Contextualization in the New Testament by Dean Fleming is a fascinating book, and for me, is a long overdue read.

I have often wondered when reading New Testament books, especially the Pauline literature, if we have become to dogmatic about systematics. That is not to say Pauline literature does not point to definite system of theological thought; but, as Fleming seems to be saying, the system is more fluid than previously viewed. Fleming demonstrates this Pauline fluidity as he delves into the symbolic tones that frame Paul's writing to cultural contexts. Paul, asserts Fleming, was a man who co-opted and redefined the cultural symbols of his audience by filtering the words and symbols through the central filter of the gospel (REF). For Paul, this meant his contemporaries would misunderstand him; a risk, I believe, Paul was willing to take. The risk did not end with the ancients, however. Even today, Pauline literature (and the Bible as a whole) is often read through the lens of modernity and enlightenment ideology. The result is a reading of the Bible that attempts to formulate a generic set of fixed dogma rather than listen for God's voice speaking into the context, guided by the gospel. This creates a rigidity that can be detrimental to the fluid nature of missional leadership. The post-enlightenment reader takes much comfort in Fleming's work to de-mechanize the Scriptures in order to see how it speaks from and through the gospel of Christ into contextual settings. Without surrendering the centrality of Christ and His gospel; Fleming creates a space whereby God's missionary people can be free to exegete culture, discover its unique symbols and language; and then, co-opt and redefine those characteristics in such a way that the gospel and Christ make sense for the context. This open space does create an opportunity to be misunderstood by our contemporaries, however. Nevertheless, the kingdom must be preached and done so in the language and symbols of the hearing culture. This does, however,

come with the responsibility of doing the hard work of accurately discerning culture and a new reliance on the Spirit to help us "understand the times" (SCR REF). The crucial question, at least for me, is how does one accurately discern the symbols and language of a culture. By "language," I am not necessarily concerned with the grammatical structure as much as the nuances of that language. Can someone, like myself, truly understand the nuances of a language that is secondary? Would Paul have been more adept at discerning the nuances of Greek of Aramaic? He was obviously able to communicate well to other speakers and particularize the gospel through its nuances. One must thoroughly consider, however, how much of Paul's ability to communicate was not so much due to his language proficiency but more on his reliance on the Holy Spirit. Some might argue that the cultural milieu of Paul's time was not as complex as it is today. Given the dominance of Greek influence over Paul's world it might be tempting to generalize cultural norms, and thereby, expect the Bible to speak in general terms. A basic understanding of anthropology would dismiss these types of assumptions. Cultural norms are far from normal when one culture is juxtaposed with another; even if that culture appears to be part of larger monolithic system. This point is illustrated in how many evangelicals in the United States view the idea of church planting and growth. Church planting and growth is often viewed, by U.S. evangelicals, the same way they view the Bible: as a systematic set of principles that can be reproduced from city to city with the expectation of a certain result. Time and experience should have taught us that our system(s) has not necessarily produced the result we expected. Nevertheless, because a particular model worked in a certain place, we keep insisting that the model be forced into other settings. This thinking is based on an assumption that the USA has a general basket of symbols and language extending from the East to the West coast. If a "foreign missionary" approached their mission in

this manner, it would be considered lazy. However, denominations routinely send "home missionaries" into a U.S. setting without ever requiring any ethnographic work. The unfortunate consequence of this mentality is often a church plant that fits in, and satisfies its denominational culture; but does not engage its context with the transformative power of the gospel. Church planters often succumb to the fear that if they do the hard work of discerning culture, they will discover the language they must speak is not the language of their sponsoring body. This brings us back to the fear of being misunderstood and, by extension, ostracized by their peers. The exception is when a church is planted among an ethic groups living in the USA. It is expected that this church would look and act different and, as such, more latitude is given to the planter to be different. If, however, the church planter is working among a "non-ethnic" group (if such a thing exists) the expectation is often very different. The assumption is the "nonethnic" group on the east side of the State utilizes language and interprets symbols the same as those people on the west side. Fleming illustrates the fallacy of this thinking by asserting that even the Gospels are to be read with a Pauline hermeneutic (235). That is to say, each Gospel was written to a culture and should be interpreted in light of that setting. The challenge Fleming is pushing against is the tendency to lump the Gospels together as being written to some larger "community" that shared the same language and symbolism. Thus, the Gospel becomes a conversation between the Evangelist and the audience. Viewing the Gospels in this manner challenges the status quo of church planting. Not even the inspired Word of God assumes that culture is the same in all places, even if they live in the same region of the world. On the contrary, the Bible assumes that everyone in every place interprets language and symbols differently as such the Church is required to do the same today. However, because human tendency is to take the path of least resistance, the church planter is tacitly coerced into creating a

church environment that makes sense to the sending body; but may seem foreign to the cultural context he or she being evangelized. The question that arises is if the church planter finds himself or herself speaking another language than that of the sending body; how much time should be spent in educating others in their language. The church planter, I think, has to decide to live within a certain amount of tension with his/her fellow laborers. That means an acceptance of being misunderstood by some and praised by others. The planter must first do the job of helping his or her target audience understand how their language and symbols have been co-opted a redefined. The implication is that the planter will have to spend time with people in order to understand the culture - as it is not necessarily as it will be when confronted with the gospel. This means we have to see how God is preveniently working among those who are not yet believers (assuming we believe God does work among them). Then spend time seeking the leading if the Spirit to filter the language and symbols of that culture through the gospel. Then bring that "new" language back into the context. Fleming formulates this process as "context-text-context" and argues that Scriptural priority is to help us interpret how God is at work among people (49). Consequently, the church planter or cross-cultural worker will have to be where the people are, which implies they will have to spend time in places that are not considered "right" by others. This has the potential to be misunderstood (i.e. Jesus being called a wine-bibber); but it also places the planter in a position to grasp the culture of those who are not yet Christian (i.e. Paul among Gentiles). The last (but not final) question I have reflected upon because of Fleming's work, is to what extent we must understand New Testament cultures in order to interpret, with accuracy, the New Testament writing. How much more should we understand the cultural motifs of the New Testament? If the New Testament writings are to be interpreted in light of the target audiences

culture, language and symbols then we have to have a firm grasp on these cultures. If we are to understand how Paul went from context to text to context in his writing, then we are also required to understand the context within which Paul was working. How much more are we required to understand our own cultural motifs so they might be redeemed for God's use? I think we carry a considerable responsibility to do this work, so that, the kingdom can become a reality in every culture - whether that be on Main Street USA or the mean street of Hillbrow, Johannesburg.