The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Autor: Peter Saunders
Fecha: 03.10.2010
Category: Capacitación en Evangelismo, Religiones Mundiales, Compromiso con Las Escrituras
Christians and Muslims agree… on the reality of God, revelation, scripture, angels and judgment. But they also disagree; about Christ’s identity, death and resurrection and the authority of the Bible. Given these similarities and differences, what evangelistic approach should we adopt? Should we ‘build bridges’ or attack false teaching? Should we contextualise or confront?
Contextualisers claim that confrontation alienates unbelievers. Muslims must be gently coaxed. A horse led unwillingly will not drink. Argument doesn’t convert.
On the other hand confronters reply that contextualisation dilutes the gospel. Strongholds must be demolished. False teaching must be exposed.
What were Paul’s methods? On one hand he was a contextualiser, using a different approach for each audience. In the synagogue he established common ground by appealing to Jewish history and Old Testament Scripture (Acts 13:13-51); with the farmers at Lystra he spoke of God’s control of the seasons (14:14-18); with the philosophers in Athens he quoted their own poetry (17:22-31). He took the truth they already knew to establish rapport.
On the other hand he ‘reasoned’ (17:17), ‘discussed’ (19:9), ‘argued persuasively’ (19:8) and confronted (13:46). He summed up his ministry by saying ‘...we try to persuade’, (2 Cor 5:11), ‘... we demolish arguments and every pretension’ (2 Cor 10:5).
Contextualisation lays a foundation for debate. But if we do not move on to challenge the wrong beliefs of our listeners we are not telling the whole truth. On the other hand if we merely confront Muslims without establishing common ground our arguments will fall on deaf ears. Just as contextualisation can become the refuge of the cowardly, so confrontation can be the defence of the uncaring.
However, Paul did more than just contextualise and confront. He preached the gospel: Christ’s divinity, incarnation, death, resurrection and coming in judgment. This resulted in one of two responses. Some ‘received the message with great eagerness’ (Acts 17:11), ‘were persuaded’ (17:4) and ‘believed’ (17:34). Others ‘sneered’ (17:32), ‘became abusive’ (18:6) and ‘stirred up persecution’ (13:49).
If we build bridges or attack false teaching without preaching the gospel, then we are failing in our witness. Paul’s primary concern was neither to build friendships nor win arguments. Rather, his heart’s desire and prayer was that people be saved (Rom 10:1) through hearing the gospel (1:16). His priority was to win people to Christ. His strategy involved both contextualisation and confrontation; but always with the aim of preaching Christ crucified.
We are wise to follow his example.
Palabras clave: Islam, Evangelism, Contextualisation, Paul
Opiniones: 4719
Comentarios: 5
Recomendaciones: 0
Conversación Publicar comentario
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
Wow! What a lesson learned! I am, sorry to admit, the confrontational type of person, especially when it comes to my beliefs. However, I have been adapting to the contextualisation aspect of witnessing. It is difficult to do for fear of either being wrapped up in another’s belief or losing perspective of your own. I do agree that Paul’s approaches appear to be more constructive to learn from. After all, he did state that he was all things to all men. It’s a fine line to walk but I believe with "practice" one can find a way to approach without pushing away and still encourage others to embrace Christ.
15.07.2011
Estados Unidos de Norteamérica
As others have said, this is a great review of Paul’s missionary approach. It’s a helpful reminder of how we could improve our interactions with others, especially when may of us so often approach those who are different from us with the idea of needing to win an argument. (Indeed, our missions work is often phrased as "winning people to Christ.") The point is well made that there is a healthy approach that does not necessarily involve being the victor, nor having our message disappear.
03.04.2011
Senegal
Thank you very much for a brief overview on Paul and his methods. As always contextualisation (and confrontation for that matter) is only good as long as it takes the context into consideration, meaning that there are different ways to deal with different situations and with diferent people in different settings. There is no one-size-fits-it-all! We need to have different tools in our kit in order to be able to respond to the different scenarios. Paul clearly speaks out against deceptive methods (2Cor.4) and makes clear that the center of the message is Christ and not ourselves or anything we bring (new methods etc.). We are encouraged to be creative in our approach but also truthful and abounding in love. Where there is no love, the best methods are useless. And yet again, in the end it is God Himself, who will bring forth His light to shine in the new believer. It is a privilege to be used by God. It humbles us so that we don’t boast about OUR new key to unlock the door to the unreached. My responisbility is to be faithful and serve HIM in the ares He has called me, with love and all the skills I have and can get to make sure that all will hear the Gospel in an adequate way. May God move in a mighty way to safe many Muslims!
04.10.2010
Emiratos Arabes Unidos
I appreciated your warning that contextualation can be a refuge of the cowardly whereas confrontation can be the defense of the uncaring. An appropriate balance is so important.
We need to open our eyes to the fact that some contextualization is merely expanding our perspective to truly biblical ways of explaining truth that we just haven’t seen before. Due to our own culture’s glasses there are aspects of truth we glance over as side-truths or they don’t even pop out at us in the first place. For example, noticing the shame and honor, belonging verses outsider aspects of salvation rather as opposed to a legal explanation of right and wrong justification.
Justification by faith with still be taught, but other subjects might be given more air time because they resonate more strongly with collective peoples. Similar to the way some people are drawn to the preaching and teachin on God’s love, while others might prefer to mine the truths regarding God’s glory, so some will mine the scripture for justification by faith and others will be more drawn to mine all the references and realities of joining the family of God, removing our shame, etc.
So it is a both/and, but contextualiztion is also about biblical balance. What aspects and perspectives of biblical truth will get emphasized more strongly in the different cultures.
04.10.2010
Noruega
Thanks, Pete, for this brilliant contextualization of Paul’s apologetics when encountering Islam and Muslims. This is also very helpful in terms of illustrating one significant practical application of Paul’s approach in Athens!
Every blessing! / Lars
03.10.2010
Usted debe iniciar la sesión para publicar un comentario. Si no tiene una cuenta, regístrese ahora (¡es gratis y sencillo!)