a. Try to determine the extent to which the underlying theological principle dominates the surface application. Julius Scott correctly stresses the need to isolate the salvific intention and relation of the command to the early church’s faith and practice (1979:67- 77). When we have ascertained the principle on which the command is based, we can delineate the extent to which they overlap. For instance, the command to greet “with a
b. See when the writer depends on traditional teaching or on the other hand applies a temporary application to a specific cultural problem. These, of course, are not mutually exclusive. However, it is helpful to recognize when the author borrows from earlier teaching, which shows that the current situation does not entirely control the response.
Paul’s use of traditional teaching and Old Testament proof-texts must caution us before we too easily assume that the passages regarding women in the church no longer apply to our day. The same is true of Paul’s arguments regarding long hair for women and short hair for men (1 Cor 11:14-15). There Paul uses cultural language (“it is a disgrace”) but the key is “nature” (“does not the very nature of things teach you,” v. 14), which George Knight interprets as the creation order rather than cultural practices (1984:247-50). How- ever, this is not at all clear, and I agree with those who see “nature” in terms of cultural practices. Yet even if we accept Knight’s interpretation, this does not mandate the com- mand for us as well. Both tradition and culture interact, and we must turn to the other criteria to aid us in deciding whether the short hair-long hair passage transcends cultural differences.
c. When the teaching transcends the cultural biases of the author and readers, it is more likely to be normative. This is true regarding Galatians 3:28 and the issue of slavery, as well as regarding passages related to the universal mission. Clearly, they are not tied to any specific cultural situation and therefore are programmatic theological statements. Fee and Stuart state this another way (1982:68). When a writer agrees with a situation in which there is only one option, the passage is more likely to be culturally relative. They use slavery as an example. When Paul and the other writers fail to denounce slavery as evil, they simply reflect a situation in which there was no other possibility. The univer- sality of the practice means that they had no basis for considering other options. In Galatians 3:28 they went as far as the larger situation allowed.
d. If the command is wholly tied to a cultural situation, it is not timeless in itself.
However, as Cheryl Guth shows, it is not so easy to determine the extent of the cultural influence. She suggests four tests to do so: 1’ (1) Does the author’s language contain cultural indicators that lead one to search for the divine norm behind the temporal application? If the author himself states that it is not normative (such as Jn 13:15, which calls Jesus’ footwashing an “example”), the decision is simple if there is strong cultural language (such as “scandal,” “disgrace, ” “no other practice” in 1 Cor 11:2-16 on the head covering), we have a pointer but not absolute proof of a time-bound assertion. (2) Does it point to a local custom or cultural institution? Again, we have to determine the extent of the connection. The wearing of the head covering was strongly connected to the first- century situation rather than to our own day, but is this enough to overcome the basis in the creation command? (3) Does the author address only a culture-specific situation or question? The instructions regarding meat offered to idols stemmed from the Corinthian situation as mentioned in Chloe’s letter. Therefore, the principle of the strong and the weak applies but not the specifics (unless we have a similar cultural situation). (4) Would the -
3 3 2 The Hsrmeneutical Spiral Homiletics I: Conlsxlualizalion 3 3 3
command be an issue today if there were no mention of it in Scripture? This, of course, is more subjective but with the others can still be helpful. It is another pointer to the cultural basis of the head-covering command as well as footwashing or the holy kiss.
e. Commands that by nature are moral or theological will be closely tied to the divine will.18 Commands dealing generally with such issues as adultery or prayer by nature transcend any particular cultural setting. Here we would note that the later prohibition of polygamy was not merely due to cultural change but was rooted in the progressive revelation of God’s will.19 In the same way, we must see the prohibition of homosexuality as normative, tied as it is to divinely established moral laws. Here too the answer to the question of baptism in Islamic lands is answered. It is a theological mandate with no cultural limits. Whether in Judaea or Rome, baptism was practiced. Anchored as it is in the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) and in God’s will (1 Pet 3:20-21), it is mandated for all generations.
In sum, the major problem of dynamic-equivalent contextualization is the assumption that biblical authority occurs only at the “deep structure” level and not in the surface statements. As J. Robertson McQuilkin asks, “Does inspiration extend to all of Scripture or only to enduring religious principles?” (1980:114). I agree with McQuilkin’s fear that such rules as espoused above may enable one to replace Scripture with culture as the truly authoritative norm. The criteria must be used together and never separately. For instance, the issue of women in the church can be solved only when one has compared the fact that Paul grounds it in the eternal norm of creation and the Fall with the further presence of cultural indicators within it. We must seek God’s will for the present day rather than read our own will into the text.
It is important to emphasize that we are not arguing for a canon within the canon.’ We are not dealing here with meaning but with significance. The process of deciding supra- cultural/cultural does not entail the former having greater “authority” than the latter.
Rather, we seek to delineate how a passage applies to us in our context, whether at the level of the surface command (if it is supracultural) or at the deeper level of the underlying principle (if the surface command is cultural, or meant for the first century but not applying literally to today). Both types are inspired and authoritative; the only question is in what way the command applies to our current context. We must remember that a culturally based command is still applicable today in any culture that parallels the first- century setting.
Finally, after determining the supracultural element, it is still difficult to inculturate it in the diverse situations of our day. As Buswell states, we must radically remove these principles from our own norms: “Only a supracultural message disengaged from any cultural context is free to be inculturated in another” (1978:103). In other words, the significance of a passage refers to the many different ways that principle can be applied in various contexts. Interpreters dare not demand their own contextualization but must allow the principle to live anew in other situations. That is the subject of the next section.
A Method for Contextualization
The key to contextualization is to seek a true fusion of the horizons of both the biblical
text and the modern situation. This involves primarily a fusion of contexts, that behind the ancient text and that faced in the current context. Once more 1 will utilize Nida and Taber’s useful diagram; only now I will switch from the original language and receptor language to the original context (OC) and receptor context (RC)-see figure 15.4.
oc
backward transformation _
universal norms
forward transformation
RC
Fig. 15.4. The Process of Contextualization.
There are two aspects of the biblical (original) context, the sociocultural situation behind the passage (discovered via background research) and the literary context that contains the passage (discovered via exegetical research). Both are essential. The cultural context determines the sphere of modern life addressed by the passage; the literary context determines the message addressed to the modern context. The interpreter must seek a consistent and significant overlap between the original and receptor contexts before true contextualization can occur. Failure at either level will result in an improper, if not false, contextualization that can have serious consequences. At the missiological level it will produce a syncretized religion that is only half Christian (called “christopaganism”), similar to that produced at Colossae or Ephesus (see Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles or 1 John). At the level of the Western church it can lead to serious distortions like positive confession, the gospel of prosperity or positive thinking. At the very least shallow contextualizing can undo much of the good that proper exposition has accomplished, since the congregation will carry into their daily lives an improper understanding as to how to put the elucidated truths into practice. Good contextualization is just as important as good exegesis in hermeneutics, since interpretation includes praxis as well as theoria.
If the proper task of translation and exegesis is to ask how the original author would say it (that is, the’truth presented in the passage) if he were speaking to my audience, the task of contextualization is to determine “how what was asked of the original au- dience (what the author asked them to do) can be relived by my audience.“20
There should be contextual overlap or match in three areas for proper contextualiza- tion to occur, according to Hesselgrave and Rommen (1989: chap. twelve). There should be overlap first in the semantic field or at the level of meaning. If one alters the biblical message in order to establish communication or to apply the text to a specific need, truth can be sacrificed on the altar of relevance, The first priority is God’s revealed message;
the medium of communication must not only take second place, it must be selected entirely for the purpose of putting across that message. However, scholars fiercely debate the amount of freedom one has in choosing the correct term or idea. For instance, do we take a significant theological idea like “the lamb of God” and change it to “the pig of God” for certiin African tribes that do not have lambs but raise swine instead? Many missiologists say no because there is not sufficient linguistic overlap and it will inevitably clash with Old Testament passages on pigs as unclean animals. The arguments for re- -
334 The Hsrmensutical Spiral Homiletics I: Contextualization 335 taining the unknown figure is that the missionary can explain important concepts, and
the process will deepen the understanding of the tribes. This is certainly valid in areas where there are teachers; however, it will not work in bush regions where there are none.
One solution might be to contextualize a figure like the lamb if the translation is for evangelistic purposes and is intended for areas devoid of Christian teachers. Elsewhere such important theological images, even if unknown, would be retained. However, one must wonder whether the new metaphor would be much better. For instance, the function of pigs in African societies is scarcely the same as lambs in ancient Judaea. Therefore, perhaps it is better to keep the term lamb of God and add a brief explanatory note.
The second area of overlap or match is that of context. The goal is to enable the modern hearer to actualize that revealed message with as much practical validity as did the original audience for whom it was intended. I will expand this in the next chapter, but must introduce the concept here as well. Interpreters/proclaimers must note the situation behind the passage-that is, the circumstances that led the original author to emphasize his point-and then they must seek a parallel situation in the lives of the receptor audience. The passage will then be applied to and address that parallel modern situation.
Finally, contextualization should seek to match the biblical message with the “internal template” of the hearer, namely one’s internal bank of world view, knowledge about the world and memory system. Hesselgrave and Rommen assert that good contextualization will expand the internal memories to include the data being presented (1989: chap. 12).
In other words the truths will be internalized and personalized to the extent that they become part of the individuals, transforming the very way they look at the world and react to it. In this sense contextualization includes not only interpretation and application but persuasion and motivation (see pp. 352-53). This is certainly correct, for praxis involves acting upon the data, not merely understanding how it applies.
The Willowbank Report calls for a fusion of the horizons that takes “with due serious- ness the original historical and cultural context” and at the same time speaks to our time.
This is accomplished when the reader from his or her cultural background establishes a
“dialogue” with the text:
As we address Scripture, Scripture addresses us. We find that our culturally condi- tioned presuppositions are being challenged and our questions corrected. In fact, we are compelled to reformulate our previous questions and to ask fresh ones. So the living interaction proceeds. (Coote and Stott 1980:316-17)
In this sense contextualization is the second half of a unitary hermeneutical journey from meaning to significance as the Word of God is actualized in human, cultural experience.
This does not mean that the interpreter can move behind his own preunderstanding to meaning, as if we can leave our own cultural history and move solely into the biblical world to objective knowledge. As Dietrich asserts, “Any theology is necessarily contex- tual. Therefore it will be more honest the more it becomes conscious of its context”(italics his).2i Within a proper hermeneutical spiral, the biblical world view highlights our own and enables us consciously to place our belief system in front of the context for challenge or (if need be) correction. Certainly, once we have explained the “meaning” of the text,
we have already contextualized it to an extent. However, if the process of backward and forward transformation diagrammed above works (as I believe it does), we can discover that transcultural meaning which bridges from the text to our context without violating the original meaning. In this way we bracket and transcend our preunderstanding, yet communicate properly to our own cultural context.
In backward transformation the interpreter detects the transcultural element in the passage, that basic content which transcends the biblical context and addresses the church in every age. Some passages cross over intact, such as commands against pride and dissension (Phil 2: 1-4, 14-18). Others must be transferred at a deeper level, such as Paul’s diatribe against the Judaizers (Phil 3:1-6, 18-19) which would be applied to false teachers in general. Some are debatable, such as passages dealing with persecution (Heb 12; 1 Pet 3:13-4:19). Many believe ,these should be contextualized only in terms of specific per- secution today while others think they are applicable to general trials as well (see Jas 2:2- 4; 1 Pet 1:6-7).
The backward transformation yields universal truths that apply to all cultures. These can then be forward transformed to address particular issues in the receptor culture. The goal is to seek those parallel situations that the biblical writers would address if they were present today. For instance, the passage on the “traditions of the elders” (Mk 7:1-20) makes no sense in our modern context, for ritual uncleanness is not found in many societies today. Therefore, we must seek the universal truth embedded in the story. The issue is human tradition versus God’s rules. The law requiring washing before eating was not a part of the Law of Moses; it was only found in the “oral tradition.” Therefore, Jesus argued that the Pharisees set up extra rules that actually resulted in obviating the true intentions of God. This is the deep structure principle or universal truth. In contextu- alizing it in a receptor culture we would look for other legalistic regulations that become
“yokes” around the believer’s neck (compare Acts 15: 10). Some might have certain dress codes or behavioral demands (such as “Sunday dress” or certain acts of piety) that stem from the near past rather than Scripture and can become barriers to the proclamation of the gospel. Such should be opposed in ways similar to Jesus in Mark 7. Similarly, worship patterns in oriental cultures should be built upon their own ways of expressing praise to God rather than upon Western modes.
Liberation theology provides a good case study. Its theologians’ evaluation of context is certainly correct-the economic oppression of the poor, the misuse of Scripture by the wealthy to keep the poor content to wait for their reward in heaven and so forth. They also correctly note the strong emphasis on care for the poor in the Torah, the prophets, Jesus’ teaching and the Epistles. However, when they give this context hermeneutical control over Scripture and turn even the cross into a protest against economic exploi- tation, they go too far. To define salvation as the liberation of the poor and to identify a guerilla fighter like Che Guevara as a Christ-figure are serious errors.
Scripture is just as opposed to economic oppression as is the liberation theologian, but not to the virtual exclusion of the spiritual sphere of salvation, which clearly is the central issue throughout the Bible. When liberation theologians reinterpret passages on spiritual salvation as demanding economic revolution, they ignore the meaning of the text and are
,,
3 3 6 The Hermeneutical Spiral
guilty of serious hermeneutical error. Evangelical “liberationists” like Orlando Costas, Rentt Padilla or Emilio Nufiez are in the process of developing an alternative model that seeks a balance between the temporal (the necessity of prophetic opposition to social injustice) and the spiritual (reaching the unbeliever with the gospel message of spiritual salvation in Jesus the Christ), between the already (liberation in the present) and the not yet (final liberation only at the Eschaton). Most important, evangelical contextualizers wish to operate from the whole counsel of God, to make the biblical voice central over the voice of the modern context, to achieve a true fusion of horizons in which all the intended transcultural truths of the Bible are actualized in the lives of Christians today.
Oppdsition to social evils will not cease but rather will take its proper place not at the top but within the matrix of Christian praxis as one aspect of (but not the whole of) Christian reaction to the world (see, for example, Padilla 1979:63-78; Nufiez 1984: 166-94).
Paul Hiebert calls for a “critical contextualization” that avoids the ethnocentrism of the past or the relativism and syncretism that too often results from dynamic equivalence approaches.22 His three steps provide a good summary of the forward transformation process. First, one must study the receptor culture via an uncritical analysis of beliefs and customs; that is, a search for understanding and appreciation of their total world view and of the customs that result. Second, the preacher guides the people in a study of Scripture as it speaks to the “cognitiqe, affective, and evaluative dimensions” of their culture. In so doing, the people will be led from the intended meaning of the biblical text to its significance for their situation. Both aspects are necessary. Third, the people them- selves evaluate critically their beliefs and customs in light of the biblical truths. Discovery leads to evaluation and then to response. At times this will result in a positive assessment as they integrate scriptural truth into their cultural assessment. At other times they will have to modify or radically change their customs. New rituals will be developed that express these contextualized truths.
Conclusion
A six-stage process may best describe the task of contextualization as it moves from the biblical text to our modern context, from original meaning to current significance. Sim- ply stated, the method blends theoria and praxis, with the goal of enabling the church in diverse cultures to affirm and live out biblical truths with the same dynamic power as did the early church (see figure 15.5).
1. Determine the surface message. Using the exegetical tools elucidated in the first section of this book, the interpreter should determine the original intended message of the passage. Moreover, this should be done with contextualization in mind, that is, the way the biblical author addressed his original readers. Biblical books were situational in nature; they were written with a specific message addressed to a particular situation in the life of Israel or the church. The preacher/interpreter wants to distinguish both as- pects: the original message and the way it was communicated to the reader.
2. Determine the deep structureprinciple behind the message. This is the larger biblical- theological truth utilized by the author in addressing the readers. The surface message
Homiletics I: Contexlualization 3 3 7
What It Meant What It Means
Surface Meaning (Exegesis)
1
Deep Structure Principle (Biblical Theology)
1
Original Situation (Backgrounds)
Specific Contextualization t
General Contextualization t
* Parallel Situation
Fig. 15.5. The Six-Stage Process of Contextualization.
often contextualizes the deeper principle in order to address a specific problem in the original audience. For instance, the “alien” and “sojourner” passages in 1 Peter (1: 1, 17;
2:ll) build upon the early church’s teaching on home or citizenship in heaven (such as Phil 3:20; Eph 2:19; Heb 12:22). Also, the passage on the head-covering for women (1 Cor 11:2-16) contextualizes the principle of submission (vv. 3, 7-9) for the problem of women praying with their heads uncovered. The “covering” was a sign of submission.
Paul and the other sacred authors would stress one aspect of a larger theological truth jn order to speak to a particular issue. It is helpful for the interpreter to discover the biblical theology behind the point of the text and to see exactly what issue is being addressed. As noted above, this is a critical aspect in delineating cultural from supracul- tural passages. It is also important as part of the process of contextualization. As I will note below, the passage can be applied to the modern context at either the surface or deep structure level.
3. Note the original situation. The situation behind the text determined why the author chose the particular aspect to stress in the surface message. However, this is also the most difficult of the three levels (surface message, biblical theological principle and the situ- ation addressed) to determine. The Epistles and the prophets are more direct in stating the situation than is narrative literature, but nevertheless it is often very complex even there. For instance, what are the exact identities of the false teachers in the Pastorals, the heresy in Colossians, or the super-apostles in 2 Corinthians? However, we can still determine the situation in a general sense, 23 and so long as we do not assume more certainty than we possess, it is a helpful tool. In narrative books, there are two types, the historical situation depicted in the text and the Sitz im Leben (‘fsituation in the life”
of Israel and the church) behind the text. The latter is very speculative, and out of twenty- five articles by scholars on a passage, there will often be twenty-five different opinions.
Therefore, the situation in the story itself is more valuable. For instance, it is almost impossible to detect the Sitz im Leben behind the Jacob-Esau conflict (Gen 27), but the situation in the text (rivalry over the blessing but God’s unseen hand in the background)
provides tremendous contextualization opportunities. c