Contextualization, Syncretism and Global Witness: Raising Concerns by Peter Lumpkins

        An interesting exchange took place last week between an anonymous missionary (non-SBC) presently serving in a Muslim country and a theologian at Liberty Theological Seminary.  A post entitled "My Pilgrimage" is hosted at SBCImpact and written by an anonymous missionary who calls himself/herself "From the Middle East" (a regular contributor for SBCImpact, by the way).  The pilgrimage described is in story form, self-designed by the missionary, "not so much as a full doctrinal statement";  instead, it is offered to indigenous Muslims to gauge whether they are "interested in hearing the Good News."  More on it in a moment.

Dr. Fred Smith, Associate Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, at Liberty Theological Seminary offered a strong challenge on SBCToday entitled 'More than a Prophet: A response to “My Pilgrimage.”'  The interested reader should digest both pieces to get the maximum benefit from the two very different approaches to globalizing the gospel witness.  Make no mistake:  the two approaches are very different; so different, in fact, that reconciliation between the two appears to me impossible.

In addition, though the comment threads are very long, there are some helpful insights to be gleaned. Sadly, one must wade through a brier-patch of useless but inevitable complaining by a few to get the good stuff (e.g., Some endlessly suggested that stateside Christians have no expertise and consequently no business challenging the methodologies of missionaries abroad).

The issue in many ways is excruciatingly complicated. What is contextualization?  The term is widely used in the field of global missions and has to do primarily with strategic communication of the gospel to people groups who have virtually no understanding of the Christian faith.  To contextualize the gospel means to communicate God's revelation in both message and method in a manner which gives priority to Scripture's authority as well as serious consideration to form and meaning in each culture the gospel is introduced**.

Let's unpack that a bit. 

First, the priority is the communication of God's revelation.  If this is not the foundation of global missions, everything else we do is moot.  Period.  We go only to propagate His message, His gospel. 

Secondly, communicating the message cannot, in the end, be separated from the method we employ to communicate it though it can be distinguished.  In short, the message is rooted in scriptural authority; most of us have no problem here.  However, the method in communicating the message is also rooted in biblical revelation.  If this is so, then contextualization may be measured in success or failure according to its degree of preservation to not only the biblical message but also the biblical method.

Furthermore, a similar distinction can be explored between the meaning of the message and the form of the message we share.   The meaning has to do with what we want to say and the form is how we say it.  It is here, more than elsewhere, it seems to me, that defines the radical difference in the two approaches represented above.  Allow me to show you what I mean.

The anonymous missionary writes:

"By Allah’s mercy, I was born into a respectable family. During my childhood, my parents taught me how to behave in a way that brought honor to our family and was righteous before Allah"

"But then I began reflecting on my own life. On the things I did. Did I truly worship Allah alone?"

"[My friend] said he struggled with the same thing...He said that the only Prophet that could give us greater understanding of the Kingdom of Allah and true submission to His will was Isa Al-Masih"

"As I studied the Torah, Zabur and Injil more and more, I came to see this is true. Finally, I was convinced only Isa Al-Masih was capable of helping me understand the Kingdom of Allah. So, I submitted to Allah’s will through Al-Masih...All praise be to Allah!"

Now note a sampling of the criticisms Dr. Smith made pertaining to the missionary's opening testimony to speak of his/her experience with Christ:

"Nowhere does the Bible ever tell us that salvation is a matter of merely understanding certain facts about God and his will...We are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ because of His finished work on the cross. The writer of this article would have us believe that salvation comes by “understanding the Kingdom of Allah,” not by faith in anyone"

"Whatever might have been the author’s goal, what he communicates here is not the truth as taught in the Bible.  We cannot communicate the gospel well if we say things that are different from what we really mean"

"The author of this article also presents Jesus (Isa) himself in a way that is totally foreign to the Bible... Nowhere in the testimony is Jesus, or Isa, referred to other than as a “prophet.”  The Bible tells us, however, that Jesus is more than a prophet; more than one who gives us “understanding;” more than a “great teacher”...Our righteousness is in Him, not in “greater understanding.”

"There is one final problem with this author’s testimony.  It lies in his repeated references to God as “Allah.”...In the context of Islam, “Allah” refers to a being who is remote from creation, who promotes salvation by works...This is a completely different person from the God of the Bible...These two beings are not the same god and cannot be! The referent for the word, in the understanding of the people he is reaching, is completely different from the God who reveals Himself in the Bible."

The difference is striking:  the missionary focuses exclusively on the form of the message--how to say it--while Dr. Smith's evident concern is the meaning of the message--what is being said.

Is there a priority that should be followed?  That is, should form take priority over meaning or meaning over form?  From my perspective, hands down, meaning cannot be sacrificed at the altar of form.  Why?  First, there are definitive times in Scripture when form is so wed to meaning that sacrificing form includes sacrificing meaning as well.  For example, Baptists argue changing the form of baptism inevitably changes the meaning of baptism.  If this is so, it follows that form is subservient to meaning.

Secondly, practically speaking, no matter how culturally relevant missionaries might become in their communication with indigenous respondents, if what they communicate is so biblically insipid, that the end product cannot be discerned as biblically rooted in the unadulterated gospel, global missions is a grand waste of precious resources. 

In fact, it may not be too much to say that missions carried out by sincere, well-intentioned believers, who focus primarily on the form of the message to the lamentable neglect of the meaning of the message, do global missions much harm and lead inevitably to the universally feared danger of missiologists of every stripe--religious syncretism.  Here Christianity is presented as so blendable with indigenous culture and/or culture's religion, that it, in effect, becomes, in less than a generation, an aberrant faith at best or a gross heresy at worst.

Given such, I cannot hide my own profound reservation with the missionary's excessive focus on the form of the message as can be observed above.  By default, then, I believe Dr. Smith's points were well taken and not adequately critiqued by those who challenged his thoughts in the comment thread. 

Nor by admitting such am I revealing suspicion that our IMB missionaries are not doing a worthy service for our Lord (And neither would Dr. Smith, I fully trust).  I believe they are.  In addition, I believe that our stateside trustees--despite those who insist they have no right to do so because they are not missionaries on the field--are sensitive to the astounding challenges our missionaries face each and every day they serve and remain capable guardians for our missionary force. 

Such challenges, including but not limited to, properly contextualizing the gospel message--balancing relevant form with right message--should drive us all to our knees more often for those who faithfully take the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth.  God be glorified.

With that, I am...

Peter

**J. Raymond Tallman, An Introduction to World Missions, Moody Press, 1989, p. 212 

Comments

[Trey Atkins]

Well done, Peter. Form and meaning are two different things. As an IMB worker, who has used the Camel Method (though very different in form from this), I can affirm your caution and proper emphasis on message. The phrase, "meaning cannot be sacrificed at the altar of form", is an excellent way of capturing the truth of what you are saying.
In defense of the brother who wrote the quoted contextualization above, it could be appropriate, I believe, if used as an initial entry into a relationship and not when intended as the message. In other words, the ground work for hearing the truth could be laid in this manner.
Last, I disagree with some of Dr. Smith's explanation concerning the use of "Allah" by the missionary. However, I can come at it from the other side. In the Muslim culture we served in, the Muslims used the Christian name for God and not, "Allah." Since the Muslim were using that word for God, was the entire meaning of the word corrupted and a proper response avoidance? Or, since Muslims were using our word for "God", had they somehow come to ap proper understanding of who God really is?
I believe the culture this worker serves in, "Allah" is the word for God. Dr. Smith is right when he says that very different things are meant by that word to Muslims and to Christians. It needs explanation, not avoidance.
Many in our own English speaking culture of America mean very different things from Dr. Smith concerning the word, "God." Our response is not to avoid it, but to teach it, explain, and to patiently help people come to know God as He is, not as our culture might teach He is.

[peter lumpkins]

Trey,

Thanks for logging on. And, I appreciate your service for our Lord and His church through the CP.

The way I understand the missionary's use of the above testimony, it is used in the precise way in which you deemed appropriate: "if used as an initial entry into a relationship and not when intended as the message...the ground work for hearing the truth could be laid in this manner."

That being so, Trey, what is to be said regarding the initial introduction of one's faith to a first-time respondent? Put another way, if the first words I speak to a prospective adherent to the Christian faith are so gospelly inexact, how is it that I may recover such forfeited ground at a later stage, assuming there is a follow-up permitted? Supposing there is not a follow-up permissible for any number of reasons, could not I be held liable for sowing seeds impotent, for all practical purposes, of the biblical gospel?

Indicative of the quoted sections from the missionary's pilgrimage are, as Professor Smith noted, explicit replications of his/her faith that remain hopelessly entangled with both works-based redemptive language as well as language much too cozy with the indigent's own religion.

For example, it would seem that in order for "submission to Allah's will" to translate from Christianity to the Muslim's worldview perspective, similar--though not necessarily identical--referent concepts must stand as the foundational source for successful transference to take place. However, "submission to Allah's will" (Muslim) and "submission to God's will" (Christian) cannot be maintained as remotely similar, it seems to me. The former is primarily seen, if at all, in human religious activity, and at best, merely secondarily in heart transformation--again, if at all.

Contrarily, "submission to God's will" in Christianity foremostly is expressed in heart transformation--biblical faith--a faith only subsequently visible as a by-product of inner change in the form of human works, works which add no intrinsic value whatsoever to one's acceptability to the God of the Bible, unlike submission to Allah's will in Islam which does.

From any vantage point, I cannot see how the two can be viably maintained as similar referent concepts. If I am correct, then my reservation would even extend to the wording of the missionary's initial statement; and that, even if the sole primary purpose was to pique interest.

Grace, my brother Trey. With that, I am...

Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Great insight and explanation. You said; "submission to God's will" in Christianity foremostly is expressed in heart transformation--biblical faith--a faith only subsequently visible as a by-product of inner change in the form of human works, works which add no intrinsic value whatsoever to one's acceptability to the God of the Bible, unlike submission to Allah's will in Islam which does." I believe this is the heart of the disagreement. As FTME has proposed, his

My Pilgrimage

article was not the complete gospel presentation, and we certainly understand a need of establishing talking points when presenting the gospel. However, as you say, we much to go back to straighten out when the gospel is presented.

Blessings,
Tim

[Tim Rogers]

I am sorry, that last sentence should read; However, as you say, we have too much to go back to straighten out when the gospel is presented.

Blessings,
Tim

[Ray]

Perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see a significant difference between the Missionaries use of "Allah" and the biblical writers use of "El." El was simply the Semitic word for God and had different meanings for different cultures. Through the progressive revelation of Scripture, El is further defined as YHWH. Could not this be an adequate method for correcting the mistaken identity of Allah?

[peter lumpkins]

Ray,

Thanks for your question, my brother. Know I am by no stretch either a linguistic or cross-cultural expert. I do perceive, however, a possible concern in your proposed analogy that since "El was simply the Semitic word for God," and the Biblical authors used it, that, therefore, employing "Allah" would be a similar and thus acceptable procedure as well. I hope I did not misunderstand your point.

My initial concern would raise the question pertaining to the obvious absence of corrective teaching in utilizing, without the least qualification, a term for God within a decidedly Christian worldview testimony--a term which has major non-Christian bias against it. Would this strategy not sacrifice content for communication, a question I raised in the original post? I am not convinced that far too much air is not bled out of the tire for the witness to travel far.

Grace, Ray. With that, I am...

Peter

[Dave Miller]

While there were some helpful points in the discussion, I found the whole thing amazingly frustrating. While I'm not sure we agree completely (or disagree too harshly), I appreciate your more balanced approach.

FTME made it very clear in his post that this was NOT a gospel presentation, but an initial contact, like the testimonies we use in EE, CWT or FAITH. I was told not to preach the gospel in the testimony, just to explain how Christ changed my life.

It seems to me that was precisely what he did. I felt that some of the critics were persistently unwilling to deal with his testimony for what it was, a testimony. They tried to make it something it wasn't.