Contextualization

Since the latter part of the twentieth century, missiologists have been talking a lot about indigenization and contextualization. Contextualization is a broad theme that has varied applications, and to be quite honest it can be politically loaded, even in our SBC. If understood in relation to communication, contextualization is the process whereby a message is crafted and encoded in terms that can best transmit the sender’s intended meaning and be most easily decoded for proper application within the recipient’s context. But this is more than a simple communicative diagram. It involves both message and meaning of symbols as well as communication of intentions and applications. Therefore, contextualization can be applied to lifestyle, verbal cues, and social constructs. Quite truly, we as missionaries have to contextualize our way of life, our communication patterns, a presentation of the gospel message itself, and church structure. But we have to expertly balance on a tightrope between relevance and syncretism.

Contextualization, by necessity, means change or conformity. So what really changes when we contextualize? Does the good news change? How should my lifestyle change since I’m not living and working in rural South Georgia now? Should my language change? I mean, other than speaking Russian language, how should my language patterns change to better adapt to Russian mentality? What about my sleeping patterns? Should they change to conform to Russian ‘chronos’ or is Benjamin Franklin’s adage about getting up early and going to bed early still hold true? Really, what has to change? Can I truly change enough to clearly present a biblical message, or will I always be “the American”? Perhaps questions like these are why the issue as to what extent the message can truly be altered or contextualized is the subject of great debate among theologians and missiologists alike. David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen argue that it is possible to contextualize the gospel message and indeed that it must happen, but they believe there are certain parameters for achieving authentic contextualization.

I’d highly recommend your reading Hesselgrave’s and Rommen’s Contextualization: Meaning, Methods, and Models. They survey the historical development of contextualization as well as to analyze modern proponents of the concept from the standpoint of five disciplines, namely philosophy, theology, anthropology, hermeneutics, and semantics. It’s interesting that Jesus incarnated the message, and Paul molded his presentation to each new audience. Neither of them backed away from the scandal of the truth. But they also didn’t add unnecessary baggage to its acceptance. Paul lived like a Jew with Jews and like a Roman with Romans, but he never said, “for the sake of the gospel, I’ll accept sexual sin or moral perversion.” He never lowered his standards that he passed along to churches (ie. qualifications for being overseer), but he also never built a little Jerusalem among the Gentile Churches he planted. No, he contextualized professionally.
It was in the Middle Ages that the church began to issue “apologetic disputations” and the “confrontational approach” that we still see today in some areas. Some people still do the whole “in-your-face” evangelism. Is this cultural? Sadly, some contemporary Christians have taken the other extreme so as to become so culturally acceptable to lost friends or so noncommittal on moral standards so as to not offend that they have consequently lost any savor of saltiness. Consequently, even today conservative evangelicals are still wrangling with the concept and yet have not constructed a cohesive evangelical model of contextualization.

Simple but not trite, Hesselgrave and Rommen sound a clarion call for both authenticity and effectiveness. The key insight that the authors provide is that both the gospel message and the recipient’s culture must play active roles. They say that this calls for “persons who are experts in the cultures and languages involved, who understand cultural dynamics and who are themselves bicultural” (p. 211). In essence, contextualization is not for amateurs.

So, what should I contextualize in Russia? Does it matter if my clothes change? Does it matter if I learn to sit through several hours of Russian theater, poetry readings, classical music concerts, art viewings, or worship services? Does it matter whether I learn to eat something besides pizza and hamburgers? Does it matter how well I speak the language? Does it matter if I have national friends in my home and me in theirs? What of this helps to communicate trust and truth? I guess it only matters if the message matters.

For a great article that may help sort through these questions, click here. It is an article by Paul Washer in HeartCry Magazine, a ministry of FBC Muscle Shoals, AL. I found it quite helpful as I continue to evolve in our dynamic role in Russia as we relate to national church leadership and together define “contextualization”.