CHURCH PLANTING AND CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGIES

INTRODUCTION

During the time of author’s like Rolland Allen and Melvin Hodges indigenous Church, advocates  have argued for the need of  a: “Spontaneous expansion of the Church.” A Church that is indigenous:  That is self-propagating, self-funded and self-governing. In recent times there has been a paradigm shift calling for a self-theologizing Church.[1] A self-theologizing Church is a Church that develops its own local theology to meet its specific cultural needs. Scholars from various places in the world are arguing more and more for the need to do theology in context.  Not only this, there is a call for us to develop a global theology that is intracultural.[2]  This essay asks the question: Is contextual theology essential for cross- cultural Church planting? Do we need to do African theology, Latin American theology for example or does scripture itself present us with a transcultural binding testimony to serve as bases from which adaptions can happen? This essay will discuss the rise of contextualization; the many issues related to it and then seek to present a model that the author thinks is faithful to scripture.

COLONIALISM, ANTHROPOLOGY, AND THE BIRTH OF CONTEXTUALIZATION 

How did we get here? Throughout the early years of cross-cultural mission, almost all missionaries considered Western culture superior to their less civilised hosts.[3] This superiority was assumed because of colonialism and cultural evolution theory.[4] It was also assumed that western theological constructions developed throughout the reformation were universally applicable to all people and thus little effort was made to adapt the message to other cultures.[5]  The Church planting method throughout this time was to basically transplant Western culture and theology into the local context with the goal of creating a Church that was native. Unfortunately the native Church in most cases tended to reflect the forms and structures of the missionaries denomination.[6]

When colonialism began to fade and nationalism began to increase some missiologists realised that these methods of cross-cultural mission did not produce what should be the goal of cross-cultural mission: A strong self-sufficient native Church that would be able to survive without help from the west. Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson simultaneously proposed the three self –formula seeking to create indigenous Churches.[7] Indigenous church advocates argued that older methods with colonial tendencies should be removed from mission strategy[8]; a Church that was self-propagating, self-governing, self-funded was the answer.[9]

After world war, two others with the insights gained from anthropology[10] argued that the emphasis on three-self Churches was not enough to lead to genuine indigenous Churches.[11]  Churches needed to be able to theologize themselves.[12] These insights gave rise to the term “contextualization,” a word that was first used by the general director of Theological Education Fund in 1972.[13]  Unfortunately, the majority of those who began to use it were liberal scholars who created local theologies that were contrary to Scripture.[14] The World Council of Churches also used the idea to justify ecumenism which left many evangelicals wary of it.[15]  The rest of this essay will offer some cautions with regard to contextualization and then some modest recommendations.

CONTEXTUALIZATION IN THE BIBLE?

Before we look at philosophical and anthropological arguments for contextualization we must look at the biblical arguments proposed and offer some reflections. Advocates of contextual theology have offered various arguments from the Bible that they think support contextualization; usually this evidence is gathered from the New Testament. This is because the Old Testament has little to say about the issue. In the Old Testament God never asked Israel to study other religions, reach them or accommodate to them.  As Archer has pointed out one would be hard pressed to find positive examples of accommodation and contextualization in the Old Testament.[16]

As NT examples for contextualization scholars have highlighted the fact that God did not require the Gentiles to adopt Jewish culture but allowed them to express their own faith in culturally appropriate ways of this Kraft says: Although the early Christians set out to win people on the assumption that Christianity was to involve conversion to a set of Jewish religious forms, the Holy Spirit broke their rule and endorsed Gentile cultures as adequate vehicles for gentile interaction with God.[17]

In another article, Kraft presents 1 Cor 9:19-22 as proof that we should adapt ourselves to other cultures in order to win people to Christ. Kraft argues that this scripture shows how Jewish culture is not the norm for all Christians because Paul could become as a Jew to save Jews, and as a gentile to save gentiles, therefore, this principle applies to cross- cultural mission and Church planting today.[18]

In regard to this, we submit that the problems in Antioch and Galatia should not be seen merely as cultural issues. It was not that the Jews were trying to convert the gentiles to their culture but they were trying to force a theological conviction on the Gentiles that was part of the old dispensation (circumcision, food laws etc.). Paul’s problem with them was not cultural as Kraft argues, but a focus on the fact that the Judaizser’s were adding to the requirements of salvation. It is not right to say that the Holy Spirit endorsed a culture because he saved Gentiles and did not require them to become Jewish. This confuses the theological issues reducing them to merely cultural differences.

Also in response to Kraft’s use of 1 Cor 9:19-21 we argue that Kraft’s analogy does not follow because Paul’s discussion in this passage does not relate to culture but to his identity as a Christian under the law of Christ. What we are saying is that Paul’s freedom from living like a Jew was not based on cultural issues but related to his freedom from the law as a Christian. The Jews in Paul’s day that he referred to are not saved people but unsaved Jews under the law, and the Gentiles Paul becomes like are also unsaved. The culture that Paul therefore follows is not Jewish culture or gentile but Christian culture.  His ability to live as a Jew was not him adopting a foreign culture to win Jews because he was a Jew. He was able to live as a Jew because it did not violate his Christian identity.  The freedom he has with Gentiles to live as they live in not freedom to go against Christian culture and teaching but freedom from the Old Testament Law that he had because he was a Christian (see v 21). So is Kraft’s Paradigm relevant? No, because this passage does not provide us with a mandate to adopt other cultures but a mandate to bring Christian super-cultural values (Paul was under the law of Christ) to whatever location we go.

Other scholars have noted Paul’s use of contextually relevant words or phrases to reach people in each location that he went; these it is argued are examples of contextualization.[19] But as others have noted Paul redefined many of those words giving them new meanings. He also chose words that were corrective to misunderstandings in the culture.[20] What this implies is that Paul far from focusing primarily on finding words to contextualise the Gospel was actually seeking words that would best express the meaning of the Gospel to be faithful to the revelation he had received.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND CONTEXTUALIZATION

What is the relationship between the Gospel and the many cultures of the world?[21] How can cross-cultural missionaries communicate God’s timeless revelation in ways that will lead to the planting of contextualised Churches? Many scholars drawing from the insights of anthropological studies of communication theory have highlighted the difficulty of transmitting a message from one culture to another. They have correctly pointed out that words, symbols and signs do not usually translate from culture to culture.[22] Since there is no one to one correspondence in cultures between biblical symbols, words[23] and signs they have advocated a model of communication and Bible translation that is dynamically equivalent to words, symbols and signs.[24]

Many evangelical scholars without downplaying the reflections of anthropology have been concerned at the syncretistic and relativistic direction that this kind of thinking may lead.[25] They have noted that communication of the Gospel is not just the communication of one cultural form to another cultural form but the transmission of a super-cultural message of revelation that is aided by the Holy Spirit.[26] As Davis points out:

While it is clearly evident that linguistic communication presents problems, the Bible is the one verbal revelation of God. It is the only form that is inerrantly inspired. The wisdom of God determined the modus operandi – no warrant was given for human judgement in alteration or substitution of words, ideas or idioms. The word of God in its given form must remain inviolate. God knew the problems involved in crossing cultures and hence gave the Holy Spirit to provide superhuman assistance to man to comprehend.[27]

Further insights into anthropology noted how cultures are whole systems of integrated thought that cannot be partitioned off from each other.[28] Because of this it is argued, that it is not enough to just adapt the message to suit the culture. We must present the Gospel in forms, symbols and words that make sense to the recipient.  What are fixed systems of thought in the western world are not so in the Eastern world [29] If we do not do this it is argued that the Churches we plant will seem foreign to the culture around them because they will lack an epistemological framework that the locals will recognise.[30]  In addition to this it is proposed that the New Testament itself because it was written in a particular culture is bound to that culture, some of the more liberal theologians will argue that although the Bible is divine revelation the contextual nature of its inscripturation means that only the patterns and principles of scripture are absolute not the words themselves.[31] Ericson says:

It is important to recognise that the New Testament literature arises out of a context. The authors did not so much intend to be transhistorical as historical; they did not so much intend to be transcultural as culturally relevant; and they did not intend for their message to be antisocial or asocial but directly instructive as to the proper expression of the Christian faith[32]

Evangelicals have responded to these claims by pointing out that the Bible itself and its writers fully expected their words to be transcultural. It is not warranted to say that because someone has another structured world-view that we must change biblical symbols in order to bring understanding. What is needed is for all cultures to come to the biblical worldview, have their minds renewed and changed to understand the fully integrated and relevant biblical worldview that the original author God meant to convey when it was written, and then apply it to their culture. All worldviews are not equal and the world-view that we must bring to new Christians must be the one revealed in Scripture.[33] It is possible to give expression to these truths in ways that are culturally relevant anything more than this risks syncretism and makes the biblical revelation less than the super-cultural word of God to all cultures.[34]

CONTEXTUAL THEOLOGIES AND CHURCH PLANTING

What is the connection between contextual theology and Church planting? The connection is that current Church planting strategy calls for local Churches to produce their own theology.  The call for third world theologies in recent years are based a prior assumption that all theology is subjective. Theology as a discipline it is argued is always contextual, all theological reflection because they are done in a certain cultural context contains elements of the time and culture in which they were formulated therefore any Churches we plant must formulate their own theological reflection. Kwan speaking about theological contextualization says:

It reiterates the contextuality of all theologies. In this regard, it is a methodological self-reflection of theology pointing out that all theologies are similarly contextual theologies. This means that no theology could take place in a historical vacuum; It takes place in time and space and is therefore inevitably bound by its own context.[35]

The concern of many existential theologians (Nicholls) is to get away from the Western theological dominance.[36] Contextual theologians are concerned to make sure that non-western theologies are produced because only a contextual theology can meet the needs of each cultural context. Kraft says:

The early Greek churches were in danger of being dominated by Hebrew theology just as many non-western churches today are in danger of being dominated by western theologies. God, however, led the Apostle Paul and others to a contextualised Christian theology for those who spoke Greek.[37]

It is argued that since this is true of all theology, Churches being planted in the two-thirds world having their own culture that asks different questions and their own felt needs must formulate their own theology if they are going to inculturate the Gospel. Kraft says:

If then Christian theology as we know it in Western theological garb is to be of any value (i.e., perceived as relevant) to Latin American, to Asians, to Africans, it must be transculturated into the concepts and language framework in term of which they operate.[38]

Contextual theology advocates argue [39] that although the Gospel is absolute, theologies are manmade and therefore subjective. Contextual theology has been suspect by many evangelicals because it implies that the absolutes of scripture can be relativized.[40] What most evangelicals fear is the trap of falling into syncretism, relativism and subjective applications of scripture.[41] It is clear from looking through the literature that many contextual theologies have fallen into this trap.[42] Nicholls advocates what he calls dogmatic contextualization; dogmatic contextualization begins with scripture not culture, unlike existential theologies.   An early example of existential theology was Gustavo Gutierrez’s liberation theology with it’s over emphasis on political emancipation.[43] This makes the Gospel only relevant to the one who needs liberation. Kraft who claims to be an evangelical has advocated polytheistic church leadership in cultures where a man managing his house well could not happen without more than one wife.[44] Clearly, this kind of thinking cannot be acceptable to evangelicals.

Basic to existential theology is the presupposition that all cultures are created by God. Therefore missionaries it is argued should not seek to impose their own context bound theological reflections on Church plants.  All Churches need to discover anew the truths of scripture placing them and expressing them under their own cultural and even religious framework.[45] This high view of culture and local religions is based on (1) God’s creation of culture through the cultural mandate, (2) The fact that in Scripture God seems to want to preserve cultures (Rev 7:9).[46] (3) The supposed good in all religions because of general revelation.[47] It is argued that we must go past just learning culture to critique them we must recognise that all cultures are valid systems of thought with their own unique questions[48]

Each Church plant it is argued needs to go through the theologizing process to form its own local theology because non-local theologies (western in this case) do not communicate effectually to the responding culture. This process is called inculturation; all cultures that have received the Gospel and living it out are in an ongoing process of inculturation, no culture should impose its inculturated theology on another. Bosch says “Inculturation is the Church being “born anew in each new context and culture[49] ”

In response, we would like to point out the fact that western culture has had more time to inculturate the Gospel should mean that they have something to offer those to whom they come.  Since all are reading the same Bible and all trying to understand its objective meaning even if we come up with different emphases they should not contradict one another. If they do then we are left with relativism a result that should be rejected.[50] Taking anthropological reflections seriously does not mean that western Churches have nothing to offer indigenous Church plants. Nearly two thousand years of Western scholarship dealing with scripture to find out truth should be considered a blessing, not a hindrance.

The point that western missionaries need to critique their own cultural presuppositions by decontextualization is well taken, if this is done then missionaries should not be bringing western culture but their sanctified biblical culture.[51] Another problem with this view is that it seems to put a lot of confidence in the new Christians in Church plants to be able to receive revelation from God to the same level that the early Church did which we see as a dangerous leap.

The larger question that needs to be asked is: Is it correct to view all cultures as equally valid and able to formulate their own theological reflections? Many Missiologists it seems in reaction to a lack of contextualization now assume that all cultures as created by God must be equally respected.[52] But as noted by many they have failed to adequately reckon with the corruption of cultures through sin. [53]

We argue maybe controversially, that not all cultures are equally valid. It might be better to say that not all cultures are equally sanctified. It should have been evident to anthropologists that western culture with all its faults was not without basis presented as superior to non-western nations. This is not to say that colonialism was correct, or even that we are superior. It is to say that western culture just like Jewish culture was formed through its Judeo- Christian heritage. As Nicholls has pointed out:

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed the cultural forms through which he revealed his Word in such a manner that these forms conveyed what he intended. That is, the inspiration of the sacred text went beyond what was involved in contemporary contextualization efforts; it was more than a mere process of elimination and adoption of Pagan cultural forms. In his sovereignty, God chose a Hebraic cultural form and transformed it over the centuries for his purpose, with the result that there is a super-cultural character to his self-revelation.[54]

Mangalwadi has argued that the Western world and its values and cultures, its technological advancement, are all a direct result of Christianity.[55] So in some ways, some cultures should be regarded as more inculturated than others not in themselves but because of their degree of inculturation. This relates to Church planting in important ways. Local theologies should not be independent theologies but informed theologies that are consistent with historic Christianity that has already inculturated the Gospel.[56]

How one deal’s with these issues has not only to do with a person’s theological conviction but the high/low views one has of culture and or scripture. Hesselgrave after surveying the four main views in the contextual debate has pointed out:

The more liberal theologies allow for greater concessions to the contemporary context. The more conservative and orthodox theologies are more restrictive in this regard. Some contextualizations, therefore, result in the formation of a “New Gospel.” Others enhance the communication of the “Old Gospel.[57]

Is contextualization of theology in Church planting biblical? Does scripture define a certain set of prescriptive super-cultural norms or concepts that all Churches should follow? Before we look at how Church plants could be contextualised we must look at what parts of Church forms should not be changed. They fall into two categories: (1) Those that are descriptive (2) Those that are prescriptive. Firstly Scripture does give us some descriptive elements as a pattern to follow like: The devotion to the apostles teaching (a focus on and obedience to the sufficient revealed message of God) the breaking of bread and fellowship (the need for a faith community that corporately reflects on the Christ event) and prayers, (time spent in corporate requests to God for the needs of individuals and the community as a whole), And it also gives us prescriptive elements: The need for biblically authorised leadership (1 Tim 3:1-16; Titus 1:5-16), worship structure (1 Cor 12-14) and uniform teaching. Scripture also gives us certain conceptually indispensable terms that must be explained in their historical usage.[58] The early Church as revealed in Scripture should remain a model for all Churches today even if they are formed in different contexts this is because of its proximity to the risen Christ and the apostles.

THE LIMITS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION

It seems clear to all who are involved in this debate that some form of contextualization of theology should occur in Church planting. They just differ of what this means and to what extent it should happen. We also argue that some form of contextual theology for Church planting is necessary.  This is because of language, thought patterns and the world views of the communicator and the receptor often differ dramatically and the questions being asked by the people in the situation will be different. Since some contextualization is necessary what are the limits?  Fuller’s explanation of what local theologies are is helpful, she says: “Indigenous Christian theology, therefore, is theological reflection organised in local categories and addressing local issues.[59]”  One area that Western Church planters if they are going to be effective is one of emphases, we do  (as Kraft says) need to focus on the question that local  Christian are asking.[60] As Hesselgrave points out missionaries in the past even those working to systematise the Bible for indigenous situations have focused too much on what they consider important not what may be important to the locals.[61] For example, Churches in Nepal with their idolatrous culture and greater focus on the spiritual world need are more detailed demonology then the western Churches. This is not to say that other areas that the locals do not see as important or have questions about should be neglected. We are all not always asking the right questions. Another criticism of the Western Church has been a lack of practical theology.[62] Conn argues that western theology needs to learn from two-thirds world theologies he point out how there has been too much focus on ontological and epistemological issues instead of the practical needs of people in their cultural setting.[63] We should not take culture as the primary source of theological reflection but real theology especially in regard to cross-cultural work must be practical.

Lastly, the Church in Antioch expressed itself in different ways than the Jerusalem Church but the teaching and even the Church practices were unified. The descriptive and prescriptive points outlined previously provide a framework from within which cultural adaptions and inculturation of a Gospel community should conform (prescriptive) or follow as a guide (descriptive). When it comes to descriptive issues like forms of worship, positions of prayer, etc. cultural expressions as long as they do not violate scriptural examples are permitted. When it comes to the propositional truth of Scripture cultural adaption of presentation style, words symbols, for application need to be taken into account. Theological reflection should be free as it relates to the practical outworking’s of propositional truth to focus on local theological needs. In this sense, it would be a local theology but this local theology would need to be informed as to its own cultural bias and blind spots. This is why some theologians have argued from an intracultural meta-theology.[64]       

---

[1] A. Scott Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2012), 126.

[2] For an example See Gene L. Green, “ The  Challenge of Global Hermeneutics”  Taken From Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green, (Downers Grove, Illinios: IVP Academic, 2012).

[3] For a detailed discussion of this see Harvie M Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue (Phillipsburg, N.J: P&R Pub. 1992)34-36.

[4] Paul G Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994), 76-81.

[5] Bruce J Nicholls, Contextualization: a Theology of Gospel and Culture (Downers Grove, Illinios: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979), 8-9.

[6] Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (London [u.a.: Penguin Books, 1990), 258-259.

[7] Also see Roland Allen, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church: And the Causes Which Hinder It, 2nd ed. (London: World Dominion Press, 1949).

[8] Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (GLH Publishing, 2011). Melvin L Hodges, The Indigenous Church (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Pub. House, 1976).

[9] John Rowell and Peter Kuzmic, To Give or Not To Give: Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity, and Redefining Sustainability (InterVarsity Press, 2012), 30-33.

[10] Michael A Rynkiewich, Soul, Self, and Society: a Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World (Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2011), 6.

[11] Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions, 125.

[12] Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 84-85.

[13] F. Ross Kinsler, “Mission and Context: The Current Debate About Contextualization,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1978), 24.

[14] David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006), 250-251.

[15] Dean Gilliland “Contextualization” in   Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, eds.  A. Scott Moreau, Engen, and David Burnett, (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books ; Paternoster Press, 2000), 225-227.

 [16]  See Gleason L. Archer Jr,” Contextualization: Some implications from Life and Witness in The Old Testament”  New Horizons in World Mission: Evangelicals and the Christian Mission in the 1980’s. ed.  David J. Hesselgrave, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A., 1979). He gives some positive conservative examples from the lives of Joseph and Daniel. These examples instead of being positive are negative for the contextual arguments they show  a lack of accommodation to culture even under great pressure  that need to be models for us today.

[17] Charles H Kraft, Christianity in Culture: a Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979), 12.

[18] Charles H. Kraft “Culture, Worldview and Contextualization” Taken from Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader, 3rd ed. eds Ralph D Winter and Steven C Hawthorne, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999), 55.

[19] Dean S Gilliland, ” New Testament Contextualization: Continuity and Particularity in Paul’s Theology” Taken From The Word Among Us, Contextualizing Theology For Mission Today, ed. Dean S Gilliland, (Dallas, Texas: Word  Publishing, 1989), 55-56.

[20] Bruce J. Nicholls “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture” Taken from “Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture : the Papers of the Lausanne Consultation on Gospel and Culture” eds .Robert T Coote and John Stott, (London: Eerdmans, 1980), 54.

[21]  Culture is this paper follows the definition given by the Lausanne committee for world evangelization. They defined it as: “Culture is an integrated system of beliefs (about God or reality or ultimate meaning), of values (about what is true, good beautiful and normative), of customs (how to behave, relate to others, talk, pray, dress, work, play, trade, farm, eat etc.), and of institutions which express these beliefs, values and customs (government, law courts, temples or churches, family, schools, hospitals, factories, shops, unions, clubs etc.) which binds a society together and gives it a sense of identity, dignity, security, and continuity.” Lausanne

[22] Eugene A Nida, Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1960)51-55.

[23] See Dean S Gilliland, New Testament contextualization: Continuity and Particularity in Paul’s Theology”  Taken From, The Word Among Us, Contextualizing Theology For Mission Today (Dallas, Texas: Word  Publishing, 1989), 55-57.

[24] Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 12.

[25]  See Max L. Stackhouse “Contextualization, Contextuality, and Contextualism” Taken From  One Faith, Many Cultures: Inculturation, Indigenization, and Contextualization. ed. Ruy O Costa, (Maryknoll, N.Y.; Cambridge, Mass.: Orbis Books ; Boston Theological Institute, 1988),3- 13. Also see D. A Carson, ” A Sketch of the Factors Determining Current Hermeneutical Debate in Cross-Cultural Contexts” Taken from Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization. ed D.A Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 11-29.

[26] Steve Strauss “The Role of Context in Shaping Theology,” Contextualization and Syncretism, 104.

[27]  R. J. Davies in his response to James O. Buswell III “Contextualization: Theory, Tradition and  Method” Hesselgrave, Theology and Mission, 117.

[28] Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 83.

[29]  William L. Wonderly and Eugene A. Nida, “Cultural Differences and the communication of Christian Values” Taken from   Readings in Missionary Anthropology II. ed. William Allen Smalley, (South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1978) 60-62.

[30] Charles L. , Taber “The Limits of Indigenization of Theology” Taken from Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity. Thomas Noel Wisley & Charles H Kraft, (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1979), 386-388.

[31] Steve Strauss “The Role of Context in Shaping Theology,”  Taken  from Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents ed. Gailyn Van Rheenen, (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2006), 101.

[32]  Norman R. Ericson “Implications From the New Testament For Contextualization” Theology and Mission: Papers and Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, S. of World Mission  ed, David J Hesselgrave, (Grand Rapids (Mich.): Baker, 1978), 71.

[33] A. Scott Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2012), 65.

[34] See I Howard Marshall “Culture and the New Testament,” Taken From  “Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture : the Papers of the Lausanne Consultation on Gospel and Culture” ed. Robert T Coote and John Stott, (London: Eerdmans, 1980), 24-25.

[35] Simon Shui-Man Kwan, “From Indigenization to Contextualazation: a Change in Discursive Practice Rather Than a Shift in Paradigm,” Studies in World Chrsitianity 11, no. 2 (2005), 236.

[36]  Bruce J. Nicholls “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture” Taken from “Down to Earth.”eds. Coote and Stott, 50-51

[37] Wisley and Kraft, Readings in Indigeneity.

[38] Kraft, Christianity in Culture.

[39] Charles H Kraft, Christianity in Culture: a Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979), 323-327.

[40] Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 108-109.

[41] Bruce J. Nicholls “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture” Taken from “Down to Earth.”eds. Coote and Stott, 50-51 .”

[42]Ibid, 51-52.

[43] Dean Gilliland,” Contextualization” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, 226.

[44] Kraft, Christianity in Culture.

[45] Charles R, Taber “The Limits of Indigenization in Theology” Taken from  Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity. eds Thomas Noel Wisley & Charles H Kraft (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1979), 378-379.

[46] David Filbeck, Social Context and Proclamation: a Socio-cognitive Study in Proclaiming the Gospel Cross-culturally (Pasadena, Calif.: W. Carey Library, 1985), 71.

[47] [47] Charles R, Taber “The Limits of Indigenization in Theology” Taken from  Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity. eds Thomas Noel Wisley & Charles H Kraft (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1979), 338-339.

[48] Kraft, Christianity in Culture, 12.

[49] David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991).

[50]  See  Norman L. Geisler, “A Response to Paul G. Hiebert” In Missionshift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium, eds. David J Hesselgrave, Ed Stetzer, and John Mark Terry, (Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2010), 139.

[51]  Donald McGavran, “The Biblical Base from Which Adjustments Are Made “ In Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?” (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1975), Ch 2.

[52] Bruce J. Nicholls “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture” Taken from “Down to Earth.” 52-53 .

[53] Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds, 180.

[54] Bruce J. Nicholls, “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture,”53.

[55] See Vishal Mangalwadi, The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2011).

[56] Steve Strauss, “The Role of Context in Shaping Theology,” Contextualization and Syncretism, 101.

[57] David J Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000), 148.

[58] Bruce J. Nicholls “Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture” Taken from “Down to Earth.”eds. Coote and Stott, 50-53.

[59] Fuller, “The Missionary’s Role in Developing Indigenous Christian Theology, 406.”

[60] Charles H Kraft, “The Contextualization of Theology,” Evangelical  Missions Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1978), 34.

[61] David J Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000), 215.

[62] Charles R. Tabe, “The Limits of Indigenization in Theology” Taken from  Readings in Indigeneity, eds. Wisley and Kraft, 380-381.

[63] Harvie M Conn, “Contexual Theologies: The Problem of Agendas,” Evangelical Review of Theology 15, no. 3 (1991), 219-221.

[64] See  Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 75-103.

---

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? GLH Publishing, 2011.

———. The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church: And the Causes Which Hinder It. 2nd ed. London: World Dominion Press, 1949.

Bosch, David Jacobus. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.

Carson, D. A. Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problem of Contextualization. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002.

Conn, Harvie M. “Contexual Theologies: The Problem of Agendas.” Evangelical Review of Theology 15, no. 3 (1991).

———. Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 1992.

Coote, Robert T, and John Stott. “Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture : the Papers of the Lausanne Consultation on Gospel and Culture.” London: Eerdmans, 1980.

Costa, Ruy O. One Faith, Many Cultures: Inculturation, Indigenization, and Contextualization. Maryknoll, N.Y.; Cambridge, Mass.: Orbis Books ; Boston Theological Institute, 1988.

Filbeck, David. Social Context and Proclamation: a Socio-cognitive Study in Proclaiming the Gospel Cross-culturally. Pasadena, Calif.: W. Carey Library, 1985.

Fuller, Loois. “The Missionary’s Role in Developing Indigenous Chrisitan Theology.” Evangelical  Missions Quarterly 33, no. 4 (1997).

Gilliland, Dean S, ed. The Word Among Us, Contextualizing Theology For Mission Today. Dallas, Texas: Word  Publishing, n.d.

Greenman, Jeffrey P., and Gene L. Green. Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission. Downers Grove, Illinios: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hesselgrave, David J. Theology and Mission: Papers and Responses Prepared for the Consultation on Theology and Mission, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, S. of World Mission. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Baker, 1978.

Hesselgrave, David J, and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000.

Hesselgrave, David J, Ed Stetzer, and John Mark Terry. Missionshift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Academic, 2010.

Hesselgrave, David J. Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006.

Hesselgrave, David J. ; Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. New Horizons in World Mission: Evangelicals and the Christian Mission in the 198. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A., n.d.

Hiebert, Paul G. Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1994.

Hodges, Melvin L. The Indigenous Church. Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Pub. House, 1976.

Kinsler, F. Ross. “Mission and Context: The Current Debate About Contextualization.” Evangelical  Missions Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1978).

Kraft, Charles H. Christianity in Culture: a Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross Cultural Perspective. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1979.

———. “The Contextualization of Theology.” Evangelical  Missions Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1978).

Kwan, Simon Shui-Man. “From Indigenization to Contextualazation: a Change in Discusive Practice Rather Than a Shift in Paradigm.” Studies in World Chrsitianity 11, no. 2 (2005).

Mangalwadi, Vishal. The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2011.

Moreau, A. Scott. Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2012.

Moreau, A. Scott, Engen, and David Burnett. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Baker Books ; Paternoster Press, 2000.

Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. London [u.a.: Penguin Books, 1990.

Nicholls, Bruce J. Contextualization: a Theology of Gospel and Culture. Downers Grove, Illinios: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979.

Nida, Eugene A. Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1960.

Rowell, John, and Peter Kuzmic. To Give or Not To Give: Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity, and Redefining Sustainability. InterVarsity Press, 2012.

Rynkiewich, Michael A. Soul, Self, and Society: a Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World. Eugene, Or.: Cascade Books, 2011.

Smalley, William Allen. Readings in Missionary Anthropology II. South Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1978.

Van Rheenen, Gailyn. Contextualization and Syncretism: Navigating Cultural Currents. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2006.

William S. Carter Symposium on Church Growth, Yamamori, Charles R Taber, and Milligan College. “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?” Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1975.

Winter, Ralph D, and Steven C Hawthorne, eds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader. 3rd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.

Wisley, Thomas Noel, and Charles H Kraft. Readings in Dynamic Indigeneity. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1979.