The topic of contextualization has generated a lot of debate within theological and missiological circles in recent decades. The term (though not the practice) is relatively new. It surfaced within ecumenical conversations sponsored by the World Council of Churches in the early 1970s and quickly became a major issue within the fields of theology and missiology. Ecumenicals hailed it as the new way forward for missionary practice and theological development. Not everyone shared that conviction, however.
Evangelicals have demonstrated an ambivalence toward contextualization. Some have embraced the term while infusing it with evangelical distinctives. Others have remained in opposition to contextualization for various reasons. Some are understandably wary of the term considering its connection to the more liberal/progressive theology of the conciliar movement. Further, examples of uncritical theological contextualization (leading toward syncretism) have no doubt turned off some to the idea of it.
Yet by and large, evangelical rejections of contextualization stem from faulty understandings of the term. So, what exactly is contextualization?
Defining Contextualization
It is first helpful to recognize what it is not. Contextualization is not the process of making the gospel or Christianity appear trendy according to a given local culture or worldview. Neither is it the process of removing the offensiveness of the gospel in order to make it more palatable for people to embrace. Such processes are ultimately marketing techniques, not true contextualization.
True contextualization is the comprehensive endeavor to express and embody the truth of Scripture in ways that make sense in a given context, such that people may perceive Christianity for what it truly is—both contextually authentic and prophetically challenging.
In other words, contextualization is the process of helping people truly understand the Christian message and feel the weight of its challenge. Ultimately, the goal of this endeavor is worldview transformation—i.e., that one’s worldview would become conformed to the biblical worldview. Yet such transformation is unlikely to happen if people (1) perceive Christianity as a foreign religion/ideology with no bearing on their local context and (2) do not comprehend how the gospel challenges all cultural and ideological norms that stand in contradiction to the truth of Scripture.
Need for Contextualization
There is a certain inevitability to contextualization. Broadly speaking, we all contextualize in various ways and in various arenas of life. A mother contextualizes her instruction to her 4-year-old son so that he can understand what is expected of him. She does not communicate to him the same way she would to someone else. A business owner contextualizes his or her speech to employees so that they adequately understand what direction the company is heading and what part they play in it. We all contextualize—often subconsciously—in an effort to properly communicate messages and clarify implications.
When it comes to Christianity, there are at least several reasons for why we should contextualize.
First, without contextualization, local believers remain susceptible to syncretism. While it is certainly true that bad, uncritical contextualization can lead to syncretistic understandings of Christianity, it is also true that when local believers do not sense Christianity’s relevance to every area of life in their culture, many areas of their own life will remain untouched by the power of the gospel. In other words, when new believers perceive the gospel as foreign to their context, it easily leads to a situation in which new believers practice Christianity on the surface yet continue in their old ways beneath that surface. In such cases, old patterns of belief and practice are not transformed by the gospel; they simply go underground. Part of the goal contextualization is thus to bring the gospel to bear on all aspects of local culture and life in order to guard against such syncretism.
Second, contextualization helps the gospel remain offensive for the right reasons, not the wrong ones. Western missionaries have often presented Christianity—whether intentionally or unintentionally—as a Western religion. As a result, many have rejected the gospel not because of its content, but because of its foreignness. Contextualization seeks to remove such an unwarranted barrier and help people perceive the real offense of the gospel—Christ crucified. In fact, if we do not contextualize, we might even be obscuring the gospel message for our audience. If someone is going to reject the gospel, we want them to reject it for what it really is, not because of a cultural misperception. Thus, as Darrell Whiteman claims, good contextualization always offends, but it offends for the right reasons.
Third, there is a biblical precedent for contextualization. For instance, the book of Revelation is itself a contextualized expression of Christian truth that addresses Christian life and witness in a first-century Roman context. The fact that it was contextualized for such a first-century audience helps to explain why it can be so difficult for us to understand today. Further, Paul contextualized throughout his letters, seeking to help new believers understand the meaning and implications of their Christian faith in different Jewish and pagan cultural milieus. Additionally, John’s gospel demonstrates contextualization when it utilizes the Greek concept of Logos to explain the person of Jesus (John 1).
Contextualization then is not a marketing ploy to trick people into embracing Christianity. It is the endeavor to help people understand the truth and implications of the gospel so that their lives and worldviews might ultimately be conformed to the Scriptures. It thus behooves us to be intentional in our contextualization as we seek to communicate the Christian message to others.
