December 12 - Contextualization in the New Testament

Central Argument. Drawing from his missionary experience, writing with the feel of a New Testament commentary, Dean Flemming gives us not a book on the contextualization of the New Testament, rather a helpful book entitled Contextualization in the New Testament. In fact, Flemming’s stated aim is to first, “study the New Testament writings … to discover how they demonstrate the task of doing context-sensitive theology” and second, “to reflect on what these patterns and precedents teach us about how the gospel might become embodied within our diverse cultures and life settings today” (15-16). Also, though limited to a paragraph preparing us for his work with the four canonical gospels, Flemming admits that his aim is also to “examine how the New Testament as Spirit-inspired Scripture might provide readers with exemplars and resources for the task” (17).

Sub-points. The first chapter offers “precedents for how the gospel addresses new situations and cultural groups in fresh ways” (16). Drawing particularly on the “two conversions” (38) in Acts 10-11 (the first being Cornelius, the second being Peter’s own attitudes toward the Gentiles) and the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, with a good framework for doing contextual theology. First, it must be rooted in the “work of the Holy Spirit … acting in the community” (48). Community is the first, best and only place for interpreting scripture. It cannot be done alone. Second, we must be rooted in the “church’s experience of God’s activity” (48). God will touch our experience. There we find a wealth of resources for evangelizing a new culture. Third, we are grounded in “scripture in guiding our community” (49). Scripture is “foundational” (305) for our experience with God; we must always be going from “context to text and then back to context” (49). Fourth, Luke seeks the truth of the gospel rather than the unity of the church. Fifth, in true Wesleyan form, Flemming urges us to “compromise on nonessential issues for the sake of unity” (50). Sixth, “both the leaders and the community … are key players in the process of theological reflection and discerning God’s will for the situation” (51). Seventh, when the church contextualizes the gospel it should be found to be “missional [the church’s mission must be furthered], ecclesial [in the context of the gathered community of faith], and transformational [God’s power to change must be made visible]” (51-52).

The second chapter focuses on Paul and how his “missionary sermons ... [serve as] compelling examples of evangelistic contextualization for a variety of audiences” (16). Flemming compares and contrasts Paul’s preaching at Pisidian Antioch, Lystra and in Athens. Each audience is different, ranging from Hellenized Jews to pagans to philosophers. With each audience, Paul contextualizes the message, the method of address, his argument, and even his ways of challenging the “audience’s worldview” (88). Paul does all this with the purpose of contextualizing the message of one gospel to many audiences; proclaiming in a way that “[identifies]” with the audience as well as “[transforms]” the audience (86).

Chapters three through seven focus on Paul’s letters to various churches, going over Paul’s work as a “contextual theologian” (16). According to Flemming Paul’s letters are anchored in his focus [Christ], his framework [the narrative of God working in history] and his “foundational” experiences, such as the Damascus Road conversion (97). So, for Paul, the gospel is about the story of Christ, not an “intellectual assent to a creed” (116) but rather that transforming “of people within their life circumstances” (117).

Chapter four addresses Paul’s “contextualizing of the gospel” (17). Paul was always a “cultural insider” (150). Paul was able to affirm his given culture and to engage it in a natural way. He also “relativizes” or transcends culture (136) as well as “confronts” culture where it needs to change (139) so that it may be “transformed” by God’s power for God’s glory (142). In Flemming’s view, these four elements are essential in the preaching of a missional church.

Chapter five observes Paul as an “interpreter, both of Israel’s Scriptures and of the gospel tradition that he received” (17). Not only this, but his use of them is always “context- and audience-oriented” (180) nearly always addressing the “present” (181). Flemming demonstrates this by giving us two case studies. The first of two case studies in contextualization is in chapter six and seeks to learn “how Paul enables the gospel to reshape both the Corinthians lifestyle and basic world assumptions” (17). Paul’s teaching on food sacrificed to idols and on the resurrection are covered here and teach us how to interpret our Christian traditions in the light of the issues raised by the new culture. Modern Christians may learn from this, just as they can from the other ideas presented in this commentary. First, we should, and Paul does, focus on the “vital link between the gospel and holy living”, always addressing how the “local struggles” intersect with the “saving story of Christ” (212). This great story of Christ will always affirm some dimensions of culture and be “countercultural” toward others and call the faithful to a “living demonstration of the crucified life” (213).

In chapter seven, the second of the two case studies in contextualization discusses Colossians which Flemming views as “a classic case of how the gospel addresses a context of religious pluralism and syncretism” (17). While Paul may be flexible in issues that are not essential to Christian life and practice, in the essentials Paul will accept “no rivals” for the Lord Jesus Christ; yet he speaks this with “engaging sensitivity” (230). While, the great challenge to the modern missional church is to understand the “lines between syncretism and cultural relevance” (232), it is the Holy Spirit who will guide us and reform our vision that we may see.

In chapter eight Flemming addresses the gospels, the different “target audiences” of these “four retellings of the one story of Jesus” (17). Similar to his work contrasting and comparing the different sermons in Acts, and Paul’s methods of connecting and communicating the gospel to different audiences, Flemming compares and contrasts the gospels in similar fashion and comes to similar conclusions. The gospels are designed to be “missional” and “transformational” for the different audiences to which each evangelist wrote. Flemming, in the ninth chapter, comes to similar conclusions about Revelation, calling it a “highly contextualized theological response” to Christians who were under heavy persecution and offering them a “radically transformed vision of the world” (291).

Compliment and Clash. I see this book and the previous ones which we have read as building on each other. As much as American Cultural Patterns and How Does America Hear the Gospel are focused on discussing American culture, Contextualization in the New Testament develops the biblical foundations and rationale for contextualizing the gospel within any given culture. The contrast between the secular humanism of American Cultural Patterns and the two later books is still apparent, yet these books seem to be building toward a more informed understanding of how anthropology affects the ministry of the greater Christian church.

Given Flemming’s experience in ministry, one would think that he merely discusses ideas that can be readily adapted to isolated cultures far from the United States. However, one has only to look at the difference between the cultural differences between San Francisco County (bay area, urban, 83% Kerry in 2004) and Modoc County, California (northern, rural, 75% Bush in 2004) to see the rising subcultures within American culture. I have a friend who lives in Marin County, California and basic communication with her is very different than basic communication with the members of the rural churches that I served right out of seminary. Whole subcultures might exist relatively close to each other. Thus, instead of focusing on the rather amorphous stereotype of white, middle-class America, as the other two authors have tended to do [though Dyrness less so] Flemming rejects generalization about culture, and instead gives us a framework and resources for engaging and witnessing to the rising numbers of American sub-cultures.

Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience & Ministry Application. This book is all about the scripture, which stands in stark contrast with both How Does America Hear the Gospel and American Cultural Patterns. Flemming is all about scripture and experience. While he does make extensive use of reason to support his arguments, he makes no move without scripture. For Flemming, there is no theology that is not contextual theology and there is no theology that is not in the context of scripture.

Speaking of reason, the weak point of this book for me was that Flemming, in his chapter on Colossians, does not significantly mention the doubts about its Pauline authorship. I understand that he may come from a different scholarly perspective on this matter and that he thought that his book was “not the place” for a discussion of this type (231). However, it would have been helpful to hear even a page or two on what he has to say about the possible pseudepigraphical authorship. Also, an extended version of his critique of traditional academic perspectives on the Gospel of John (258-259) would have been helpful as well.

I simply do not get enough of this kind of material and am hungry for it. I am clearly a child of my culture and generation. One thing that holds me back in ministry in so many ways is my deep encounter with the Enlightenment. I earned two degrees in engineering science before answering the call to ministry. Never before had I encountered a book whose ideas transcended the Enlightenment so well and allowed me to point to the mystery that is God’s love and empowers me so to follow his call on my life.

As Flemming completes the book, he draws on a musical image: a diversity of Christian cultures “singing” the same “coherent” song in all their different ways, knowing its “limits” as well as its reach, but nevertheless, the same song (297, 300, 302). I like that image. It is the image of harmony that carries through the whole book. Whether it is harmony between cultures or ultimate harmony between God and all the ethnoi (nations), in the final analysis, this book is about harmony. Like his discussion of how the Jerusalem Council dealt with the admission of Gentiles, Flemming calls the church to be “communal” in its theological work (318), focused on the “upbuilding” of the church and to be profoundly “missional” and not only be about “telling” the story of Christ but “embodying the kingdom of God” (319).

We read this book to study how the theological contextualization of the gospel is not a recent invention, but a biblical truth, foundational to our faith. Ultimately, Flemming achieves his aims, teaching us that “the New Testament writings … model for us a process of doing theology in context, of engaging their cultures and offering their audiences a fresh and fitting articulation of the good news” (296). I have called this book a commentary on the New Testament in the highest sense of that word. I can see myself referring to this text again and again in my ministry; most especially in preaching and teaching.

On that note, reading this book was helpful to me because I see a great ministry application for this material: submitting my preaching and teaching to his commentary and ideas. I would appreciate a class discussion on how to implement this kind of theological work in the United Methodist Church: the training of laity and clergy, as well as inclusion in teaching and preaching, etc. Because one of the great challenges that I see plaguing the United Methodist Church today is an unwillingness to put that “truth of the gospel” (302) ahead of “maintaining the unity of the church” (49). A book like this could radically inform and enliven that conversation because Flemming focuses on the gospel’s eternal dimensions and calls us to respectfully breathe them into the transient dimensions of diverse cultures.