Why Is Contextualization So Complex?
Describing contextualization is like trying to explain world history in two paragraphs. It is a complex concept with divergent definitions and a muddled assortment of interrelated ministry models. The conflicting uses of the term contextualization, and its history of misuse in contemporary missiology – even among evangelicals – have made this concept much more confusing. A careful study of the definitions, underlying assumptions, and methods of contextualization is required to concisely explain this complex concept.
What Is Contextualization?
Simply put, contextualization describes the relationship of Christ’s gospel with the culture in which it is communicated. The term is often used simplistically to describe the extent to which a missionary or evangelist can adapt their appearance, language, or message to a different culture. It is a technical term, however, that defines several different parts of the process for communicating God’s eternal word within our diverse and changing sociocultural contexts. Ambiguity and misunderstandings abound, however, since contextualization is used by different people, often describing different parts of the communication process with different definitions and underlying assumptions. There are also many related terms, sometimes used interchangeably and other times with different nuances, such as acculturation, indigenization, accommodation, and inculturation. Yet each of these technical terms refer to various aspects of the relationship of gospel witness within contemporary culture.
Some concerned church leaders have stated reasons to avoid this complex concept: “the term originated from churches with questionable theology;” “it often comes packaged with unbiblical teaching;” “it can lead to unfaithful or offensive practices;” “God’s truth is always relevant and should not be modified by the context;” or “we should just preach the gospel like we’ve always done.” While these concerns should encourage us to use care, avoidance won’t help us understand contextualization biblically.
Regardless of which technical term is used (or abused), the relationship of gospel and culture remains unavoidable. God could have taken His people out of the sinful world, but instead He chose to leave us in this world to be gospel witnesses within each of our sociocultural contexts. As Jesus prayed, “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (John 17:15–18). It is God’s plan for His people to be sanctified by the eternal word while living within this hostile and changing world.
The Translatability of the Gospel
Can gospel witness be contextualized? Yes, in fact, it must be! This is the beauty and strength of the Christian message. In Acts 10–11, God made it clear to the apostles that the gospel was for all people from all cultures. Later in Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council affirmed this truth and insisted that the gospel message did not include Jewish traditions ( Acts 11:18; 15:7–11). The Early Church took this task seriously. Historians tell us that in 250 years the Bible was translated into all major languages in the Middle East and surrounding regions. Indeed, Pentecost was a harbinger of what is still coming: a sanctified multiethnic community, gathered from all nations and united in praise of God’s mighty works (Acts 2:6–11; Revelation 7:9–10; Genesis 11:6–9).
The truth is, it is not possible to communicate the gospel without contextualizing it. Speaking God’s eternal word within everchanging sociocultural contexts, corrupted by sin and rebellion, requires the use of finite and fallible human languages. The crucial question, therefore, is how to do it correctly, according to faithful principles of interpretation, communication and ministry. This is the reason why many Bible education curriculums devote an entire course to this subject, addressing themes such as Christ and culture, cross-cultural gospel communication, and intercultural ministry.
Preconceived Beliefs and Principles
Our understanding of contextualization is determined by many interconnected factors that influence its definition and practice. These factors include our doctrine of scripture (Reformed, Barthian, or other), our method of hermeneutics (how culture influences interpretation), and our view about how grace relates to nature. Contextualization principles are also influenced by conflicting theories (even among evangelicals) of gospel communication, Bible translation, and lifestyle application. There are also diverse principles of ministry and different theories about the role of the church and its witness in society, all which shape our method of contextualization.
While most church leaders agree on the need for contextualization in sharing the good news about Christ, there are often radically different opinions about what it is and how it should be done. These misunderstandings are further complicated when we “talk past” each other by using the same terms but with different nuances, different underlying principles, or different objectives in view. More discussion and clarity are needed, therefore, to identify underlying assumptions and the interconnected factors that influence our own view of contextualization.
Various Models of Contextualization
To avoid confusion, it is also helpful to classify the various types of contextualization. There is not a “one-size-fits-all” methodology for every gospel ministry. For example, Paul’s zeal to “become all things to all people” displays one type, while his passionate refusal to compromise the gospel displays another type (1 Corinthians 9:22; Galatians 1:9). Thus we need wisdom to choose the correct type of contextualization for each specific context. To that end, let’s briefly consider several distinct models of contextualization:
Adaptation is the practice of a gospel witness who crosses into another cultural context and learns to live within its new sociocultural environment. Some have called this “incarnational contextualization,” a term that should only be used with great caution because Christ’s incarnation, though analogous in part (John 20:21), is unique and unrepeatable.
Translation is the process of transmitting the gospel from one language into another. This type of contextualization is the work of a cross-cultural witness who must engage in what has been called “three-horizon hermeneutics” (interpretation of the Bible text, by a translator in his own context, into the language of a third context, all without changing the infallible message). While the lifestyle of a cross-cultural witness must be adapted, God’s word must not be changed when communicated cross-culturally via translation.
Indigenization is the process by which a believer (with his church community) accurately interprets God’s eternal word, applies it effectively in his local context, and responds in worship using the language and forms of his own culture. While translation requires three-horizon hermeneutics, indigenization is the personal interpretation and application of the Bible by believers within a specific context.
Transformation is the practice of a local church that faithfully confronts the instances and structures of sin in their sociocultural context, and that seeks to reform their society by publicly exemplifying and promoting biblical principles of love, justice, and righteousness (Jeremiah 9:23–24). This type of contextualization, the prophetic witness in society of a faithful church , is the mature outcome of faithful indigenization.
These four distinct models of contextualization are greatly influenced, each in their own way, by our underlying assumptions and the interconnected factors considered above. Clearly, contextualization is a complex concept that cannot be fully explained in a few paragraphs!
Concluding Cautions and Counsel
The complexity of contextualization should give us caution in applying it, especially in view of the many abuses in practice. Two errors are particularly obvious in the history of missions: syncretism is the combining of two beliefs (Christ plus something else), which results in compromising the gospel message with culture; and traditionalism is the enshrining of one’s own cultural forms in place of the gospel. But viewing these errors as opposite extremes of a continuum of error is simplistic since, as considered above, there are many factors that determine a faithful contextualization theory and practice. Though not our present focus, a detailed study of Paul’s classic treatment of contextualization is required to learn spiritual discernment (1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1). In addition to other things, Paul gives several relevant cautions: don’t be conceited by knowledge devoid of Christian charity, learn to use gospel privileges for the benefit of all, be careful to flee all forms of idolatry, and do not provoke God's jealousy with syncretistic practice.
What then is contextualization? To avoid ambiguity, we need further information before answering: What kind of contextualization are you asking about? Which underlying assumptions and factors influence your definition and practice of contextualization? What is your ministry objective: to adapt into a different culture, to translate the gospel cross-culturally, to promote gospel indigenization, or to bear witness to Christ in contemporary society? Why do you want to contextualize the gospel: love for weaker brothers and the lost, willingness to suffer for the cause of Christ, or passion for purity and faithfulness in gospel witness?
Truly we cannot avoid contextualization. We are in the world though not of the world, and the gospel must be spoken within the sinful cultures of this world. Nor should we give up trying to find unity of thought and practice in this area. Rather we should carefully seek to test and conform to scripture the assumptions and factors that influence our contextualization. Since our starting point is God’s eternal infallible word, and since we are united in Christ and guided by His Spirit, then even in this area of complexity we can work together toward attaining “the unity of the faith” and maturity in “the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). Thus in faith and humility, we should pray for spiritual discernment to understand the complexities of contextualization, and for spiritual empowerment to faithfully bear witness to the eternal word of Christ in our constantly changing socio-cultural ministry contexts.