by
Dean Flemming

During the past two decades the term "contextualization" has catapulted to the forefront of missiological and theological concerns. Originating in the conciliar movement, it was introduced in a 1972 report of the Theological Education Fund¹ as a replacement for the older term "indigenization." It focused on the development of local theologies in the context of radical social and political change within a given culture, particularly in the Third World. Evangelical missiologists were quick to respond to the challenge posed by the concern for contextualization. Some concluded that, given its roots, the term "contextualization" was too misleading and ambiguous to be useful.² Most have adopted it, however, with some redefinition, as a way of expressing the need to adapt the biblical message into categories relevant to a given cultural context.³

The concern for contextualizing the Christian gospel is, of course, nothing new. Many precedents for contextualization can be found within the Bible itself.⁴ The apostle Paul offers perhaps the prime model of enabling the gospel to speak anew to changing cultural and religious contexts, both in terms of his evangelistic missionary practice (e.g., Acts 14:8-20; 17:16-34.; 1 Cor. 8-10, esp. 9:19ff) and his contextual theologizing (e.g., the Christology of Colossians, 1 Cor. l5).⁵ The four Gospels, from one perspective, are four attempts to contextualize the gospel for different contexts and readers.⁶

Ultimately, contextualization is grounded in the incarnation principle; God chose to reveal himself in a specific time and place in human history and culture. Max Stackhouse points out that "contextualizing the faith" has been a part of the church's mission throughout the post-biblical period.⁷ However, the matter has taken on new urgency and importance of late as non-Western Christians and those involved in cross-cultural theologizing have become more conscious of the "Westernization" of theology and of the need to transpose the Christian message into new historical and cultural situations. Today an enormous amount of energy is being expended on the theory, process, and problems associated with the contextualization of the gospel. This is demonstrated not least by the plethora of journal articles and book-length studies which try to address the issue.⁸

In the Asian setting in which I currently minister, Christians rightly view contextualization not as an option, but as a necessity for the church.

Yet, all of the attention given to contextualization has not led to a consensus regarding its goals, methodologies, limits, and hermeneutical base. Even the definition of the term itself has proved to be extraordinarily slippery.⁹ Over a decade ago, Krikor Haleblian concluded that "this nuclear concept has raised a concatenation of problems, many of them still unresolved."¹⁰ It seems that there has been little progress since then to resolve much of this confusion. In general, Wesleyans have been rather slow to enter the debate.¹¹ Yet I believe there is an important and needed contribution Wesleyans can make to the discussion. This essay will focus on one aspect of the contextualization debate-the need for an adequate hermeneutic for the task of contextualization. I choose this particular aspect for two reasons: first, because hermeneutics lies at the very heart of what it means to contextualize the gospel; and second, because the understanding of Scripture and interpretation within the Wesleyan tradition has the potential to shed light on some crucial issues.

Hermeneutics and the "Third Horizon"

The problem of contextualization is largely a hermeneutical problem. Interest in contextualization corresponds to a growing recognition among interpreters that the gospel message came to expression in one cultural, social, historical, and linguistic context, while we live in another.¹² It is the intricate relationship between text and contemporary context that poses some of the greatest challenges for providing an adequate hermeneutical base for the task of contextualizing the gospel. Contextualization is therefore not simply a missiological concern. A number of interpreters have drawn attention to the considerable overlap between the concerns of contextualization and those of modern hermeneutical theory, particularly of the so-called "new hermeneutic."¹³ Notwithstanding the subjectivistic tendencies and limitations of the "new hermeneutic,"¹⁴ if it has taught us anything it is that interpretation is not a one-directional process. Meaningful interpretation takes place when the horizon of our own understanding fuses with the horizon of the text, to use the current terminology, although the horizon of Scripture must be primary for determining meaning.¹⁵

Discussions of the "new hermeneutic" generally are framed in terms of "two horizons", i.e., the horizon of the first-century text and that of the contemporary reader or interpreter. However, recent missiological interests remind us that there is also a "third horizon."¹⁶ This occurs when the Biblical message is communicated by the interpreter to another person or cultural group. It is this "third horizon" that is the particular concern of the task of contextualization. Just as barriers must be bridged in order for a contemporary reader to rightly understand the ancient biblical text, so there are also hurdles to cross when we move from the second to the third horizon. However, there is a difference in the two movements. When moving from the first to the second horizon, the burden of responsibility is on the reader/interpreter, i.e., the person in the second horizon. However, when the gospel moves from the second to the third horizon, the burden is still on the interpreter, who now becomes the communicator of the Christian message to a receptor audience. In both cases the primary responsibility is on the person in the second horizon, i.e., the interpreter/ communicator.¹⁷

Thus there must not only be a fusion of the first and second horizons, i.e., those of the biblical text and contemporary interpreter. There must also be a bridging of the second and third horizons, as the communicator attempts to identify with the receptor culture. Only then can meaningful communication of the biblical message take place. When the horizon of the receptors is shaped by a different culture, world view, and value system from that of the communicator, the potential for distortion of the meaning of Scripture is greatly increased. Unless the interpreter/communicator can adequately bridge the gap in both directions-that of the ancient text and the modern receptor culture~ontextualization of the biblical message will be less than successful. This is what makes the task of the cross-cultural evangelist or theologian so difficult.

What has not always been recognized, however, is that this "third horizon" model relates not simply to what is usually seen as cross-cultural communication of the gospel. In a sense, contextualization must occur on a regular basis in any Christian ministry. Anytime one preaches a sermon, teaches a theology class, or shares the gospel with a group of college students, the message should be shaped by the context of the people to which it is being communicated.¹⁸ Every preacher/theologian stands in the middle between the horizon of the Bible and that of his or her receptor group, with the need to allow one's own preunderstandings to be dynamically fused to both text and context. We may be competent exegetes and interpreters of the original meaning of the text. Yet, unless we are able to contextualize that meaning for a contemporary audience so that it has an impact comparable to that on the first hearers, the hermeneutical task falls short of its goal.¹⁹ Thus not only missionaries and non-Western Christians need to be engaged in a conscious effort at contextualization, but all those involved in Christian ministry and theologizing. Western theology in its various forms is every bit as much a contextualization as that being done in Asia and Africa today.

It is therefore important to look more closely at some of the key issues relating to the hermeneutics of contextualization and to ask what Wesleyans have to say to these questions. This essay will highlight three specific areas of concern: (1) transformational hermeneutics; (2) the problem of the gospel core; and (3) transcontextual hermeneutics.

In broadest terms, there are two fundamental approaches to contextual hermeneutics today.²⁰ The first assigns the primary control of meaning to the contemporary context itself. Frequently the notion of "praxis" serves as a kind of filter for interpreting Scripture. For example, some liberation theologians make the struggle against economic oppression a controlling grid which allows them then to redefine biblical concepts like "salvation" in terms of liberation of the poor and "sin" in terms of sociopolitical injustice.²¹ This context-driven model of contextualization is no doubt the dominant one in Asia and elsewhere in the Two Thirds World today.²² The product has often been a syncretistic version of the Christian message.²³ A second approach, which is normally advocated by evangelical contextualizers, gives principle control to the Biblical text for the meanings that are contextualized. The historic Wesleyan acceptance of the Protestant principle of the primary authority of Scripture for Christian faith and practice would clearly support the latter approach.²⁴ This is the kind of contextualization advocated in this paper.

Perhaps in an excessive effort to defend the objective nature of revelation against the dangers of the former approach, evangelicals sometimes have been overly restrictive in understanding the nature and goal of contextualization. Much of the discussion from an evangelical perspective has focused on the correct verbal communication of biblical content, i.e., a body of truth. This is reflected in some evangelical definitions of contextualization. Bruce Nicholls, for example, has defined contextualization as "the translation of the unchanging content of the Gospel of the kingdom into verbal form meaningful to peoples in their separate cultures and within their particular existential situations."²⁵ On occasion the discussion has focused on an inerrantist view of Scripture as the hedge against relativism and syncretism.²⁶ In their valid critique of a situational approach to hermeneutics and theology, evangelicals at times have stressed the absoluteness of revelation and the objectivity of Biblical truth to the point that the praxilogical dimension of Scripture is lost. What is not always recognized is that this rationalistic and "objective" hermeneutical perspective may itself be a form of contextualization.²⁷

This approach can lead to a truncated understanding of the gospel. An adequate contextual hermeneutic must involve more than transmitting a body of truth alone. Meaning cannot be detached from application and obedience. Paul Hiebert warns against contextualization that emphasizes the accurate communication of meaning, while ignoring the gospel's emotive and volitional dimensions. The result is that "we are in danger of reducing the gospel to a set of disembodied beliefs that can be individually appropriated, forgetting that it has to do with discipleship, with the church as the body of Christ, and with the kingdom of God on earth."²⁸

The dual Wesleyan emphasis on the soteriological purpose of Scripture and on the vital role of the internal witness of the Spirit in authenticating its validity can provide a valuable corrective to the more rationalistic and objective approaches to contextualization.²⁹ What is needed today is a "transformational hermeneutic." The goal of contextualization must be the transformation of people in their concrete historical and cultural situations.³⁰ Our choice is not between "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxis." Such a polarization is foreign to the gospel itself.³¹ Syncretism can occur equally at the level of behavior as at the level of theology. Wesley rightly stressed that application and obedience are essential to any understanding of Scripture.³² Likewise, Wesleyans hold that the Holy Spirit "subjectively validates the truth of Scripture in its spiritually transforming intent."³³ The Wesleyan response to Scripture cannot be satisfied simply with correct belief. It must involve the disposition of the heart and will, which results in loving actions. The Spirit must speak through the Scripture to transform the interpreter as well as the receptors (i.e., those in both the second and third horizons) if the contextualized message is to ring true.

This orientation allows Wesleyans to do contextualization that is not bound by static traditions of biblical and theological interpretation and is free to adapt the saving import of Scripture to new settings. The validity of a given contextualization is determined not simply by its faithfulness to objective scriptural principles but is demonstrated in the actual transformation of the life and thought of the receptor through the work of the Spirit. We may be able to adapt the biblical teaching on holiness, for example, to our culture on a theological level, but if we do not internalize it and allow it to transform our lifestyles it is of little value. This necessitates, of course, that the receptors cooperate with the contextualization that is being done. Otherwise, the process breaks down. This "transformational" approach to contextual hermeneutics holds great promise for the church in the Two Thirds world, where people tend to have a more integrated approach to reality and where the abstract bifurcation of meaning and application seems quite foreign.

Wesleyans, therefore, can offer a mediating position between polarities within the contextualization debate. On the one hand, we must unapologetically afirm Scripture as the control and norm for all contextualization of the gospel over against those who find primacy in the contemporary cultural context for determining the substance of the faith. Yet at the same time we must recognize that any valid contextualization of the gospel includes a concern for "praxis" and results in the subjective transformation of both the interpreter and those to whom the message is proclaimed.

Hermeneutics and the "Gospel Core"

Much of the contemporary discussion of contextualization has focused on the relationship between form and content in biblical revelation. Is there a non-negotiable "core" of content to the biblical message? If so, can this gospel core be separated from the cultural forms of the Bible and then recast into new and relevant forms today? The issue goes to the heart of the hermeneutical basis for contextualization. Yet exegetes, theologians, and missiologists alike remain divided on its solution.

On one hand, many contemporary biblical scholars and theologians view the Bible as so culturally and historically conditioned that there is little or no normative content to be contextualized. Max Stackhouse observes that "contemporary biblical scholarship has so contextualized the texts that the very idea that texts can judge contexts is methodologically doubted."³⁴ Further, a virtually unbridgeable gap is often perceived between the scriptural contexts and those of interpreters today.³⁵ The result is that something other than Scripture becomes the starting point for contextualization. For example, Methodist theologian S. Wesley Ariarajah from Sri Lanka has attempted to contextualize the gospel in the Hindu and Buddhist contexts of South Asia. However, his commitment to the radical cultural conditioning of all scriptures, including the Bible, leads him to conclude that "there is no reason why the Hindu Scriptures should not be meaningful and provide the context of faith for an Indian Christian."³⁶

On the opposite pole are those fundamentalist interpreters who extend the notion of normativeness so broadly that they fail to do adequate justice to the historical character of Scripture. For instance, William Larkin, following J. Robertson McQuilkin, approaches contextualization from the standpoint that both the form and meaning of Scripture are normative unless the Bible itself clearly indicates otherwise.³⁷ Instead of developing criteria for normativeness and thereby determining what is transculturally binding in a biblical passage, he argues that we should be establishing criteria for non-normativeness.³⁸ Thus, everything in Scripture should be understood as binding on all times and cultures unless there is a specific scriptural limitation present.³⁹

This procedure has been rightly criticized as taking a static and ahistorical approach to both Scripture and culture.⁴⁰ While it is true that at times both Biblical form and content can be normative (as I will argue shortly), to make it an a priori assumption goes beyond either the claims or the general tenor of Scripture. We can observe the process of contextualizing forms to adapt to changing cultural situations within the Bible itself. For example, the New Testament records considerable flexibility in forms of worship, church order, and theological expression as the church moved from a Jewish to a predominantly Gentile environment.⁴¹

Donald Dayton points out that the Wesleyan tradition historically has rejected the more absolutist and ahistorical approaches to Biblical interpretation in favor of a more dynamic understanding of the role of the Bible in Christian life and thought.⁴² The difference in approaches can be illustrated by the contrast between the fundamentalist defense of the universal normativeness of passages dealing with women's silence in church (1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:l1-12)⁴³ and the Wesleyan openness to women in ministry where that pattern is culturally appropriate. Women in holiness churches such as the Free Methodist Church and the Church of the Nazarene in the Philippines, for instance, tend to exercise a more significant role in pastoral ministry than is the case in the West.⁴⁴ However, a visible congregational leadership role for women in an Islamic setting might be so culturally offensive that it would be an impediment to the gospel. Once again, Wesleyans can offer a middle course between a wooden commitment to biblical forms and language - a commitment that prevents the meaning of Scripture from being adapted to new situations - and a radically historical approach that shifts the norm for contextualization from Scripture to the contemporary context.

We must still ask, however, about the essential content and the parameters of the gospel that are to be contextualized. Is there an identifiable "gospel core" within Scripture which can be isolated from its cultural forms? Many evangelical interpreters believe there is. The matter becomes extremely slippery, however, when one tries to define precisely what constitutes the gospel core. Attempts to identify its content tend either to be so general that they have little meaning (e.g., "the Bible itsel~is understood as 'the core' out of which various key doctrines are to be emphasized"⁴⁵) or they are reductionistic (e.g., the historic person of Christ,⁴⁶ or Christ's death and resurrection⁴⁷). Others try to delineate a specific core of doctrines which make up the essential Christian message, although there is no consensus on what these doctrines are.

Stackhouse, for example, discusses four doctrines that "provide the boundaries of what it means to be Christian": (1) that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation; (2) that revelation takes place in history in the way that the Bible authoritatively indicates; (3) that the doctrine of the Trinity accurately points to how God can best be understood and what that means for life in the world; and (4) that Jesus is the Christ - the way, the truth and the life."⁴⁸ While such formulations may be helpful for determining theological orthodoxy, it is questionable whether what is essential about the dynamic and transformational "good news" of the kingdom can be reduced to a prescribed set of dogmatic principles. Obviously it is not easy to determine precisely what a "non-contextualized" gospel looks like.

Even more problematic is the question of how to identify and isolate a gospel core. The dominant pattern of contextualization among evangelical missiologists has been the "translation model"⁴⁹ or the "kernel-husk" model.⁵⁰ It affirms that there is an essential, "supracultural" gospel core which must be stripped of its cultural clothing (or husk) in order that it may be "reclothed" in new cultural and linguistic forms, while the gospel message itself (the kernel) remains unchanged.⁵¹ In other words, the gospel must be "decontextualized" from the culture of the Bible before it can be recontextualized today.⁵²

Perhaps the leading articulator of the "translation" model is Charles Kraft, who bases his approach on the "dynamic equivalence" Bible translation theories of Eugene Nida and Charles R. Taber.⁵³ Kraft holds that the essence of Christianity is a supracultural message which exists above and beyond any culture-bound expressions of it. However, God has communicated this supracultural truth in human linguistic and cultural forms in the Scriptures.⁵⁴ The role of the interpreter, then, is to decode the supracultural gospel from its cultural trappings and then re-encode it "within the hearer's frame of reference in such a way that both communication and response are dynamically equivalent to those of the original situation."⁵⁵

Kraft is to be commended for his attempt to treat seriously both the normative gospel message and human language and culture in his methodology and for his overall contribution to the contextualization debate. However, his approach raises some important questions. The first involves whether it is helpful to talk about a "supracultural core" within the Bible. The concept of a "supracultural" gospel that is separate from its cultural trappings exists only on an abstract, theoretical level. All of the Biblical accounts come to us in specific historical and cultural circumstances. We cannot minimize the historical nature of the Christian faith. A supracultural" gospel may exist, but we do not have access to it apart from some human cultural and linguistic formulation; i.e., we cannot know it supraculturally.⁵⁶ Cultural form and supracultural meaning cannot easily be separated like oil and water.

This has implications for the limits of dynamic equivalence.⁵⁷ Is it possible, for example, to substitute the Biblical form of the "lamb of God" with the "dynamic equivalent" "pig of God" in a Melanesian or African culture, where there are no sheep, without some distortion in meaning? Or, taking the matter to the extreme, could the "form" of the cross itself be replaced by some more culturally relevant means of execution? The point is that it is naive to think that some pure gospel essence can be easily abstracted from its cultural biblical forms and then repackaged without any change in meaning. As Robert Schreiter observes, "kernel and cultural husk are given together, even in the Bible, and they come to have a profound effect on each other over a period of time."⁵⁸ Furthermore, attempts to isolate the "supracultural core" from its husk are open to reductionism and the subjectivity of the interpreter when it comes to determining how narrow or inclusive the "core" is.⁵⁹

The effort to identify which bits of the gospel are supracultural and which are culture bound will inevitably be ~kewed by the preunderstandings of the interpreter. Consequently, the terminology of a "supracultural" gospel is somewhat misleading.⁶⁰ This is not to say that the message of the Bible is bound to Hebrew or Greek culture or that there are not theological and ethical principles that apply to all people in every culture. If meaning were unable to transcend culture, the gospel would never have broken out of its Jewish cultural roots and there could be no normative and living Word in its multiple cultural expressions today.⁶¹ What is needed is the process of understanding the eternal Word comprehensively in its historical context and then allowing its message to become incarnated in our concrete contexts.⁶²

A second problem with the translation model is that it minimizes the prophetic role of the gospel over culture. Kraft assumes that functionally equivalent forms to those in Scripture can be identified by the interpreter in virtually any culture and that the content will not change when it is reclothed in those forms. However, "cultural forms are rarely neutral with respect to the values of Scripture."⁶³ While they sometimes support Biblical values, at other times they oppose them or remain ambiguous toward them. The translation model fails to provide adequate criteria for the critical function of the gospel over culture or for dealing with the problem of syncretism. For example, Kraft illustrates his method of contextualization with the list of qualities for Christian leaders in 1 Timothy 3. The functional equivalent for the Greco-Roman "form" of "managing a household well" (1 Tim. 3:4) would be the ability to manage a polygamous household in cultures that practice polygamy, such as the Higi in Nigeria.⁶⁴ But, is this truly an "equivalent" value? Can we take it for granted that Biblical passages that reject polygamy address simply a cultural form and have no judging function over cultural values and practices?

It seems, then, that the term "gospel core" is ambiguous and open to misunderstanding because it is tied to the "kernel-husk" model that bifurcates form and content, and because it often reduces what is essential in the Christian message to a narrowly-defined field of supracultural truths. What is needed is a way of understanding the gospel that pays adequate heed to its normative content, yet recognizes the close interrelationship between the elements of content, form, and context. One that acknowledges that the gospel is unchanging, but not static, transcultural, but not "supracultural," transcendent, but not abstract.

Perhaps thinking in terms of the gospel "center" is a step in that direction.⁶⁵ The center of the gospel is not found in a limited "core" of doctrines, but rather in a redemptive event, i.e., God's saving activity in Jesus Christ. The Wesleyan understanding of Scripture has emphasized that the Living Word stands behind the written Word and gives it soteriological meaning. The center is a focal point, but does not define strict limits to the heart of the gospel. That center finds a wide variety of expressions and elements within the Biblical message, all of which are rooted in the redemptive Christ event and interpret its meaning to humanity.

These are the great theological and ethical affirmations of the Bible, the revealed gospel message. Yet we must understand that these faith affirmations do not stand independent of concrete historical and cultural expression, even in Scripture. The good news does not address sinful humanity in a generic "de-contextualized" form. Whether it is Jesus the Messiah, the Lord or the Logos, whether God's redemptive activity comes in terms of the new birth to Nicodemus, the kingdom of God in the Synoptics, justification by faith to the Romans and Galatians, or the superior sacrifice to the Hebrews, whether it speaks exodus for slaves, a warning and call to repentance for idolaters and perpetrators of injustice, or the demand to give up riches to the rich young ruler, it addresses concrete situations and human needs.⁶⁶

Thus there is a continual interaction between the constant biblical theological message that is rooted in God's redemptive activity in Christ and its contextual expression.⁶⁷ It is this tension between the constant and the contingent character of Scripture that enables us to contextualize its message today without compromising its essential content. While Scripture is culture specific, it is not culture bound. The fact that the gospel center can speak to so many concrete situations within the Bible gives us hope and confidence that the normative message can be re-expressed in forms that will address an unlimited number of contexts and human needs today. Undoubtedly, different biblical expressions will speak more clearly to different contemporary situations.

For example, the soteriological motif of justification by faith has played a dominant role since the Reformation in the theology of the West, where forensic thinking has a rich heritage. However, in cultures that do not share this conceptual background, other themes which may have more direct cultural parallels, e.g., reconciliation, redemption, Christ's victory over the powers, may need to have greater prominence, especially in the initial stages of proclamation. On the other hand, if we only express the biblical message in terms that are already compatible with a culture, the gospel can lose its critical function. In one sense, the gospel is foreign to every culture.⁶⁸

Yet we must stress, in light of the character of much of the contextualization being done today, that the starting point for the process remains the unchanging gospel message, not the specific and changing context. Too often doing contextual theology has meant listening to a particular culture, world view, or religious tradition and then allowing what we discover to determine our understanding of God and his message. The gospel which transcends any given culture must always transform the context rather than the other way around. To use an imperfect analogy,⁶⁹ a doctor draws from the medicines available to prescribe what patients need. Different treatments are needed by different patients. The same patient may need different prescriptions or dosages at different times as his or her health improves or fails. The patient's condition calls forth the medicine needed. However, the patient does not essentially alter the medicine or the doctor; they remain constant. It is the patient who changes as a result of the doctor's care.

In contextual theologizing, neither God nor the constant gospel are redefined by the context. But how the message is expressed and what aspects are emphasized will vary from context to context and also within a given context as the receptors change. Successful contextualization involves an interaction between gospel and context, in which the gospel transforms the context, while the context brings to light deeper levels of meaning from the gospel.

I believe the above understanding coincides well with the predominant Wesleyan approach to Scripture. Resisting both absolutist and relativistic paradigms, Wesleyans are able to take with full seriousness both the historical conditionedness of Scripture and its normative and transcultural message that is rooted in God's saving action in Christ. We need not be bound either to an a priori attachment to the cultural and linguistic forms in which God's Self-revelation is inscripturated, or to some "supracultural" core of truth that stands in isolation from the concrete expression of the saving message. Instead, we must allow the Holy Spirit to enable us to fuse our own context with that of the culture and languages of the Scripture to determine the text's meaning in the present context. We seek to grasp the text's universal and normative message and then transfer that meaning back to our own situation, allowing it to transform our understandings and actions.⁷⁰

If we are operating on the third horizon level, we must also "exegete the context" to the extent that the meaning we have discovered can be heard and relived in the receptor context in a way that is genuinely comparable to its meaning in the original context. Failure to contextualize adequately produces a "gospel" that is something less than truly Christian. In the Two Thirds world, such a failure has resulted in the syncretism that is characteristic of many non-Western theological and behavioral expressions. In the West it manifests itself in forms such as the "health and prosperity" gospel and the amalgamation of Christianity with popular psychology.⁷¹ A gospel of materialism is as syncretistic as one that embraces animism. If a contextualized message or practice is not consistent with the normative biblical-theological message of Scripture, it is not an authentic expression of Christianity.

Authentic contextualization is not always straightforward. In some cases it may be necessary to adopt forms that are not directly derived from Scripture, especially at first, in order to insure that biblical meanings are truly communicated. For example, to be "born again" is not liberating good news to a Hindu unless much conceptual displacement occurs. Forms may be found within the culture that can be redefined and will communicate more adequately.⁷² In other cases, we may decide to retain the original scriptural form (e.g., "lamb of God" in a culture without sheep⁷³) and explain its meaning rather than risk message distortion by employing a functional substitute. Contextualization may involve critically evaluating existing beliefs and customs or even the overturning of one's entire conceptual framework, such as happens when the gospel penetrates Hindu or Buddhist world views. This kind of "critical contextualization" is done ideally by the local hermeneutical community as it wrestles with the implications of the biblical message for its culture.⁷⁴ The point is that contextualization is never simple; but it is both possible and necessary.

A Transcontextual Hermeneutic

If there has been an emerging consensus on any point in the contextualization debate, it has been that all theology is in a sense contextual.⁷⁵ This is because, as Sunand Sumithra reminds us, "all theology, as all human expressions, is inevitably conditioned by, and therefore relevant to, the theologian's particular context."⁷⁶ This understanding has not always been recognized, however. Paul Hiebert calls the period between 1800-1950 "the era of noncontextualization" in Protestant missions.⁷⁷ Western theology, and in particular the sixteenth-century Protestant confessions, were frequently assumed to be universally valid expressions of supracultural truth.⁷⁸ All that needed to be done was to indigenize the finished theological product. Not only was this approach to theology ethnocentric, but it produced a gospel that was foreign to the receptor culture and sometimes promoted the very kind of syncretism the Western missionaries tried to avoid.⁷⁹

Recent studies in Paul's theology have highlighted the contextual nature of the Reformation interpretation of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, which was formulated out of a context where the chief issue was whether salvation could be attained by works or one's own merit. While I personally do not accept a good deal of the results of "new perspective" on Paul,⁸⁰ if its proponents have taught us anything, it is that Paul's context and concerns in expounding the gospel of righteousness by faith were not identical to those of the Reformers, nor could they have been. This does not mean, however, that the Lutheran emphasis on justification by faith alone is no longer needed or relevant today. Bruce Nicholls, for example, points out that, in a Hindu context characterized by the notion of karma and a complete lack of assurance of salvation, it is one of the greatest needs in a reformulation of a Christian Indian theology.⁸¹ This is also true in a predominantly Roman Catholic milieu like the Philippines. However, the expression and application of this concept in either of these contexts will be quite different from that of Luther and from one another.

Wesleyans likewise need to be reminded on occasion that Wesleyan theology is itself a contextualization. Wesley adapted the biblical theological message into forms that were appropriate for a particular historical, cultural, social, and religious context in eighteenth-century England. We must guard against treating Wesleyan theology as a distilled theological product, whose particular expressions and forms must be held onto at all cost. While the recent "return to Wesley" emphasis within Wesleyan theological circles has its merits, there is also a real danger of assigning an inflated level of authority to Wesley's language and contextual theological formulations.

I have struggled much with how the theological distinctives of Wesleyanism can be meaningfully translated into the Asian and Pacific island contexts of the students at the seminary where I teach. I believe that it is worth doing only because I believe Wesley was fundamentally a biblical theologian. This task is best carried out by Asian theologians them-selves.⁸² The results may come out with a different look and feel than either the Wesleyanism of eighteenth-century England or the particular version of twentieth-century American Wesleyanism in which I was schooled. For example, does Wesley's theological position on infant baptism, with its Anglican roots, apply without modification in a culture like the Philippines, where nearly all children are baptized into a Roman Catholicism that tends to be highly syncretistic and where that act is thought to be salvific?

One of the dynamics of Wesleyanism is its ability to adapt to new cultural, social, and intellectual climates in a way that some of the absolutist and systematically oriented traditions do not. Wesley's theology itself was a theology in process, not a static finished product. Consequently, insisting on "theologically correct" Wesleyan language does not make us more "Wesleyan." Only when we subject Wesleyan theology to exegetical and Biblical-theological rigor and allow it to speak dynamically to ever changing contexts do we remain genuinely true to Wesley and the theological tradition he spawned. This principle, of course, applies not only to Wesleyans in Asia and Africa, but to those in North America and Europe as well.

While recognizing that theology must be contextualized to be meaningful, we must at the same time distance ourselves from what Stack-house calls "contextualism," i.e., the denial that there is anything universal or transcultural about the faith to be contextualized. Stackhouse critiques versions of liberation theology that insist that "everything of basic significance grows out of the contextual experience of those on the underside of the master-slave relationship."⁸³ Contextualism manifests itself in two forms, neither of which is acceptable for biblically-based theologians. The first is a relativism which celebrates an infinite number of contextual theologies, many of which are mutually exclusive.⁸⁴ The result is that no theology is able to transcend the ghetto of its particular historical situation and remains detached from the wider Christian community. A relativistic posture is currently found in many Two Thirds World theologies and within modern Western historical-critical biblical scholarship.

The other is an absolutism which dogmatizes one's own particular interpretation or theological position, "making it applicable to everybody and demanding that others submit too." The Wesleyan understanding of the catholic spirit resists either form of contextualism.⁸⁶ If we believe there is a normative text which brings meaning to and often critiques the context, then we must begin to think in "transcontextual" categories.⁸⁷ This does not mean simply uncovering some kind of pure, supracultural core from its various patterns of cultural dress. Rather, it involves allowing our various contextual insights and interpretations of the gospel to contribute toward a transcontextual theology and understanding of the Bible. Both contextualization and "transcontextualization" must stand under the authority of the Word of God and be guided by God's Spirit.

Wesleyans should be open to learning from the interpretations of Christians in other cultural contexts. We must recognize that we are part of an international hermeneutical community."⁸⁸ This means that every local interpretive community must assume the role of both teacher and learner. Interpreters can often detect the weaknesses and blind spots of other interpreters more clearly from the distance of another culture than from inside the same one.

There is much that Western Christians can learn from the hermeneutical and theological insights of their fellow-believers in the Two-Thirds World. For example, African and Asian Christians might critique the unbiblical individualism that often characterizes Western theology, since they may be able to grasp more clearly the corporate dimensions of the Biblical message. Or non-Western believers who regularly confront the reality of the spirit world and the powers of darkness may have a more adequate hermeneutic of the Biblical teaching in this area than much of Western Christianity, which has tended to rationalistically "demythologize" such passages. In light of the upsurge of occultism in Europe and North America, the church in the West could benefit from this perspective. Surely Western Christians who find themselves in a context of fast-increasing religious and cultural pluralism can learn from their Asian evangelical counterparts who have struggled to develop a biblical-theological understanding of the uniqueness of the Christian message within a religiously plural and minority religious environment.

On the other hand, the Western theological tradition still has much to say to the churches in the Two-Thirds world. Some Christian missionaries and non-Western theologians have insisted that a truly contextualized theology can emerge in Africa or Asia only when it is free from any existing theological structure.⁸⁹ However, an interpretive tabula rasa is not only impossible; it fosters a highly subjective and ahistorical hermeneutic.

The idea of the church as a hermeneutical community reaches not only to the church in all cultures, but also to the church in all ages.⁹⁰ For example, the historic Western traditions may be able to provide a corrective to the African tendency to interpret the Old Testament in categories of African primal religion, e.g., reading ancestor worship back into Scripture.⁹¹ Historic Wesleyan distinctives, such as the call to ethical holiness and discipleship, the social and praxilogical dimensions of holiness, the assurance of salvation, and prevenient grace as evidence of the Spirit's work among all peoples for the purpose of leading them to salvation, all speak profoundly to today's rapidly changing Asian social and cultural contexts.

Christians in every culture should be doing theology not merely for themselves, but with the goal of leading to a deeper, richer, and more "transcontextual" understanding of Biblical truth.⁹² Rather than following the trend toward more and more fragmented and provincial "theologies," we must seek through our diverse insights a more "Biblical" theology. We greatly need one another, all the more in light of the forces toward rapid globalization at work in our world.

A transcontextual understanding of the gospel will require an attitude of humility and catholicity. I have marveled when attending theological and ecclesiastical conferences at how little thought is given to "how it will play" in Pune or Prague. Are those of us who are Wesleyans operating out of a Western interpretive tradition willing to truly listen to the insights of like-minded believers from Manila or Sao Paulo who have fused their own horizon with that of the Scriptures? Are we humble enough to allow ourselves to be corrected by them when necessary? Wesleyan interpreters and theologians cannot afford to operate out of a mono-cultural mindset. I have been learning, sometimes painfully, through the experience of teaching at an international multi-cultural seminary that, when I interact with those with different paradigms than my own, I begin to see more clearly the flaws in my own paradigms. In the words of David Bosch, "While acting locally, we must think globally, in terms of the whole church."⁹³

The result is not a watered down "lowest common denominator" theology that is devoid of any critical edge. Rather, it is an "international hermeneutical spiral." By this I mean that the church in its diverse cultural and confessional incarnations interacts with Scripture and interprets the normative gospel for its own context, while at the same time the theological understandings each community has gained enable it to contribute to an ever richer and clearer grasp of the Christian message. This process need not sacrifice theological integrity or doctrinal distinctives. It does, however, submit all particular theological formulations to the revealed Word of God. The Wesleyan catholic spirit and dynamic understanding of theology should enable Wesleyans to stand at the forefront of such an endeavor.

Conclusion

A Wesleyan perspective is important in the ongoing contextualization debate. As in many cases, a Wesleyan approach to Scripture and interpretation is able to recognize the tensions in some key issues and offer a mediating position that could help to lead us beyond some of the current polarities in the discussion. I conclude by noting three of these polarities.

(1) The Wesleyan emphasis on the soteriological purpose of Scripture and its ethical and social implications can provide the basis for a transformational hermeneutic~ne that moves beyond narrow concerns for contextualizing of truth content alone to affirm that Scripture and not the context must control the process.

(2) The Wesleyan openness to the historical-conditionedness of Christian life and thought resists static hermeneutical models that espouse either a wooden commitment to Biblical forms or reducing the gospel to an abstract "supracultural core" of truth. At the same time, we acknowledge that all adequate contextualization must be rooted in the center of the unchanging gospel message, God's saving activity in Christ. The interconnection between constant center and contextual expression enables the eternal Word of God to address people in relevant and transforming ways in the full range of human situations today.

(3) The Wesleyan catholic spirit is open to a truly "transcontextual" hermeneutic~ne that rejects all forms of provincialism and "contextualism" and seeks in humility to learn from the interpretive insights of Christians in other cultures, to the end that we all come to a deeper and richer understanding of the faith. Authentic contextualization is far more than an academic exercise or a topic for scholarly debate. It is a missiological necessity for the whole church.

Notes

1Theological Education Fund, Ministry in Context: The Third Mandate Program of the Theological Education Fund (1970-77) (Bromily, U.K.: New Life ~egg, 1972).

²See, e.g., B. Fleming, Contextualization of Theology: An Evangelical Assessment (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1980), 52ff.; J. O. Buswell Ill, "Contextualization: Theory, Tradition and Method" in Theology and Mission, D. J. Hesseigrave ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 93ff.; C. H. Kraft and T. J. Wisley, eds., Readings in Dynamic Indigenity (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1979), xixf.

³David J. Hesseigrave, "Contextualization of Theology" in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (Grand Rapids, 1984), 271-272.

⁴For a discussion of the Biblical patterns of contextualization, see e.g., N.E. Ericson, "Implications from the New Testament for Contextualization", in Theology and Mission, 71-85; D. S. Gilliland, "New Testament Contextualization: Continuity and Particularity in Paul's Theology" in The Word Among Us: Contextualizing Theology for Today, D. S. Gilliland, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 52-73; A. F. Glasser, "Old Testament Contextualization: Revelation and Its Environment" in The Word Among Us, 32ff.; J. R. Davies, "Biblical Precedents for Contextualisation," ATA Journal 2 (July 1994), 10-35; D. J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 3-11.

⁵See D. E. Hemming, "Essence and Adaptation: Contextualization and the Heart of Paul's Gospel," unpub. Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Aberdeen, 1987; cf. Gilliland "New Testament Contextualization."

⁶D. Bosch, "Toward a New Paradigm of Mission" in Mission in the J990's, G. H. Anderson et al, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 61.

⁷M. L. Stackliouse, Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 4f.; cf. Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991).

⁸Consult the bibliographies in Hesselgrave and Rommen, Contextualization, and Gilliland, The Word Among Us.

⁹See K. Haleblian, "The Problem of Contextualization," Missiology 11 (January, 1983), 96f.

¹⁰Haleblian, "Contextualization," 95.

¹¹It is noteworthy that there is no article on "contextualization" or "contextual theology" in the Beacon Dictionary of Theology. R. S. Taylor, et al, eds. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1983)].

¹²Richard Muller, The Study of Theology: From Biblical Interpretation to Contemporary Formulation in Vol.7, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 201, cited in G.M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 169.

¹³See D. A. Carson, "Church and Mission: Reflections on Contextualization and the Third Horizon" in The Church in the Bible and the World, D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 213-57; C. R. Padilla, "Hermeneutics and Culture" in Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980), 63-78; G. R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1991), 318ff.

¹⁴For a summary and evaluation of the concerns of the "new hermeneutic", see A. C. Thiselton, "The New Hermeneutic" in New Testament Interpretation, I. H. Marshall, ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdrnans, 1977), 308-333.

¹⁵See A. C. Thiselton, The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1980.

¹⁶The "third horizon" terminology has occasionally been used in relation to the hermeneutical dimensions of contextualization. See e.g., H. M. Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 188ff.; Carson, "Contextualization," 218ff.

¹⁷Carson, "Contextualization," 218-219.

¹⁸Burge, Interpreting, 170.

¹⁹It is encouraging that recent texts on hermeneutics from an evangelical perspective have begun to recognize the crucial role of contextualization for interpretation. See the valuable discussion in Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 318-338, who perhaps too broadly equates contextualization with "application" (318). Cf. W. W. Klein, et al, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), esp. 173-179, 424f.

²⁰See Carson, "Contextualization," 220.

²¹Osbome, Hermeneutical Spiral, 319.

²²In Steven B. Bevans' valuable book on Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992), five of the six contextualization models he discusses could be said to fall within this general orientation.

²³See, e.g., the recent article by Peter K. H. Lee, who speaks of the "enactment or grafting of the New Covenant in a Confucian context of heaven and humanity in harmony in a framework of humane relationships of mutual obligations" as an example of the mutual borrowings between Christianity and Confucianisrn-"Contextualization and Inculturation of Christianity and Confucianism in the Contemporary World," Asia Journal of Theology 7 (1993), 87.

²⁴See H. Ray Dunning, Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988), 55, 77.

²⁵B. Nicholls, "Theological Education and Evangelization Report," in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas (Minneapolis: 1974), 637. Cf. D. J. Hesselgrave, "The Contextualization Continuum," Gospel in Context 2 (1979), 5, who defines "orthodox" contextualization as "taking the apostolic faith. . . : and accommodating... that faith (body of truth) to the people of a respondent culture in such a way that as much of its original meaning and relevance as possible will be preserved."

²⁶See, e.g., D. J. Hesselgrave, "Contextualization & Revelational Epistemology" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. E. D. Radmacher & Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), esp. 73Off~ W. J. Larkin, Jr., Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), esp. 267ff.

²⁷See Goldsmith, "The Contextualization of Theology," Themelios 9 (1983),

21-22. To his credit, D. I. Hesselgrave acknowledges that "the employment of 'inerrancy' language itself represents a contextualization" ("Revelational Epistemology," 731).

²⁸"Critical Contextualization," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 11(1987), 108; cf. H. Conn, Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 18Sf., 229-235.

²⁹On the approach to Scripture within Wesleyan thought, see D. W. Dayton, "The Use of Scripture in the Wesleyan Tradition," in The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, R. K. Johnston, ed., 121-136; P. M. Bassett, "The Theological Identity of the North American Holiness Movement: Its Understanding of the Nature and Role of the Bible" in The Varieties of American Evangelicalism, D. W. Dayton and R. K. Johnston, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1991), 72-108; W. McCown, "Toward a Wesleyan Hermeneutic" in interpreting God's Word for Today: An inquiry into Hermeneutics from a Biblical Theological Perspective, W. McCown and J. E. Massey, eds. (Anderson, IN: Warner Press), 1982, 1-30; R. L. Shelton, "John Wesley's Approach to Scripture in Historical Perspective," WTJ 16 (Spring 1981), 23-50.

³⁰Padilla, "Hermeneutics," 75.

³¹Cf. Phil. 2:1-11, where the Christological statement of vv. 5-11 appears in a context of disunity and personal disagreements.

³²See McCown, "Hermeneutic," 6f.

³³G. Lyons, "Hermeneutical Bases for Theology: Higher Criticism and the Wesleyan Interpreter," WTJ 18 (Spring 1983), 71.

³⁴M. Stackliouse, Apologia: Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 27

³⁵Stackhouse, Apologia, 27.

36S. W. Ariarajah, "Towards a Theology of Dialogue," The Ecumenical Review (January, 1977), 9, cited in B. Nicholls, "A Living Theology for Asian Churches: Some Reflections on the Contextualization-Syncretism Debate" in The Bible and Theology in Asian Contexts, B. R. Ro and R. Eshenaur, eds. (Bangalore: ATA and AETEI, 1984), 129. Cf. Ariarajah's more recent work (The Bible and People of Other Faiths, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1992) in which he appears to consistently downplay the normative character of the Scriptural witness to the uniqueness of Christ. Ariarajah assumes that "the Christologies we have in the Bible are signposts" that simply "show how the early disciples and apostles struggled to understand the significance of Jesus for their lives and times" (68f.). He urges a rethinking of that Christology and a movement toward a more "theocentric" theology in light of contemporary religious pluralism.

³⁷W. J. Larkin, Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), esp. 314-318; J. R. McQuilken, "Limits of Cultural Interpretation," JETS 23(1980), 113-124; "Problems of Normativeness in Scripture: Cultural Versus Permanent" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, eds. E. D. Radmacher and R. D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 207-240.

³⁸Larkin, Culture, 31Sf.

³⁹Larkin offers the following criteria for non-normativeness: (1) a limited recipient; (2) limited conditions for fulfillment; (3) a limited rationale; (4) a limiting larger context, Culture, 315ff.

⁴⁰See Alan Johnson's critique of McQuilken in "'Response' to J. Robertson McQuilkin" in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, 255-282.

⁴¹See Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 327. Note the adoption of terms which had current usage in the Hellenistic religious culture (e.g., kyrios, soter, logos, euangelion, mysterion, gnosis, metamorphosis). Adoption of such linguistic forms does not imply acceptance of their contemporary meaning or world view that they came out of, however.

⁴²"Use," 133. But cf. P. M. Bassett, who demonstrates the tension between the classical Wesleyan approach to Scripture and one more akin to fundamentalism within North American Wesleyanism, "Theological Identity," esp. 76-95.

⁴³See, e.g., Larkin, Culture, 122f., 279.

⁴⁴See F. T. Cunningham, "The Early History of the Church of the Nazarene in the Philippines," Philippine Studies 41(1993), 68.

⁴⁵Bruce Fleming, Contextualization of Theology (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1980), 65. Cf. Donald McGavran, who defines the "essential core of the Christian religion" as (1) belief in and allegiance to the Triune God; (2) belief in the Bible as the only inspired Word of God; and (3) "those great central facts, commands, ordinances and doctrines which are so clearly set forth in the Bible" as in "The Biblical Base from Which Adjustments Are Made" in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity? eds. T. Yamamori and C. R. Taber (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1975), 41-42.

⁴⁶B. Kato, B. H., "The Gospel, Cultural Context and Religious Syncretism" in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 1216; cf. S. Athyal, "Toward an Asian Christian Theology" in The Bible and Theology in Asian Contexts, 51.

⁴⁷D. V. Allmen, "The Birth of Theology," IRM 64 (1975), 44ff.

⁴⁸Stackhouse, Apologia, 170-182; cf. The Willowbank Report of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism, which, while admitting that the gospel defies reduction to neat formulation, identifies the heart of the gospel under the themes of "God as Creator, the universality of sin, Jesus Christ as Son of God, Lord of all, and Savior through his atoning death and risen life, the necessity of conversion, the coming of the Holy Spirit and his transforming power, Life fellowship and mission of the Christian church, and the hope of Christ's return," Down to Earth, 318f.

⁴⁹See Bevans, Models, 30ff.; W. A. Dyrness, Learning About Theology from the Third World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 27f.; cf. Sanneh, Translating the Message.

⁵⁰See Flemming, "Contextualization," 25-32.

⁵¹A. R. Tippett, "Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?" in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?, T. Yamamori and C. R. Taber, eds. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1975), 14f.; M. Bradshaw and P. Savage, "The Gospel, Contextualization Report" in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 1226; P. B. Watney, "Contextualization and Its Biblical Precedents," Unpub. Ph.D. Diss. (Pasadena, CA: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1975), 75.

52 J. Buswell, "Contextualization," 103, in D. I. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 86.

⁵³E. A. Nida and C. R. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: 1969); cf. E. A. Nida and W. D. Reyburn, Meaning Across Cultures (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981).

⁵⁴C. H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979), 120f.

⁵⁵Kraft, Christianity, 282.

56S. Bevans, Models, 36; Carson, "Contextualization; 349.

⁵⁷Bruce Nicholls argues that biblical meanings are to an extent intertwined with their cultural forms and world-views, in particular that of Hebrew-Sem~'ic culture. To radically change the carrier culture, e.g., to a Chinese or an Indian culture and world view, would inevitably alter the message (ContextualL7ation: A Theology of Gospel and Culture, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1979, 45ff.; cf. "Towards a Theology of Gospel and Culture" in Down to Earth, 53f).

⁵⁸R. J. Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985), 8.

⁵⁹See D. A. Carson's critique of Kraft and D. von Alimen at thi~ point in "Contextualization," 240f., 248ff.; cf. "A Sketch of the Factors Determining Current Hermeneutical Debate in Cross-Cultural Contexts" in Biblical Interpretation and the Church: The Problems of Contextualization (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 19f.

⁶⁰Harvie M. Conn asks whether the term "transcultural" might be an alternative to "supracultural," Eternal Word, 202.

61 See Sanneh, Translating the Message, 9-49.

⁶²Goldsmith, "Contextualization," 20.

⁶³Dyrness, Learning, 28

⁶⁴Kraft, Christianity, 323-325.

⁶⁵Cf. Conn, Eternal Word, 296f.

⁶⁶See Conn, Eternal Word, 197.

⁶⁷See B. C. Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), esp. 23-108.

⁶⁸Bosch, "New Paradigm," 61.

69I would like to thank my colleague Dr. John Nielson for suggesting the following analogy in critiquing this essay.

⁷⁰See Carson, "Contextualization," 249.

⁷¹Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 333.

⁷²Cf. Paul's appropriation and reinterpretation of the terms metamorphosis (Rorn. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18) and pleroma (Col. 2:9f.; cf. 1:19) from the pagan religious milieu. For a contemporary example, see Don Richardson's well-known example of the "redemptive analogy" of the "peace child" in the Sawi culture of Irian Jaya, The Peace Child (Regal Books, Glendale, CA), 1974.

⁷³This example is, of course, not irrelevant to developed, industrialized cultures, including North America, which are increasingly remote from pastoral images.

⁷⁴Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," 110.

⁷⁵See, e.g., Bosch, Transforming Mission, 427; Goldsmith, "Contextualization," 19; 5. Sumithra, "Towards Evangelical Theology in Hindu Cultures" in Bible and Theology in Asian Contexts, 219.

⁷⁶Sumithra, "Towards an Evangelical Theology," 219.

⁷⁷Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," 104-106.

⁷⁸See Conn, Eternal Word, 220-224. Likewise, sometimes the early Christian creeds are still treated as though they are timeless and absolute. E.g., Robert Webber sees the essence of Christianity, in "the naked truths of Scripture summarized by the Church in her early creeds," "Response to C. R. Taber, 'Is There More Than One Way to Do Theology?'" Gospel in Context 1(1978), 37. While they remain highly significant theological expressions for the entire Christian church, they are nonetheless contextual human formulations which reflect their Greek philosophical milieu. See Goldsmith, "Contextualization," 21.

⁷⁹Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," 106.

⁸⁰See E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (London: SCM, 1977); 1. D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," BJRL 65 (1983), 95-122; Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, 1988).

⁸¹Nicholls, Contextualization, 54.

⁸²See D. L. Stults, Developing an Asian Evangelical Theology (Manila: OMF Literature, 1989). Missiologists generally accept that in addition to the traditional "three self" categories of indigenization (self-governing, self-supporting, self-propagating), a "fourth self," self-theologizing, must be recognized.

⁸³Stackhouse, Apologia, 8.

⁸⁴Bosch, Transforming Mission, 427.

⁸⁵Bosch, Transforming Mission, 428.

⁸⁶5ee I. Wesley, "Sermon XXXIX: "Catholic Spirit," in N. Burwash, Wesley's Doctrinal Standards: L The Sermons (Salem, OH: Schmul, repr. 1967), 379-389. For a recent analysis of Wesley's understanding of the "catholic spirit," see Randy L. Maddox, "Opinion, Religion and 'Catholic Spirit': John Wesley on Theological Integrity," Asbury Theological Journal 47 (Spring, 1992), 63-87. Maddox concludes that the mature Wesley's notion of the catholic spirit did not entail doctrinal indifference or theological pluralism, nor did it sacrifice theological integrity in the essential Christian convictions. At the same time, it rejected the denominational zeal which overlooks areas of shared beliefs among Christians and recognized the fallibility of human perceptions and expressions of doctrinal truth. See especially 77-79.

⁸⁷See Stackhouse, Apologia, 6ff.

⁸⁸Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," 107.

⁸⁹See von Allmen, "Birth," 50; cf. the critique of von Allrnen's position in Carson, "Contextualization," esp. 246-253.

⁹⁰Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," 110.

91 See T. Tienou, "The Church in African Theology: Description and Analysis of Hermeneutical Presuppositions," in Biblical Interpretation and the Church, ed. D. A. Carson (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 151-165.

⁹²Carson, "Contextualization," 256.

⁹³Bosch, "New Paradigm," 62.

Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.