WHEN YOU CROSS CULTURES - World Evangelical Alliance

THE GOSPEL MESSAGE AND CULTURE
difference between universals and particulars, between primary truths and
secondary truths. He should understand the differences between functions and
forms, and their meaning. Most Christians, for example, believe in the
importance of baptism, but they differ in their views on the mode of baptism.
And churches have divided because of this one issue.
Majoring on minor issues in cross-cultural work can impede the growth
of the Gospel and the church. I have sadly observed Christian leaders entering
into sharp disputes over issues related to the use or non-use of music during
worship meetings, drinking from the same cup rather than using many cups
for the Lord’s Supper, whether women should have their heads covered with a
veil or not to have them covered, and other minor issues. The tragedy is that
Christians majoring on such issues are unaware of the fact that such practices
hinder the testimony and the mobility of the Gospel.
CONTEXTUALISING BIBLICALLY
In contextualisation, there is a theological dimension that needs to be
looked into.
D. A. Carson makes the remark that “broadly speaking, there are two
brands of contextualisation. The first assigns control to the context: the operative
term is praxis, which serves as a controlling grid to determine the meaning of
Scripture. The second assigns the control to the Scripture, but cherishes the
‘contextualisation’ rubric because it reminds us that the Bible must be thought
about, translated into and preached in categories relevant to the particular
cultural context”. 4
Assigning “control to the Scripture” will provide a safeguard to error.
The Willowbank Report describes various approaches to the interpreting
of Scripture, distinguishing between traditional approaches and the contextual
approach. Traditional approaches include the “popular” approach which simply
reads and applies the Scriptures with no reference to the original cultural context
of the writer. The weakness of this approach is that it ignores the original context
of Scripture. Another traditional approach takes into account the context, but
this “historical” approach ignores what the Scripture may be saying to the
contemporary reader. It is also primarily academic and lacks application to the
reader's own situation and cultural context.
The “contextual approach” seeks to combine the positive elements of the
traditional approaches. It also includes the cultural context of the contemporary
reader.
4 D.A. Carson, ed. (1987), The Church in the Bible and the World, World Evangelical Fellowship, page 220.
25