Scripture Engagement

In the field of missiology much has been written on the topic of contextualisation. Paul Hiebert has used the phrase 'critical contextualisation' for the kind of contextualisation that works. He also criticises lack of contextualisation and uncritical contextualisation for causing syncretism. The reason for the latter is obvious. The reason for the former less so: if people are carrying out a practice that they have done since they were young, and been told is essential for their well being, they will continue to carry it out until they have been convinced that the teaching of Scripture has something which replaces the effect of that practice (in terms of their well being). It takes time for people to change their worldview, and they need much support from other members of their community as they do so. One good powerful question to ask is, 'What would happen if you didn't (do such and such a ritual)?' Also, what people believe is often reinforced by community stori...

 In the area of research, whether linguistic, anthropological, or whatever, it is common to use the terms 'etic' and 'emic'. Here is a definition: 'The etic perspective is the outsider’s perspective, the perspective that we have of a project’s parameters—for example, an outsider’s perception of gender in Afghanistan. The emic perspective is the insider’s perspective, the perspective that comes from within the culture where the project is situated—for example, gender perspectives of women involved in a project in Afghanistan.' https://programs.online.american.edu/msme/masters-in-measurement-and-evaluation/resources/emic-and-etic accessed 13th January 2023 Another difference between etic and emic is that the former often assumes the use of a model, or theoretical basis for a study, whereas the latter, almost by definition, would avoid the use of models and theories. Emic involves the use of insider data without theory-based analysis. Any comments would be descri...

Jayson Georges, in his book '3D Gospel' suggests there are three sets of dynamics in Scripture and also in worldviews that people use as a framework when interpreting Scripture, and especially when understanding the gospel: Innocence-guilt. This the one any Westerner will have grown up with. The big question is, 'How can sins be paid for?' I'll let John Piper explain the rest:  What is the Gospel?   Honour-shame. This is much less individualistic than the one above. The big question is, 'How can honour in the family be restored?' The family, in terms of Scripture, is the descendants of Jacob, and, by extension, the whole of humanity. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom 3.23). Gentiles were excluded from the covenant (Eph 2) but have now been included. The barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down. We are fellow citizens, with them. Jesus, as our older brother, has regained the honour he always deserved, and shares it with us,...

We often talk about the birth of the church at Pentecost as a completely new beginning. But was it? The event happened in Jerusalem, and the early believers often went to prayers at the temple or met in the temple portico. They were Jews, albeit from a variety of places.  Most of them only left Jerusalem as a result of persecution and a prophecy (Act 1:8). The fact that the early believers,   including leaders were Jews, means that as well as a new start we need to talk about continuity: The same people The same customs The same location Mostly the same beliefs When new churches are planted today there will be some continuity with the past. We shouldn't be afraid of that. Much of it is good, as it keeps people where they should be, in their communities. The new thing we want to introduce is 'the word of the Lord' i.e. the good news that Jesus the Messiah is Lord (and God). The rest is not unimportant, in fact it might be very useful background to this message, ...