Chapter 10 ACTIVE CONTEXTUALIZATION

为了说明有效的情境化所需的要素，我们可以借鉴拆除作业的世界。假设你正在修建一条高速公路，需要移除一块巨大的巨石。首先，你会在岩石的中心钻一个小井，然后在井中放入炸药，并引爆它们。如果你只钻井却从不引爆炸药，显然巨石不会移动。同样，如果你只引爆炸药而不钻井——直接将炸药放在岩石表面，你只会炸掉岩石的表层，而巨石仍然会留在原地。只钻井而不爆破，或只爆破而不钻井，都会导致失败。但如果两者兼施，就能成功移除巨石。

要在一个文化中平衡地进行情境化，并成功触及人心，我们既要同情并尊重地进入文化（类似于钻井），也要在文化与圣经真理相矛盾的地方加以挑战（类似于爆破）。如果我们只是一味地“爆破”——猛烈抨击文化中的邪恶，我们很可能无法赢得听众的关注。他们不会认真对待我们的话，只会将我们置之不理。我们或许会因自己的勇敢直言而自我感觉良好，但实际上，我们未能以最具吸引力的方式呈现福音，从而使福音得到尊重。另一方面，如果我们只是“钻井”——迎合文化、反映文化，只说人们乐于接受的话语，我们很少会看到人真正悔改归信。在这两种情况下，我们都无法“移除巨石”。我们可能会因自己的敏感和开放心态而自我感觉良好，但实际上，我们未能让福音以直接而先知性的方式发声。只有当我们的爆破建立在钻井的基础之上——即在文化正确的认知基础上挑战其错误之处——福音才能真正影响人心。

例如，圣经中“所有信徒皆祭司”的教义与西方文化中强调个人自由与权利的观念相契合。因此，西方教会可以轻松地“钻井”，通过强调平信徒事工的重要性来融入这种文化叙事。然而，西方的个人主义也可能对教会产生不健康的影响。当教会成员拒绝接受教会纪律，并声称没有人——甚至教会领袖——有权告诉他们如何过基督徒的生活时，这就是一个需要“爆破”的领域。我们必须用神的话语挑战当代基督教中过度的个人主义。

这种既要钻井又要爆破的需求——即既要尊重文化、肯定文化，也要挑战文化——使得情境化的工作变得颇具挑战。我们既要避免文化俘虏（即拒绝适应新的时代和文化），也要避免宗教混合主义（即将不符合圣经的观点和做法带入基督信仰）。前者的危险在于让福音变得晦涩难懂、不具相关性，而后者的危险则在于丧失基督徒的身份和独特性。

那么，我们该如何前行？大多数关于福音情境化的书籍和章节对我而言都令人沮丧地缺乏实用性。因此，基督教领袖通常会（1）对情境化的概念一无所知，（2）天真地反对它，或（3）支持它但不知道如何实践。结果，大多数情境化都是被动发生的，这使得我们无意识地以各种无益的方式将文化掺入福音。相反，我们需要进行一种我称之为“实用、主动的情境化”过程，因为它要求我们在每一步都保持主动、富有想象力，并勇敢前行。

这个过程包括哪些步骤？主动情境化包含三个阶段：进入文化、挑战文化，然后向听众提出呼吁。这三个部分通常是依次进行的，但彼此也会有所重叠。在这个过程中，我们需要运用之前学到的所有情境化原则。我们必须让自己的假设和过程具有明确的意图（如第七章所讨论的），我们必须时刻保持平衡（如第八章所讨论的），并且我们必须忠实于圣经中的情境化模式（如第九章所讨论的）。

进入并适应文化

主动情境化的第一步是尽可能地理解并认同你的听众——那些你希望接触的人。这需要持之以恒的努力，使自己尽可能熟悉他们的社会、语言和文化现实。你需要学会如此精准地表达他们的希望、疑虑、恐惧和信仰，以至于他们自己都觉得无法表达得更好。

在弗朗西斯·谢弗（Francis Schaeffer）1976年洛桑大会的演讲（后来出版为《两个内容，两个现实》）中，他首先强调了健全教义的重要性。但他随即补充说，这些教义必须以“对诚实问题的诚实回答”的形式进行交流。真理不能只是凭空宣讲，而必须回应具体人的具体问题，这意味着我们必须理解他们的文化。他写道：“基督的主权涵盖整个人，包括他的所谓属灵事务，也包括他的知识、创造力和文化事务……基督信仰要求我们有足够的怜悯心，去学习我们这一代人的问题……回答问题是艰难的工作……开始以怜悯的心倾听。”

倾听问题是情境化的重要部分。当一个教会撰写“信仰告白”时，它不仅仅是在写下圣经的内容，而是在回答它所提出的一系列特定问题。某些问题几乎每个人都会向圣经提出，但没有任何一个人或群体能问出所有可能提出的、有益的问题。每个教会所提出的问题取决于其经历、社会背景、历史时期和文化环境。

宣教学教授哈维·康（Harvie Conn）曾指出，美国和欧洲的传教士引导韩国的新长老会教会采用《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》作为信仰声明。这份告白是在17世纪英国制定的，因此其中几乎没有涉及如何看待祖先、父母和祖父母的问题。然而，在韩国文化中，对家庭的尊重以及祖先崇拜问题至关重要。想要按照基督信仰生活的韩国人需要知道圣经如何看待家庭问题，但《威斯敏斯特信仰告白》的起草者并未向圣经提出太多关于这一主题的问题，因此这份信仰告白对大多数亚洲信徒来说缺乏足够的细节。

如果20世纪的韩国基督徒自己撰写信仰告白，他们可能会提出一些17世纪英国人没有想到的问题，而这样做，他们就能从圣经中学到许多对英国人来说几乎是“隐形”的真理。康认为，韩国信徒并没有经历这样的情境化过程，因此在许多情况下，他们未经批判地接受了自己文化中的权威观念和家庭观念，而没有用圣经来检验这些观念。这并不意味着韩国和西班牙裔的信仰告白与英国或更古老的信仰告白相矛盾。它们之间必然有相当大的重叠，因为人类向圣经提出的许多问题是共同的。然而，不同的时代和文化会引发不同的问题。因此，不同的情境化信仰告白可以是不同的，但仍然完全符合圣经。

如何进入一个文化

情境化的第一步是深入了解该文化的问题、希望和信仰，以便你能从圣经和福音的角度给予回应。当保罗在雅典向哲学家们传讲时，他首先说他仔细研究了他们的敬拜对象（使徒行传17:23）。我们也应该这样做。

了解某一文化的问题和信仰的方法有很多。一个方法是参考外部专家的观点，通常是学者。当我（作者）从美国北方搬到弗吉尼亚州霍普维尔（Hopewell）担任牧师时，我需要阅读有关当地文化历史的资料，特别是关于南北战争和民权运动的历史。同样，当我搬到纽约市时，我花时间阅读了多项关于该市人口统计的研究，以及诸如《虚荣的篝火》（The Bonfire of the Vanities）等小说，这些作品捕捉了20世纪80年代曼哈顿的时代精神。

然而，最重要的学习来源，还是在于花费大量时间与人建立紧密关系，并用心倾听他们。在我纽约事工的早期，我在早晚礼拜中讲道。纽约人性格外向，每次讲道后，许多人会走上前来坦率地表达他们的看法。我会约他们进一步讨论，每周与15到20人交谈，听取他们对我的讲道的反馈。

通过倾听，我发现了四类回应：

  1. 一些人告诉我，我讲的一些内容让他们感到困惑；
  2. 一些人与我分享某个内容如何触动了他们，并对他们有所帮助；
  3. 另一些人告诉我，我说的某些话让他们感到被冒犯。我将这一类再细分为两种情况：
    • 有些内容让人反感，是因为它们是不可削弱的圣经真理。
    • 但我也意识到，有些言论之所以让人不适，是因为我假定了他们并不认同的信念，并且在关键地方未能充分说明或调整表述。换句话说，我对听众的信仰、恐惧和偏见了解不够，导致我的表达方式不够精准，使他们产生了不必要的反感。

随着时间的推移，这些对话对我的讲道准备产生了深远的影响。当我研读圣经时，我会回想起那些问题和疑虑，于是看到了一些以前未曾注意到的经文含义和应用方式。我会想到某个本周见过的怀疑者，然后心想：“这正是她所抱怨的问题！”或“这正好能回答他的问题。”

从内部学习文化

许多人知道智商（IQ），也有很多人谈论情商（EQ，情绪智商），但事工领袖还应具备文化智商（CQ）。文化适应能力并不容易培养。

首先，文化智商要求我们对自己的文化有深入的理解，并认识到它如何塑造了我们。情境化的一大障碍是我们自己的文化假设对我们而言是隐形的。有时，这种盲目性使我们鄙视其他文化，尤其是当我们进入一个并非完全陌生的文化时。例如，如果一个来自印第安纳州农村的人搬到孟买，他会预料到文化上的巨大差异，因此会努力适应。然而，如果同一个人搬到芝加哥市中心，却发现自己难以融入，他可能不会认为问题出在文化差异，而是觉得芝加哥人势利。这种情况下，他更可能轻视都市人，而不是理解文化的不同。如果我们对自己的文化视而不见，或者对其不加批判地接受，我们就很难进行有效的情境化。圣经告诉我们，我们在这个世界上是“客旅和寄居的”（希伯来书11:13），因此我们在任何文化中都不应完全安于现状，包括自己的本土文化。福音对每种文化的批判，能帮助我们超脱本文化，从而更清楚地看见其特征，而这一点是文化内部的人难以做到的。

因此，要认识你的文化影响。可以思考以下问题：

其次，文化智商要求我们拥有被福音塑造的心灵——既能超越文化中的偶像崇拜，也不会过度依赖新文化的认同。

最后，文化智商要求我们全身心地融入文化，尽可能地去爱、理解其中的人群。

沉浸在社区人们的牧养需求中，并持续参与福音传播至关重要。
如果我们深入参与人们的生活，倾听他们的疑问和关切，那么当我们研读圣经并向他们传讲时，我们会看到神对他们问题的答案。如果我们生活在这片文化中，与人们建立友谊，福音的本地化就会自然而然地发生——它会自我们生活和牧养事工中的关系自然流露出来。

进入一个文化时要注意的事项

本地化的沟通方式会适应听众的“概念模式”。也就是说，我们在沟通中使用的比喻应源自人们的社会环境；所表达的情感应在他们的舒适范围内；所探讨的问题应与他们的生活高度相关；所引用的权威应是他们尊重的。福音的本地化传播应当在说服、呼吁和推理的方式上适应文化。

宣教学家大卫·赫塞尔格雷夫（David Hesselgrave）指出，人们主要有三种基本的推理方式：

  1. 概念型推理（西方模式）：人们通过分析和逻辑作出决策并形成信念。这种方式运用三段论推理，即先确立前提，然后得出必要的结论。
  2. 具体关系型推理（中国模式）：人们通过人际关系和实践作出决策。他们往往相信自己的社区所相信的事物，且关注实际生活，只有当一个原则在现实生活中“有效”时，他们才会接受它。
  3. 直觉型推理（印度模式）：人们通过直觉和经验作出决策。他们认为故事和叙述比逻辑推理更有说服力和影响力。

没有哪种推理方式天生优于另一种，所有方式都可能引导人认识神，也可能使人远离神。例如，概念型的人可能要求我们证明神的存在；直觉型的人可能拒绝接受与自己情感相悖的信仰；实践型的人可能只关心效果，而不太在意真理。然而，圣经作者在宣讲时运用了所有这些方式。如果我们真正“进入”一个文化，我们就能辨别哪种方式最能影响我们希望接触的人群。例如，受教育程度较低的人通常更倾向于具体关系型和直觉型推理，而受过较高教育的人更倾向于概念型推理。西方人整体上比非西方人更倾向于理性和概念型推理。但需要注意的是，文化远比这些简单的分类复杂得多，即使在这些广义类别中，不同世代和地区也存在显著差异。

本地化福音传播的一个例子

十八世纪的牧师和学者乔纳森·爱德华兹（Jonathan Edwards），大部分时间在马萨诸塞州北安普顿（Northampton）的一间会众教会讲道，那是西马萨诸塞州最重要的小镇，教会中有许多社会显赫人士。然而，当他被会众驱逐后，他来到边境小镇斯托克布里奇（Stockbridge），向包括许多印第安人在内的会众传道。这时，他的讲道风格发生了巨大变化。

理解文化的主流世界观

当我们进入一个文化时，我们需要辨识它的主导世界观或信仰体系，因为本地化的福音事工应当在尽可能符合圣经真理的前提下，认可文化中的正确信仰。在这个过程中，我们会发现两种类型的信仰：

例如，在曼哈顿，人们会认同圣经关于“转过另一边脸”（宽容和非暴力）的教导（这是一个“A”信仰），但他们会抗拒圣经关于性道德的教导（这是一个“B”信仰）。而在中东文化中，情况可能恰恰相反——他们可能认为“转过另一边脸”是不公平、不现实的，但却容易接受圣经的性道德观。

在福音传播中，我们应该先指出人们可以认同的重叠信仰，然后说：“你在你的文化中是否看到这一点？圣经也教导同样的事情，甚至更加清晰明确。” 例如，保罗在雅典的讲道（使徒行传 17:28）中，他引用异教诗人的话来建立神的创造和护理概念：“我们也是他所生的。”他利用希腊文化中的“A”信仰作为起点，然后基于此挑战他们的偶像崇拜。

我们应首先建立文化对圣经智慧的尊重，比如：

挑战与对抗文化

如前文所述，保罗并没有直接批判希腊人对智慧的追求或犹太人对权力的渴望，而是指出他们的追求是自相矛盾的。比如，犹太人看重力量，但如果没有基督，追求权力最终会导致软弱，而基督的“软弱”反而带来了真正的能力（如大卫·华莱士所论述的）。文化批判的力量来自于文化本身认可的信仰，而不是对文化的全面否定。

我们可以用一个比喻来理解这一点：

同样，我们需要用“A”信仰作为支点来承载“B”信仰，让人们明白，如果他们接受了“A”信仰，他们在逻辑上一致地也应该接受“B”信仰。保罗在使徒行传 17 章就采用了这样的策略。他先肯定雅典人关于“神是生命源头”的信仰（“A”信仰），然后基于这一点挑战他们对偶像的崇拜（“B”信仰）。

结论

真正有效的文化对话不是简单的批判，而是通过文化内部的真理来挑战其错误之处。我们必须先进入文化，找到文化与圣经重叠的地方（“A”信仰），然后基于这些共识，挑战文化中的错误信念（“B”信仰），以此来说服人们接受完整的福音真理。

“A” 或 “B”？

在西方社会，人们往往把个人自由奉为偶像，并将爱与接纳视为神的属性。恩典和宽恕听起来很有吸引力，但罪恶与报应性的审判却难以接受。

而在其他崇尚荣誉的文化中，基督教关于人类深刻堕落的观念是显而易见的，而圣经中关于白白恩典与宽恕的概念则被视为软弱或不公正。报应不仅对维护尊严至关重要，同时也是维持社会秩序的关键。在这些文化中，人们更容易接受神的主权、公义和圣洁。

一个现实例子来自与韩裔美国牧师史蒂芬·吴博士（Dr. Stephen Um）的一次讨论。当时我们谈论一本书，该书认为，人们无法接受一位审判并将人送入地狱的神。史蒂芬回应说，这种观点过于狭隘，只符合特定文化背景。他提到了自己的祖父，他的祖父在接受基督教时并不抗拒地狱的概念。因为他亲眼见过人类的邪恶，他完全接受神对人所行的审判。但他真正难以接受的，是“白白的恩典”——即无论一个人过去做了什么，仍然可以得到宽恕。在他的文化中，这种思想毫无价值。因此，在他看来，真正能接受的“A”信仰并不是神的爱，而是神的公义。相反，“白白的恩典”才是让他感到反感的教义。

没有任何文化天然具备接受福音所需的完整思维框架。福音宣告神是圣洁的，必须惩罚罪恶；与此同时，神又是慈爱的，不愿惩罚我们，因此基督代替我们受死，使神既是公义的，又是称信他之人为义的（罗马书 3:26）。

没有人否认圣经中确实谈到神预定并拣选人信他，尽管关于这些经文的确切含义仍存争议。在西方民主、平等的文化背景下，神的主权和对万物的掌控无疑是“B”教义（不太受欢迎的教义）。我们不喜欢圣经中那些强调神完全掌管历史的部分，也不愿面对神拣选人接受永生的教导（使徒行传 13:48；16:14）。因此，在传福音时，我们会尽量回避这个教义。对于许多西方人来说，预定论不仅是“B”教义，甚至可能是“C”教义（完全不可接受）。

然而，一位宣教士意识到，这种情况在 20 世纪中叶的韩国并不适用。于是，他向当时的妓女们介绍了一位君王般的神。他告诉她们，国王有至高的权利按自己的意愿行事，他们统治国家，这就是国王的职责。同样，这位伟大的神圣君王选择从人类中拣选属于他的人，仅仅因为他有主权这样做。因此，人们得救是出于神的旨意，而不是因为他们的出身、品德或努力（约翰福音 1:13）。

这些妓女对此没有异议。她们本就习惯了权威人物以这种方式行事，这在她们看来是自然且合理的。然而，这也意味着得救并非取决于人的身份、品行或努力，而是取决于神的旨意。她们开始理解并接受因恩典得救的教义。她们向这位宣教士提出了一个西方非基督徒绝不会问的问题：“我怎么知道自己是否被拣选了？”宣教士回答说：“如果你听到福音时渴望接受并相信它，这就是圣灵在你心里动工的迹象，说明神正在寻找你。”最终，一些人作出了信主的回应。

这位宣教士明白“A”与“B”信仰之间的区别，并以此搭建桥梁：“如果你相信一位至高主权的神，为什么不相信你可以因恩典得救，无论你过去做了什么？”

一个典型的例子是 C.S. 路易斯（C. S. Lewis）对英国读者的劝导，帮助他们接受一位嫉妒而圣洁的神。他写道：

如果神是爱，他必然不仅仅是单纯的仁慈……
他以一种深刻、悲剧性、不可动摇的方式爱着我们，这是一种令人无法承受的恩典……
当我们爱上一个女人时，我们会不在乎她是否干净或肮脏，美丽或丑陋吗？相反，我们岂不是才开始在乎她的状态？……
令人惊骇且出人意料的是，我们成为了神爱的对象。你们所要求的慈爱之神，确实存在…… 但他并非那种昏庸的仁慈，懒洋洋地希望你按自己的方式过得开心；也不是那种冷漠的慈善家，像尽职尽责的法官一样施舍一点仁爱…… 他是燃烧的烈火本身——创造世界的爱，像艺术家爱自己的作品那般执着…… 像父亲爱孩子那般眷顾又令人敬畏，像恋人之间的爱那样嫉妒、坚定、要求完全的爱。这一切为何会如此，我无法解释；超出了理性的范围，无法理解为何像我们这样的受造物，竟然在造物主眼中拥有如此难以置信的价值。这的确是一种荣耀的负担，远超我们所配得的，也远超我们在缺乏恩典时所能渴望的。

请注意，路易斯是如何挑战自己文化的。他从西方人普遍接受的“神是爱”这一“A”信仰入手，并推理说，如果神是真正的爱，他就必然会生气，必然会反对罪恶和一切伤害他所爱的事物。有人可能会说：“我相信一位慈爱的神，而不相信他对罪的愤怒。”但路易斯的推理是：如果我们真的相信一位慈爱的神，我们就必须接受他对罪的愤怒。

罪即偶像崇拜

当我刚开始在曼哈顿的事工时，我发现人们对基督教的罪的概念有一种文化上的排斥。然而，当我转向圣经对偶像崇拜的广泛教导时，我发现这个话题更容易引起共鸣。我解释说，罪就是把任何事物——即使是非常美好的事物——置于上帝之上，作为我们生命的意义。无论我们将生命建立在什么之上，它都会驱使我们的激情和选择，最终让我们陷入奴役。我经常引用奥古斯丁在《忏悔录》中对罪的描述，即“爱的紊乱”（disorder of love）。例如，如果我们比真理更爱自己的名声，我们很可能会撒谎；如果我们比家庭更爱金钱，我们就会为了事业而忽视孩子。紊乱的爱总是导致痛苦和崩溃。而“重塑”我们爱的唯一方式，就是至高无上地爱上帝。

这种方法对年轻的世俗专业人士特别有效，主要有两个原因。首先，它暂时消除了后现代人对文化多样性的敏感性。一旦你对他们说：“罪就是违反上帝的律法。” 他们就会反驳说：“但不同的文化和时代有不同的道德标准，每个人的标准都不一样！” 当然，后现代人最终需要接受关于真理的挑战，但“偶像崇拜”的概念提供了一种切入点，使他们在进入这些哲学问题之前，先感受到自己对基督的需要。偶像崇拜的概念帮助他们用神学的语言理解自己的焦虑、恐惧、成瘾、不诚信、嫉妒和怨恨。它向他们揭示，他们一直在寄希望于事业和爱情来拯救自己，而这原本应该只属于上帝。

更重要的是，这种方法成功地建立在一个可接受的“A”教义（“你被创造是为了自由”）之上，从而引导人们接受一个更具挑战性的“B”教义（“你在上帝面前是罪人”）。过去的西方社会更强调“成为一个好人”最为重要，而当今的西方文化则更加重视“成为一个自由的人”。圣经中关于偶像崇拜的主题恰恰在这一点上挑战了现代人，它揭示出一个悖论：如果人们不事奉上帝，他们就无法成为他们所渴望的那种自由的人。

从旧约先知到保罗（他在《使徒行传》17-20章的演讲中就使用了这一方法），基督教神学家和评论家常常用偶像崇拜的范畴来批判文化。例如，托克维尔在他关于美国的著作中指出，美国人相信繁荣能带来深层的幸福。但他认为这种希望是幻想，因为“这个世界的不完全喜乐永远无法满足人类的内心。”因此，他谈到了“民主国家的居民在富足之中的一种奇怪的忧郁。” 这种忧郁正是偶像崇拜的苦果，它总是带来失望。虚假的神永远无法兑现它们的承诺。

我们之前提到过大卫·福斯特·华莱士的有力见解：“在日复一日的成年生活里，实际上并不存在无神论者。不存在不敬拜什么的人。唯一的选择是敬拜什么。”华莱士并不是基督徒，但他的见证正因为如此才更具说服力。他首先表明，圣经的教导——即人类是“敬拜的存在”（homo religioso）——是真的。这一观点揭示了人们的盲点。大多数人认为：“我只是努力成为一个好作家。” “我只是想找到一个爱我的人。” “我锻炼身体是为了好好管理我的身体。” “我努力在政治上有所作为，或者拥有一份好工作，或者仅仅是赚点钱以求安全感。” 但华莱士并不让我们轻易脱身。他将这些活动统称为“敬拜”，即便我们自己不承认。然后，他进一步指出，敬拜受造之物而不是上帝，会导致灵魂的毁灭：“选择某种神或灵性的东西作为敬拜对象，唯一的理由是，几乎所有其他的敬拜对象最终都会吞噬你。” 除非我们意识到我们所做的一切其实都是敬拜，否则我们就会被它吞噬，感到受奴役、不快乐，却不明白为什么。

我发现，当我们用“偶像崇拜”来描述人们生活中的驱动力时，后现代人并不会强烈反对。他们很快，甚至有些不好意思地承认，这确实是他们正在做的事情。圣经关于“内心偶像”的信息，使“罪”的概念更加贴合他们的文化感知，同时也不会迎合他们的耳朵，而是让他们感到扎心。偶像崇拜意味着我们把本该给予创造者和供应者的爱，转移到了别的事物上。将罪描绘成“错位的爱”（misplaced love），而不仅仅是“律法的违背”，对当今许多人来说更加有说服力。

当然，完整的圣经教义必须包括我们对上帝律法权威的悖逆。但我发现，如果人们先因“罪即偶像崇拜”和“错误的爱”而感到扎心，他们就更容易接受罪的一个后果：我们对自己与上帝的敌对关系是处于否认状态的。这是为什么呢？在某种程度上，偶像崇拜和成瘾非常相似（而“成瘾”的语言对当代人来说很熟悉）。我们被属灵的偶像所奴役，就像人们被酒精和毒品所控制一样。一旦明白这一点，我们就能更容易理解《罗马书》第一章的信息，接受这样一个事实：我们活在否认之中——我们压抑或“阻挡”真理，不愿承认自己在悖逆上帝，对祂心存敌意。

通过圣经关于偶像崇拜的教导来传达罪的概念，是向后现代人讲解属灵盲目和悖逆的有效方式。那么，这种对罪的理解是否仍然忠于保罗的“唯独因信称义”的福音呢？答案是肯定的，实际上，这种理解提供了一条自然的路径，引导人们归向因信称义。路德在《大问答》中指出，偶像崇拜（违背第一条诫命）与信靠基督以外的事物来称义是同一件事。因此，偶像崇拜本质上就是拒绝唯独因信靠基督而得救。任何一篇呼召人们悔改、离弃偶像，并在基督里得自由的讲道，都可以进一步引导他们从“因行为称义”转向“唯独因信称义”。

其他压力点

我们还能如何挑战当代世俗、多元化的西方文化？在西方文化中，有几个“压力点”使其容易受到挑战。西方文化渴望社区（群体）和正义——这些是“基本信念”（A信念），但西方文化自身的承诺和信仰却最终摧毁了这些珍贵的事物。以下是几个例子：

性商品化

思想家们长期以来一直在区分“消费关系”和“盟约关系”。“消费关系”是市场的特征，仅在消费者能以可接受的价格获得商品和服务时才会维持。如果不再有利可图，消费者没有义务继续这段关系。而“盟约关系”则不是基于利益交换，而是基于对他人的爱和对关系本身的承诺，尤其是在家庭关系中。

社会历史学家告诉我们，市场价值观正日益渗透到传统上被视为“盟约”的人际关系领域。如今，人们会在关系不再让自己“感到满足”时，轻易切断家庭和人际纽带。这就是“商品化”（commodification），即社会关系被简化为经济交换的过程。

这也延伸到“性”这个主题。传统上，人们不会在婚姻之外发生性关系。换句话说，除非你愿意将自己的整个人生承诺给对方（对方也同样承诺于你），并愿意放弃个人的自由，在婚姻的盟约中彼此绑定，否则你不会将自己的身体交给他人。然而，今天的成年人希望拥有完全的自由，包括性自由。因此，他们在没有彼此承诺的情况下发生性关系，这通常导致长期的孤独感和被利用的感觉——而且这种感觉是完全合理的。在我们的文化中，性已经不再是连接人们、建立稳定社区的纽带，而变成了一种可以交易的商品。

但圣经告诉我们，性是上帝所设计的，不是用于自我满足，而是用于“自我奉献”（self-donation），以创造稳定的人类社会。如果以这样的方式来阐述基督教的性伦理，并与现代文化对“社区”的基本信念（A信念）相结合，就会变得极具说服力。

人权问题

西方社会对正义和人权有强烈关注。然而，西方文化也在推广一种世俗世界观，即：没有上帝，我们只是偶然的产物，进化使我们来到这个世界，没有超自然领域或来世。越来越多有思想的非基督徒开始承认，这两种观念之间存在着无法调和的矛盾——相信“人权”却不相信“上帝”是自相矛盾的。

哲学家雅克·德里达（Jacques Derrida）曾说：

“如今，国际法的基石是‘神圣’……人作为邻舍的神圣性……是由上帝所创造的……从这个意义上说，‘反人类罪’的概念本质上是一个基督教概念，我认为，如果没有基督教传统，这个法律概念今天根本不会存在。”

让-保罗·萨特（Jean-Paul Sartre）也从另一个角度提出了相同的观点：

“上帝不存在……我们必须彻底接受这个事实……如果没有无限和完美的意识去思考‘善’，那么就再也没有先验的‘善’……陀思妥耶夫斯基曾写道：‘如果没有上帝，一切都被允许’……如果上帝不存在，一切的确都是被允许的。”

换句话说，如果我们只是进化的产物，强者欺凌弱者是再自然不过的事情——那么，我们凭什么反对强国欺压弱国，或强者剥削弱势群体？如果人类不是按上帝的形象被创造的，而只是盲目进化的偶然产物，那人类为何比石头和树木更有价值？

这一点是现代文化的重大“压力点”。因为年轻一代对不公正现象特别敏感，我们可以、也必须向他们展示：在人类被上帝创造的世界观下，人权和正义才真正有意义；而在一个没有上帝的世界观中，人权和正义毫无根基。

文化希望的丧失

哥伦比亚大学学者安德鲁·德尔班科（Andrew Delbanco）在他的著作《真正的美国梦：对希望的沉思》（The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope）中，梳理了美国文化历史上人们寄托希望的对象，并将其归为三个阶段：“上帝”“国家”“自我”。

最初，美国人相信人生有意义，他们的国家有目的，因为他们是为上帝的荣耀而活。然而，随着时间的推移，这种信念转变为对科学和道德进步的信仰，特别是对民主价值观的信仰，并认为这些价值观可以通过美国的扩张传播到世界各地。然而，如今“希望已经缩小到了仅剩‘自我’的地步”，以至于美国历史上的希望“是一部不断衰减的历史”。

在书的最后部分，德尔班科指出，我们正处于一场文化危机之中。如果“人生的意义仅仅是自我实现”，那么这个社会就不可能拥有足够的资源来维系一个健康的文化。一个文化叙事必须能提供一个“值得为之牺牲的理由”——无论是生还是死，而“自我实现”的叙事无法做到这一点。

德尔班科引用哲学家西奥多·阿多诺（Theodor Adorno）的话：

“在现代文化中，‘个人主义的假象’……与‘个体的消亡’是成正比的。”

换句话说，现代个人主义试图用“炫耀”和“竞争性自我展示”来补偿它越来越深的孤立感。

几页之后，德尔班科进一步写道：

“[亚历西斯·]托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville）曾察觉到‘在富裕中弥漫着一种奇怪的忧郁’。这在今天尤为明显——因为我们擅长‘解构’旧故事（我第一章讨论的宗教信仰是一种旧故事，我第二章讨论的民族主义也是），但当我们尝试‘讲述新故事’时，却发现自己无从下手……我们生活在一个前所未有富裕的时代，但……对意义的渴望却未能得到满足。”

简而言之，如果我们拥有“完全自由”去定义和创造自己，那么我们最终将会变得与任何比自己更伟大、更持久的东西彻底脱节。其结果就是——意义的丧失、方向感的消失，以及对未来日益加深的绝望。这正是一个巨大的机会，让福音以极具说服力的方式触及现代世俗人群的内心。

呼吁并安慰听众

正如我们在《哥林多前书》1:18-2:16 中看到的，保罗对听众的方式并不仅仅是谴责他们的文化。他不仅仅批判希腊人对智慧的热衷和犹太人对实际权力的渴望，而是向他们展示，他们追求这些美好事物的方式最终是自我毁灭的，并敦促他们在耶稣基督里找到最终的满足。因此，他的结尾总是积极的，带着邀请和安慰的语气，尽管这总是伴随着悔改和信仰的呼召。

当我们进入一个文化并挑战其偶像时，我们应当效法使徒保罗，向听众呈现基督，作为他们一直在寻找的最终源泉。当我们谨慎地进入一个文化，我们就赢得了对它说话的能力。在挑战文化的信仰框架之后，我们的听众可能会感到不安。此时，在上下文关联的最后阶段，我们可以重新建立平衡。在质疑之后，我们安慰，向他们展示，他们所寻找的一切只能在基督里找到。换句话说，我们向听众表明，他们人生的故事情节只有在耶稣里才能找到最终的解决方案，才能迎来“幸福的结局”。我们必须在耶稣基督里重述文化的故事。

这一吸引和邀请的方面，并不是与上下文关联的其他阶段割裂开的第三个阶段。在整个福音传播过程中，我们都在努力连接听众最深层次的渴望。我们尝试遵循布莱士·帕斯卡（Blaise Pascal）的建议，他在《思想录》（Pensées）中写道：“人们轻视宗教；他们憎恨它，又害怕它是真的。要解决这个问题，我们必须首先展示宗教并不违背理性，使人对它产生尊敬；然后，我们必须使它可爱，使善良的人希望它是真的；最后，我们必须证明它是真的。”

赎罪的“语法”

人们常说，圣经包含几种不同的“赎罪模式”（models of atonement）。我更喜欢称之为不同的“语言”或“语法”，它们分别呈现了基督在十字架上的救赎工作。

  1. 战场的语言——基督为我们与罪恶和死亡的权势争战。他为我们战胜了邪恶的势力。
  2. 市场的语言——基督付出了赎价，把我们从债务中赎买出来。他释放了我们，使我们脱离奴役。
  3. 流放的语言——基督被放逐，被赶出群体，使我们这些理应被驱逐的人可以被接纳。他带我们回家。
  4. 圣殿的语言——基督是使我们洁净的祭物，使我们可以接近圣洁的神。他使我们纯洁、美丽。
  5. 法庭的语言——基督站在法官面前，承担我们应得的刑罚。他除去了我们的罪责，使我们成为义人。

有时，人们会误以为我们可以选择其中一种模式，而忽略其他模式。但这并不正确。每一种表达赎罪的方式都反映了圣经的一部分启示，每一种都揭示了关于我们救赎的重要真理，而其他表达方式可能无法如此清楚地呈现。不同的文化和性格倾向会对其中某些语法产生更强烈的共鸣。例如，正在经历压迫甚至奴役、渴望自由的人，会更容易被前两种语法（战场和市场）所触动；那些寻求罪疚感和羞耻感释放的人，可能会特别被最后两种语法（圣殿和法庭）所感动；而那些感到被疏离、无根、被拒绝的人，则会对流放的语法感同身受。

但也许最能安慰人、最有吸引力的主题，正是神学家罗杰·尼科尔（Roger Nicole）所称的贯穿所有模式的核心主题——替代（substitution）。尼科尔博士教导说，无论使用哪种赎罪语法，赎罪的本质始终是耶稣作为我们的替代者。耶稣为我们争战，替我们付出代价，承担流放，献上祭物，代替我们受刑罚。他为我们做了我们自己无法做到的事。他成就了救赎，而我们什么都做不了。因此，耶稣的替代性牺牲是福音的核心。

这种行为——舍命救人——是最令人信服、最具吸引力、最令人震撼的故事情节。例如，J.K. 罗琳在结束《哈利·波特》系列时，几乎不可能选择别的方式，因为这是最极致的戏剧性表达，也是最令人感动的结局。高举基督的替代性牺牲，是吸引任何文化、引人归向基督的最终方式。不同的赎罪表达方式为我们提供了极佳的方式，让我们能够向各种文化展示耶稣的救赎工作如何具体解决其最大的问题，并实现其最深的渴望。

我们生活在历史上第一个认为“幸福结局”属于低级艺术的时代。现代评论家坚持认为，现实生活并非如此，而是充满了破碎、悖论、讽刺和挫折。斯蒂文·斯皮尔伯格（Steven Spielberg）直到拍摄《辛德勒的名单》（Schindler’s List）时，才因不再拍摄“幸福结局”的电影而获得奥斯卡奖。然而，人们仍然络绎不绝地观看电影、阅读小说，希望看到童话般的结局。因为，现代现实主义小说永远无法满足人类最深层的渴望——

人们热爱童话，因为它们描绘了这些渴望得以实现的画面。

然而，福音绝非对生活的感性幻想。事实上，圣经对现实世界的看法比任何世俗评论家都要更加黑暗。它告诉我们，撒旦和他的恶魔军团正在世界中作工。它告诉我们，我们是如此深陷罪恶与残忍，以至于若没有神的介入，我们无法自救。

然而，福音带来了一个令人震惊的信息，正是关于这些渴望的：

首先，福音解释了这些渴望的来源。人类是按神的形象被造的，这意味着我们原本被设计来经历这些事。我们本来就应该永远活着。

其次，福音告诉我们，这些愿望在基督的复活中得到了确切的应许。如果你信靠耶稣基督，你将会经历：

而我们为何能得着永生？因为他被杀了。我们为何能得到永恒的爱？因为他被离弃了。我们为何能战胜邪恶？因为他受尽折磨，被杀害，被战胜。

在耶稣基督的救恩中，我们发现，我们对“幸福结局”的渴望，并不是童话，而是真实的应许。

这存在于我们的血液之中
斯里兰卡布道家阿吉斯·费尔南多（Ajith Fernando）用一个比喻向听众传达代赎救赎（substitutionary atonement）的概念：

你有没有得过感染的伤口或溃疡？当你把它挤开时，会流出什么？脓。那是什么？基本上，它是你体内的白细胞为对抗感染而战斗并牺牲后留下的尸体。它们死了，为的是让你活下去。你明白了吗？代赎救恩就在你的血液之中。

福音是你能给予人心最深的安慰。当你用心进入人们的世界，并鼓起勇气去挑战他们的思维模式时，也要确保带着亲身经历的热情，为他们提供这种安慰。

讨论与反思问题

1. 文化研究与福音回应
凯勒写道：“处境化的首要任务是深入了解文化的疑问、希望和信仰，以便能用符合圣经和以福音为中心的方式来回应这些问题。”
你有哪些方法可以用来阅读和研究你身处的文化？文化当前关注哪些问题？你在社区牧养工作中的经历如何帮助你更好地理解这个文化以及你想要触及的人？

2. 三种推理方式
本章强调了三种推理方式：

你个人最能共鸣的是哪种方式？你想要接触的人群主要采用哪种方式？如果二者不同，你可以做些什么来弥合这种差距？

3. 文化世界观与信仰体系
处境化传福音的另一个关键任务是辨别一个文化的主要世界观和信仰体系。凯勒写道：“处境化的福音事工应该在任何能够保持诚信的情况下，肯定文化中的正确信念。”

请思考并找出一个 “A 类信仰”——即圣经中的教导，它在你的目标文化中普遍被接受并表达出来。然后，找出一个 “B 类信仰”，以及它与哪些基督教教义（“B 类教义”）直接冲突？

4. 文化对话与对抗
凯勒写道：“学会区分一个文化的 ‘A 类信仰’ 和 ‘B 类信仰’ 非常重要，因为这种区分能提供有效挑战文化的关键。换句话说，我们可以基于文化的 ‘A 类信仰’ 来为基督教的 ‘B 类教义’ 提供有力的论证。”

根据你在上一题中的讨论，你如何基于文化的 “A 类信仰” 来引导人们接受圣经中的 “B 类教义”？

5. 赎罪语言与文化挑战
本章总结了几个文化压力点（cultural pressure points）以及不同的赎罪表达方式（atonement grammars）。哪些压力点或赎罪语言是你较不熟悉或不太自然使用的，但值得深入研究的？如果将它们加入你的传福音方法，你认为这会如何增强你的宣教果效？

To illustrate what is needed for effective contextualization, let’s turn to the world of demolition. Say you are building a highway and want to remove a giant boulder. First, you drill a small shaft down into the center of the rock. Then you put explosives down the shaft into the core of the stone and detonate them. If you drill the shaft but never ignite the blast, you obviously will never move the boulder. But the same is true if you only blast and fail to drill — putting the explosives directly against the surface of the rock. You will simply shear off the face of it, and the boulder will remain. All drilling with no blasting, or all blasting with no drilling, leads to failure. But if you do both of these, you will remove the rock.

To contextualize with balance and successfully reach people in a culture, we must both enter the culture sympathetically and respectfully (similar to drilling) and confront the culture where it contradicts biblical truth (similar to blasting). If we simply “blast” away—railing against the evils of culture - we are unlikely to gain a hearing among those we seek to reach. Nothing we say to them will gain traction; we will be written off and dismissed. We may feel virtuous for being bold, but we will have failed to honor the gospel by putting it in its most compelling form. On the other hand, if we simply “drill”— affirming and reflecting the culture and saying things that people find acceptable - — we will rarely see anyone converted. In both cases, we will fail to “move the boulder.” We may feel virtuous for being sensitive and open-minded, but we will have failed to honor the gospel by letting it speak pointedly and prophetically. It is only when we do our blasting on the basis of our drilling — when we challenge the culture’s errors on the basis of something it (rightly) believes - - that we will see the gospel having an impact on people.

For example, consider the biblical doctrine of “the priesthood of all believers.” This doctrine fits well with our Western concept of the freedom and rights of the individual, and Western churches can easily “drill” into this cultural narrative by stressing the importance of lay ministry. However, it is also possible for our Western individualism to have an unhealthy influence on the church. We see this problem when church members refuse to respond to church discipline and claim that no one-not even church leaders—has the right to tell anyone else how to live their Christian life. This is an area where some “blasting” work must be done, confronting the individualism of contemporary Christianity with the truth of God’s Word.

The need for both drilling and blasting-for both respectful affirmation of culture and confrontation of culture-makes it challenging to engage in the work of contextualization.¹ We want to avoid both cultural captivity (the refusal to adapt to new times and new cultures) — and syncretism (bringing unbiblical views and practices into our Christianity). While the danger of the former is becoming incomprehensible and irrelevant, the danger of the latter is losing our Christian identity and distinctiveness.

So how do we proceed? Most books and chapters on gospel contextualization are (to me) frustratingly impractical. Christian leaders are therefore (1) ignorant of the very idea of contextualization, (2) naively against it, or (3) for it but don’t know how to do it. As a result, most contextualization happens passively, and in this way we enculturate the gospel in all sorts of unconscious and unfruitful ways. Instead we need to engage in a process I call practical, active contextualization because it requires us to be proactive, imaginative, and courageous at every step.

What are these steps? Active contextualization involves a three-part process: entering the culture, challenging the culture, and then appealing to the listeners. These three parts generally relate to one another as steps, but they overlap.2 And as we proceed through these stages, we will bring to bear all that we have learned about contextualization so far. We must make our assumptions and processes intentional (as discussed in chapter 7); we must stay aware of the need for balance (as discussed in chapter 8); and we must be faithful to the biblical patterns of contextualization (as discussed in chapter 9).

ENTERING AND ADAPTING TO THE CULTURE

The first step in active contextualization is to understand and, as much as possible, identify with your listeners, the people you are seeking to reach. This begins with a diligent (and never-ending) effort to become as fluent in their social, linguistic, and cultural reality as possible. It involves learning to express people’s hopes, objections, fears, and beliefs so well that they feel as though they could not express them better themselves. In Francis Schaeffer’s address to the 1976 Lausanne Congress (published as 2 Contents, 2 Realities), he began by stressing the importance of sound doctrine. But he immediately added that this doctrine must be communicated in the form of “honest answers to honest questions.” Truth should not be simply declared into a vacuum — it must be delivered as a response to the questions of particular people, and this means understanding their culture. He writes the following: “The lordship of Christ covers the whole man. That includes his so-called spiritual things and his intellectual, his creative and cultural things… Christianity demands that we have enough compassion to learn the questions of our generation… Answering questions is hard work… Begin to listen with compassion.”3

This emphasis on listening to questions is a crucial aspect of contextualization. When a church writes a “confession of faith,” it is not simply writing down what the Bible says. A confession is a series of answers from the Bible to a particular set of questions the church is asking of it. There are some questions that almost everyone will ask of the Scriptures, but no one person or group will ask all the questions that can honestly and profitably be asked. Every church’s questions depend on its experience, social location, historical period, and cultural situation.

Missions professor Harvie Conn used to point out that missionaries from the United States and Europe directed the new Presbyterian churches of Korea to adopt the Westminster Confession as their statement of faith. The Westminster standards were formulated in seventeenth-century Britain, and it should not surprise us that this confession contains very little about how to regard our ancestors, parents, and grandparents. Yet issues relating to respect for one’s family and to ancestor worship are paramount in Korean culture. Koreans who want to live Christian lives need to know what the Bible says about the family, but the framers of the Westminster Confession simply did not ask the Bible much about that subject. This confession does not go into the level of detail necessary for most Asian believers.4

If twentieth-century Koreans had written their own confession, they would have likely asked several questions that the seventeenth-century British did not. And in doing so, they would have learned much truth from the Bible that would have been practically invisible to the British. Instead, opined Conn, Koreans never went through that exercise in contextualization and have in many cases uncritically adopted their culture’s views of authority and family without examining them in light of the Bible. This does not mean that Korean and Hispanic confessions, by being different, would contradict British and older confessions. There would certainly be significant areas of overlap because many of the questions human beings ask of the Bible are common questions we all ask. Nevertheless, different times and cultures will lead to a different range of questions. You can have different contextual confessions that are not contradictory - all of them being quite biblically sound.

HOW TO ENTER A CULTURE

So the first task of contextualization is to immerse yourself in the questions, hopes, and beliefs of the culture so you can give a biblical, gospel-centered response to its questions. When Paul began to speak to the philosophers in Athens, he began by saying he had carefully studied their objects of worship (Acts 17:23). We should do the same. There are several ways to become familiar with the questions and beliefs of a particular culture. One way is to get the point of view of outside experts, often academicians. Because I was “from the North” when I went to Hopewell, Virginia, to serve as a minister, it was important for me to read up on their cultural history, particularly the history of the Civil War and of the civil rights movement. Again, when I moved to New York City, I spent time reading several studies of the city’s demographics, as well as novels such as The Bonfire of the Vanities, which captured the spirit of the age of Manhattan in the 1980s.

Ultimately, the most important source for learning will be the hours and hours spent in close relationships with people, listening to them carefully. In the earliest days of my ministry in New York City, I preached at both morning and evening services. New Yorkers are gregarious, and after each sermon many people came up to give frank opinions about what they had heard. I made appointments to see them to discuss things at greater length, and I would often talk to fifteen or twenty people a week who bombarded me with feedback about my preaching. Christians were bringing a lot of non-Christian friends, and I was able to hear reactions to my preaching from people across the spectrum, from mature Christians to skeptics.

As I listened, I heard four categories of responses. Some told me about things I had said that confused them; some shared something that had moved and helped them; some related things that had offended them. This last category I divided into two. I came to see that some of the things that bothered people were simple, irreducible, biblical, gospel truths. But I also realized that some of my statements upset people because I had assumed beliefs listeners did not have and failed to clarify or qualify statements at crucial points. In other words, I had not known enough about the beliefs, fears, and prejudices of the listeners to speak carefully enough to them. I had offended them unnecessarily. As time went on, these meetings had a profound impact on my sermon preparation. As I studied the biblical text with the objections and questions of my new friends still ringing in my ears, I saw implications and applications of the text I hadn’t seen before. I would think of a skeptic I had met with that week and say, “That is exactly what she was complaining about!” or “This answers his question very well.”

LEARNING A CULTURE FROM THE INSIDE

Most people know what IQ is, and many speak of EQ (emotional intelligence quotient), but ministry leaders should also be characterized by CQ (cultural quotient). Cultural resourcefulness is not easily developed.

First, cultural intelligence requires that we have a deep understanding of our own culture and how it shapes us. One of the biggest barriers to effective contextualization is the invisibility of our own cultural assumptions. Sometimes this blindness makes us disdainful of other cultures, particularly when we come to new cultures that are not wholly alien. For example, if a person from rural Indiana moves to Mumbai, he expects the culture to be different; accordingly, he sees the differences and tries to adapt to them. However, if this same person moves to downtown Chicago and discovers he isn’t fitting in, he is more likely to see Chicagoans as snobs. Instead of seeing the problem as cultural difference, he is likely to disdain urban people as arrogant. If we cannot see or too uncritically accept our own cultural biases, we will be less likely to contextualize well. The Bible states we are “aliens and strangers” in this world (Hebrews 11:13) and so must never be completely at home in any culture, including our home culture. The gospel and its critique of every culture can give us a detachment from our home culture that will enable us to better see its features in a way that others in it cannot.

So know your cultural influences. Here are some questions to explore: What institutions, schools, theologies, worldviews, regional cultures, artistic expressions, ministries, churches, and leaders have shaped me? What forms of ministry have shaped me? What can I adapt, and what must I discard? Where do I need to “detox and rehabilitate” from these influences?

Second, cultural Intelligence requires a heart shaped by the gospel - —a heart secure enough that we are liberated from our culture’s idolatries and from the need for the approval of the new culture. We must also have the humility to respect and learn from others who hold very different views.

Third, cultural Intelligence requires us to immerse ourselves in a culture, coming to love and seeking to understand Its members as much as possible. Keep these points In mind:

Immersion in the pastoral needs of people in our community and continued involvement in evangelistic venues could not be more important. If we are deeply involved in the lives, questions, and concerns of the people, then when we study the Bible in order to preach it to them, we will see God’s answers to their questions. If we are living in the culture and developing friendships with people, contextualization should be natural and organic. It will simply bubble up from the relationships in our lives and in our pastoral ministry.

what to look for as you enter a culture
Contextualized communication adapts to the “conceptuality” of the hearers. That is, the illustrations we use in communication are taken from the people’s social world; the emotion expressed is within their comfort range; the questions and issues addressed are highly relevant to them; the authorities cited are respected by them. Contextualized gospel communication will adapt to a culture in the way it persuades, appeals, and reasons with people. Missiologist David Hesselgrave speaks of three basic ways to reason. He calls them conceptual (or “Western”), concrete relational (or “Chinese”), and intuitional (or “Indian”). I summarize his categories this way: - Conceptual. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through analysis and logic. This involves syllogistic reasoning in which premises are established and then necessary conclusions are drawn. - Concrete relational. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through relationships and practice. These are people likely to believe what their community believes. They also are concerned with practical living. They will believe a principle only if they see “how it works.” - Intuitional. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through insight and experience. Intuitional people find stories and narratives more convincing and mind-changing than proving propositions through reasoning.

No one way of persuasion is inherently better than the others. All of them can lead to (or away from) the knowledge of God. The conceptual person may demand that we prove the existence of God; the intuitional person may refuse to make commitments that go against feelings; the practical person may not care much about truth and focus only on results. Yet the biblical authors use all of these appeals. If we have “entered” a culture, we will begin to discern which of these approaches and their many variants will have the most impact with the people we seek to reach. For example, on the whole, less educated people are more concrete and intuitional than educated people. Western people are more rational and conceptual than non-Western people. But keep in mind that culture is far more complex than these simple distinctions imply. Even within these broad categories there are generational and regional differences.

The eighteenth-century pastor and scholar Jonathan Edwards spent most of his career preaching at the Congregational Church of Northampton, the most important town in western Massachusetts, and a church filled with many prominent people. But when he was turned out of the congregation, he went to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, on the American frontier, where he preached often to a congregation that included many Native Americans. Edwards’s sermons changed dramatically. Of course, they changed in content — -they became simpler. He made fewer points and labored at establishing basic theological concepts. But in addition, he changed his very way of reasoning. He used more stories, parables, and metaphors. He made more use of narrative and insight and less use of syllogistic reasoning. He preached more often on the accounts of Jesus’ life instead of on the propositions of the Pauline epistles.

To enter a culture, another main task is to discern its dominant worldviews or belief systems, because contextualized gospel ministry should affirm the beliefs of the culture wherever it can be done with integrity. When we enter a culture, we should be looking for two kinds of beliefs. The first are what I call “A” beliefs, which are beliefs people already hold that, because of God’s common grace, roughly correspond to some parts of biblical teaching. Because of their “A” beliefs, people are predisposed to find plausible some of the Bible’s teaching (which we may call “A” doctrines). However, we will also find “B” beliefs — what may be called “defeater” beliefs — beliefs of the culture that lead listeners to find some Christian doctrines implausible or overtly offensive. “B” beliefs contradict Christian truth directly at points we may call “B” doctrines.

In this first stage, it is important to identify the “A” beliefs — the wisdom and witness to the truth that God, by his common grace, has granted to the culture. Remember that “A” beliefs differ from culture to culture, so we will need to listen carefully. To use an obvious example, in Manhattan, what the Bible says about turning the other cheek is welcome (an “A” belief), but what it says about sexuality is resisted (a “B” belief). In the Middle East, we see the opposite - turning the other cheek seems unjust and impractical, but biblical prohibitions on sexuality make sense.

In our gospel communication, we enter the culture by pointing people to the overlapping beliefs they can easily affirm: Do you see this in your culture? Do you see this well-known belief? The Bible says the same thing. — even more strongly, even more clearly. Paul does this in his speech in Athens when he quotes pagan poets in order to establish the creation and providence of God (Acts 17:28). Spend time building in your listeners’ minds a respect for biblical wisdom in this way. A culture that puts a high value on family relationships and community should be shown that there is a strong biblical basis for the family. A culture that puts a high value on individual human rights and justice should be shown how the biblical doctrine of the image of God is the historical and logical foundation for human rights. One of the reasons we should take great care to affirm the “A” beliefs and doctrines is that they will become the premises, the jumping-off points, for challenging the culture.

Keep in mind that you never stop entering or identifying with a culture. It is not just a “stage” that you leave behind. Always show respect and empathy, even when you are challenging and critiquing, saying things such as, “I know many of you will find this disturbing.” Show that you understand. Be the kind of person about whom people conclude that, even if they disagree with you, you are someone they can approach about such matters.

CHALLENGING AND CONFRONTING THE CULTURE

As we saw in the previous chapter, Paul’s strategy was not simply to rail against the Greeks’ love of intellect and the Jews’ love of power, but to show them that they were pursuing those things in a self-defeating way. Valuing strength (as the Jews did) was a good thing, but without Christ, the pursuit of power leads to weakness, as David Foster Wallace so poignantly argued, while Christ’s apparent weakness brings true power.2 Paul does not simply dismiss a culture’s aspirations; rather, he both affirms and confronts, revealing the inner contradictions in people’s understanding. This is why it is so important to enter a culture before challenging it. Our criticism of the culture will have no power to persuade unless it is based on something that we can affirm in the beliefs and values of that culture. We can challenge some of the wrong things they believe from the foundation of those right things they believe. As we have said, each culture includes some rough areas of overlap between its own beliefs and Christian beliefs. These Christian beliefs (the “A” doctrines) will make a lot of sense to members of the culture. Others will be quite offensive (the “B” doctrines).10 It is important to learn how to distinguish a culture’s “A” doctrines from its “B” doctrines because knowing which are which provides the key to compelling confrontation. This happens when we base our argument for “B” doctrines directly on the “A” doctrines.

Here is an illustration of what I mean. We all know that logs float and stones sink. But if you lash several logs together and then put the stones on top of the logs, you can get both the logs and stones across the river. If you try lashing the stones together and putting the logs on top, the stones will sink and the logs will scatter, and nothing will get across the river. You always float stones on logs, not the other way around. In the same way, we need to “float” “B” doctrines on top of “A” doctrines. Every culture (including our own) can readily grasp part of the truth but not all of it. And we know that biblical truth, because it is from God, is coherent and consistent with itself. What we refer to as “A” and “B” doctrines are equally true and interdependent, and they follow from each other. The confrontation occurs because every culture is profoundly inconsistent, conforming to some biblical truths but not to others. If those in a particular culture hold certain “A” beliefs, they are inconsistent not to hold “B” beliefs because the Scriptures, as the revealed truth of God, are always consistent. These inconsistencies reveal the points where a culture is vulnerable to confrontation.

Paul reasons this way in Acts 17 when he speaks on Mars Hill. In verse 28, Paul quotes pagan sources that teach the idea that God is the source of all existence and life. Then in verse 29, he states this: “Therefore, since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man’s design and skill.” Notice that Paul does not call him “the Lord” or talk of creation ex nihilo - for these would have highlighted the differences between the Bible and pagan beliefs. Instead, for the sake of argument, Paul stresses the similarity between his hearers’ beliefs and the Bible’s. But then he turns on them, arguing something like this: “If we have been fashioned by God, how can he be fashioned by us- - and worshiped as we wish, through images and temples we devise?” Paul is showing them that their beliefs fail on the basis of their own premises. He challenges idolatry by showing that it is inconsistent with the pagans’ own (and better) impulses about God. He tells them, essentially, “If you believe ‘A’ about God—and you are right-how can you believe in ‘B’?” David Peterson in his Acts commentary concludes, “Paul’s critique seems to go out of its way to find common ground with philosophers and poets, but his presuppositions are not drawn from Platonism or Stoicism but unambiguously from the Old Testament.”11

This, then, is how we confront a culture and persuade faithfully. Our premises must be drawn wholly from the Bible, yet we will always find some things in a culture’s beliefs that are roughly true, things on which we can build our critique. We will communicate something like this: “You see this ‘A’ belief you have? The Bible says the same thing-so we agree. However if ‘A’ is true, then why do you not believe ‘B’? The Bible teaches ‘B,’ and if ‘A’ is true, then it is not right, fair, or consistent for you to reject ‘B.’ If you believe this - how can you not believe that?” We reveal inconsistencies in the cultural beliefs and assumptions about reality. With the authority of the Bible we allow one part of the culture-along with the Bible - to critique another part.12 The persuasive force comes from basing our critique on something we can affirm within the culture.

GOD’S LOVE AND JUDGMENT

I once spoke to a missionary who worked among prostitutes in Korea some years ago. He found that women in that culture simply could not accept the idea of God extending grace to them. Their self-loathing was too great. No matter how much the missionary showed them narratives of Jesus’ forgiveness or passages about God’s love and grace, he got nowhere. Finally, the missionary, who was a Presbyterian, came up with a radical idea. He decided to talk to these non-Christian Asian prostitutes about the doctrine of predestination.

“A” OR “B”?
In general, Western societies make an idol out of individual freedom and embrace love and acceptance as attributes of God. Grace and forgiveness sound attractive, but sin and retributive judgment are difficult to accept.

In other cultures that make an idol of honor, the Christian idea of deep human depravity is self-evident, while the biblical concepts of free grace and forgiveness are seen as weakness or injustice. Retribution is critical, not only to maintain dignity, but also to keep order in society. People in these cultures are naturally more comfortable with the sovereignty, justice, and holiness of God.

A real-life example of this dynamic comes from a discussion with a Korean-American pastor, Dr. Stephen Um, in which we talked about a book that contended that people could not accept the idea of a God who judged and sent people to hell. Stephen responded that the statement was culturally narrow. He related how his grandfather struggled with Christianity. His grandfather had no objection to the idea of hell. He had seen firsthand how evil human beings could be, and he had no problem with a God who judged people for their actions. His real concern was with the concept of free grace-that forgiveness could be extended to someone regardless of what they had done in the past. His culture did not value this idea, and so the “A” doctrine to him (the acceptable belief) was not God’s love but God’s justice. Free grace was the doctrine he found objectionable.

No culture has the full set of prerequisite mental furniture necessary to receive the gospel, which tells us that while God is holy and must punish sin, at the same time he is loving and doesn’t want to punish us for our sin, and so Christ died in our place, making him both just and the justifier of those who believe.

No one denies there are biblical texts that talk about God predestining and electing people to believe in him, though there is plenty of controversy about what these passages exactly mean. In our Western, democratic, egalitarian culture, the idea of God’s sovereignty and his control of all things is definitely a “B” doctrine. We don’t like those parts of the Bible that talk about God being completely in charge of history, or those parts where he opens the hearts of those chosen for eternal life (Acts 13:48; 16:14). So when sharing the gospel, we avoid this doctrine at all costs. For most of us in the West, predestination is not just a “B” doctrine; it’s a “C” doctrine!

This missionary, however, realized that this was not necessarily true in mid-twentieth-century Korea. So he told the prostitutes about a God who is a King. Kings, he said, have a sovereign right to act as they saw fit. They rule-that’s just what kings do. And this great divine King chooses to select people out of the human race to serve him, simply because it is his sovereign will to do so. Therefore, his people are saved because of his royal will, not because of the quality of their lives or anything they have done.

This made sense to the women. They had no problem with idea of authority figures acting in this way—it seemed natural and right to them. But this also meant that when people were saved, it was not because of pedigree or virtue or effort, but because of the will of God (cf. John 1:13). Their acceptance of this belief opened up the possibility of understanding and accepting the belief in salvation by grace. They asked my missionary friend a question that a non-Christian in the West would never ask: “How can I know if I am chosen?” He answered that if as they heard the gospel they wanted to accept and believe it, this was a sign that the Holy Spirit was working on their hearts and that God was seeking them. And some of them responded. The missionary had discerned the difference between “A” and “B” beliefs and had built one on top of the other: “If you believe in a sovereign God, why won’t you believe that you can be saved by grace despite all that you’ve done?”

A classic example of this type of argument is found in C. S. Lewis’s appeal to his British readers to accept the idea of a jealous, holy God:
If God is Love, he is, by definition, something more than mere kindness… He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense…
When we fall in love with a woman, do we cease to care whether she is clean or dirty, fair or foul? Do we not rather, then, first begin to care?…
In awful and surprising ways, we are the objects of His love. You asked for a loving God you have one… not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a conscientious magistrate… but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work… provident and venerable as a father’s love for a child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes. How this should be, I do not know: it passes reason to explain why any creatures, not to say creatures such as we, should have a value so prodigious in their Creator’s eyes. It is certainly a burden of glory not only beyond our deserts but also, except in rare moments of grace, beyond our desiring.13

Note how Lewis confronts his own culture. He builds on an “A” doctrine held by Western people, namely, that if there is a God, he is a God of love. Lewis reasons that if this God is truly loving, he will also get angry. He must oppose sin and anything that hurts his beloved. A person may say, “I believe in a God of love, not a God of wrath against sin.” But Lewis reasons that if we have a truly loving God, we will have to believe in a God of wrath against sin.

SIN AS IDOLATRY
When I first began ministry in Manhattan, I encountered a cultural allergy to the Christian concept of sin. I found that I got the most traction with people, however, when I turned to the Bible’s extensive teaching on idolatry. Sin, I explained, is building your life’s meaning on any thing—even a very good thing—more than on God. Whatever else we build our life on will drive our passions and choices and end up enslaving us. I often referred to Augustine’s description of sin in his Confessions as a disorder of love. So, for example, if we love our own reputation more than the truth, it’s likely that we’ll lie. Or if we love making money more than our family, we’ll neglect our children for our career. Disordered love always leads to misery and breakdown. The only way to “reorder” our loves is to love God supremely.

This approach was very effective with young, secular professionals for two reasons. First, it neutralized (for the moment) the postmodern person’s sensitivity to cultural diversity. The moment you say to them, “Sin is breaking God’s law,” they will retort, “Well, but different cultures and different times had different moral standards. Everyone has different ones!” Of course, postmodern people must eventually be challenged about their naive view of truth, but the concept of idolatry is a way to move forward and give them a convicting sense of their need for Christ before getting into these philosophical issues. The concept of idolatry helps them understand their own drivenness, fears, addictions, lack of integrity, envy of others, and resentment in properly theological terms. It tells them they have been looking to their careers and romances to save them, to give them something they should have been looking for only in God. Most important, this approach makes a great case that supports a “B” doctrine (“you are a sinner before God”) on the basis of an acceptable “A” doctrine (“you were created to be free”). Former generations in Western society believed it was most important for someone to be a good person. Today in the West, our values have shifted, and our cultural narrative tells us it is most important to be a free person. The biblical theme of idolatry challenges contemporary people precisely at that point. It shows them that, paradoxically, if they don’t serve God, they are not, and can never be, as free as they aspire to be.

From the Old Testament prophets to Paul (who did so in his speeches in Acts 17-20) and beyond, Christian theologians and commentators have often used the category of idolatry for cultural critique. For example, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book on the United States noted how Americans believed that prosperity could bring deep happiness. But such a hope was an illusion, Tocqueville argued, because “the incomplete joys of this world will never satisfy [the human] heart.”14 As a result, he spoke of a “strange melancholy often haunting inhabitants of democracies in the midst of abundance.” “15 This melancholy is, of course, the bitter fruit of idolatry that always leads to disappointment. False gods never give us what they promise.

We have already looked at David Foster Wallace’s powerful insight: “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshiping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”16 Wallace was not a Christian, and his testimony is more powerful for it. First he argues that the biblical teaching-that we are homo religioso, “man the worshiper” — is true. It is a powerful exposé. Most people think, “I am just working hard to be a good writer. I am just seeking to find someone to love me. I am working out so I can be a good steward of my body. I am working hard to accomplish something in politics or have a good career or just make a little money for security.” But Wallace won’t let us off the hook. He calls all that activity “worship,” even though we won’t admit it. Then he shows that worshiping some created thing rather than God leads to spiritual devastation: “The compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship… is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive.”17 Until we recognize that what we are doing is worship, we will be eaten alive by it. We will feel enslaved and unhappy, and we won’t know why.

I have found that when we describe the things that drive our lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not put up much resistance. They quickly and even sheepishly admit that this is exactly what they are doing. The biblical message of heart idolatry adapts the message of sin to their cultural sensibilities, but it’s far from telling them what they want to hear. It convicts them and makes sin more personal. Making an idol out of something means giving it the love you should be giving to your Creator and Sustainer. Depicting sin as an act of misplaced love, not just a violation of law, is more compelling to many people in our culture today.

Of course, a complete biblical description of sin and grace must recognize our rebellion against the authority of God’s law. But I’ve found that if people become convicted about their sin as idolatry and misdirected love, it is easier to show them that one of the effects of sin is living in denial about our hostility to God. Why is this? In some ways, idolatry is much like addiction (and the vernacular of addiction is very familiar to the present generation). We become ensnared by our spiritual idols in much the same way that people are snared by drink and drugs. Once we understand this, it is possible to hear the message of Romans 1 and accept that we live in a state of denial — that we repress or “hold down” the truth that we live in rebellion and bear hostility toward God. Communicating the concept of sin through the biblical teaching on idolatry is an effective way to convey the idea of spiritual blindness and rebellion to postmodern people.

Does the understanding of sin as idolatry remain true to the Pauline gospel of justification by faith alone? It does; in fact it provides a natural stepping-stone to get there. Luther, in his Large Catechism, shows that idolatry (violating the first commandment) is the very same thing as trusting something besides Jesus for our justification.18 Idolatry, then, is always a failure to accept salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. Any sermon that calls for repentance from idols and offers freedom through Christ can also call people to move from justification by works to justification by faith alone.

OTHER PRESSURE POINTS
What are other ways we can challenge our contemporary secular, pluralistic, Western culture? There are several other “pressure points” at which our culture in the West is vulnerable to challenge. Western culture longs for community and for justice - these are “A” beliefs — but the culture’s own commitments and beliefs end up destroying these very precious things. Here are a few examples:

  1. The commodification of sex. Thinkers have long discerned the difference between a consumer relationship, which is characteristic of the marketplace, and a covenantal relationship, which has historically been characteristic of personal relationships, particularly within the family. A consumer relationship is maintained only as long as the consumer gets goods and services at an acceptable price. There is no obligation for the consumer to stay in the relationship if it is not profitable. However, a covenantal relationship is based not on favorable conditions of value but on a loving commitment to the good of the other person and to the relationship itself. Social historians tell us that increasingly the values of the market are being applied to areas of human life traditionally seen as covenantal. People now feel free to sever family and relational ties if they are not emotionally fulfilling for them. Commodification is a technical term for a process by which social relationships are reduced to the terms of economic exchange.

And this brings us to the subject of sex. Traditionally, you did not have sex with someone who was not your spouse. Put another way, you didn’t give your body to someone unless you committed your whole life to them (and they to you) and you both gave up your individual freedom to bind yourself in the covenant of marriage. Contemporary adults, however, want freedom, including sexual freedom. So they have sex with each other without committing their lives to one another, which typically leads to chronic loneliness and a sense of being used — and well it should. Sex in our culture is no longer something that unites people together in binding community; it is a commodity for exchange. But the Bible tells us that sex is designed by God, not as a means of self-gratification, but as a means of self-donation that creates stable human community. If the Christian sex ethic is propounded in this way, using the culture’s “A” belief in the goodness of community, it can be very persuasive. 19

  1. The problem of human rights. Western society also has a powerful concern for justice and human rights. At the same time, a secular worldview is being promoted that tells us there is no God. We are here by accident and evolution, and there is no supernatural world or afterlife. Increasingly, thoughtful non-Christians admit these two ideas run on tracks that can never meet: There is a contradiction between a belief in human rights and a disbelief in God. The philosopher Jacques Derrida states, “Today the cornerstone of international law is the sacred… the sacredness of man as your neighbor… made by God… In that sense, the concept of crime against humanity is a Christian concept and I think there would be no such thing in the law today without the Christian heritage.”20 Jean-Paul Sartre makes the same point in a negative form: “God does not exist, and… it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end… There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it… Dostoevsky once wrote ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’… Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist.”21

You see, if we are merely the product of evolution the strong eating the weak — on what basis can we object to strong nations oppressing weak ones, or powerful people oppressing marginalized ones? This is completely natural to the world if this material world is all there is. And if people are not made in the image of God but are simply the accidental product of blind forces, why would human beings be more valuable than, say, rocks and trees? This is a significant pressure point today. Because young adults are particularly sensitive to injustice, it is possible and necessary to show them that human rights and justice make far more sense in a world made by God than in a world that is not made by God.22

  1. The loss of cultural hope. In his book The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope, Columbia University scholar Andrew Delbanco gives a history of what American culture has put its hope in over the years, under the headings “God,” “Nation,” and “Self.” He observes that the original Americans believed that life had meaning and our nation had a purpose because we lived for the glory of God. This later changed to a narrative of scientific and moral progress and particularly of democratic values — promoted in the world through the growth of the United States. However, today “hope has narrowed to the vanishing point of the self alone,” so that America’s history of hope is “one of diminution.”23 In the last part of his short book, Delbanco argues that we are now in a cultural crisis. To say that the meaning of life is mere self-fulfillment cannot give a society the resources necessary to create a cohesive, healthy culture. A narrative must give people a reason for sacrifice for living and dying — and the self-fulfillment narrative cannot do it.

Delbanco quotes the philosopher Theodor Adorno, who “recognized that in modern culture the ‘pretense of individualism… increases in proportion to the liquidation of the individual’ — by which he meant that the modern self tries to compensate with posturing and competitive self-display as it feels itself more and more cut off from anything substantial or enduring.”24

A few pages later, Delbanco writes the following:
[Alexis de] Tocqueville’s detection of a “strange melancholy in the midst of abundance” has a special salience today - because while we have gotten very good at deconstructing old stories (the religion that was the subject of my first chapter was one such story; the nationalism that was the subject of my second chapter was another), when it comes to telling new ones, we are blocked… We live in an age of unprecedented wealth, but… the ache for meaning goes unrelieved.25

In short, if we are allowed the absolute freedom to define and create ourselves, we become untethered from anything bigger or more enduring than ourselves. The result is meaninglessness, loss of moorings, and increasing hopelessness about the future. This is an enormous opening and opportunity for persuasive gospel communication to contemporary secular people.

APPEALING TO AND CONSOLING THE LISTENERS

As we have seen in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16, Paul’s approach to his listeners was not simply to denounce their culture. He does not merely critique the Greek passion for intellect and the Jewish desire for practical power. Instead, he shows them that the ways they are pursuing these good things are ultimately self-defeating and then urges them to find ultimate fulfillment of their cultural aspirations in Jesus Christ. And so he ends on a positive note, a note of invitation and consolation, though it always comes with a call to repent and believe.26

Having entered a culture and challenged its idols, we should follow the apostle Paul in presenting Christ to our listeners as the ultimate source of what they have been seeking. When we enter a culture with care, we earn the ability to speak to it. Then, after we challenge a culture’s belief framework, our listeners will feel destabilized. Now, in this final stage of contextualization, we can reestablish equilibrium. Having confronted, we now console, showing them that what they are looking for can only be found in Christ. Put another way, we show our listeners that the plotlines of their lives can only find a resolution, a “happy ending,” in Jesus. We must retell the culture’s story in Jesus.

This aspect of appeal and invitation should not be seen as a third stage cut off from the other stages of contextualization. All throughout our gospel communication, we are seeking to connect to our listeners’ deepest desires. We are trying to heed the advice of Blaise Pascal, who, in one of his Pensées, wrote, “Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true.”27

How can we make our appeal? As we saw in chapter 2, the intercanonical themes uniting the Bible are richly diverse. They speak of sin and salvation, using the language of exile and homecoming; of temple, presence, and sacrifice; of covenant and faithfulness; of kingdom and victory. When we seek to communicate the gospel to a particular culture, we will find that some of these themes resonate more deeply than others. Paul was able to speak to a wisdom-obsessed culture by using one of the great themes of the Bible, the wisdom of God as it comes to its climax in Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 1:18 - 2:16). The Bible has enough diversity to enable us to connect its message to any baseline cultural narrative on the face of the earth.

ATONEMENT “GRAMMARS”
It is commonly said that the Bible contains several different “models” of atonement. I prefer to call these different “languages” or “grammars” by which the saving work of Christ on the cross is presented.

  1. The language of the battlefield. Christ fought against the powers of sin and death for us. He defeated the powers of evil for us.
  2. The language of the marketplace. Christ paid the ransom price, the purchase price, to buy us out of our indebtedness. He frees us from enslavement.
  3. The language of exile. Christ was exiled and cast out of the community so we who deserve to be banished could be brought in. He brings us home.
  4. The language of the temple. Christ is the sacrifice that purifies us and makes us acceptable to draw near to the holy God. He makes us clean and beautiful.
  5. The language of the law court. Christ stands before the judge and takes the punishment we deserve. He removes our guilt and makes us righteous.

It is sometimes implied we can choose which of these models we prefer and ignore the others, but this is misleading. Each way of communicating the atonement reflects a piece of inspired Scripture, and each tells us great things about our salvation that the others do not bring out as clearly. Each will have special resonance with certain temperaments and cultures. People who are fighting oppression or even enslavement and long for freedom will be helped by the first two grammars (the battlefield and the marketplace). People seeking relief for guilt and a sense of shame will be especially moved by the last two the temple and the law court. People who feel alienated, rootless, and rejected will find the exile grammar intensely engaging.

But perhaps the single most consoling and appealing theme is what theologian Roger Nicole has called the one, irreducible theme that runs through every single one of these models the idea of substitution.28 Dr. Nicole taught that, regardless of the grammar being used, the essence of the atonement is always Jesus acting as our substitute. Jesus fights the powers, pays the price, bears the exile, makes the sacrifice, and bears the punishment for us, in our place, on our behalf. In every grammar, Jesus does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. He accomplishes salvation; we do nothing at all. And therefore the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus is at the heart of everything.

This act - giving one’s life to save another — is the most compelling, attractive, and electrifying story line there is. J. K. Rowling, for example, could hardly end her Harry Potter series in any other way because it is the ultimate drama, the most moving ending possible. Lifting up the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ is the ultimate way to appeal to any culture, to attract them to him. The various ways of speaking about the atonement furnish us with wonderfully fitting ways of showing each culture how this atoning work of Jesus specifically solves its greatest problems and fulfills its greatest aspirations.

We live in the first era of history that considers happy endings to be works of inferior art. Modern critics insist that life is not like that — rather, it is full of brokenness, paradox, irony, and frustration. Steven Spielberg was denied Oscars until he stopped making movies with happy endings and directed Schindler’s List. Yet people continue to flock to movies and read books that have fairytale endings. There are deep human longings that modern realistic fiction can never satisfy: to escape death and live forever; to hold communion with other personal beings like elves or aliens or angels; to find love that perfectly heals and from which we never part. Most of all, we want to see and, if possible, participate in the final triumph over evil in the world. People turn to fairy tales because they depict these desires coming true.

The gospel is by no means a sentimental view of life. In fact, the Bible has a far darker vision of reality than any secular critic. It tells us that Satan and his legions of demons are at work in the world. It tells us we are so deeply flawed and cruel we can’t save ourselves without God’s intervention. And yet the gospel has an astonishing message about these longings for love and death and triumph. First, the gospel explains them. Human beings have been made in the image of God, which means we were originally designed to know and experience all these things. We were created to live forever. Second, the gospel tells us that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is hard proof that all these things will come true again. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you will see and know escape from death, love without parting, and triumph over evil. You will talk to angels and supernatural beings. You will live forever. And why will we get eternal life? Because he was killed. We get eternal love because he was forsaken. We triumph over evil because he was tortured, murdered, and defeated. In the salvation of Jesus Christ, we learn that the happy ending we long for is not a fairy tale.

IT’S IN OUR BLOOD

Ajith Fernando, a Sri Lankan evangelist, communicates the idea of substitutionary atonement to his listeners by using an illustration:

Have you ever had an infected wound or sore? When you open it, what comes rolling out? Pus. And what is that? It is basically the collective corpses of white blood cells fighting the infection that have died so that you may live. Do you see? Substitutionary salvation is in your very blood.

The gospel is the deepest consolation you can offer to the human heart. Once you have taken care to enter and have found the courage to challenge the world of your hearers, be sure to offer this consolation with the passion of one who has experienced it firsthand.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AND REFLECTION

  1. Keller writes, “The first task of contextualization is to immerse yourself in the questions, hopes, and beliefs of the culture so you can give a biblical, gospel-centered response to its questions.” What are some ways you have found to read and study the culture around you? What questions is the culture asking? How has involvement in the pastoral needs of your community helped you to better understand the culture and people you seek to reach?
  2. This chapter highlights three ways of reasoning: conceptual, concrete relational, and intuitional.
    • Conceptual. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through analysis and logic.
    • Concrete relational. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through relationships and practice.
    • Intuitional. People make decisions and arrive at convictions through insight and experience.

Which of these three approaches resonates most with you? With the people you are trying to reach? If they are different, what can you do to bridge the gap?

  1. Another task of contextualization is discerning the dominant worldviews and belief systems of a culture. Keller writes, “Contextualized gospel ministry should affirm the beliefs of the culture wherever it can be done with integrity.” He identifies “A” beliefs, which “roughly correspond to some parts of biblical teaching,” and “B” beliefs, which contradict Christian truth (“B” doctrines) and “lead listeners to find some Christian doctrines implausible or overtly offensive.”

Take a moment to identify a key “A” doctrine - a teaching from the Bible that would be generally accepted and affirmed by your target culture and how it expresses itself in the culture through “A” beliefs. What is an example of a “B” belief in your culture, and what “B” doctrines does it conflict with directly?

  1. Keller writes, “It is important to learn how to distinguish a culture’s A.’ doctrines from its ‘B’ doctrines because knowing which are which provides the key to compelling confrontation. This happens when we base our argument for ‘B’ doctrines directly on the A.’ doctrines.” Using the examples you discussed in the last question, how might you do this?
  2. This chapter gives a summary of several cultural pressure points and atonement grammars as it concludes. Which of these pressure points and grammars are less familiar or natural to you, but worth investigating? How might adding them to your repertoire strengthen your effectiveness in mission?