reasons to contextualize
In their book on church planting Ed Stetzer and David Putman (Breaking The Missional Code 90-91) affirm the fact contextualization of the gospel is needed in every culture, but that it is a particularly important need for the church in the West today. They quote British missiologist Stuart Murray-Williams who suggests some pretty pungent reasons as to why it is so necessary for us to learn the lost arts of contextualization.
- Because there is a general recognition of a yawning cultural chasm between church and contemporary culture that hinders movement in either direction. Church members struggle to bridge the gap at work or relaxing with friends; many know their friends will find church incomprehensible, irrelevant, [or] archaic.
- Because inherited forms of church are attractive only to certain subcultures (especially white, middle-class, educated and middle-aged conformists) and are have proved themselves ineffective in mission beyond these.
- Because of the increasing alarm that we are losing from our churches many former members who are not losing their faith but find church uninspiring, disempowering, crushing and dehumanizing. In post-Christendom, institutional loyalty and inertia no longer prevents this hemorrhage of disillusioned Christians.
Forgotten Ways, The: Reactivating the Missional Church - Alan Hirsch
Forgotten Ways Handbook, The: A Practical Guide for Developing Missional Churches - Alan Hirsch, Darryn Altclass
ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21 Century Church - Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch
Er… dehumanising???
The way we follow Jesus needs to be contextualized in addition to the way we contextualize the collection of those followers. Many followers of Jesus seem so out of touch with culture. It would be one thing if the subculture was for moral reasons, but often it is not.
Sometimes it feels like we are a bunch of goofy homeschoolers that never learned how to play nice with classmates.
I agree with the importance of contextualizing in the West. However, there is an increasing fragmentation of Western society that makes contextualization more and more difficult. There are so many different cultures and sub-cultures all living side by side. In effect what is needed is a church than can multi-contextualize.
True Nick. All the more reason. And Eleanor, I am just quoting. But I think that there are some that find some expressions of church dehumanizing. Its not been my experience mind you, but I do know a few who would say that.
Oh, that third point! It’s tough when the truth is being taught, but I can tell you, it’s time to celebrate when false teaching starts to creep in! (ask me and I’ll tell you my story!)
My wife and I were talking about church attrition earlier tonight. We concluded that if the focus of any church is on the Gospel, and people are coming to full repentance and faith in Jesus, most congregants would be hard pressed to leave. I hypothesize that they couldn’t!
But if that’s the case (people added to the community of Jesus followers daily), then there’s probably a LOT going on outside of that church building all week long. A lot.
I don’t think any of us that read TFW were shocked that the incarnational approach is probably the only reasonable way of increasing our effectiveness. I think some of us were disappointed that Alan called us on it…it’s hard work! But let me tell you from real time personal experience that it is an absolutely fantastic place to be – and it’s so exiting and energizing that I won’t ever go back. I love my weekly gathering (we meet Sunday evenings – the fourth gathering of the day at our church), but I am really drawn to the work that’s happening outside these weekly gatherings.
Jesus is Lord of all!
Nick,
Is it possible to multi-contextualize as an individual, or is that something that needs the work of a local congregation? (A collection of mini-contextulizers under one roof so to speak). Likewise, can a whole congregation contextualize along a single track?
I understand that in your local ministry context the last thing you want to do is create further societal divisions by focusing on single areas of context, but a local church can’t contextualize into every facet of local community existence, can it?
Alan,
Where does HUP fit into this? Can it fit into this??
Cosmo - this is interesting stuff you raise and getting to the root of what I am grappling with. I think there is a real issue here about the level of contextualisation we’re talking about. I mean if we take the incarnation as our missional model then to contextualize surely means to deeply immerse ourself in a particular culture. However, in an increasingly multi-cultural, framented Western society, you simply can’t limit yourself to one context because in the course of one day you interact with a whole host of them like it or not. It also means a limit on how far you ‘incarnate’ into one culture without alienating the many others you’re rubbing shoulders with! My problem with some theory around contextualisation is that I feel it is somewhat limited in a multi-cultural setting.
I think there are dangers in trying to be someone you are not. So while I appreciate opportunities to be around a particular subculture group I get on well with and can happily spend time adjusting to and learning with and from, I never stop being a Messianic whose life revolves around Torah and Mitzvot, and who loves the essence of Christ’s life lived in St Francis and St Clare. People may not be aware of it when we are outside our house, but they find out when they visit us at home. So I remain who I am, even while hanging out with friends who are into different lifestyles and cultures. There’s a balance there and it isn’t impossible to be both who you are with your own people and history and part of a new tribe as well. It is far easier in cities I think, where for example the alternative youths gather in groups large enough to enjoy events together. There’s a small number of people here each in a huge number of subcultures. So being yourself is vital in order to find which group(s) God is calling you to, and where you can make those vital ‘belonging and being part of’ connections.
I’m with Steve from Seattle on this one - it was the daily living among each other in The Crowded House(something that took effort nonetheless) that transformed us in so many ways. Not easy, not without its hiccups, but nothing I have done before that came close to what I think the New Testament is getting at when it calls us brothers and sisters. I’m pining for the fjords of Sheffield as we speak!
Cosmo, I think we need to do some very serious re-examination of the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP).
I disclosed a few of my throughts on this back in November which you are welcome to read ( http://mattstone.blogs.com/journeysinbetween/2007/11/homogenous-unit.html ) but the bottom line is (1) I have come to seriously question its transferability to extremely pluralistic contexts but (2) that should in no way be interpreted as a call to return to decontextualized church. Rather I do not think the HUP goes far enough. Rather I think we need to recognize that, in some senses, homogenity has broken down altogether.
Let me speak out of my own experience. I myself am a member of multiple tribes, one of which includes the esoteric subculture of Sydney. From my experience, people of that tribe are also members of multiple tribes, some of which I have no experience of at all. What does it mean to be missional in that context?
The attractional approach, of inviting people to one-size-fits-all church, sounds of so inclusive until you realize all cultures are expected to conform to the dominant culture under that model. But the alternative, of HUP style contextualization, does not seem to work that well either with groups that lack clear tribal boundaries. And beyond that it also perpetuates the Baulkanization of Christianity, which is not that helpful either.
What I see is the need for a third option, an option that allows for multiple levels of diversity. Now, I have not fully developed my ideas on this fully yet but the shape is becoming clearer, and one of the things I think it calls for is a much stronger emphasis on (1) diversity of leadership and (2) one to one mentoring.
Again from my experience, if I wait for a church contextualized for esoteric background people to spring up in my backyard I am probably going to be waiting a long time. There are many subcultures in our neighbourhood, and this isn’t nearly the most important one, for all my personal identification with it. But I am going to feel far more welcome in a church that values a diversity of leadership and practices on-the-spot contextualization to one which does not, and I am going to feel far more comfortable joining in mission to my neighbourhood with such a leadership team than a leadership team that does not.
I find that the meta-context I must grapple with, beyond all the micro-contexts I grapple with, is pluralism, and that incarnation in this context means, in a sense, becoming a culturally pluralistic Christian. This does not mean I must grapple with every culture, but it does mean I must grapple with more than one if I seek to engage culturally creative types.
Just to expand on that last comment - sorry if this bores anyone but this is really close to my heart - my own blog represents a Christian engagement with both eastern (especially Buddhist) mysticism and western (especially Pagan) esotericism. This can be seen easily by the relative size of the “Meditation” and “Paganism” categories on my blog. Now I find that, by simple virtue of my willingness to grapple with more than one culture and philosophy simultaneously, that a lot of others are drawn to me from completely unrelated paths, to the extent that such people often outnumber the Wiccans and Buddhists that drop by by a significant margin.
Over time this has forced me to do a rethink, as in some ways this experiment has failed but in others has succeeded in ways I did not expect.
And the big truth that has emerged for me is, it is not my ability to communicate across any specific cultural gap that has made any difference, it is just my evident willingness to try. I get the impression that what people are crying out for is Christians who are just open to multi-framed approaches.
Good comment Matt. The HUP does make sense, but because it is tied to the attractioal church idea, it has limited applicability for incarnational mission.
BTW, the HUP means ‘homogeneous unit principle’. It means that a church shold focus on a certain demographic segment and shape its culture to make sense to that segment or sub-culture.
Yeah, what I am arguing for, is not so much abandonment of the HUP as pushing beyond it. To what I might call the Hetrogenous Culture Principle (HCP) if I am permitted to invent acronyms here.
The difference is, while the HCP acknowledges that culture is lumpy and that tribalization exists, just as the HUP does, it goes on to further acknowledge that, in pluralistic societies, tribes are far more “open” and far less demanding of “exclusive” allegence than tribes in traditional societies. It goes on to acknowledge that, in pluralistic societies, tribal identification is far less subject to social constraint, far more a matter of personal choise, and indeed, that personal choise may lead to partial identification with multiple tribes.
What I am challenging is, are the units of the HUP far too atomistic? Could it be we need a more fractal model of cultural diversity? That allows for multiple levels of diversity in meeting people where they are at?
A good contrast would be applying the HUP to Dalits and Brahmins in traditional Indian society vs applying the HCP to Goths and ecofeminists in our society. Much more fluidity in our situation. Some Goths may be ecofeminists, some might not. What does that imply for church planting? Where does that leave the missional-incarnational Christian?
What I would suggest is that this does not invalidate the need for a diversity of church forms, but that, on the contrary, it suggests that it is diversity all the way down, so you can never have too much.
But, and this is the big but, we must conversly think holistically all the way up. For whilst we must acknowledge tribal diversity, this suggests that we must also give more weight to individual diversity even within tribes, but the sting in the tail of this is a descent into individualism.
This is where mentoring comes into my thinking. Even within a highly contextual Goth church there will be Goths who don’t fit, who will need personalized instruction, and who will need tips on how to survive a church that they don’t quite fit and live out the path in ways that fit them. But this is where we will also need to counsel against expectations of finding the perfectly contextualizaed church, against demands the community perfectly fits me.
Great stuff Matt and totally hitting the spot as far as my context is concerned - although entirely different to yours!
My feeling about the HUP is that it made sense in the Indian context in the 1950s and translated OK into Western suburbia. The cultural boundaries were clear and it’s basically developed from functional anthropology of the day (Malinowski). But modern Western cities are just so much more complicated. Modern anthropologists talk about individuals being culturally elastic - basically they can stretch themselves into a whole host of different cultural settings during any one day.
It strikes me your HCP concept is an application of this ‘elasticity’ (is that the word?) of culture in pluralistic society. And I agree - both missiology and eccelesiology need to likewise be flexible and creative enough to multi-contextualize in the western context. The tricky bit is holding it altogether - I feel so ’stretched’ by the end of the day I don’t know who I am!
I am thinking how best to word this (I am finding this conversation very helpful as it is forcing me to articulate my thoughts) but my problem with the HUP is it suggests there is a level (a homogenous “unit”) beyond which we need not consider issues of diversity.
So when we come to considering the difference between, say, contextualizing for moderns on the one hand and contextualizing for postmoderns on the other, one might easily fall into the trap of considering postmodernity as a homogenous phenomenon without any “warning Will Robinson” flags going up. What I would say is, while there are distinct differences between such groups, we should always be alert for secondary levels of diversity.
I was chatting with a fellow church member about this tonight after my last post. We have a strong Hindu population in our area, they are in fact the major unreached people group in our neighbourhood, outnumbering atheists and agnostics even. Now, if we planted a Sri Lankan Christian church in this community with Sri Lankan Christian leaders, with Sri Lankan Christian practices, have we addressed the diversity issues. No, not at all! For there are major differences between first and second generation migrants. Critical differences. If all the leaders came out of the first generation migrants we would only have pushed the diversity issue to a secondary level.
Now, the same goes for coffee shop and pubs church plants. Just because we have contextualized on one level (a common love for coffee) have we contextualized on all? Again, no! If our leaders are all male but we have a core group of radical feminists in the group then diversity gaps remain.
This suggests, in pluralistic contexts, leadership diversity needs to be a consideration even in highly contextual Christian communities. There are distinct limits to what gaps we can addressed by group contextualization alone. Leadership elasticity is indeed a core need. And you are right, this does indeed raise issues of identity. This is where I think we need to go back to the scriptures and re-affirm that all cultural identities are merely secondary identities, that our primary identity is who we are in Christ. That’s the only way I know of holding it all together.
This has been an interesting exchange. May I jump back in with a practical question as I try to get my thinking around HUP?
I take it that HUP, at its basic level, is about creating churches of people “like me”. (Or am I off on the wrong foot already???)
I also note that Alan suggests that HUP does have limited use in a missional model and that he and Michael Frost write about its possible use in ‘Shapping of Things to Come’ (p.51f). I’m wondering if the way my area of ministry might be going would be classed as HUP.
My wife and I have been developing areas of commmunity ministry over the last couple of years in an attempt to “church plant”. One area which seems to be working best for us is projects with young families - probably because that is the life stage we are at.
It would seem clear that a way forward in our ministry is to be more intentional with this group of people in order to further relationships and stimulate encounters with God.
Now the group of people come from a number of backgrounds (different countries, different values/morals, different religious or non-religious aspects), but what we hold in common is that of being young families. If our mission strategy was for this group would that be HUP?
But I don’t like the idea of a “mission strategy”. Rather the development of genuine friendships, and I would love them to know about Jesus too. So is this Missional?
Or is it both? Neither?
PS.
Alan,
I’d also like to hear thoughts on what constitutes the line between “Missional” and “Attractional”. At some point a group of you are going to meet for mutual accountability, worship, discipleship, etc. Assuming you would want more people to expereince the same, doesn’t that then become attractional (even if you are not using a church building)?
Something for another day, perhaps…
Cosmo, at a basic level HUP is about creating churches for “people like me”. What I am suggesting here though is that the HUP is a far blunter instrument in cultures that prize idiosyncrasy and creative individualism over conformity and group loyalty than in cultures where the opposite holds sway. We should still use it, but we should not expect as much from it.
In actual fact, in some ways your situation sounds very similar to my own. I am a father of a 2 and 4 year old and I am part of a local Christian community that is very focused on the demographic of young families. And in recent years my wife and I have found one of the most effective ways of engaging our wider community has indeed been through our kids, with other families at a similar life stage. Where we have been challenging some people’s boundaries though is our disregard for other boundaries in doing this. In other words, many of these young families we have engaged with locally have been from Sikh, Hindu and drug culture backgrounds. This has really stretched some who imagined ministry to young families implied ministry to white well-adjusted Anglos only. No, we say, “The demographic of young families includes all sorts in a neighborhood like ours. Get used to it. Slowly we are seeing change and acceptance of these second order diversities in our community.
I have experienced the same thing in my more missional experiences with occultists, both locally and more translocally. I naively expected all NeoPagans to be green and anti war when I got into this. Nah, wasn’t I wrong. There is a diversity of opinion. I also expected the King James Bible would be the last translation they’d go for. Nah, again, there is diversity there too. Though I am as committed to contextualization as ever I have been forced to concede there is no way to easily put people in a HUP box. Defining “units” is useful, but it is somewhat arbitrary.
Oh, and on the difference between missional and attractional, yes, I would say the local Christian community I am apart of has elements of both. It is engaging with the community in the community, which is good, but it is more a case of tourism than immigration at this point.
I think the idea of church having a de-humanizing effect on people is very real and present. A lot of us who have been or are in leadership roles in the insttitutional/conventional church could not smell the stinch of this dynamic because we were the power brokers of the system and were by in large not on the receiving end of our efforts. Whenever an institution harvests its members for the sole purpose of organizational self-preservation, it treats humans made in the image of God as mere resources for its own survival. This is de-humanizing! Just look at the “involvement” forms most people fill out at their churches. It primarily has to do with keeping the institutional machinery going. Institutions create their own needs and dictate to their participants how they fit in to it. What a backwards model! It is the peoples giftings that should set the agenda for the direction of the church and its needs. Giftings are one of the primary orgainzing principles of body life, not the upkeep of the church machinery. Granted, organizations need upkeep, but the point of the church being a dehumanizing factor is that it by in large ends up utilizing people SOLELY for the purpose of maintenance of the institution. When it gets to this point, humans are slaves to the institution, rather than the institution being a tool for the empowerment of the human.