The Clash of Symbols=97

TYPES OF=20 REVELATION AND =93HOLY BOOKS=94AND
THEIR = CONTEXTUALIZATION*

David J. = Hesselgrave,
Professor=20 Emeritus of Missions, TEDS

I. =20 INTRODUCTION

One = major=20 dimension of contextualization has received but scant attention on the = part of=20 evangelical theologians and missiologists. We have dealt with it at = greater=20 length in other places (cf. Radmacher and Preus 1984:691-738; = Hesselgrave and=20 Rommen 1989 :128-43), but it cannot be completely overlooked in the = present=20 context. It has to do with the fact that, just as there are many =93gods = that are=20 not God=94 and numerous =93gospels that are not gospel=94 in the world, = there are also=20 numerous =93holy books that are not holy=94 as well. From the = perspective of peoples=20 of other cultures and religions, missionaries bring, not just a foreign=20 religious message, but also a foreign religious book. Like it or not and = know it=20 or not, Christian missionaries are faced with the challenge of other = books held=20 to be sacred and even revelatory. As Eric J. Sharpe says, =93Since = virtually all=20 scripture is understood in revelatory terms . . . [the missionary = must=20 have] some prior understanding of Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim and = other=20 doctrines of God and doctrines of revelation=94 (Sharpe = 1971:64-65,=20 emphasis mine).

Sharpe is=20 correct. Missionaries will not go far, either in their studies or in = their=20 travels, before they discover that respondent peoples not only = acknowledge other=20 gods, they rely on various =93holy books=94 as sources of that = knowledge. The=20 missionary must find ways to communicate the truth that, though the true = God is=20 not circumscribed in the ways he can communicate with mankind, he has = chosen to=20 reveal himself most clearly in just one book, the Bible, and in one = person, the=20 Christ of the Bible. But to do that missionaries must be able to = differentiate=20 between the kinds of revelation represented in the holy books of = the=20 various religions in ways that can be clearly understood. All of this is = part of=20 the contextualization process.

II. =20 DIFFERING TYPES OF = REVELATION AND=20 HOLY BOOKS

I = believe that=20 the sacred books of the major religions of the world can be placed in = one or=20 another of four major categories.

1. = Mythological=20 writings. These are sacred books that provide narratives and information = (generally fiction and often fantasy) that bind peoples together in = common=20 loyalties and destinies as, for example, the Japanese Kojiki, Nihongi, = and=20 Engishiki.

2. = Writings or=20 reports and teachings of the =93enlightened.=94 Common to this class of = sacred books=20 is the notion that actual knowledge of the divine and reality comes only = through=20 personal enlightenment experience(s). Knowledge of the Divine cannot be = conveyed=20 through verbal propositions per se, but personal experiences and=20 understandings can be reported in ways that will facilitate = enlightenment and=20 knowledge. Examples would be the Hindu Vedas, the Buddhist Tripitaka, = and the=20 Chinese Tao-Teh-Ching.

3. = Divine=20 writing. This kind of writing purportedly comes directly from the Divine = apart=20 from any sort of human involvement other than, perhaps, the mechanical = writing=20 process. The primary example would be the Koran, though the Book of = Mormon also=20 fits this category.

4. = Divinely=20 inspired writings. The Old and New Testaments are held by orthodox = Christians to=20 be different from all other books. As noted above, they are = =93God-breathed=94 by=20 the true and living God in such a way that, though the personality, = background,=20 ideas and research of human authors are involved, all are directed by = God the=20 Holy Spirit in such a way as to make the final product the very Word of=20 God.

The = importance=20 of these distinctions cannot be over-emphasized. Practically as well as=20 logically, the type or kind of revelation contained in sacred books is = every bit=20 as important as their teachings per se and is determinative of = the way in=20 which they are understood and applied; and how they are translated and=20 contextualized. When the absolute uniqueness of God=92s revelation in = the Old and=20 New Testaments is not recognized, the Bible takes on the characteristics = of=20 indigenous holy books, its God remains hidden, and its message becomes=20 relative.

III. =20 MYTHOLOGICAL WRITINGS = AND THEIR=20 CONTEXTUALIZATION

The=20 contextualization of the Kojiki, Nihongi and Engishiki

Shintoism has=20 served to unify the Japanese nation around Shinto deities, the Emperor = of Japan,=20 and the destiny of Japanese people for many long centuries. We cannot go = into=20 details here. Many readers will be somewhat familiar with them inasmuch = as the=20 Shinto myth undergirded the Japanese war effort of the 1930=92s and = 1940=92s. At=20 that time almost all Japanese were convinced by Shinto warlords that = their=20 divinely ordained destiny was to share the beneficent rule of the = Tenno Heika=20 (Heavenly Emperor) with the rest of the world.

Now = the Shinto=20 myth (with which some history is interwoven) is fundamentally put = forward in the=20 three sacred volumes mentioned above. The question here is, =93How did = Japanese=20 chauvinistic scholars use those texts so as to elicit the wholehearted = support=20 and sacrifice of the Japanese people? Not by objective analysis of their = historicity and trustworthiness. That would be self-defeating. Not by = publishing=20 updated and idiomatic translations. That would achieve nothing. Myths = are not=20 potent because they are =93true=94 or historically accurate. Nor are = they useful=20 only to the extent that they are read and understood ordinary people. It = is the=20 nature of myths and mythological language that they function in such a = way as to=20 provide linguistic symbols out of which scholars can construct a = =93contemporary=94=20 and persuasive faith. And, as D. C. Holtom makes clear, that is exactly = what the=20 Japanese warlords did, and in so doing they convinced Japanese people = that they=20 were =93a race of unique divine attributes, of a peerless nation = structure, and of=20 a sacred commission to save the world=94 (Holtom = 1943:25).

IV.CONTEXTUALIZING THE = BIBLE WHEN IT=20 IS ERRONEOUSLY
CONCEIVED OF AS A COLLECTION OF
MYTHOLOGICAL=20 WRITINGS.

In = his book=20 Toward a Recovery of Christian Belief, Carl F. H. Henry = writes=20 about =93theistic atheism, or deconstructionism=94=97the position of = those scholars=20 who have attempted to =93overturn the whole history of Western thought = by turning=20 it loose from God and logic, from verificatory criteria and shared=20 signification=94 (Henry 1990:30). Included in the category are =93Bible = as myth=94=20 theologians such as Paul Tillich and Rudolf Bultmann and =93God is = dead=94=20 theologians such as Thomas Altizer. According to these theologians, the = language=20 of the Bible is not to be understood literally; objective knowledge of = God is=20 impossible; and the God of the Bible and traditional theology is no = longer an=20 option. For Tillich, for example, God is not to be understood in the way = that a=20 literal reading of the Bible presents him, but in the way that a = symbolic=20 reading of the Bible might indicate=97as the =93Ground of all Being=94 = according to=20 Tillich=92s terminology. I recall John Warwick Montgomery=92s response = to Tillich=92s=20 proposal. He said, =93The only =91Ground of all Being=92 I know of is = hamburger.=94=20 Montgomery=92s criticism is as harsh as it is humorous. But it is not = without=20 validity.

I = happened to=20 be present when Paul Tillich offered a series of lectures in the = University of=20 Kyoto in the late 1950s. Tillich went to great lengths to explain that = the Bible=20 is not a book of historical and ontological knowledge as taught by = misguided=20 Christian =93fundamentalists.=94 The real meaning of the Bible is to be = found in its=20 =93myths=94 as is the case with most holy books. In one of his lectures, = he referred=20 to Rudolph Bultmann saying, =93My friend, Professor Bultmann, says that = one must=20 =91demythologize the Bible=92 in order to understand its meaning. I told = him that=20 would be a mistake. The real meaning of the Bible is in its myths such = as =91In=20 the beginning, God,=92 =91creation out of nothing=92 and =93Christ, the = Son of God.=92=20 Demythologize the Bible and it loses its significance.=94

I=20 have no way of knowing the overall effect of Tillich=92s lectures. I do = know that=20 he offered little reason for Shintoists to forsake the Kojiki or for = Buddhists=20 to abandon the Lotus Sutra. I also know that, immediately after the = lecture=20 series, a key member of my weekly Bible class abruptly stopped coming. = She was=20 the daughter of the University president.

Ludwig=20 Wittgenstein had a hand in much of this. He believed that words are not = so much=20 labels for things as they are tools for tasks. The members of any and = every=20 linguistic group are engaged in a kind of =93language game,=94 and the = meanings of=20 their words are to be determined by the way(s) in which members use = those words.=20 The proponents of =93theistic atheism=94 mentioned above, therefore, = were appealing=20 to moderns by playing a kind of Wittgensteinian =93language game=94 that = began by=20 turning the Scriptures into mythological writings.

One=20 must wonder how many of our contemporaries are playing the same or a = similar=20 game in their attempt to appeal to postmoderns! According to Gordon = Lewis, the=20 notion of Stanley Grenz and John Franke that there is no one-to-one = correlation=20 between language and the world ultimately means that objective knowledge = of God=20 attained by God=92s revelation in creation and Scripture is, at best, = tenuous.=20 What we are left with is the faith of various linguistic and religious=20 communities, each of which relies on its own language to describe God = and the=20 world. =93For all the world=94 their notion would seem to reduce the = meaning of=20 Scripture to whatever the Christian community might choose to make of = it. It is=20 difficult to see that such an approach is either biblical or missionary = (cf.=20 Lewis 2003:279-83; Grenz and Franke 2001:23)!

V. =20 THE WRITINGS OF THE = ENLIGHTENED=20 AND THEIR
CONTEXTUALIZATION

The=20 translation and contextualization of the Upanishads

=20 Hinduism holds to two primary types of sacred literature: Sruti = (Skt.;=20 lit. =93that which is heard=94 or revelation) and Smrti (Skt.; = lit. =93that=20 which is remembered=94 or tradition). Sruti is highest and = includes the=20 Vedic literature and later commentaries on the Vedas called the = Brahmanas and=20 the Upanishads. As valued as the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads might = be,=20 however, logically they must be approached as dictated by basic Hindu=20 epistemology. According to Hinduism, God and ultimate truth can be known = only=20 through the experience of personal enlightenment. The most that any = guru=20 or sacred writing can do is to help occasion that = experience.

Swami = Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester provide us with an = =93enlightening=94 example=20 of this approach. They attempt a translation of the Upanishads for = Westerners=20 (cf. Prabhavananda and Manchester 1957). They explain that all Hindus = recognize=20 the Upanishads as being of the highest written authority and = =93concerned with the=20 knowledge of God, the highest aspect of religious truth" (Prabhavananda = and=20 Manchester 1957: ix). Nevertheless, they =93allow themselves the = freedom=94 as=20 =93seems desirable=94 to do anything possible in order to convey the = =93sense and=20 spirit=94 of the original into English. They take the liberty to render = the poetry=20 of the original text into English prose, for example. Why? To produce a=20 heightened effect. After all, words and forms are not really important. = The=20 =93real meaning=94 is to be found in the way the words and forms = function in=20 and among those who read them (Prabhavananda and Manchester 1957:xi,=20 xii).

Translating and = contextualizing=20 the Bible in those cases where it is erroneously conceived of as the = =93writings=20 of the enlightened=94 (or something similar)

Among = false=20 notions rather commonly held among untutored Christians is the idea that = the=20 biblical text, especially its doctrinal portions, consists of =93dead = letters.=94=20 Only when we allow the Bible to speak to our hearts and not just our = heads does=20 it =93come alive=94 and become really meaningful.

Among = scholars=20 it is not uncommon to come across a somewhat similar but more = sophisticated=20 idea. Namely, that Bible contains the Word of God or = potentially=20 is the Word of God only by virtue of a special work of the Holy = Spirit or=20 creativity of Bible scholars does it effectively become the Word of God = and=20 meaningful to readers and hearers. The neo-orthodox doctrine of the = inspiration=20 of the Bible generally holds to this view. And extremist understandings = of=20 =93dynamic-equivalence=94 Bible translation and contextualization theory = (and=20 dynamic-equivalence messages, lifestyles and even churches) are often = based on=20 this view of inspiration as well. When that is the case, = dynamic-equivalence=20 theory ceases to be helpful and may even become hurtful and=20 heretical.

Why? = And,=20 how?

First, it=20 should be noted that the origins of dynamic equivalence are not to be = found in=20 Scripture but in the human sciences. The term dynamic equivalence=20 translation was coined by one of the most insightful and influential = linguistic scholars of our times, Eugene A. Nida, =93to describe a = =91meaning-based=92=20 approach to translation=97one that looks for functional = equivalence rather=20 than formal equivalence in translation=94 (Neff 2002:46). In = answer to the=20 question, =93How did you develop your ideas about Bible translation 50 = years ago?=94=20 Nida responds as follows:

When=20 I was at the University of California, Los Angeles, our professors would = never=20 let us translate literally. They said, =93We want to know the meaning. = We don=92t=20 want to know just the words.=94

I=20 found that a number of the Greek classics had been translated very = meaningfully,=20 much better than the Bible had been translated . . . .

I=20 studied linguistics, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and I decided that = we=92ve got to=20 approach the Scripture as though it is the message and try to give its = meaning,=20 not just repeat the words. (Neff 2002:46)

Nida = goes on to=20 say that, when studying for his doctorate, he studied anthropology in = addition=20 to linguistics, communications and lexicography because, =93words only = have=20 meanings in terms of the culture of which they are a part=94 (Neff=20 2002:46).

The = interviewer=20 never inquires, and Nida never informs readers, as to his understanding = of=20 revelation and the inspiration of Scripture. We can safely assume that = he has a=20 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=20 Evangelical Theological Society. And that is important because, apart = from the=20 limitations imposed by divine inspiration of the very words of = Scripture,=20 the views of brilliant but unbelieving (in verbal-plenary inspiration) = scholars=20 easily become altogether too decisive to the theories of even=20 conservatives.

Second, in=20 order to illustrate the extreme to which dynamic-equivalence can be = taken,=20 consider the translation and contextualization approach Charles Kraft as = outlined in his magnum opus mentioned above (Kraft 1974). To his = great=20 credit, Kraft provides us with a clear explanation of his view of = revelation and=20 inspiration as well as language and contextualization. As for revelation = he=20 believes it to be subjective and continuing (Kraft 1974:184). As for the = Bible,=20 he believes it to be =93like the ocean and supracultural truth like the = icebergs=20 that float in it=94 (Kraft 1974:131). It is potentially the Word of God, = not=20 error-free except in its intended teachings (Kraft 1974: 208). Therefore = he=20 holds to the kind of =93dynamic livingness of Scripture=94 and =93vital = Christian=20 experience=94 supported by recent =93behavioral insights=94 but not = allowed for by the=20 =93static philosophical presuppositions=94 of conservative scholars = (Kraft=20 1974:211).

As = for=20 hermeneutics, Kraft does not hold to grammatical-historical = interpretation but=20 to what he calls =93ethnolinguistic interpretation=94 (Kraft = 1974:134ff.). In his=20 view the Bible is an =93inspired casebook=94 of events that were time- = and=20 culture-specific (Kraft 1974:134, 202). We have the responsibility of = analyzing=20 the context in which Bible events occurred; determining their functions = and=20 meanings in that context; and translating and contextualizing the = biblical=20 message in ways that it will impact contemporaries just as it impacted = original=20 hearers and readers.

According to=20 Kraft this is what dynamic and functional equivalence is all about. = Meaning is=20 not in words. Meaning is in people. Forms, and especially ancient forms, = are=20 relatively unimportant. Function is all-important. Revelation occurs = whenever=20 the message of the text is made =93meaning-full=94 and =93impact-full=94 = to an audience,=20 ancient or modern.

Kraft = is to be=20 applauded for being forthright and honest as well as for his many, and = sometimes=20 brilliant, insights. But in his approach the God-breathed words of = Scripture are=20 scarcely more important than the insights of their modern = interpreters=97perhaps=20 no more important. If his understanding of biblical revelation and = inspiration=20 is not the same as a Hindu understanding of the Vedas, it is at least=20 sufficiently reminiscent of it to be scary.

Third, in order=20 to show how dynamic-equivalence theory can impact contextualization = efforts=20 within our own changing culture, I will point to a current controversy = before=20 moving on.

One = of numerous=20 problems facing Bible translators (and Christian writers in general) in = the=20 Western world has to do with the =93maleness=94 of both the Old and New = Testaments.=20 A recent debate concerning the validity of a =93gender correct=94 = translation such=20 as that of the Today=92s New International Version (note = =93Today=92s New=94!)=20 will serve to illustrate what is involved.

Take = the simple=20 greeting of Paul in Galatians 1:1-2 as a case in point. In his greeting = Paul=20 wrote, =93kai hoi sun emoi pantes adelphoi=94 (=93and all the = brethren who are=20 with me=94). Now we can assume that the =93maleness=94 of this greeting = occasioned no=20 special problem in first century Galatia. And it is highly unlikely that = it=20 would cause a problem in most of the non-Western world today. But it = is a=20 problem in gender-conscious United States and Europe generally, and = among=20 feminists especially.

To = politically=20 correct TNIV translators that was unacceptable. To be = =93dynamically=20 equivalent,=94 Paul=92s greeting should not communicate any more =93male = bias=94 in=20 twenty-first century California than it did in first century Galatia. So = they=20 translated the problematic phrase as =93and all the brothers and = sisters=20 with me=94 (emphasis mine). They knew that this was not what Paul = actually wrote.=20 But neither did Paul intend to offend Galatian women, so they changed = the=20 ancient form in order to convey a meaning that, in Western = cultures today, can be expected to be more acceptable and=20 inoffensive.

Well = and good.=20 But we must not close the book on that note. We are obligated to go on = to=20 inquire as to whether the new translation is grammatically, historically = and=20 theologically correct. And the answer to that question is, =93Very = possibly not.=94=20 Why not? Because Bible scholars are not in agreement as to whether women = actually were included among those who were =93with Paul.=94 Until we = know the=20 answer to that question, we are not only unsure of the historical = accuracy of=20 the new translation, we are also unsure whether or not there might be=20 theological implications growing out of the =93maleness=94 of Paul=92s = original=20 greeting. The upshot is that we know what Paul actually wrote. We = know the=20 form. But we do not know how that form actually functioned and exactly = what it=20 meant in first century Galatia. And, though an understanding of ancient = Galatian=20 culture is helpful at that point, the original meaning will not be = understood=20 apart from a further study of the significance of gender in Scripture=20 itself.

=20 To some all of this will seem like splitting hairs. Not so to careful = Bible=20 students, however. And not so to thoughtful missionaries either. To be = sure,=20 contextualizers must pay attention to =93meaning in culture.=94 But, if = the very=20 words of Scripture are God-breathed, then textual accuracy is more = important=20 than seeming cultural relevance. In fact, when it comes to the biblical = text,=20 accuracy will be culturally relevant by definition. It will either = confirm or=20 correct cultural values and practices.

With = that in=20 mind, take yet one more look at the Galatian greeting. Notice that it = also=20 contains the phrase =93Theou patros=94 (Father God). May = not this=20 phrase also represent a male bias for some? Of course. In fact, some = radical=20 functionalists (not necessarily the TNIV translators, however) = maintain=20 that, in Latin America, a better understanding of God would result from=20 translating =93Father God=94 as =93Mother God=94 because in Latin = America the word=20 =93father=94 carries negative connotations while mothers are loved and = revered. And=20 even in North America a leader of =93goddess religion,=94 Carol P. = Christ, says that=20 Christ reconciled traditional polarities and on that basis proposes the=20 adaptation =93Goddess/God=94 (cf. Mollenkott 2004:38)!

Vern = Poythress=20 speaks precisely to our basic concern at this point. He=20 writes:

Political correctness = can, I=20 believe, influence Bible translation in spite of contrary = intentions on=20 the part of translators. The influence mainly affects details of = meaning, so it=20 may not seem too serious at first glance. But in the end it threatens = the vital=20 doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture. = (Christianity Today=20 2002:37, emphasis his)

In = the final=20 analysis, that is what is at stake, isn=92t it? It is not just, or = primarily,=20 =93What is your philosophy of translation and/or contextualization=94? = It is rather,=20 =93What is your doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture?=94

VI.THE CONTEXTUALIZATION OF = SCRIPTURES WRONGLY CONCEIVED
OF AS =93DIVINE = WRITING=94

Translating and = contextualizing=20 the Koran

=20 Though not often dealt with in popular literature, = there are=20 actually two types of inspiration in Islam: =93lower level=94 = inspiration or ilham,=20 and =93higher level=94 inspiration or wahy. Ilham is a gift of Allah = given to holy=20 men as well as to prophets, but it is subjective and therefore = trustworthy only=20 to a point. Wahy, on the other hand, is a gift of Allah to certain = prophets only=20 and is objective and fully trustworthy. From a Muslim perspective, a = problem=20 accrues to the fact that the wahy writings of prophets prior to Muhammad = (Moses=20 and Jesus, for example) have been corrupted and therefore we are left = with the=20 Koran as the only final and fully authoritative divine=20 revelation.
According to W. = Montgomery=20 Watt the essential features of Muhammad=92s wahy-type inspiration were: = =93the words=20 in his conscious mind, the absence of his own thinking; and the belief = that the=20 words were from God=94 (Watt 1969:69-70). The upshot of all of this is = that, in=20 the Muslim view, the Koran (Qur=92an) is =93the language of Allah=94 and = =93made in=20 heaven.=94 It is, in fact, a replica of the =93Mother of the Book=94 = which is in=20 heaven. As such it can be read, memorized, preached, and taught, but it = cannot=20 be translated. Inquirers into the faith themselves must ultimately = become=20 =93contextualized=94 in the sense that they must learn Arabic and read = the Koran for=20 themselves. So-called =93translations=94 are not that at all, but only=20 =93interpretations=94 and, therefore, not completely=20 trustworthy. <= /SPAN>

=20 Though not a Muslim himself, as a faithful =93translator=94 of the = Koran, A. J.=20 Arberry recognizes all of this and does his best to reproduce or to = =93imitate,=20 however imperfectly, those rhetorical and rhythmical patterns which are = the=20 glory and sublimity of the Koran=94 (Arberry 1955:28). In other words, = Arberry=20 takes into account the fact that the precise form in which = Muhammad is=20 said to have received the Koran is absolutely vital to the way in which = the=20 Koran functions. In the end, Arberry settles for calling his work = The=20 Koran Interpreted!

Bible=20 translation and the King James Version

Though=20 conservative evangelicals are sometimes accused of believing in = dictation theory=20 and are sometimes called =93word worshippers=94 (cf., Nida 2002:46), I = personally am=20 not acquainted with any such person. I believe the person is a =93straw = man.=94=20 Those who might appear to be guilty are simply very conservative when it = comes=20 to their doctrine of inspiration=97scholars of the likes of Edward Hills = and=20 Wilber Pickering (cf., Hills 1956; Pickering 1977). Their case for the=20 superiority of the King James Version does sound somewhat akin to = Arberry=92s=20 assessment of the Koran. They say that the King James or Authorized = Version is=20 both the most trustworthy and enduring translation of the Bible = available. They=20 call special attention to its beautiful prose, its majestic rhythms, and = its=20 influence upon English language and literature over the centuries. And = they=20 project that, somewhat updated and slightly revised, it will be the = standard=20 translation for many years to come.

But = their=20 argument goes deeper than that. They are rightly concerned with = manuscript=20 evidence and providential preservation of the biblical text in the face = of=20 higher criticism. They believe that in his providence, God chose the = Greek=20 church to become guardian of the New Testament. They are persuaded that = the King=20 James Version, based as it is upon the Byzantine text and the Textus=20 Receptus, is the purest and most accurate version. They agree that = periodic=20 updating on the basis of new manuscript evidence and language change is=20 warranted, but that changes should be minimal and introduced only with = great=20 care.

All = of this=20 devotion to, and all of these arguments for the superiority of, the King = James=20 Version do not merit the charge that these scholars believe in dictation = theory.=20 Nor that they are =93word worshippers.=94 Inspiration by divine = dictation is not an=20 issue in this particular debate. The issue ultimately has to do with the = inerrancy of the autographs and the trustworthiness of Bible manuscripts = and=20 translations. We may or may not agree with some of the arguments of King = James=20 Version supporters, but we should at least be appreciative of their = concerns and=20 intentions.

VII. =20 THE =93INSPIRED = WRITINGS=94 OF THE=20 BIBLE AND THEIR CONTEXTUALIZATION

As=20 for the Old and New Testament =93inspired writings,=94 they are unlike = any of the=20 =93holy books=94 mentioned above. They are absolutely unique=97the only = members of=20 this class of holy books in the history of the world!

How=20 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=20 other so-called =93holy books=94! To approach the Bible as one might = approach the=20 Kojiki or the Upanishads or the Koran is to do it a gross injustice. If = we=20 believe the Bible to be the very Word of God, we must approach it = differently.=20 We must approach it with something of the reverence with which ancient = copyists=20 approached the early manuscripts=97something considerably beyond the = seriousness=20 with which even the most respected translator might approach any other = religious=20 book. Following Warfield, we should assume that the claims the Bible = makes for=20 itself are true and treat the text in that light. Any and all reasonings = and=20 opinions stemming purely from human origins, however scholarly and well=20 intentioned, cannot claim more than secondary or tertiary = importance.

In = continuing=20 and concluding this chapter, then, my purpose will be to demonstrate = that a=20 completely authoritative revelation of God in Holy Scripture and the = clear=20 teachings and implications that accrue to Scripture constitute a basis = for=20 contextualization that is superior to any and all proposals emanating = from the=20 investigations of the human sciences. I will attempt to demonstrate the=20 significance of this approach by pointing out certain implications = stemming from=20 various Scripture texts along with affirmations selected from the = Chicago=20 statements on inerrancy and hermeneutics as restated and updated at Ft.=20 Lauderdale, 2003 by International Church Council leaders and members, = especially=20 those texts and affirmations appearing under Topic 13, =93Culture,=20 Contextualization and the Gospel=94 (available from=20 www.ChurchCouncil.org).

The=20 person of Christ and contextualization

Scripture:=20 =93Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers = by the=20 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=94=20 (Heb. 1:1,2).

Affirmation:=20 =93We affirm that God has inspired Holy Scripture to reveal Himself = through=20 Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge=94 (Topic 1, = Short=20 Statement 1).

As we = have=20 already noted, perhaps the most widely referred to example of gospel=20 contextualization in the whole of Scripture is Paul=92s address in = Athens and=20 recorded in Acts 17. The aspects of that address that are usually = highlighted=20 need not be repeated here. Rather, we take note of the fact = that

profound [Athenian] = notions of the=20 deity stand condemned, and their path leads to destruction, for the = deity about=20 whom they spoke such exalted things is not the true God who has shown = his mercy=20 in Christ Jesus, but is what Calvin referred to as the umbratile = numen,=20 the nebulous all-pervading being, fabricated by us to fill the emptiness = caused=20 by our unwillingness to recognize the true God. (Bavinck = 1960:137)

I = have=20 suggested previously that the genius (if we may call it that) of = Paul=92s=20 contextualization of the gospel in Athens is to be found not so much in = his=20 employment of aspects of Greek religiosity and culture as it is to be = found in=20 the way he presented the Creator God, his dealing with the nations, and = Christ.=20 Paul referred to past times included the =93Golden Age of Athens=94 as = =93times of=20 ignorance=94 and called upon Athenians and all men to repent of their = idolatrous=20 ways (Acts 17:30).

Paul = speaks=20 here as an apostle, as one of that small group of men who were = personally chosen=20 and sent forth by Christ to proclaim his gospel. He, among others, would = also be=20 chosen and inspired to make an enduring written record of that = gospel=97of whom=20 Christ is and what he said and did as Messiah and Lord. That apostolic = record=20 remained to be completed, but as for Paul=92s experience with the risen = Lord and=20 his calling to be the =93apostle to the Gentiles,=94 that was = verifiable, vivid and=20 the revelational basis of Paul=92s message. The written record would = come later=20 and become the inspired source of both the mission and the message of = all who,=20 following in Paul=92s train, would preach the gospel of Christ and build = his=20 church. Of that mission and church, Paul writes that it is =93built on = the=20 foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the = cornerstone=94=20 (Eph. 2:20). Christ Jesus, then, is the cornerstone, not alone of the = Christian=20 church, but also of gospel contextualization.

Propositional revelation = and=20 biblical truth

Scripture: = Sanctify them=20 in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17).

Affirmation:=20 =93We affirm that the Bible expresses God=92s truth in propositional = statements,=20 and we declare that Biblical truth is both objective and absolute=94 = (Topic 2,=20 Articles of Affirmation and Denial, Article VI).

All = Scripture=20 is true including all of its propositions. The Bible contains much more = than=20 propositional statements, of course. Some of the Bible is poetry; some = is=20 narrative; some is command; some is exhortation, and so on. But the = propositions=20 of Scripture have occasioned most of our problems in modern and = post-modern=20 times. Propositional statements are judged to be true or false in a way = that=20 poetic and hortatory statements, for example, are not and that = constitutes a=20 special problem for many.

Modernism was=20 characterized by an inclination to judge many of the historical = propositions of=20 the Bible, and some of its doctrinal propositions as well, to be false.=20 Therefore, modernists did not read Bible history in order to learn = history, for=20 example, so much as to make judgments about that history. Post-modernism = is=20 different. It tends to judge most of the propositions of Bible, and = perhaps its=20 doctrinal propositions especially, to be more or less inconsequential = even if=20 true. Therefore, post-modernists tend to neglect doctrinal sections and = prefer=20 other parts of the Bible in the mistaken belief that doctrinal = propositions are=20 not essential to spirituality. The judgments of both modernists and=20 post-modernists are erroneous, but since the latter constitutes the = greater=20 threat to evangelical orthodoxy currently we will focus on that = here.

Opposing both=20 mistaken views of inspiration and misguided understandings of the nature = of=20 biblical doctrine, Gordon Lewis makes a strong case for propositional = revelation=20 as being essential to evangelical spiritual formation (Lewis = 2003:269-98).=20 Lewis=92s monograph is particularly pertinent in this context. He first = shows that=20 the various kinds of propositionless spiiritualities are without = foundation. He=20 then points to foundations of evangelical spirituality such as the = Creator as=20 the Author of universally revealed propositions; the basis of = revelational=20 propositionalism in the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; = and the=20 working of the Holy Spirit in and through biblical propositions. = Finally, he=20 lists ten distinct and practical ways in which biblical propositions = produce=20 true spirituality. For example, propositions sharpen the goals of = spirituality,=20 reveal love to be normative, direct us to sources of strength, show us = how to=20 live by faith, encourage us to practice the presence of God, and = encourage us to=20 love the church.

If we = truly=20 believe that the Bible is without error and completely trustworthy, = Lewis=92s case=20 is incontrovertible. True spirituality is precisely that which the Holy = Spirit=20 effects, not apart from but by means of, the Bible and Bible doctrine. = Jesus=20 prayed that his people would be sanctified in the truth and immediately = added=20 =93Your word is truth=94 (John 17:17). The apostle Paul declared = =93All=20 Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for = reproof,=20 for correction and for training in righteousness that the man of God may = be=20 competent, equipped for every good work=94 (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

If = missionaries=20 are to be Christian contextualizers, and especially if they are = to be=20 evangelical Christian contextualizers, they are obligated to = respond to=20 both the post-modernist spirituality of the West and the classic = mystical=20 religiosity of the East by reverently studying and fervently teaching = Bible=20 doctrine.

The=20 work of the Spirit and Bible interpretation

Scripture:=20 =93And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the = truth=94 (1 John 5:6).

Affirmation:=20 =93We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its = literal,=20 or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, = that is,=20 the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the = literal=20 sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms = found in the=20 text=94 (Topic 2, Article XV).

All = too often=20 the hard work of studying the biblical text and the necessity of = trusting the=20 Holy Spirit for guidance and illumination are divorced from one another. = That=20 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=20 never divorced from the human work of interpreting and applying = Scripture in=20 accordance with the normal rules that apply to historical inquiry and = literary=20 interpretation. We have already seen some of the ways in which the = abrogation of=20 this approach to a Holy Spirit-inspired Bible works havoc with its = meaning and=20 significance. There are still others.

About = half a=20 century ago, the writings of a =93new=94 rhetorician and literary = critic, Kenneth=20 Burke became prominent in academies around the country. Burke=92s = seminal mind=20 allowed him to range over a vast expanse of literary works including = theological=20 writings. Pertinent to our present discussion is the fact that in one = context=20 Burke notes four kinds of =93medieval interpretation=94 defined by = Thomas Aquinas in=20 his Summa Theologica: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. = For=20 Burke, Aquinas=92 definitions illustrate how ordinary descriptive = language can be=20 =93socioanagogical=94=97how its meaning can be interpreted mystically = and lend itself=20 to arguments for sweeping social change, for example (Burke 1962:774). = In=20 Burke=92s view this can occur quite irrespective of the intention of the = original=20 author whose =93scene=94 (the total situation or set of circumstances in = which he or=20 she wrote) can be assumed to be very different from that in which a = reader is=20 called upon to interpret (discover the meaning of) the author=92s = writing. It=20 follows that the intention of the author is not as crucial to the = interpretation=20 of what he wrote as is the =93scene=94 in which he wrote it. And, for = that matter,=20 neither the author=92s intent nor the author=92s =93scene=94 is as = important as the=20 reader/interpreter=92s =93scene=94 and intention!

Burke = greatly=20 influenced both secular and Christian literary criticism. Just before = the=20 mid-twentieth century mark, W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley began = speaking=20 about the =93intentional fallacy=94 in Bible interpretation. Applying = Burke=92s ideas=20 to Bible interpretation, they concluded that what the Bible writer meant = or=20 intended to say has become irrelevant with the passage of time. It is = the=20 meaning and application of the text as determined by the reader in his = or her=20 world that is important. In a very real sense, therefore, the ancient = authors of=20 the Bible are not as important as the contemporary interpreters in = determining=20 both the meaning and application of what is written. Sometimes called = =93formalist=20 criticism,=94 this approach to Bible interpretation invaded many a = theological=20 school just at a time when baby-boomers were getting their education in = the late=20 1960s and l970s and its influence is still widely felt. Meaning for you, = meaning=20 for me; meaning for our times, meaning for this generation=97this is = where many=20 schools, many churches, many Bible study groups now find = themselves.

But = that is not=20 the end of mischief in this connection. Burke=92s =93rhetoric of = motives=94=20 underscores the potency of the intentions of readers/interpreters (and = their=20 audience). In a passage that is seldom noted, he recalls Pascal=92s = criticism of=20 certain Jesuits who proposed to =93direct the intention=94 of wayward = believers of=20 their day. Since church members would not change their ways, these = Jesuits=20 proposed to teach wayward believers how to apply Christian motives to = their=20 unChristian behaviors. By doing so, worldly believers could stay in the = church=20 while living unChristian lives (Burke 1962:680-81) A contemporary = illustration=20 of what Burke, and Pascal, were talking about would be the case of one = of my=20 former students. He wanted to be a missionary and maintained that he was = serious=20 about being a good witness for Christ as commanded in Acts 1:8. In this = way he=20 justified frequent attendance at X-rated movies. His intention, he said, = was to=20 witness for Christ. He always tried to go in the company of unbelievers = and use=20 the movie to demonstrate that the Bible is true when it says that all = people are=20 sinners!

It is = little=20 short of amazing what both the educated and uneducated can come up with = when the=20 text and meaning of Scripture are divorced from the intent of its = authors and=20 their inspired words. Meaning intended by the authors is prior to = meaning=20 interpreted by the readers. Meaning then comes before meaning now. = Little=20 wonder, then, that the framers of both the ICBI and ICC statements said, = =93We=20 affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its = literal,=20 or normal sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, = that is,=20 the meaning that the writers expressed under the inspiration of the = Holy=20 Spirit.=94

The=20 Christian church and orthodoxy/orthopraxy

Scripture:=20 =93You are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the = household of God,=20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus = himself being=20 the cornerstone=94 (Eph. 2:19-20).

Affirmation:=20 =93We affirm that true Christian unity must be based on a doctrinal = foundation=20 that includes historic Christian doctrine as revealed in the inerrant = Scriptures=20 and expressed in the Apostles=92 Creed=94 (Topic 11, Article = VI).

When = Christian=20 missionaries go into the world they are duty-bound to deliver God=92s = Word of=20 redemption. But that is not all. The framers of the affirmation above, = as well=20 as our Lord Jesus and the authors of Scripture themselves, attest to the = fact=20 that the inerrant Word of God is integral, not just to the saving = faith of=20 individuals, but also to the time-tested faith of the = church!=20 Of the many reasons that can be adduced for this, I will make mention of = but two=20 here: linkage with the historic church and =93critical=20 contextualization.=94

First, biblical=20 mission links the emerging church with the historic church, the church = of the=20 twenty-first century with the church of the first century! From the lips = of=20 Jesus we hear =93Thy Word is truth.=94 From the pen of Paul we read, = =93All Scripture=20 is breathed out by God.=94 From the early church we learn the = Apostles=92 Creed.=20 From the works of Papias, second century bishop of Hierapolis, we read=20 statements like =93Mark made no mistake when he thus wrote down some = things as he=20 remembered them; for he made it his especial care to omit nothing of = what he=20 heard and to make no false statement therein=94 (cf. Bettenson=20 1947:38).

Local = churches=20 are not spiritual islands. The historic church of Christ, and sending = and=20 receiving churches today, are best served by a conscious and careful = linkage=20 with each other through a common confession of the authority of = Scripture, the=20 deity and lordship of Jesus Christ, and other cardinal doctrines = affirmed and=20 re-affirmed through history.

Second, as soon=20 as practicable, missionaries and leaders of the emerging church should = hold=20 regular discussions concerning the meaning of the biblical text as it = relates to=20 cultural practices and expectations. Paul Hiebert=92s term for this = process is=20 =93critical contextualization=94 (cf. Hiebert 1987:287-96). Once = converts are=20 forthcoming and the church begins to form, these discussions become, = well,=20 critical! Rituals and revels, ceremonies and celebrations, and monuments = and=20 meetings of indigenous cultures have cultural meanings and functions = that are=20 important and may be something more or other than reported. = Missionaries,=20 pastors and laity need to come together with the members of the church = body in=20 order to discuss cultural beliefs and practices that impact the church = in the=20 clear light of Scripture. Together they should decide how the church = will=20 respond to them either as obstacles to Christian living and testimony or = as=20 opportunities for commucating the gospel of Christ.

This = discussion=20 of ICBI and ICC affirmations of bibilical authority and perspicuity and = their=20 significance for Christian contextualization could be greatly extended. = For=20 example, we might go on to show how they reinforce the practical = importance of=20 the kind of biblical theology that =93describes God by recounting what = God has=20 done. . . . the acts of God in history, together with what must be = inferred from=20 those acts=94 (Wright 1991:101). Or how, while still holding to the = importance of=20 Western theologies (cf. Davis, ed. 1978), along with Tite Tienou we = still must=20 recognize that Western theology is not universally normative and = theologians in=20 other cultures should be encouraged to do their own theologizing (Tienou = 1992:261).

So, = much=20 remains to be said, but what has been said is perhaps sufficient to = demonstrate=20 that the best starting point and most valid foundation for Christian=20 contextualization are the teachings of the biblical text rather than the = insights of secular science. This is not to diminish the helpfulness of = the=20 latter. When one thinks of the value of comparative linguistics to = language=20 acquisition alone, for example, one is even more astounded by the=20 accomplishments of William Carey who labored without them. Nevertheless, = when=20 one also considers the open-endedness of contextualization attempts = unattended=20 and untethered by the requirements of verbal-plenary inspiration, one = becomes=20 profoundly grateful that we have not been left without an authoritative = Word=20 from the Triune God!

VIII. =20 CONCLUSION

Missionary=20 contextualization that is authentically and effectively Christian and=20 evangelical does not begin with a knowledge of linguistics and = communication,=20 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=20 Testament Scripture. On the basis of a commitment to the authority of = that Word=20 and its truth and dissemination, tools afforded by relevant sciences can = and=20 must be utilized to enable us to understand Scripture and communicate it = meaningfully and effectively across cultures. Apart from that = commitment, the=20 utilization of the tools of the various sciences may not serve to = enhance=20 understanding and may even endanger it.

*Excerpted from=20 David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in = Christian=20 Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005) = 254-274.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arberry, Arthur J. 1955 = The=20 Koran Interpreted. New York: Macmillan.

Bettenson, Henry, ed. = Documents=20 of the Christian Church. New York & London: Oxford University = Press,=20 1947.

Burke, Kenneth. A = Grammar of=20 Motives and A Rhetoric of Motives. Cleveland and N.Y.: World = (Meridian=20 Books), 1962.

Christianity=20 Today.=20 2000 = =93The TNIV=20 Debate,=94 Oct. 7, 200, 35-45.

Buswell, J. Oliver. A = Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2. Soteriology = and=20 Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1963.

Davis, John Jefferson, = ed. The=20 Necessity of Systematic Theology, 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids: = Baker,=20 1978.

Dorrien, Gary. The = Making of=20 American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900.=20 Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2001.

English Standard = Version. Preface,=20 vii-ix. Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers, 2001.

Geisler, Norman, ed. = 1979=20 Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.

Grenz, Stanley J. and = Franke, John=20 R. 2001 Beyond Foundationalism. Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John = Knox,=20 2001.

Henry, Carl F. H. = Toward a=20 Recovery of Christian Belief: The Rutherford Lectures. Wheaton, IL:=20 Crossway, 1990.

Hesselgrave, David J.=20 =93Contextualization and Revelational Epistemology.=94 In Radmacher and = Preus, eds.=20 Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit = II. Grand=20 Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Communicating Christ=20 Cross-Culturally: An Introduction to Missionary = Communication, 2^nd ed. = Grand Rapids:=20 Zondervan, 1990.

Scripture and Strategy: = The Use of=20 the Bible in Postmodern Church and Mission. Pasadena, CA: William = Carey,=20 1994.

Hesselgrave, David J. = and Rommen,=20 Edward. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models. = Pasadena, CA:=20 William Carey, 1989.

Hiebert, Paul=20 G. =93Critical Contextualization,=94 Missiology 12(2), 1987,=20 287-296.

Hills, Edward F. The = King James=20 Version Defended. (Des Moines, IA.: The Christian Research Press,=20 1956.

Holtom, D. C. 1943 = Modern Japan=20 and Shinto Nationalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,=20 1943.

International Church = Council=20 Project. Timeless Truth for the Twenty-first Century: The Documents = of the=20 International Church Council Project. P. O. Box 148, Hathaway Pines, = CA: The=20 International Church Council Project, 2001.

Kato, Byang H. 1975 = Theological=20 Pitfalls in Africa. Kisumu, Kenya: Evangel, 1975.

Kraft, Charles H. = Christianity=20 and Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural=20 Theologizing. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis, 1979.

Langer, Susanne K. = Philosophy=20 in a New Key. New York: New American Library of World Literature = (Mentor=20 Books), 1948.

Lewis, Gordon R. =93Is = Propositional=20 Revelation Essential to Evangelical Spiritual Formation?=94 Journal of = the=20 Evangelical Theological Society, 46(2), 2001, 269-98.

Maeda, Eizoh. A Study = of=20 Evangelistic Preaching of Selected American Evangelists in an Attempt to = Discover Evangelistic Preaching Principles Which Would be Effective in = Japanese=20 Evangelism. Master of Arts thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity = School,=20 Deerfield, IL, 1971.

McGavran, Donald A. 1974 = The=20 Clash Between Christianity and Culture. Washington, D.C: Canon,=20 1974.

Mollenkott, Virginia = Ramey.=20 Review: She Who Changes: Re-Imagining the Divine in the World by = Carol P.=20 Christ. Christian Century, June 1, 2001, 38.

Neff, David. = =93Meaning-full=20 Translations,=94 Christianity Today, Oct. 7, 2000, = 46-49.

=93Discovering Unity: = Two=20 theologians are bullish on evangelical futures.=94 Christianity = Today, Feb.=20 4, 2004:75-76,

Prabhavananda, Swami and = Manchester, Frederick. The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal. New = York:=20 The New American Library, 1956.

Pickering, Wilbur N. = 1977 The=20 Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: T. Nelson, = 1977.

Radmacher, Earl D., and = Preus,=20 Robert D., eds. Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, & the Bible: Papers from = ICBI=20 Summit II. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Academie Books), = 1984.

Scott, John R. W., and = Coote,=20 Robert T., eds. Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture. = Grand=20 Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Sharpe, Eric J. Fifty = Key=20 Words: Comparative Religion. Richmond, VA: John Knox, = 1971.

Tienou, Tite. =93Which = Way for=20 African Christianity: Westernization or Indigenous Authenticity?=94 = Evangelical=20 Missions Quarterly 28(3), 1990:256-263.

Warfield, Benjamin = Breckenridge.=20 The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: = Presbyterian=20 and Reformed, 1967.

Watt, W. Montgomery. = 1969=20 Islamic Revelation in the Modern World. Edinburgh: University = Press,=20 1969.

Wells, David F. God = in the=20 Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand = Rapids,=20 MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co. and Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity,=20 1994.

Winter, Ralph D. =93The = Theology of=20 the Law of God.=94 In Foundations of Global Civilization: Semester = One.=20 Mentors Handbook 27:1. Pasadena, CA: Institute of International = Studies,=20 U.S. Center for World Mission, 1993.

Wright, G. Ernest. 1992 = =93Biblical=20 Theology (OT).=94 In New 20^th-Century Encyclopedia of = Religious=20 Knowledge, J. D. Douglas, gen. ed., 101-104. Grand Rapids: Baker,=20 1992.

Published under=20 =93Contextualization=94 at http://www.globalmissiology.org= /,=20 January 2008

Top

David J. = Hesselgrave,Professor=20 Emeritus of Missions, TEDS

David J. = Hesselgrave,
Professor=20 Emeritus of Missions, TEDS