Subject: The Clash of Symbols—
From: <Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 8>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:31:58 -0700

TYPES OF
REVELATION AND “HOLY BOOKS”AND
THEIR CONTEXTUALIZATION*

David J. Hesselgrave,
Professor
Emeritus of Missions, TEDS

I.
INTRODUCTION

One major
dimension of contextualization has received but scant attention on the part of
evangelical theologians and missiologists. We have dealt with it at greater
length in other places (cf. Radmacher and Preus 1984:691-738; Hesselgrave and
Rommen 1989 :128-43), but it cannot be completely overlooked in the present
context. It has to do with the fact that, just as there are many “gods that are
not God” and numerous “gospels that are not gospel” in the world, there are also
numerous “holy books that are not holy” as well. From the perspective of peoples
of other cultures and religions, missionaries bring, not just a foreign
religious message, but also a foreign religious book. Like it or not and know it
or not, Christian missionaries are faced with the challenge of other books held
to be sacred and even revelatory. As Eric J. Sharpe says, “Since virtually all
scripture is understood in revelatory terms . . . [the missionary must
have] some prior understanding of Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and other
doctrines of God and doctrines of revelation” (Sharpe 1971:64-65,
emphasis mine).

Sharpe is
correct. Missionaries will not go far, either in their studies or in their
travels, before they discover that respondent peoples not only acknowledge other
gods, they rely on various “holy books” as sources of that knowledge. The
missionary must find ways to communicate the truth that, though the true God is
not circumscribed in the ways he can communicate with mankind, he has chosen to
reveal himself most clearly in just one book, the Bible, and in one person, the
Christ of the Bible. But to do that missionaries must be able to differentiate
between the kinds of revelation represented in the holy books of the
various religions in ways that can be clearly understood. All of this is part of
the contextualization process.

II.
DIFFERING TYPES OF REVELATION AND
HOLY BOOKS

I believe that
the sacred books of the major religions of the world can be placed in one or
another of four major categories.

1. Mythological
writings. These are sacred books that provide narratives and information
(generally fiction and often fantasy) that bind peoples together in common
loyalties and destinies as, for example, the Japanese Kojiki, Nihongi, and
Engishiki.

2. Writings or
reports and teachings of the “enlightened.” Common to this class of sacred books
is the notion that actual knowledge of the divine and reality comes only through
personal enlightenment experience(s). Knowledge of the Divine cannot be conveyed
through verbal propositions per se, but personal experiences and
understandings can be reported in ways that will facilitate enlightenment and
knowledge. Examples would be the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist Tripitaka, and the
Chinese Tao-Teh-Ching.

3. Divine
writing. This kind of writing purportedly comes directly from the Divine apart
from any sort of human involvement other than, perhaps, the mechanical writing
process. The primary example would be the Koran, though the Book of Mormon also
fits this category.

4. Divinely
inspired writings. The Old and New Testaments are held by orthodox Christians to
be different from all other books. As noted above, they are “God-breathed” by
the true and living God in such a way that, though the personality, background,
ideas and research of human authors are involved, all are directed by God the
Holy Spirit in such a way as to make the final product the very Word of
God.

The importance
of these distinctions cannot be over-emphasized. Practically as well as
logically, the type or kind of revelation contained in sacred books is every bit
as important as their teachings per se and is determinative of the way in
which they are understood and applied; and how they are translated and
contextualized. When the absolute uniqueness of God’s revelation in the Old and
New Testaments is not recognized, the Bible takes on the characteristics of
indigenous holy books, its God remains hidden, and its message becomes
relative.

III.
MYTHOLOGICAL WRITINGS AND THEIR
CONTEXTUALIZATION

The
contextualization of the Kojiki, Nihongi and Engishiki

Shintoism has
served to unify the Japanese nation around Shinto deities, the Emperor of Japan,
and the destiny of Japanese people for many long centuries. We cannot go into
details here. Many readers will be somewhat familiar with them inasmuch as the
Shinto myth undergirded the Japanese war effort of the 1930’s and 1940’s. At
that time almost all Japanese were convinced by Shinto warlords that their
divinely ordained destiny was to share the beneficent rule of the Tenno Heika
(Heavenly Emperor) with the rest of the world.

Now the Shinto
myth (with which some history is interwoven) is fundamentally put forward in the
three sacred volumes mentioned above. The question here is, “How did Japanese
chauvinistic scholars use those texts so as to elicit the wholehearted support
and sacrifice of the Japanese people? Not by objective analysis of their
historicity and trustworthiness. That would be self-defeating. Not by publishing
updated and idiomatic translations. That would achieve nothing. Myths are not
potent because they are “true” or historically accurate. Nor are they useful
only to the extent that they are read and understood ordinary people. It is the
nature of myths and mythological language that they function in such a way as to
provide linguistic symbols out of which scholars can construct a “contemporary”
and persuasive faith. And, as D. C. Holtom makes clear, that is exactly what the
Japanese warlords did, and in so doing they convinced Japanese people that they
were “a race of unique divine attributes, of a peerless nation structure, and of
a sacred commission to save the world” (Holtom 1943:25).

IV.CONTEXTUALIZING THE BIBLE WHEN IT
IS ERRONEOUSLY
CONCEIVED OF AS A COLLECTION OF
MYTHOLOGICAL
WRITINGS.

In his book
Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief, Carl F. H. Henry writes
about “theistic atheism, or deconstructionism”—the position of those scholars
who have attempted to “overturn the whole history of Western thought by turning
it loose from God and logic, from verificatory criteria and shared
signification” (Henry 1990:30). Included in the category are “Bible as myth”
theologians such as Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann and “God is dead”
theologians such as Thomas Altizer. According to these theologians, the language
of the Bible is not to be understood literally; objective knowledge of God is
impossible; and the God of the Bible and traditional theology is no longer an
option. For Tillich, for example, God is not to be understood in the way that a
literal reading of the Bible presents him, but in the way that a symbolic
reading of the Bible might indicate—as the “Ground of all Being” according to
Tillich’s terminology. I recall John Warwick Montgomery’s response to Tillich’s
proposal. He said, “The only ‘Ground of all Being’ I know of is hamburger.”
Montgomery’s criticism is as harsh as it is humorous. But it is not without
validity.

I happened to
be present when Paul Tillich offered a series of lectures in the University of
Kyoto in the late 1950s. Tillich went to great lengths to explain that the Bible
is not a book of historical and ontological knowledge as taught by misguided
Christian “fundamentalists.” The real meaning of the Bible is to be found in its
“myths” as is the case with most holy books. In one of his lectures, he referred
to Rudolph Bultmann saying, “My friend, Professor Bultmann, says that one must
‘demythologize the Bible’ in order to understand its meaning. I told him that
would be a mistake. The real meaning of the Bible is in its myths such as ‘In
the beginning, God,’ ‘creation out of nothing’ and “Christ, the Son of God.’
Demythologize the Bible and it loses its significance.”

I
have no way of knowing the overall effect of Tillich’s lectures. I do know that
he offered little reason for Shintoists to forsake the Kojiki or for Buddhists
to abandon the Lotus Sutra. I also know that, immediately after the lecture
series, a key member of my weekly Bible class abruptly stopped coming. She was
the daughter of the University president.

Ludwig
Wittgenstein had a hand in much of this. He believed that words are not so much
labels for things as they are tools for tasks. The members of any and every
linguistic group are engaged in a kind of “language game,” and the meanings of
their words are to be determined by the way(s) in which members use those words.
The proponents of “theistic atheism” mentioned above, therefore, were appealing
to moderns by playing a kind of Wittgensteinian “language game” that began by
turning the Scriptures into mythological writings.

One
must wonder how many of our contemporaries are playing the same or a similar
game in their attempt to appeal to postmoderns! According to Gordon Lewis, the
notion of Stanley Grenz and John Franke that there is no one-to-one correlation
between language and the world ultimately means that objective knowledge of God
attained by God’s revelation in creation and Scripture is, at best, tenuous.
What we are left with is the faith of various linguistic and religious
communities, each of which relies on its own language to describe God and the
world. “For all the world” their notion would seem to reduce the meaning of
Scripture to whatever the Christian community might choose to make of it. It is
difficult to see that such an approach is either biblical or missionary (cf.
Lewis 2003:279-83; Grenz and Franke 2001:23)!

V.
THE WRITINGS OF THE ENLIGHTENED
AND THEIR
CONTEXTUALIZATION

The
translation and contextualization of the Upanishads

Hinduism holds to two primary types of sacred literature: Sruti (Skt.;
lit. “that which is heard” or revelation) and Smrti (Skt.; lit. “that
which is remembered” or tradition). Sruti is highest and includes the
Vedic literature and later commentaries on the Vedas called the Brahmanas and
the Upanishads. As valued as the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads might be,
however, logically they must be approached as dictated by basic Hindu
epistemology. According to Hinduism, God and ultimate truth can be known only
through the experience of personal enlightenment. The most that any guru
or sacred writing can do is to help occasion that experience.

Swami
Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester provide us with an “enlightening” example
of this approach. They attempt a translation of the Upanishads for Westerners
(cf. Prabhavananda and Manchester 1957). They explain that all Hindus recognize
the Upanishads as being of the highest written authority and “concerned with the
knowledge of God, the highest aspect of religious truth" (Prabhavananda and
Manchester 1957: ix). Nevertheless, they “allow themselves the freedom” as
“seems desirable” to do anything possible in order to convey the “sense and
spirit” of the original into English. They take the liberty to render the poetry
of the original text into English prose, for example. Why? To produce a
heightened effect. After all, words and forms are not really important. The
“real meaning” is to be found in the way the words and forms function in
and among those who read them (Prabhavananda and Manchester 1957:xi,
xii).

Translating and contextualizing
the Bible in those cases where it is erroneously conceived of as the “writings
of the enlightened” (or something similar)

Among false
notions rather commonly held among untutored Christians is the idea that the
biblical text, especially its doctrinal portions, consists of “dead letters.”
Only when we allow the Bible to speak to our hearts and not just our heads does
it “come alive” and become really meaningful.

Among scholars
it is not uncommon to come across a somewhat similar but more sophisticated
idea. Namely, that Bible contains the Word of God or potentially
is the Word of God only by virtue of a special work of the Holy Spirit or
creativity of Bible scholars does it effectively become the Word of God and
meaningful to readers and hearers. The neo-orthodox doctrine of the inspiration
of the Bible generally holds to this view. And extremist understandings of
“dynamic-equivalence” Bible translation and contextualization theory (and
dynamic-equivalence messages, lifestyles and even churches) are often based on
this view of inspiration as well. When that is the case, dynamic-equivalence
theory ceases to be helpful and may even become hurtful and
heretical.

Why? And,
how?

First, it
should be noted that the origins of dynamic equivalence are not to be found in
Scripture but in the human sciences. The term dynamic equivalence
translation was coined by one of the most insightful and influential
linguistic scholars of our times, Eugene A. Nida, “to describe a ‘meaning-based’
approach to translation—one that looks for functional equivalence rather
than formal equivalence in translation” (Neff 2002:46). In answer to the
question, “How did you develop your ideas about Bible translation 50 years ago?”
Nida responds as follows:

When
I was at the University of California, Los Angeles, our professors would never
let us translate literally. They said, “We want to know the meaning. We don’t
want to know just the words.”

I
found that a number of the Greek classics had been translated very meaningfully,
much better than the Bible had been translated . . . .

I
studied linguistics, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and I decided that we’ve got to
approach the Scripture as though it is the message and try to give its meaning,
not just repeat the words. (Neff 2002:46)

Nida goes on to
say that, when studying for his doctorate, he studied anthropology in addition
to linguistics, communications and lexicography because, “words only have
meanings in terms of the culture of which they are a part” (Neff
2002:46).

The interviewer
never inquires, and Nida never informs readers, as to his understanding of
revelation and the inspiration of Scripture. We can safely assume that he has a
high view of Scripture, but that is not to say that he subscribes to the
verbal-plenary view espoused by the likes of Warfield and the founders of the
Evangelical Theological Society. And that is important because, apart from the
limitations imposed by divine inspiration of the very words of Scripture,
the views of brilliant but unbelieving (in verbal-plenary inspiration) scholars
easily become altogether too decisive to the theories of even
conservatives.

Second, in
order to illustrate the extreme to which dynamic-equivalence can be taken,
consider the translation and contextualization approach Charles Kraft as
outlined in his magnum opus mentioned above (Kraft 1974). To his great
credit, Kraft provides us with a clear explanation of his view of revelation and
inspiration as well as language and contextualization. As for revelation he
believes it to be subjective and continuing (Kraft 1974:184). As for the Bible,
he believes it to be “like the ocean and supracultural truth like the icebergs
that float in it” (Kraft 1974:131). It is potentially the Word of God, not
error-free except in its intended teachings (Kraft 1974: 208). Therefore he
holds to the kind of “dynamic livingness of Scripture” and “vital Christian
experience” supported by recent “behavioral insights” but not allowed for by the
“static philosophical presuppositions” of conservative scholars (Kraft
1974:211).

As for
hermeneutics, Kraft does not hold to grammatical-historical interpretation but
to what he calls “ethnolinguistic interpretation” (Kraft 1974:134ff.). In his
view the Bible is an “inspired casebook” of events that were time- and
culture-specific (Kraft 1974:134, 202). We have the responsibility of analyzing
the context in which Bible events occurred; determining their functions and
meanings in that context; and translating and contextualizing the biblical
message in ways that it will impact contemporaries just as it impacted original
hearers and readers.

According to
Kraft this is what dynamic and functional equivalence is all about. Meaning is
not in words. Meaning is in people. Forms, and especially ancient forms, are
relatively unimportant. Function is all-important. Revelation occurs whenever
the message of the text is made “meaning-full” and “impact-full” to an audience,
ancient or modern.

Kraft is to be
applauded for being forthright and honest as well as for his many, and sometimes
brilliant, insights. But in his approach the God-breathed words of Scripture are
scarcely more important than the insights of their modern interpreters—perhaps
no more important. If his understanding of biblical revelation and inspiration
is not the same as a Hindu understanding of the Vedas, it is at least
sufficiently reminiscent of it to be scary.

Third, in order
to show how dynamic-equivalence theory can impact contextualization efforts
within our own changing culture, I will point to a current controversy before
moving on.

One of numerous
problems facing Bible translators (and Christian writers in general) in the
Western world has to do with the “maleness” of both the Old and New Testaments.
A recent debate concerning the validity of a “gender correct” translation such
as that of the Today’s New International Version (note “Today’s New”!)
will serve to illustrate what is involved.

Take the simple
greeting of Paul in Galatians 1:1-2 as a case in point. In his greeting Paul
wrote, “kai hoi sun emoi pantes adelphoi” (“and all the brethren who are
with me”). Now we can assume that the “maleness” of this greeting occasioned no
special problem in first century Galatia. And it is highly unlikely that it
would cause a problem in most of the non-Western world today. But it is a
problem in gender-conscious United States and Europe generally, and among
feminists especially.

To politically
correct TNIV translators that was unacceptable. To be “dynamically
equivalent,” Paul’s greeting should not communicate any more “male bias” in
twenty-first century California than it did in first century Galatia. So they
translated the problematic phrase as “and all the brothers and sisters
with me” (emphasis mine). They knew that this was not what Paul actually wrote.
But neither did Paul intend to offend Galatian women, so they changed the
ancient form in order to convey a meaning that, in Western
cultures today, can be expected to be more acceptable and
inoffensive.

Well and good.
But we must not close the book on that note. We are obligated to go on to
inquire as to whether the new translation is grammatically, historically and
theologically correct. And the answer to that question is, “Very possibly not.”
Why not? Because Bible scholars are not in agreement as to whether women
actually were included among those who were “with Paul.” Until we know the
answer to that question, we are not only unsure of the historical accuracy of
the new translation, we are also unsure whether or not there might be
theological implications growing out of the “maleness” of Paul’s original
greeting. The upshot is that we know what Paul actually wrote. We know the
form. But we do not know how that form actually functioned and exactly what it
meant in first century Galatia. And, though an understanding of ancient Galatian
culture is helpful at that point, the original meaning will not be understood
apart from a further study of the significance of gender in Scripture
itself.

To some all of this will seem like splitting hairs. Not so to careful Bible
students, however. And not so to thoughtful missionaries either. To be sure,
contextualizers must pay attention to “meaning in culture.” But, if the very
words of Scripture are God-breathed, then textual accuracy is more important
than seeming cultural relevance. In fact, when it comes to the biblical text,
accuracy will be culturally relevant by definition. It will either confirm or
correct cultural values and practices.

With that in
mind, take yet one more look at the Galatian greeting. Notice that it also
contains the phrase “Theou patros” (Father God). May not this
phrase also represent a male bias for some? Of course. In fact, some radical
functionalists (not necessarily the TNIV translators, however) maintain
that, in Latin America, a better understanding of God would result from
translating “Father God” as “Mother God” because in Latin America the word
“father” carries negative connotations while mothers are loved and revered. And
even in North America a leader of “goddess religion,” Carol P. Christ, says that
Christ reconciled traditional polarities and on that basis proposes the
adaptation “Goddess/God” (cf. Mollenkott 2004:38)!

Vern Poythress
speaks precisely to our basic concern at this point. He
writes:

Political correctness can, I
believe, influence Bible translation in spite of contrary intentions on
the part of translators. The influence mainly affects details of meaning, so it
may not seem too serious at first glance. But in the end it threatens the vital
doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture. (Christianity Today
2002:37, emphasis his)

In the final
analysis, that is what is at stake, isn’t it? It is not just, or primarily,
“What is your philosophy of translation and/or contextualization”? It is rather,
“What is your doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture?”

VI.THE CONTEXTUALIZATION OF
SCRIPTURES WRONGLY CONCEIVED
OF AS “DIVINE WRITING”

Translating and contextualizing
the Koran

Though not often dealt with in popular literature, there are
actually two types of inspiration in Islam: “lower level” inspiration or ilham,
and “higher level” inspiration or wahy. Ilham is a gift of Allah given to holy
men as well as to prophets, but it is subjective and therefore trustworthy only
to a point. Wahy, on the other hand, is a gift of Allah to certain prophets only
and is objective and fully trustworthy. From a Muslim perspective, a problem
accrues to the fact that the wahy writings of prophets prior to Muhammad (Moses
and Jesus, for example) have been corrupted and therefore we are left with the
Koran as the only final and fully authoritative divine
revelation.
According to W. Montgomery
Watt the essential features of Muhammad’s wahy-type inspiration were: “the words
in his conscious mind, the absence of his own thinking; and the belief that the
words were from God” (Watt 1969:69-70). The upshot of all of this is that, in
the Muslim view, the Koran (Qur’an) is “the language of Allah” and “made in
heaven.” It is, in fact, a replica of the “Mother of the Book” which is in
heaven. As such it can be read, memorized, preached, and taught, but it cannot
be translated. Inquirers into the faith themselves must ultimately become
“contextualized” in the sense that they must learn Arabic and read the Koran for
themselves. So-called “translations” are not that at all, but only
“interpretations” and, therefore, not completely
trustworthy.

Though not a Muslim himself, as a faithful “translator” of the Koran, A. J.
Arberry recognizes all of this and does his best to reproduce or to “imitate,
however imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which are the
glory and sublimity of the Koran” (Arberry 1955:28). In other words, Arberry
takes into account the fact that the precise form in which Muhammad is
said to have received the Koran is absolutely vital to the way in which the
Koran functions. In the end, Arberry settles for calling his work The
Koran Interpreted!

Bible
translation and the King James Version

Though
conservative evangelicals are sometimes accused of believing in dictation theory
and are sometimes called “word worshippers” (cf., Nida 2002:46), I personally am
not acquainted with any such person. I believe the person is a “straw man.”
Those who might appear to be guilty are simply very conservative when it comes
to their doctrine of inspiration—scholars of the likes of Edward Hills and
Wilber Pickering (cf., Hills 1956; Pickering 1977). Their case for the
superiority of the King James Version does sound somewhat akin to Arberry’s
assessment of the Koran. They say that the King James or Authorized Version is
both the most trustworthy and enduring translation of the Bible available. They
call special attention to its beautiful prose, its majestic rhythms, and its
influence upon English language and literature over the centuries. And they
project that, somewhat updated and slightly revised, it will be the standard
translation for many years to come.

But their
argument goes deeper than that. They are rightly concerned with manuscript
evidence and providential preservation of the biblical text in the face of
higher criticism. They believe that in his providence, God chose the Greek
church to become guardian of the New Testament. They are persuaded that the King
James Version, based as it is upon the Byzantine text and the Textus
Receptus, is the purest and most accurate version. They agree that periodic
updating on the basis of new manuscript evidence and language change is
warranted, but that changes should be minimal and introduced only with great
care.

All of this
devotion to, and all of these arguments for the superiority of, the King James
Version do not merit the charge that these scholars believe in dictation theory.
Nor that they are “word worshippers.” Inspiration by divine dictation is not an
issue in this particular debate. The issue ultimately has to do with the
inerrancy of the autographs and the trustworthiness of Bible manuscripts and
translations. We may or may not agree with some of the arguments of King James
Version supporters, but we should at least be appreciative of their concerns and
intentions.

VII.
THE “INSPIRED WRITINGS” OF THE
BIBLE AND THEIR CONTEXTUALIZATION

As
for the Old and New Testament “inspired writings,” they are unlike any of the
“holy books” mentioned above. They are absolutely unique—the only members of
this class of holy books in the history of the world!

How
then are they to be treated? How are they to be translated, interpreted,
explained and applied? How are they to be contextualized? Certainly, not like
other so-called “holy books”! To approach the Bible as one might approach the
Kojiki or the Upanishads or the Koran is to do it a gross injustice. If we
believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, we must approach it differently.
We must approach it with something of the reverence with which ancient copyists
approached the early manuscripts—something considerably beyond the seriousness
with which even the most respected translator might approach any other religious
book. Following Warfield, we should assume that the claims the Bible makes for
itself are true and treat the text in that light. Any and all reasonings and
opinions stemming purely from human origins, however scholarly and well
intentioned, cannot claim more than secondary or tertiary importance.

In continuing
and concluding this chapter, then, my purpose will be to demonstrate that a
completely authoritative revelation of God in Holy Scripture and the clear
teachings and implications that accrue to Scripture constitute a basis for
contextualization that is superior to any and all proposals emanating from the
investigations of the human sciences. I will attempt to demonstrate the
significance of this approach by pointing out certain implications stemming from
various Scripture texts along with affirmations selected from the Chicago
statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics as restated and updated at Ft.
Lauderdale, 2003 by International Church Council leaders and members, especially
those texts and affirmations appearing under Topic 13, “Culture,
Contextualization and the Gospel” (available from
www.ChurchCouncil.org).

The
person of Christ and contextualization

Scripture:
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the
prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he
appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world”
(Heb. 1:1,2).

Affirmation:
“We affirm that God has inspired Holy Scripture to reveal Himself through
Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge” (Topic 1, Short
Statement 1).

As we have
already noted, perhaps the most widely referred to example of gospel
contextualization in the whole of Scripture is Paul’s address in Athens and
recorded in Acts 17. The aspects of that address that are usually highlighted
need not be repeated here. Rather, we take note of the fact that

profound [Athenian] notions of the
deity stand condemned, and their path leads to destruction, for the deity about
whom they spoke such exalted things is not the true God who has shown his mercy
in Christ Jesus, but is what Calvin referred to as the umbratile numen,
the nebulous all-pervading being, fabricated by us to fill the emptiness caused
by our unwillingness to recognize the true God. (Bavinck 1960:137)

I have
suggested previously that the genius (if we may call it that) of Paul’s
contextualization of the gospel in Athens is to be found not so much in his
employment of aspects of Greek religiosity and culture as it is to be found in
the way he presented the Creator God, his dealing with the nations, and Christ.
Paul referred to past times included the “Golden Age of Athens” as “times of
ignorance” and called upon Athenians and all men to repent of their idolatrous
ways (Acts 17:30).

Paul speaks
here as an apostle, as one of that small group of men who were personally chosen
and sent forth by Christ to proclaim his gospel. He, among others, would also be
chosen and inspired to make an enduring written record of that gospel—of whom
Christ is and what he said and did as Messiah and Lord. That apostolic record
remained to be completed, but as for Paul’s experience with the risen Lord and
his calling to be the “apostle to the Gentiles,” that was verifiable, vivid and
the revelational basis of Paul’s message. The written record would come later
and become the inspired source of both the mission and the message of all who,
following in Paul’s train, would preach the gospel of Christ and build his
church. Of that mission and church, Paul writes that it is “built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone”
(Eph. 2:20). Christ Jesus, then, is the cornerstone, not alone of the Christian
church, but also of gospel contextualization.

Propositional revelation and
biblical truth

Scripture: Sanctify them
in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17).

Affirmation:
“We affirm that the Bible expresses God’s truth in propositional statements,
and we declare that Biblical truth is both objective and absolute” (Topic 2,
Articles of Affirmation and Denial, Article VI).

All Scripture
is true including all of its propositions. The Bible contains much more than
propositional statements, of course. Some of the Bible is poetry; some is
narrative; some is command; some is exhortation, and so on. But the propositions
of Scripture have occasioned most of our problems in modern and post-modern
times. Propositional statements are judged to be true or false in a way that
poetic and hortatory statements, for example, are not and that constitutes a
special problem for many.

Modernism was
characterized by an inclination to judge many of the historical propositions of
the Bible, and some of its doctrinal propositions as well, to be false.
Therefore, modernists did not read Bible history in order to learn history, for
example, so much as to make judgments about that history. Post-modernism is
different. It tends to judge most of the propositions of Bible, and perhaps its
doctrinal propositions especially, to be more or less inconsequential even if
true. Therefore, post-modernists tend to neglect doctrinal sections and prefer
other parts of the Bible in the mistaken belief that doctrinal propositions are
not essential to spirituality. The judgments of both modernists and
post-modernists are erroneous, but since the latter constitutes the greater
threat to evangelical orthodoxy currently we will focus on that here.

Opposing both
mistaken views of inspiration and misguided understandings of the nature of
biblical doctrine, Gordon Lewis makes a strong case for propositional revelation
as being essential to evangelical spiritual formation (Lewis 2003:269-98).
Lewis’s monograph is particularly pertinent in this context. He first shows that
the various kinds of propositionless spiiritualities are without foundation. He
then points to foundations of evangelical spirituality such as the Creator as
the Author of universally revealed propositions; the basis of revelational
propositionalism in the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; and the
working of the Holy Spirit in and through biblical propositions. Finally, he
lists ten distinct and practical ways in which biblical propositions produce
true spirituality. For example, propositions sharpen the goals of spirituality,
reveal love to be normative, direct us to sources of strength, show us how to
live by faith, encourage us to practice the presence of God, and encourage us to
love the church.

If we truly
believe that the Bible is without error and completely trustworthy, Lewis’s case
is incontrovertible. True spirituality is precisely that which the Holy Spirit
effects, not apart from but by means of, the Bible and Bible doctrine. Jesus
prayed that his people would be sanctified in the truth and immediately added
“Your word is truth” (John 17:17). The apostle Paul declared “All
Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be
competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

If missionaries
are to be Christian contextualizers, and especially if they are to be
evangelical Christian contextualizers, they are obligated to respond to
both the post-modernist spirituality of the West and the classic mystical
religiosity of the East by reverently studying and fervently teaching Bible
doctrine.

The
work of the Spirit and Bible interpretation

Scripture:
“And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the
truth” (1 John 5:6).

Affirmation:
“We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal,
or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is,
the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal
sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the
text” (Topic 2, Article XV).

All too often
the hard work of studying the biblical text and the necessity of trusting the
Holy Spirit for guidance and illumination are divorced from one another. That
ought not be so. In the various documents of the I.C.B.I and I.C.C., the
ministries of the Holy Spirit in both inspiring and illuminating Scripture are
never divorced from the human work of interpreting and applying Scripture in
accordance with the normal rules that apply to historical inquiry and literary
interpretation. We have already seen some of the ways in which the abrogation of
this approach to a Holy Spirit-inspired Bible works havoc with its meaning and
significance. There are still others.

About half a
century ago, the writings of a “new” rhetorician and literary critic, Kenneth
Burke became prominent in academies around the country. Burke’s seminal mind
allowed him to range over a vast expanse of literary works including theological
writings. Pertinent to our present discussion is the fact that in one context
Burke notes four kinds of “medieval interpretation” defined by Thomas Aquinas in
his Summa Theologica: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. For
Burke, Aquinas’ definitions illustrate how ordinary descriptive language can be
“socioanagogical”—how its meaning can be interpreted mystically and lend itself
to arguments for sweeping social change, for example (Burke 1962:774). In
Burke’s view this can occur quite irrespective of the intention of the original
author whose “scene” (the total situation or set of circumstances in which he or
she wrote) can be assumed to be very different from that in which a reader is
called upon to interpret (discover the meaning of) the author’s writing. It
follows that the intention of the author is not as crucial to the interpretation
of what he wrote as is the “scene” in which he wrote it. And, for that matter,
neither the author’s intent nor the author’s “scene” is as important as the
reader/interpreter’s “scene” and intention!

Burke greatly
influenced both secular and Christian literary criticism. Just before the
mid-twentieth century mark, W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley began speaking
about the “intentional fallacy” in Bible interpretation. Applying Burke’s ideas
to Bible interpretation, they concluded that what the Bible writer meant or
intended to say has become irrelevant with the passage of time. It is the
meaning and application of the text as determined by the reader in his or her
world that is important. In a very real sense, therefore, the ancient authors of
the Bible are not as important as the contemporary interpreters in determining
both the meaning and application of what is written. Sometimes called “formalist
criticism,” this approach to Bible interpretation invaded many a theological
school just at a time when baby-boomers were getting their education in the late
1960s and l970s and its influence is still widely felt. Meaning for you, meaning
for me; meaning for our times, meaning for this generation—this is where many
schools, many churches, many Bible study groups now find themselves.

But that is not
the end of mischief in this connection. Burke’s “rhetoric of motives”
underscores the potency of the intentions of readers/interpreters (and their
audience). In a passage that is seldom noted, he recalls Pascal’s criticism of
certain Jesuits who proposed to “direct the intention” of wayward believers of
their day. Since church members would not change their ways, these Jesuits
proposed to teach wayward believers how to apply Christian motives to their
unChristian behaviors. By doing so, worldly believers could stay in the church
while living unChristian lives (Burke 1962:680-81) A contemporary illustration
of what Burke, and Pascal, were talking about would be the case of one of my
former students. He wanted to be a missionary and maintained that he was serious
about being a good witness for Christ as commanded in Acts 1:8. In this way he
justified frequent attendance at X-rated movies. His intention, he said, was to
witness for Christ. He always tried to go in the company of unbelievers and use
the movie to demonstrate that the Bible is true when it says that all people are
sinners!

It is little
short of amazing what both the educated and uneducated can come up with when the
text and meaning of Scripture are divorced from the intent of its authors and
their inspired words. Meaning intended by the authors is prior to meaning
interpreted by the readers. Meaning then comes before meaning now. Little
wonder, then, that the framers of both the ICBI and ICC statements said, “We
affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal,
or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is,
the meaning that the writers expressed under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit.”

The
Christian church and orthodoxy/orthopraxy

Scripture:
“You are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being
the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

Affirmation:
“We affirm that true Christian unity must be based on a doctrinal foundation
that includes historic Christian doctrine as revealed in the inerrant Scriptures
and expressed in the Apostles’ Creed” (Topic 11, Article VI).

When Christian
missionaries go into the world they are duty-bound to deliver God’s Word of
redemption. But that is not all. The framers of the affirmation above, as well
as our Lord Jesus and the authors of Scripture themselves, attest to the fact
that the inerrant Word of God is integral, not just to the saving faith of
individuals, but also to the time-tested faith of the church!
Of the many reasons that can be adduced for this, I will make mention of but two
here: linkage with the historic church and “critical
contextualization.”

First, biblical
mission links the emerging church with the historic church, the church of the
twenty-first century with the church of the first century! From the lips of
Jesus we hear “Thy Word is truth.” From the pen of Paul we read, “All Scripture
is breathed out by God.” From the early church we learn the Apostles’ Creed.
From the works of Papias, second century bishop of Hierapolis, we read
statements like “Mark made no mistake when he thus wrote down some things as he
remembered them; for he made it his especial care to omit nothing of what he
heard and to make no false statement therein” (cf. Bettenson
1947:38).

Local churches
are not spiritual islands. The historic church of Christ, and sending and
receiving churches today, are best served by a conscious and careful linkage
with each other through a common confession of the authority of Scripture, the
deity and lordship of Jesus Christ, and other cardinal doctrines affirmed and
re-affirmed through history.

Second, as soon
as practicable, missionaries and leaders of the emerging church should hold
regular discussions concerning the meaning of the biblical text as it relates to
cultural practices and expectations. Paul Hiebert’s term for this process is
“critical contextualization” (cf. Hiebert 1987:287-96). Once converts are
forthcoming and the church begins to form, these discussions become, well,
critical! Rituals and revels, ceremonies and celebrations, and monuments and
meetings of indigenous cultures have cultural meanings and functions that are
important and may be something more or other than reported. Missionaries,
pastors and laity need to come together with the members of the church body in
order to discuss cultural beliefs and practices that impact the church in the
clear light of Scripture. Together they should decide how the church will
respond to them either as obstacles to Christian living and testimony or as
opportunities for commucating the gospel of Christ.

This discussion
of ICBI and ICC affirmations of bibilical authority and perspicuity and their
significance for Christian contextualization could be greatly extended. For
example, we might go on to show how they reinforce the practical importance of
the kind of biblical theology that “describes God by recounting what God has
done. . . . the acts of God in history, together with what must be inferred from
those acts” (Wright 1991:101). Or how, while still holding to the importance of
Western theologies (cf. Davis, ed. 1978), along with Tite Tienou we still must
recognize that Western theology is not universally normative and theologians in
other cultures should be encouraged to do their own theologizing (Tienou
1992:261).

So, much
remains to be said, but what has been said is perhaps sufficient to demonstrate
that the best starting point and most valid foundation for Christian
contextualization are the teachings of the biblical text rather than the
insights of secular science. This is not to diminish the helpfulness of the
latter. When one thinks of the value of comparative linguistics to language
acquisition alone, for example, one is even more astounded by the
accomplishments of William Carey who labored without them. Nevertheless, when
one also considers the open-endedness of contextualization attempts unattended
and untethered by the requirements of verbal-plenary inspiration, one becomes
profoundly grateful that we have not been left without an authoritative Word
from the Triune God!

VIII.
CONCLUSION

Missionary
contextualization that is authentically and effectively Christian and
evangelical does not begin with a knowledge of linguistics and communication,
and anthropology and culture, as such. It begins with a commitment to an
inerrant and authoritative Word of God in the autographs of Old and New
Testament Scripture. On the basis of a commitment to the authority of that Word
and its truth and dissemination, tools afforded by relevant sciences can and
must be utilized to enable us to understand Scripture and communicate it
meaningfully and effectively across cultures. Apart from that commitment, the
utilization of the tools of the various sciences may not serve to enhance
understanding and may even endanger it.

*Excerpted from
David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian
Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005) 254-274.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arberry, Arthur J. 1955 The
Koran Interpreted. New York: Macmillan.

Bettenson, Henry, ed. Documents
of the Christian Church. New York & London: Oxford University Press,
1947.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of
Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives. Cleveland and N.Y.: World (Meridian
Books), 1962.

Christianity
Today.
2000 “The TNIV
Debate,” Oct. 7, 200, 35-45.

Buswell, J. Oliver. A
Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2. Soteriology and
Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

Davis, John Jefferson, ed. The
Necessity of Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1978.

Dorrien, Gary. The Making of
American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001.

English Standard Version. Preface,
vii-ix. Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers, 2001.

Geisler, Norman, ed. 1979
Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Grenz, Stanley J. and Franke, John
R. 2001 Beyond Foundationalism. Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox,
2001.

Henry, Carl F. H. Toward a
Recovery of Christian Belief: The Rutherford Lectures. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 1990.

Hesselgrave, David J.
“Contextualization and Revelational Epistemology.” In Radmacher and Preus, eds.
Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Communicating Christ
Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary Communication, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990.

Scripture and Strategy: The Use of
the Bible in Postmodern Church and Mission. Pasadena, CA: William Carey,
1994.

Hesselgrave, David J. and Rommen,
Edward. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models. Pasadena, CA:
William Carey, 1989.

Hiebert, Paul
G. “Critical Contextualization,” Missiology 12(2), 1987,
287-296.

Hills, Edward F. The King James
Version Defended. (Des Moines, IA.: The Christian Research Press,
1956.

Holtom, D. C. 1943 Modern Japan
and Shinto Nationalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1943.

International Church Council
Project. Timeless Truth for the Twenty-first Century: The Documents of the
International Church Council Project. P. O. Box 148, Hathaway Pines, CA: The
International Church Council Project, 2001.

Kato, Byang H. 1975 Theological
Pitfalls in Africa. Kisumu, Kenya: Evangel, 1975.

Kraft, Charles H. Christianity
and Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural
Theologizing. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis, 1979.

Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy
in a New Key. New York: New American Library of World Literature (Mentor
Books), 1948.

Lewis, Gordon R. “Is Propositional
Revelation Essential to Evangelical Spiritual Formation?” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 46(2), 2001, 269-98.

Maeda, Eizoh. A Study of
Evangelistic Preaching of Selected American Evangelists in an Attempt to
Discover Evangelistic Preaching Principles Which Would be Effective in Japanese
Evangelism. Master of Arts thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School,
Deerfield, IL, 1971.

McGavran, Donald A. 1974 The
Clash Between Christianity and Culture. Washington, D.C: Canon,
1974.

Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey.
Review: She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World by Carol P.
Christ. Christian Century, June 1, 2001, 38.

Neff, David. “Meaning-full
Translations,” Christianity Today, Oct. 7, 2000, 46-49.

“Discovering Unity: Two
theologians are bullish on evangelical futures.” Christianity Today, Feb.
4, 2004:75-76,

Prabhavananda, Swami and
Manchester, Frederick. The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal. New York:
The New American Library, 1956.

Pickering, Wilbur N. 1977 The
Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: T. Nelson, 1977.

Radmacher, Earl D., and Preus,
Robert D., eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, & the Bible: Papers from ICBI
Summit II. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Academie Books), 1984.

Scott, John R. W., and Coote,
Robert T., eds. Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Sharpe, Eric J. Fifty Key
Words: Comparative Religion. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1971.

Tienou, Tite. “Which Way for
African Christianity: Westernization or Indigenous Authenticity?” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 28(3), 1990:256-263.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckenridge.
The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1967.

Watt, W. Montgomery. 1969
Islamic Revelation in the Modern World. Edinburgh: University Press,
1969.

Wells, David F. God in the
Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. and Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity,
1994.

Winter, Ralph D. “The Theology of
the Law of God.” In Foundations of Global Civilization: Semester One.
Mentors Handbook 27:1. Pasadena, CA: Institute of International Studies,
U.S. Center for World Mission, 1993.

Wright, G. Ernest. 1992 “Biblical
Theology (OT).” In New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge, J. D. Douglas, gen. ed., 101-104. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1992.

Published under
“Contextualization” at http://www.globalmissiology.org/,
January 2008

Top