Among the foundational concepts of a missiological perspective which states unequivocally that "‘contextualization’ is the scripturally endorsed approach to taking the gospel to the world,” we note the following:  First, according  to  contextualizing missiologist Charles Kraft,  "Meanings belong to the people"; secondly, “A cultural form does not have inherent meaning, only perceived meaning";   and finally,  since there exist no inherent meanings, all meanings must be  "learned" rather than being "acquired" by a triggering process.

​

In our postmodern a world, two words which now have meanings which "belong to the people" are the words "male" and "female."   In the postmodern world, a male can be a "wife" and a female a "husband." Biology has been set aside for the postmodern view that "meanings belong to the people."  

 

We live in a world which totally rejects what Jesus said when he declared: "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).  The Bible is clear. The meanings of male and female do not "belong to the people."  They belong to God. 

 

Sadly,  the contextualized meanings we attach to cultural forms now taught in our schools and universities will lead to social chaos and the stultification of society. 

​

Now when it comes to the rejection of biological gender classification and the idea that you are what you perceive yourself to be, the Scriptures are clear. God created a male whom he named Adam, and a female who was named Eve.

 

Now the idea that "meaning belongs to the people" is not new. Long before the Puritans landed in the New World, without exception, had given a new meaning to the form we call "family" as well as forms like marriage, husband, and wife. 

 

For example, instead of the nuclear family being the basic unit of society,  the Miccosukee people of South Florida declared it was the matrilineal clan.   Excluded from the Miccosukee family were fathers.  No father had the authority to discipline his own children. 

​

The Kiowa-Apache of the Great Plains reached the conclusion  that the nuclear family was not large enough when it came to hunting the buffalo on the Great Plains. If they were to survive, they thought they needed a NEW KIND of FAMILY, a larger "family."   The larger KIND of FAMILY they created was called the "band." 

 

The creation of a band type of "family" demanded meant  the classification of uncles and aunts as "fathers" and "mothers," cousins as "siblings," and nephews and nieces as "brothers" and "sisters."

 

From this  perspective, the merging of lineal and collateral status positions was considered to be "appropriate" because it satisfied a contextual need. As New World contextualizers, they assumed no word had an inherent universal meaning, thus a cousin could be a "sibling," an uncle, a "father," and an aunt, a "mother."  

​

The inhabitants of the New World were all committed contextualizers. No form had an inherent meaning.  The result?  Cultural diversity grounded in the relativizing of meaning.

 

The inhabitants of the New World were all committed contextualizers. No form had an inherent meaning.  The result?  Cultural diversity grounded in the relativizing of meaning.

Supporting the position that SOCIAL EXISTENCE on the Great Plains did indeed shape their definition of "family," a meaning which was protected by the rule of exogamy, was anthropologist Fred Eggan. He correctly pointed out that "Tribes coming into the Plains with different backgrounds and social systems ended up with similar kinship systems ...this is in large measure an internal adjustment to the uncertain and unchanging conditions of the Plains environment -- ecological and social -- rather than a result of borrowing and diffusion."  

 

The "Stepping Stone from Truth to Falsehood"

Because the problem of meaning was not new to the apostles,  the apostle Paul admonished Timothy to "Hold to the standard of sound words that you heard from me" (NET); "Hold firmly to the true words that I taught you" ( GNT).  Paul was aware that any divergence whatsoever from their inherent meanings was, as pointed out by New Testament Greek scholar R. C. Lenski,  the first "stepping stone from truth into falsehood."

 

But sadly, those who teach contextualization in our institutions cannot possibly "hold to the standard of sound words" when they hold firmly to the empiricist's idea that, without exception, "meanings belong to the people," meanings which,  in the words of Mao ZeDong, "originate in direct experience."

​

In this regard, note the words of missiologist Charles Kraft as he categorizes those who work in pioneer situations. "We who teach contextualization are dealing primarily with those whose major concern will have to be on how to bring about change in already  existing situations rather then how to plant culturally appropriate churches".

 

For me, "planting a culturally appropriate church" among the Chácobo meant planting a leaderless church, a church without elders. Planting a "culturally appropriate church" among the Miccosukee meant importing  a pastor from the outside, someone from another tribe.  

 

But more importantly, Jesus was opposed to "planting culturally appropriate churches," declaring: "No one pours new wine into used wineskins, for the skins will burst, the wine will pour out, and the skins will be ruined. Instead, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins, and both will keep in good condition” (Matthew 9: 17).

 

Churches shaped by their culture are churches which cling to old forms a.k.a. "used wine skins." In this passage, Jesus was pointing to a day when the old forms of a social system which supported the Jewish family-of-five was coming to an end. (See: Luke 15:52)  The new life in Christ needed forms that enhanced freedom.

 

As Christian philosopher Cornelius Plantinga points out: "Godlessness [and the rejection of true meanings] spoils the proper relations between human beings and their maker and savior."  He goes on to say:

Of course such ideas annoy certain people. The idea of a design to which all of us must conform

ourselves, whether we like it or not, appears to be absurd or even offensive to many. People who

believe in naturalistic evolution, for example, think that human concepts, values, desires, and

religious beliefs are, like human life itself, metaphysically untethered to any transcendent purpose. 

Our lives and values are rather the product os such blind mechanisms as random genetic mutation

and natural selection." (Plantinga Jr., Cornelius. 1995.  Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, a Breviary of Sin.  Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company,  p. 16)

​

​

Convictions:

1. A "sound" or "true"  word is a word whose inherent Divine meaning has not been replaced with a meaning which "belongs to the people." Whenever this  happens,  Divine Meanings have been culturally relativized.

2. The meanings of "sound" or "true" words are not "learned"; they are "triggered" and brought to consciousness in a socio-linguistic context.

3. Proclamation of the Good News is dependent on the messenger using "sound words." 

4. The rejection of "sound" or "true"  words leads to cultural diversity and the rejection of logic.