Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
True but Confusing Advice for Missionaries

True but Confusing Advice for Missionaries

Last updated on: June 1, 2017 at 10:31 am by Brad Vaughn

True but Confusing Advice for Missionaries 2017-06-01T10:31:54-07:00 Brad Vaughn

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Mack Stiles’ recent post on The Gospel Coalition causes unnecessary confusion.[1] Why? It offers advice that is merely true. He suggests “3 Great Missionary Confusions.” In principle, his comments are true enough. But they could be misleading in practice. photo-1473508476344-269a87b502ee_opt

The Gospel in Context

The first “confusion” he mentions begins like this:

Don’t we adjust the gospel to fit the context, removing offensive things that would prevent someone from a different background from coming to Jesus? Didn’t Paul say he became all things to all men so that some might be won to Christ?

Those of us who come from a forensic cultural background don’t understand a shame/honor culture. Shouldn’t we emphasize principles of shame rather than sin and guilt?

People will suffer and die if they convert. Shouldn’t we make the claims of Christ less demanding?

No.

No.

No.

He then adds,

The great temptation of missions today is that we try to become cultural anthropologists first and theologians second. When this happens, cultural understanding becomes preeminent over God’s Word. Couple that with missionaries who hold biblical authority lightly and you get all kinds of wrongheaded thinking—like people trying to either paste things into the gospel that aren’t there (e.g., shame is a bigger problem than sin) or cut things out that we don’t like (e.g., Jesus is not the Son, but a child, of God).

Stiles collapses legitimate problems with ill-defined concerns. What are the legitimate issues here?

We should NOT adjust the gospel to fit the context.
We should NOT remove offensive things that prevent people from coming to Jesus.
We should NOT make the claims of Christ less demanding.

I lift a resounding “Amen” to these concerns. However, his reasoning (or at least his presentation) gets muddled from here.

Confusing Shame and Sin

For example, notice how Stiles confuses concepts when he puts the question in the mouth of the missionary: “Shouldn’t we emphasize principles of shame rather than sin and guilt?”

The problem here is that the question dichotomizes “shame” and “sin and guilt.” If Stiles thinks missionaries are confused because they separate these concepts, then he is right. However, I don’t think that’s his objection.

Implicitly, he frames the “confusion” incorrectly. He explicitly separates “forensic” from “honor-shame.” Stiles says we should not “paste things into the gospel that aren’t there (e.g., shame is a bigger problem than sin).” He begs the question by wrongly assuming: sin = guilt but sin ≠ shame (contra Rom 1:21–23; 2:23–24; 3:23 among many others).

This perspective misunderstands how shame works holistically in the Bible. I spend much of Saving God’s Face attempting to clarify this point. A few relevant posts include:

Using the ‘Romans 23’ Principle to Explain Sin

Confusing Law, Commands and Absolutes

Stiles especially seems to have “honor and shame” in mind. He writes:

Certainly there are many things we can adjust—food, living situations, clothing, language, to name a few. But the gospel is not one of them. Sure, we should draw out shame and honor when it’s clear in Scripture. But when we “cut and paste” the gospel itself—even giving different interpretations to clear biblical texts so we can fit the culture—we’re giving up the biblical narrative. We’re giving up the storyline God has carefully woven throughout. And to give up the biblical narrative is to over-contextualize.

No doubt “over-contextualization” is a danger. That’s clear. (Far fewer people recognize the danger of under-contextualization). But by lumping his point with the preceding comments, Stiles only muddies the mental water.

Contextualizing or Assuming the Gospel?

He bemoans when people “cut and paste” the gospel. I think he means pasting together verses from disparate contexts to form a “gospel presentation.” If that’s his meaning, I agree! However, I think the biggest examples of this can be found within countless “traditional” gospel presentations, which throw together multiple doctrines to create the sort of presentation never explicitly found in Scripture. I have addressed this issue at length in One Gospel for All Nations.

uZYSV4nuQeyq64azfVIn_15130980706_64134efc6e_o_opt I affirm my brother’s assessment, “what is needed more in modern missions are people who (a) understand the gospel,…” Yet, it appears to me Stiles might commit what I’ve called a fundamental fallacy that undermines contextualization. Namely, he “assumes the gospel.” On this point, I’ve elsewhere written,

Of course such a claim might sound counterintuitive, perhaps even provocative. Yet it is all too easy to assume a certain cultural expression of the gospel message as though it were in fact that of Paul, John, or any of the other biblical writers. In effect, evangelicals tend to have a rather fixed framework for understanding the gospel. Traditional categories and images are often prioritized that do not necessarily reflect the entire biblical context nor the ancient cultures represented in Scripture. By “assuming the gospel,” we “beg the question,” a logical fallacy in which one assumes a certain conclusion within his or her premises. …Consequently, it is possible to unwittingly “Judaize” (i.e., “Westernize”) our listeners. (OGFAN, 6)

Stiles is rightly concerned with “cultural syncretism” but he seems unaware of the danger of “theological contextualization.”

Syncretism goes unnoticed since the contextualized theology does little more than restate a doctrine in traditional theological categories. Many scholars may not see the problem since their definition of “syncretism” is limited to only that which deviates from the gospel. Yet, theological syncretism also results when culturally bound conceptions of the gospel become the assumed framework of contextualization. It is easier to identify syncretism with a foreign culture than the sort of syncretism that grows from a traditional theological system. (SGF, 10–11)

**Theologians are Anthropologists**

His response is rhetorically powerful:

“The great temptation of missions today is that we try to become cultural anthropologists first and theologians second.”

Unfortunately, it masks a significant reality. In particular,

…one can quickly forget that we all interpret the Bible through a cultural lens. Our worldview has great influence on our interpretation. It can be no other way. Our cultural perspective can either open up the text, giving fresh insight, or it might hide certain facets of a passage that are unfamiliar to our own experience. (OGFAN, 6)

In conclusion, I urge Stiles and other readers:

not to settle for merely true principles
not to dichotomize shame and sin by assuming sin is only or fundamentally a legal concept. While it is described in legal imagery, it is not merely a legal idea.
seek a greater understanding of how honor and shame work both in the Bible and in various global cultures.

I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thoughts?

[1] Full disclosure: I am the book reviews editor for the mission and culture section of Themelios, the theological journal of The Gospel Coalition.

Save

Contextualization

Culture (General)

Honor & Shame (Face)

Practical Contextualization

Theological Contextualization

Previous Post

May 31, 2017

Reflections on the Reformation 500 and the Gospel Conference

Next Post

June 7, 2017 Should Missionaries Adopt Warriors’ “Run and Gun” Offense?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atonement Biblical Theology Book Reviews China Chinese Church Chinese Culture Chinese Language Collectivism Contextualization Culture (General) Ecclesiology Evangelism Gospel Honor & Shame (Face) Interpretation/Exegesis Justification/Righteousness Missiology Mission Methods One Gospel for All Nations Other Practical Contextualization Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes Resources Romans Salvation (General) Saving God's Face Seeking God's Face The Cross in Context Theological Contextualization Theological Education Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who saw the vision of the valley of dry bones?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Jeremiah Isaiah Ezekiel

Books by This Author Books by Brad Vaughn

See All Titles »