Contextualization: Theological and Missiological Necessity

by Dr. Stephen M. Davis

“Contextualization” as a term and concept has become popular in missiological circles. It has acquired widespread use among many who are concerned about the relationship between Christian faith and culture. The word itself has often been ill-defined, misused, and criticized due to the origin of the term. While the term may be relatively new, the process of contextualization is as old as Christianity itself and a basic principle of God’s self-revelation in history and Scripture. This article seeks to better understand the dynamic of gospel communication in biblically faithful and culturally relevant terms. The author affirms the necessity of biblical contextualization that remains true to the absolute authority of Scripture and relates this authoritative message to respondents with diverse cultural, linguistic, and religious backgrounds. My contention is that contextualization, when rightly understood, should be a theological and missiological necessity in all contexts, in all places, and for all people.

There has been confusion and disagreement on the meaning of “contextualization.” Generally, we might agree with Sherwood Lingenfelter that the “idea of contextualization is to frame the gospel message in language and communication forms appropriate and meaningful to the local culture, and to focus the message upon crucial issues in the lives of people” (1992:15). Charles Kraft understands “contextualization” as “the process of learning to express genuine Christianity in socioculturally appropriate ways” (1996:376). David Bosch holds that “the concept ‘indigenization’ was broadened into ‘contextualization’ which suggests a far more comprehensive and profound process of accommodating the gospel to the total life of a people” (1983:495). Haleblian describes contextualization as “that discipline which deals with the essential nature of the gospel, its cross-cultural communication, and the development and fostering of local theologies and indigenous church forms” (1983:97). Finally, Dean Flemming holds that contextualization “has to do with how the gospel revealed in Scripture authentically comes to life in each new cultural, societal, religious and historical setting” (2005: 13-14).

With these definitions in mind and the varied perspectives they offer, we recognize that this thorny issue of contextualization continues to bring new challenges to the way we do missions and ministry, whether at home or abroad. Contextualization has often been thought of as something done “over there” on the mission field. For those engaged in cross-cultural ministry, there has been a growing realization that contextualization is absolutely necessary when one goes abroad. However, an understanding and thoughtful application of contextualization in our home culture does not always exist as a concomitant necessity. Although unconscious contextualization takes place, churches are often stagnantly contextualized to an idealized past. Certainly the danger of uncritical contextualization cannot be ignored. Yet we must not avoid the necessity of biblical contextualization out of reluctance to abandon treasured relics of the past, which reflect previous cultural periods rather than vibrant biblical Christianity. Perhaps there are implications for contemporary American culture, drawing from what we have learned “over there” in order to better understand our context and more effectively engage in ministry “over here.”

For many fundamentalists, contextualization is a bad thing, at least from their understanding or acquaintance with the term and concepts related to it. I wonder if that may be due in part to the fact that some opponents of contextualization have either not had broad cross-cultural ministry experience, have not engaged in advanced missiological studies, or have failed to understand apostolic contextualization. The assertion has been made that the term originated in liberal circles and that there is guilt by association in using this terminology. I would simply respond that liberals formally gave a term to a concept that already existed and that they should not be allowed to hijack the term.

As we study the Word of God and in particular the book of Acts, we become convinced that the apostles contextualized the gospel message. No one can read the abridged messages of Paul (e.g., Acts 13, 14, 17) and imagine that he was indifferent to the makeup of his audience or deny that he consciously adapted his approach. The audience did not determine the essence of his message, but he took them into consideration in order that he might communicate not only words but also understandable truth. He embodied and fleshed out the fixed and unchanging gospel content differently when he preached to different peoples with diverse ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds. Paul preached Christ wherever he went and insisted on the universals of the faith concerning humankind’s fallen condition, the finished work of Christ, and the necessity of the new birth. The shared areas of human existence that spring from the unity of the human race were constants. Thus Paul could confidently proclaim “that God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30 NASB). “All people everywhere” need Christ, but to ignore their history, their religion, their worldview, and their concerns may lead to sincere proclamation without effective communication or reproductive church planting. No one has “any right to impose in the name of Christ upon one group of Christians a set of assumptions about life determined by another time and place” (Walls 1996:8).

First, the necessity of contextualization in all contexts, in all places, and for all people springs from the nature of truth and our perception of it. The Bible as God’s infallible Word is absolute truth. That fact does not ensure that our perception of that truth will likewise be infallible or that our communication of that truth will always be accurate or understood. Without certain axioms, salvation and a personal relationship with God through Christ would not be possible. Some core truths, often called “fundamentals,” cannot be modified, yet they can be better understood, more clearly articulated, and illustrated in the worldview of a target people. A gospel encounter does not take place in a vacuum. A clear gospel presentation does not necessarily take place in repeating time-honored formulas (i.e., the Roman’s Road) or using theological language for which the hearers have no background.

Second, the limitations of our own context and preconditioned state in thought and experience make contextualization necessary in all contexts, in all places, and for all people. To a great extent, all of us are the product of our background, education, social standing, and opportunities in a given context. Free choices we have made and present privileges we enjoy often spring from these factors, which work together to form the context in which we operate; they contribute to how we hear and understand. We may not always be conscious of how these factors affect our lives as they operate on a subconscious level. Sometimes stepping out of our culture to interact with those from other cultures enables us to see ourselves as others see us. We then understand that we have already in some sense contextualized the gospel by the way we live, by what we do or do not do in reaction or overreaction to the fallen nature of our society, by the terminology we use to describe our relationship with Christ, by our forms of worship, and by our concerns for daily life and the future.

There is validity to our unconscious contextualization we must not ignore. We are not asked to deny what we are as God leads us, but we should accept the possibility that our cultural or contextual perspective may not be the only one or be superior to other perspectives. We are not asked to become a-cultural, an impossibility. Yet the exclusivity that exists in the gospel as God’s means for access to Him and eternal life should not be extended to our understanding of all that flows from the supremely authoritative source. We must admit the possibility that our conditioned state prevents us from seeing clearly. While through God’s Spirit in us we see sufficiently, we do not see and know exhaustively.

Contextualization neither advocates relativism nor denies the existence of absolute truth. We are driven to Scripture in order to know both the written and living Word more fully. A marvelous diversity exists in God’s splendor that allows us to be what God desires while affirming that all God is can never be reflected in one people, in one culture, or in a single context. It requires humility on our part, allowing us to learn from others and to be willing to break out of our cherished paradigms in faithfulness to truth. At the same time, we are reminded of a “universalizing factor, bringing Christians of all cultures and ages together through a common inheritance, lest any of us make the Christian faith such a place to feel at home that no one else can live there” (Walls 1996:8).

Third, demographics demand fresh contextualization for present and succeeding generations of immigrants and their second- and third-generation offspring in transition. The mélange of cultures in the United States and other Western countries requires that the gospel be presented in forms and thought patterns that are understandable to them. There must be liberty in worship forms and the freedom to self-theologize in order to manifest the richness of scriptural truth and to guard against an admixture of truth and error. Contextualization is a concern for all times and for all who desire to carry out God’s mission in bringing glory to Himself as His manifold mercy and infinite grace are revealed in the salvation of pavta ta ethne (“all nations,” Matt. 28:19).

To be a faithful and missional people, the church must recognize that all churches reflect culture for good or for ill. Our individual cultural context must never become the sole model for gospel dress. The limitations associated with our mono-cultural myopia must allow for healthy correctives as we are brought face-to-face with uncomfortable differences. We may cherish sameness and value conformity, but as a pilgrim people we must be willing to learn and engage in constructive dialogue by listening to what others have said in our own traditions and to what is being said in the global Christian community.

Fourth, from a theological perspective, God Himself in the person of Christ entered our context in order to make the Father known. Through the incarnation Christ became one of us to conform us to His image. He communicated to the people of His day in a common framework and condescended to their level, entering into their experience. He becomes our model for manifesting the evangel (gospel) in an understandable way to those among whom we live. Our personal and community culture becomes a kingdom culture as we manifest the life of those translated from darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Pet. 2:9).

Contextualization does not imply the accommodating acceptance of all cultures and their cultural expressions on an equal level. It does not demand the validation of all cultural practices in the name of diversity or tolerance. Above all and every culture, the Bible judges and transforms culture and enculturates truth seekers into a new culture, transferred into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. We cannot deny what we are by virtue of birth or geography. Yet we must rise above these incidentals and strive to communicate the gospel in both power and understanding. God in His infinite wisdom has chosen to use His people as reflectors of the light and proclaimers of the truth. We speak wonderful words of life that must not fall on deaf ears because of our unwillingness to understand the context of others—their culture, history, social structures, and struggles. Neither should we be infatuated with peripherals that may distract us from heralding the truth. Thus faithful contextualization, which patterns apostolic models, should be a concern wherever we are and among all peoples to whom we are called to minister.

Reference List

Bosch, David J. “Am Emerging Paradigm for Mission,” Missiology, Vol. XI, No. 4 (October 1983): 485-510.

Flemming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Haleblain, Krikor. “The Problem of Contextualization.” Missiology, Vol. X, No. 1 (January 1983): 95-111.

Kraft,Charles H. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood, Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992).

Walls, Andrew F. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996.

Dr. Stephen M. Davis is associate pastor and director of missions at Calvary Baptist Church (Lansdale, PA). He holds a B.A from Bob Jones University, an M.A. in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando, FL), an M.Div. from Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA), and a D.Min. in Missiology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). Steve has been a church planter in Philadelphia, France, and Romania.