Barth and Newbigin’s Insight for Biblical Contextualization
Originally, contexualization was
developed as ‘indigenous’ church movement in the
mid-nineteenth century when Protestant missionary leaders
implemented the famous ‘Three Self’ principle. But it was in
the early twentieth century that movements began among the
educated elite of the churches to recover elements of the
traditional culture from their Westernized church cultures.
It was, however, not until the last quarter of the century
when, in the work of the Theological Education Fund of the
World Council of Churches, the word ‘contextualization’ was
coined (Newbigin 1972). The missiological significance of
contextualization is as Newbigin observes: “This called for
a new style of theology which would not so much look back
(as ‘indigenous’ did), but address the actual present
context as the starting point for doing theology” (:99).
Contextualization is a significant theme
in the field of missiology that deals with cross-cultural
communication of gospel message. There is a biblical
illustration of receptor-oriented communication. Newbigin
observes that “the movement of the gospel from its
articulation in the language and practice of Greek-speaking
Communities” in the New Testament provides us with the model
of gospel communication across a cultural frontier.
Expounding the twenty-sixth chapter of Acts, he affirms,
“The communication has to be in the language of the receptor
culture. It has to be such that it accepts at least
provisionally, the way of understanding things that is
embodied in that language” (1986:4-6).
Contextualization is the word that is
extremely difficult to be translated into non-Western
languages. It is a key word in mission theology, but it even
does not appear on English dictionary. It advances
missiological reflection and mission strategy. But
implementing it is not a simple matter. The Western churches
face the question: What does it mean to contextualize
Christian message and church music in a pop culture? When
implementing contextualization in a mission field, the issue
can be even more complicated one.
For example, contextualization that has
been the strength of Korean Christianity is also the
weakness of her theology. The right model of
contextualization has been a factor that contributed most to
the revival movement of Christian faith in Korea.
Christianity was so well dressed in Korean culture that few
would think that Christian message as foreign message. Yet,
the wrong model of contextualization has challenged Korean
Christianity from within. The Minjung theology—what they
call Korean contextual theology—is neither biblical nor
rooted in Korean culture.
As Newbigin indicates, the task of
contextualization is to address the actual present context
as the starting point for doing theology. Contextualization
does not necessarily mean to go back to ancient history.
Rather, it seeks for the possibility of a culture in the
actual present context. And this is what Minjung theologians
have exactly failed to do so. They made the fatal mistake of
confusing contemporary historical situation with that of the
19th century.
Biblical understanding of culture is
crucial for biblical contextualization. One theological
aspect of culture is that it is “the promise originally
given to man of what he is to become” (Barth 1962a::341).
Culture is a possibility in Christ because it can be “a
witness to the promise which was given man in the beginning”
(:343). Christian contextualization needs to be
distinguished from conforming to non-Christian culture.
Rather, It seeks for the potential a culture has in Christ
in the present and in the future. As Newbigin put it, its
task is “to address the actual present context as the
starting point for doing theology.”
But a group of theologians and church
leaders have mistakenly understood contextualization as
freedom to deviate from historical Christianity. It is
observed that Minjung theology is very irrelevant theology
to Korean context.
Newbigin indicates that there is a
tension between the strength and weakness of
contextualization when he states: “There is the Scylla and
Charybdis between which one must steer.” On the one side
there is the danger that one finds no point of contact for
the message as the missionary preaches it, to the people of
local culture the message appears irrelevant and
meaningless. On the other side is the danger that the point
of view determines entirely the way that the message is
received, and the result is syncretism (1994:67). On one
side, uncontextualized message may result in irrelevance,
that is, ineffective communication. Christian message sounds
foreign to the audience of the local culture. On the other
side there is the danger of unbiblical contextualization,
whose result is syncretism.
In his critique of the 19th century
theology, Barth states that the failure of its theology is
its conforming to the worldly worldview, when it is
assimilated to culture (Barth 1962a:16). From Newbigin’s
cross-cultural insights, it is another form of syncretism.
In Barth’s language, one aspect of
contextualization is relevancy of Christian message to
culture. But there is a tension between relevancy to culture
and closeness to the Bible.
This does not mean Barth took ambiguous attitude
toward contextualization. Even before contextualization
became a field of theological research Barth developed
contextualization of preaching. “Adapt the message to the
congregation,” says Barth. With him, the contextualization
of preaching has Inca national nature. The preacher needs to
genuinely love the congregation – with a love that expresses
itself in an incarnational life style. The preacher will
love his congregation and feel that he is one with them. His
or her constant thought will be: “These are my people and I
long to share with them what God has given to me” (Barth
1963b.: 52-53). Thus, Barth’s model for the
contextualization begins with incarnational love. There is
something personal and pastoral touch in this kind of
contextualization.
The impact of modernity has bifurcated
Western Christianity into conservatism and liberalism. Now,
liberal theology itself is the kind of contextual theology
in the context of modernity. Liberation theology is
contextual theology of liberal theology. Minjung theology is
the contextual theology of liberation theology. As the
contextual theology of contextual theology, Minjung theology
is not only unbiblical but also too much deviated from
historical Christianity. The theology is too abstract to be
relevant. Minjung theologians have become false prophets and
false teachers. And this is not the kind of
contextualization we want. One example of the right
contextualization is found in Barth’s contextualization of
preaching. Only those who are faithful to the biblical truth
can contribute to biblical contextualization in
modernity/postmodernity as well as in a mission field.
 ©
This article was written on
June 8, 2003. Posted on this site on
Wednesday, June 24, 2009.
|
