture as means of self-recommendation. The culture is put on as though it were armor against self-doubt, but it becomes a mental straitjacket which cleaves to the flesh and can never be removed except through comprehensive faith in the saving work of Christ. Once faith is exercised, a Christian is free to be enculturated, to wear his culture like a comfortable suit of clothes. He can shift to other cultural clothing temporarily if he wishes to do so, as Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, and he is released to admire and appreciate the differing expressions of Christ shining out through other cultures. 12

But it is not only the gospel that calls us to contextualization; a high view of the Bible does so as well. Why? If we believe in sola scriptura, that only the Bible has unquestioned authority over our lives, then at any place where the Bible leaves our consciences free we should be culturally flexible. Since the Bible never prescribes details on how to dress or on what kind of music to listen to, there is freedom to shape dress and music in such a way that both honors the biblical boundaries and themes and yet fits a culture. 13 To deny that much of our Christianity is culturally relative is to elevate human culture and tradition to a divine level and to dishonor Scripture.

Francis Schaeffer often spoke about the difference between biblically prescribed “form” and cultural “freedom”: “Anything the New Testament does not command in regard to church form is a freedom to be under the leadership of the Holy Spirit for that particular time and place.”14 In the next chapter, we’ll look at practical steps for engaging in active contextualization of the gospel message in a way that uses this freedom wisely. This involves a three-part process: entering the culture, challenging the culture, and appealing to the culture.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

  1. According to Romans 1 and 2, what is the basis for contextualization?
  2. Keller writes, “Christians may struggle to understand why non-Christians often exceed Christians in moral practice, wisdom, and skill. The doctrine of sin means that as believers we are never as good as our right worldview should make us. At the same time the doctrine of our creation in the image of God, and an understanding of common grace, remind us that nonbelievers are never as flawed as their false worldview should make them.” What does this understanding of common grace suggest about our stance toward the culture? How does this awareness provide balance to your engagement with the culture? What types of relationships, spiritual disciplines, readings, and exercises help you employ a balance of “critical enjoyment and an appropriate wariness”?
  3. The formula for contextualization, as derived from 1 Corinthians 1, is defined as applying the gospel “to confront and complete each society’s baseline cultural narrative.” This must be done both negatively and positively, confronting each culture for its idols, while positively highlighting its aspirations and ultimate values. Name an idol in your own culture. How might Paul have exposed the futility of that idol while also affirming the God-given desires that led people to pursue it in the first place? How might he have persuaded his listeners that the true answer to their deepest desires can be found in Jesus?
  4. This chapter summarizes six ways of making a biblical appeal to people to come to God:
    • out of fear of judgment and death
    • out of a desire for a release from the burdens of guilt and shame
    • out of appreciation for the “attractiveness” of truth
    • to satisfy unfulfilled existential longings
    • for help with a problem
    • simply out of a desire to be loved
      Which of the six ways of making appeals are most comfortable and natural for you? Which are most difficult? Why? What resources can help you become more adept at using all these appeals?