There have been articles written about the “art of contextualization” yet I’ve not seen much that actually draws parallels between actual art and contextualization. The word “art” can be used to describe ones approach to something – where they demonstrate great skill, talent, and wisdom in their contribution. It also can be used to convey a created work of beauty. The late Francis Schaeffer, in his book Art and the Bible, speaks to art from both vantage points. But in his discussion he at one point ends up sharing insights related to art and culture that I think are highly relevant to contemporary discussions about contextualization in missions and ministry in general.
In discussing how the Christian should approach art, Schaeffer argues that there are three things that should be true. If we truly believe contextualization is an art – which I believe it is, then these things should inform our thoughts about how we navigate cultural differences in the course of our efforts.
Schaeffer begins,
“Then what about the Christian’s art? Here three things should be stressed. First, Christian art today should be twentieth-century art [remember this book was written several decades ago]. Art changes. Language changes. The preacher’s preaching today must be twentieth-century language communication, or there will be an obstacle to being understood. And if a Christian’s art is not twentieth-century art, it is an obstacle to his being heard. It makes him different in a way in which there is no necessity for difference. A Christian should not, therefore, strive to copy Rembrandt or Browning.” [italics and bold mine]
What Schaeffer is saying is that ministry communication just like art, as a means of expression and communication, must take the forms that the context finds meaningful. If we fail to be culturally embedded in our contexts in the ways we communicate or teach or innovate, then we “make ourselves different in a way in which there is no necessity for difference” in Schaeffer’s words. “It is an obstacle to his being heard.” So Schaeffer here makes quick work of the professional or lay ministry temptation to constantly try to reproduce “what worked” in the past.
Second, Christian art should differ from country to country. Why did we ever force the Africans to use Gothic architecture? It’s a meaningless exercise. All we succeeded in doing was making Christianity foreign to the African. If a Christian artist is Japanese, his paintings should be Japanese, if Indian, Indian.
Schaeffer here highlights the time honored tradition of a culture taking what is meaningful to them and imposing it on another people, culture, context. Art and contextualization should be indigenous and reflect context. Art, and Christian communication, should not be scientifically objective, prescriptive, or somehow trans-cultural. It should reflect the context and be meaningful according to what is meaningful within that culture. It should also be ethical in that meaning is not something imposed or forced upon others when their cultural values and norms may be reflected in other expressions. We can engage others in ways that allows them to experience something in the most meaningful way possible to them in their context or we can relate to them in ways that actual make our message foreign and meaningless.
“Third, the body of a Christian artist’s work should reflect the Christian world view. In short, if you are a young Christian artist, you should be working in the art forms of the twentieth century, showing the marks of the culture out of which you have come, reflecting your own country and your own contemporariness and embodying something of the nature of the world as seen from a Christian standpoint.” (Kindle loc. 468-75)
Finally, Schaeffer puts everyone at ease who may be tempted to freak out about any suggestion that the gospel or the Scriptures might be limited in someway or that we should “domesticate” the Scriptures in favor of culture. The content of art, and all Christian communication, should reflect the Christian world view. It’s important to distinguish the words content and form here though. More than a few go around defending “form” as the inerrant content of Scriptures. We need to make sure we’re paying attention to the right things and not be a slave to those forms that we find very meaningful. Schaeffer here talks about art – that it should reflect who you are and speak to those in your context. He’s not making a statement that you should always just do things in a way that is meaningful to you – but that you should do that when it will speak to an audience that will find it meaningful as well. If your context includes a lot of people who find other forms meaningful, then you have choices to make.
So in simple language, I’ll attempt to summarize the principles of contextualization that Schaeffer articulates through discussing the place and meaning of Christian art.
- Communication and approaches to expression should change because language and meaning is constantly morphing.
- Copying things that “work” in a different context or different time or place is usually a completely meaningless enterprise. If you succeed with this approach, chances are it’s more about dumb luck than about creative inspiration or skillful adaptation.
- Purposeful and intentional communication can only be meaningful in the desired ways when it is embedded in the forms of a particular people in a context.
- Imposing what is meaningful to you, especially as it relates to form, is both unethical as an appropriate use of communication or art as well as counterproductive in that you either undermine what is meaningful in one’s culture or you render yourself irrelevant to that culture or context.
- Ministry communication or innovations should be faithful in its content, but flexible and adaptable in its forms. Furthermore, we must aggressively pay attention to the ways in which we confuse form for content and the ways our own cultural biases or personal limitations undermine how we see the difference.
I highly recommend reading this short little book or ebook whether you have an interest in art or an interest in cross-cultural dynamics or missions. There’s a lot of great insights to chew on. Schaeffer was ahead of his time in some of these areas!
What stands out to you as you reflect on some of Schaeffer’s thoughts?