Zach’s Theological Musings

  [See Hyper-Contextualization post for some background regarding what concerns me on this subject.] 

  Paul’s sermon in Athens is often cited, especially in missionary contexts, to support the ideas of “building bridges” and “meeting people where they are at.” If anything, though, the kind of “bridge building” that I hear coming out in Paul’s sermon is very different from the kind of “bridge building” that says we should identify as much with our listeners as possible. Note in particular, the contrasting first and second person pronouns in Paul’s opening words:

“Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you…. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” - Acts 17:22-23, 29-31

  The Greek word for “judge” here (in verse 31) is rooted in the idea of separation. In this sermon we see a chasm of separation. Paul is declaring to the Athenians that they are on the dangerous side of the chasm, the side that is soon to face that righteous judgement of God. He, on the other hand, has found safe ground by God’s grace. If he was still in their position he would be of no help to them. But precisely because he is not where they are at, he is able to plea with them, “Come, cross over from there to here.”

  Yes, there certainly is a bridge in this sermon. But Paul didn’t build it. He pointed people to the Man appointed by God, the One and Only who has ever bridged the gap from death to life.

“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes Him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” John 5:24

  “We just fell in love.”

  “The marriage just fell apart.”

  It is the same passive verb used in both of those popular sentences. Just noticed that. Hmm.

  Jesus said,

“I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it” (Matt 16:18).

City gates in the ancient world, it has been observed, were a defense mechanism. Jesus here was not talking about a church on the defense, but a church on the offense, storming the gates of Hades. Lacking therefore the ability to stand up to the Church of Jesus Christ on the move, Satan sure does have a lot of ways to get us to voluntarily sit down.

  In certain places, his method might be to put on a big scary face and threaten people that he has authority to take away their possessions, property, and even life itself. And many times God does in fact grant Satan the authority to do those things. Look at Job. Look at the teaching and the life of Jesus and His disciples. But often times it is through the worst persecution that Spirit-filled followers of Christ become the most powerful threats to the gates of Satan’s kingdom, through their prayers and their testimony. So Satan has other techniques up his sleeve. One such technique is the effective use of what I call the “And Now This” phenomenon.

  The “And Now This” phenomenon became clear in my mind several years ago while reading a book by Neil Postman. The following book summary is taken from Wikipedia:

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985), is a book by Neil Postman in which he argues that media of communication inherently influence the conversations carried out over them. Postman posits that television is the primary means of communication for our culture and it has the property of converting a culture’s conversations with itself into entertainment, so much so that public discourse on important issues has disappeared. Since the treatment of serious issues as entertainment inherently prevents them from being treated as serious issues and indeed since serious issues have been treated as entertainment for so many decades now, the public is no longer aware of these issues in their original sense, but only as entertainment.

  One part of the book stuck out to me in particular. Here’s a summary in my own words. We all know that English has conjunctions. A conjunction such as “and” might link two similar nouns or clauses. A conjunction such as “but” or “yet” might link two contrasting nouns or clauses. A conjunction such as “or” might link two distinct but related options. In any case there is a relationship, some type of link, between what comes before and what comes after. But television (especially the evening news) has introduced an entirely new grammatical structure in the English language in phrases such as, “And now this,” or “We’re back.” We might call this part of speech a disjunction. It says, “What has come before has no relationship whatsoever with what comes after.”

  Consider the following hypothetical example, “Three thousand Tutsi minorities were reported slaughtered today in Rwanda in what is being called the worst genocide of the decade. [Show a video clip.] And now this word from our sponsors… You won’t believe what happens when you get behind the wheel of the new Toyota Corolla. The comfort and spaciousness of a luxury sedan at a price that anyone can afford. So what are you waiting for? … We’re back and it’s time for Tom to fill us in on the latest results from college basketball. Tom…”

  Oh how quickly and easily our minds and hearts can move from significant, weighty, serious, eternal matters to silly fluff. From a strategic viewpoint, I think that for the kingdom of darkness to crank up persecution against Christians in America would be a bad move. That might actually make some of us stop and get serious about storming Hades’ gates. Much more effective is to allow us brief moments to sing, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also,” and then to subtly whisper in our ear, “Oh ya, speaking of goods and kindred, I really need that awesome new mountain bike, and don’t forget about the barbeque over at Ted’s place. Oh ya, and that also reminds me…,” and in literally less than a second, any threat to Satan’s kingdom has become impotent.

  There is a disturbingly growing, and growingly disturbing, hyper-contextualization movement in Protestant missions today arising, in part, out of guilt over Western “Christian” colonialism of the past.

  Now, don’t misunderstand me, Biblical Christian missionary work is certainly not cultural imperialism. Thank God that many Western missionaries today recognize that the gospel of Christ does not need to come with the baggage of Western clothing, architecture, and extra-Biblical or un-Biblical traditions. Amen!

  But the pendulum is now swinging out of control in the other direction. Hindus are being told by “Christian missionaries” to remain Hindus, and Muslims to remain Muslims, in order to remain a part of the community for more “long-term effective witness.”

  Consider the following quotes from a major “evangelical” missionary journal regarding what the authors think “following Christ” might look like in polytheistic India:

“Follow-Up Reflections on Churchless Christianity“, in Mission Frontiers, by Herbert Hoefer, March-April 1999

….

His first advice is, “If anyone asks, tell them you are a Hindu.” It is acceptable to worship the god of your choice as a Hindu. The statement also indicates that you have identified yourself with the culture, history, traditions, and cause of the nation.

Secondly, he advises Jesu bhaktas [”devotee of Jesus”] never to go to a church. He warns that they will usually come after you immediately, embarrassing both you and your family. This will cause unnecessary misunderstanding and opposition with your family.

….

All involved need to do some bold and controversial envisioning, as suggested in my second opening question: “If you could envision an India won for Christ, what would its religious life be like?”

My vision? I see pilgrimage sites and ashrams scattered throughout the land. I see church year festivals and saints days that are now “minor” developing into major social events, and many new Christian family rituals. I see roadside shrines everywhere: “Father” shrines for protection, “Son” shrines for forgiveness, “Holy Spirit” shrines to pray for help and guidance and strength.

————————————————

“Christ-Followers in India Flourishing– Outside the Church” in Mission Frontiers, H.L. Richard, March-April 1999 [emphasis added]

That is, the church building is used like a temple for occasional visits when the need is felt; a picture of Christ is central to their devotion; they attend large Christian conventions rather on the pattern of taking a pilgrimage; and they follow an ishta devata theology of Jesus as a personal, chosen deity among many gods, if not in abstract theology, at least in practice in their highly pressurized situations.

…

However, some might argue that this [the “smothering embrace of Hinduism”] is the danger with the ishta devata strategy I am proposing. It will lead not to an indigenous Christianity but to a Christianized Hinduism. Perhaps more accurately we should say a Christ-ized Hinduism. I would suggest that really both are the same, and therefore we should not worry about it. We do not want to change the culture or the religious genius of India. We simply want to bring Christ and His Gospel into the center of it.

The real move toward an indigenous Christian faith can never come from the Christian community. It must grow out of the ‘Churchless Christianity’, with the help and encouragement of the church. (207-210)

  In the second to last paragraph above the author tries to shield himself from complete and obvious heresy by saying, “We simply want to bring Christ and His Gospel into the center of [India].” But if Mr. Richard’s Christ can “come to the center” of any community or nation without radically challenging, transforming, and overturning the culture and the “religious genius” of its pagan, polytheistic people, then the “Christ” he knows is not the One that I know.

  In the following quote a long-term missionary to Asia advises the majority of young missionaries that it is best to go no further than identifying themselves as a mystic or cultural Muslim in order to be a “witness” to (other) Muslims. Officially converting to Sunni or Shiite Islam is a strategy best left to the well-seasoned missionaries who are ready to handle the “complex theological issues” involved:

“Messianic Muslim Followers of Isa“, by John Travis, International Journal of Mission Frontiers, Vol 17:1, Spring 2000

If a believer truly feels called of God to somehow enter a certain sect or local expression of Islam, and if he can with integrity share the identity of those Muslims and maintain his witness for Christ, then I will not condemn him. Theoretically, I suppose it is possible that some types of folk or Sufi Muslim groups, or other localized forms of Islam, may be conducive to such an approach, but officially converting from Christianity to any variety of orthodox Islam involves so many complex theological and cultural hurdles that it is most unwise for the typical young, aspiring missionary who is eager to contextualize.

  It is important to note that the examples above are not fringe. My experience with the modern “evangelical missions movement” is that the thinking expressed in the articles above is quickly becoming acceptable in the eyes of the majority.

  This post is an introduction to the topic. I intend future posts to address where hyper-contextualist thinking has departed from God’s revealed will in the Bible, along with what correctly belongs in its place.

1. Regarding the salvific necessity of clearly and openly confessing Christ as Lord, see my post: If You Confess with Your Mouth.
2. “All things to all men”: the real thrust of I Cor 9:19-23, in context, is love, not missiological strategy. Pursuing genuine Christ-like love, rather than strategies, makes all the difference in the world.
3. “What you worship in ignorance”: Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill is indeed a great model and lesson regarding speaking to people of other religions. But did he really build bridges in the way that is sometimes claimed?

  Galatians is a book about the gospel – the true gospel versus a false gospel. Paul was an apostle, a herald sent to proclaim the gospel. Galatians 2 tells about a meeting between Peter, God’s chosen apostle to the Jews in particular, and Paul — set apart as apostle to the Gentiles. The meeting was about the core of the gospel that each was proclaiming. As they extended the right hand of fellowship to each other and bless each other on their way, something seems to almost come up “out of the blue” in this context:

They only asked us to remember the poor– the very thing I also was eager to do. - Galatians 2:20

  “Go Paul, preach justification by faith, preach the sufficiency of Christ and the cross, establish churches,… and as you go, be sure to remember the poor.”

  “But of course!”, he replies.

  This scene is so much more pleasant than some of the Christian infighting that frequently goes on regarding what form of ministry is most important. “Evangelism is more important than social action.” “No! Social action is more important than evangelism.” Whoa, brothers, hold on! It’s not a bad thing to be passionate about evangelism and church-planting missions. It is not a bad thing to be passionate about social action and domestic ministry. We’re not each other’s enemy.

  I really like this quote found on a particular page of the Desiring God website:

We do not want to compete for funding with churches, mission agencies, and organizations focusing on the poor and persecuted. We’d rather compete with McDonalds, Microsoft, and Miramax.

  Do you have a zeal to see the gospel reach the remote tribes of the world and you get frustrated to hear about a church “throwing away” their money on some domestic ministry project that seems not nearly so desperate? Or is it the opposite, do you have a zeal to help the poor in your community and you get frustrated when church members want to send money to some far off place while there are so many needs back here at home? Hey, don’t bite and devour each other. I dare say Christians will probably never be guilty of too much evangelism, too much social action, too much foreign missions effort, or too much domestic ministry. Too much time and money spent on videos games, vacations, and vehicles is entirely likely, but we can never love God too much, and we can never do too much to love fellow man for His sake.

  Oh sure, imbalances do exist. And they do need to be addressed at times. But in general, if you are passionate about something (anything!) that brings glory to God and is for the genuine well-being of man, then great! I want to be one who encourages you. Even if the area of service on your heart is not the same direction that I want to invest my limited time, talent, and treasure, if you are doing something more valuable that watching TV, then I salute you! (And if someone out there is truly watching TV for the glory of God, well then, um, please explain that one to me for my future reference.)

  I pray that within the church of Jesus Christ missions would not be the enemy of domestic ministry, and social action would not be the enemy of evangelism, but rather that all things which are good and righteous and pure would triumph over the frivolous, the sinful, and the shallow pleasures of this world.