There are some disagreements about “contextualization.” I see it as adapting your message to be understandable and compelling to particular hearers without compromising the truth in any way. Why contextualize? First, because everyone does it. As soon as you choose a language 1/
to speak in, and vocabulary, and illustrations, and arguments, you are adapting to some human hearers more than others. If you don’t become conscious of how you are contextualizing—which is inevitable--you won’t
contextualize well. 2/
contextualize well. 2/
Second, because Paul contextualizes in his speeches. Compare how he presents to Bible-believers in Acts 13,
blue-collar pagans in Acts 14 & then educated pagans in Acts 17. Third, because the Biblical writers contextualized. See John’s use of Greek philosophy’s “Logos” in John 1.
blue-collar pagans in Acts 14 & then educated pagans in Acts 17. Third, because the Biblical writers contextualized. See John’s use of Greek philosophy’s “Logos” in John 1.
Also, see the use of the Hittite suzerain treaty form in the book of Deuteronomy; see Paul’s contextualization of the gospel to Greek and Jewish cultural narratives in 1 Cor 1:22-24. Fourth, because Paul calls us to contextualization without compromise in 1 Cor 9:19-23. 4/
Fifth, because the incarnation itself was a kind of contextualizing so we could understand—the Word
made flesh. TL;DR- Don't argue that we shouldn't do this (everyone does it), unless we are conscious *how* we are contextualizing we won't do it well. 5/
made flesh. TL;DR- Don't argue that we shouldn't do this (everyone does it), unless we are conscious *how* we are contextualizing we won't do it well. 5/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
