1
CONTEXTUALIZATION AND CHURCH PLANTING
______
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. J. D. Payne
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
______
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 88500
______
by
Richard Brent Waldrep
March 12, 2007
CONTEXTUALIZATION AND CHURCH PLANTING
Introduction
When Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19-20), he sent them on a trans-cultural disciple-making mission.[1] Ever since Jesus declared that his church would cross cultural boundaries and spread throughout the world (Acts 1:8), his followers have faced cross-cultural ministry challenges. Faithful disciples of all generations have struggled to present the message of salvation and then form new believers into local churches in ways that make sense to people of different cultures. Because both the gospel and the church are trans-cultural and at the same time embedded in a local culture, a certain amount of tension is inherent in cross-cultural gospel proclamation and church planting.[2]
Some attempts at cross-cultural disciple making have gone well while others have been miserable failures. Missions literature is full of missionaries, church planters and nationals venting their frustration that consideration of cultural differences has been noticeably absent in much ministry strategy. For example, missionary to India John V. Taylor lamented the lack of cultural identification he found among Indian disciples in the late 1960s: “And the Christ who is for all men is dishonored by his Indian disciples so long as they present him to their fellow men as an alien . . . . Moreover, those disciples themselves will not really know him until they learn to be totally Indian in his presence.”[3]
The term “contextualization” appeared in missions literature in 1972. Although the term first appeared in ecumenical circles, conservative evangelicals adopted the word and within the last thirty years it has come to be the accepted overarching term that considers cross-cultural gospel proclamation and church planting issues. This essay presents an overview of contextualization by asking and answering five foundational questions concerning the concept.
What is Contextualization?
The word “contextualization” is derived from the Latin word contextus, conveying the idea of “weaving together.”[4] When an ideology from one culture is weaved seamlessly into another culture, contextualization has taken place. Southern Baptist missions professor Daniel Sanchez defines the general concept of contextualization as “making concepts and methods relevant to a historical situation.”[5] Drawing on the work of Charles R. Taber, Sanchez further defines missiological contextualization as “enabling the message of God’s redeeming love in Jesus Christ to become alive as it addresses the vital issues of a sociological context and transforms its worldview, its values, and its goals.”[6]
Missionaries, church planters, and pastors contextualize as they articulate and incarnate the gospel message and the Christian faith in a manner that is understandable in a particular historical, geographical, and cultural setting. Understanding is the ultimate goal of contextualization.[7]
The gospel message and the Christian faith are transcultural, not bound to one culture. Yet many cross-cultural ministers communicate a gospel and teach a Christian faith that is so enmeshed in the communicator’s culture that the receptors cannot gain a true understanding of the gospel and the Christian life. Contextualization, then, is an attempt to communicate and “weave together” the gospel in another culture so that the message is understood without distortion.[8] A message that is communicated with foreign thought patterns, foreign forms, and foreign illustrations will always be considered a “foreign message” by listeners, even if it is spoken in the listeners’ language. A church that meets in an odd looking building, plays odd sounding music, and never concerns itself with the needs of the surrounding peoples, will always be odd and culturally irrelevant.
It is not the job of the Christian missionary, church planter, or pastor to make the gospel of Jesus Christ relevant. The gospel is relevant. The cross-cultural minister is responsible, however, to communicate the gospel and the Christian faith in such a way that the transcultural, relevant gospel is understood in a different context and not considered by listeners to be irrelevant because it is presented as one component of a foreign culture.
Charles Kraft offers the analogy of a tree and a seed to explain the contextualization of the gospel.[9] Contextualization is not like taking a grown tree from one context and transplanting it into another. A tree grown and nourished in one context with leaves, branches, and fruit characteristic of that area will appear foreign and out of place if transplanted in another context. Instead, contextualization happens when a seed, in this case the gospel, is planted in the new context and is allowed to grow. As this seed grows, it absorbs the nutrients from the soil and the rain of the new region. The resulting tree may look
different than one in the original region, but it is the same species of tree. Most importantly, it fits in the culture in which it has grown.[10]
Is Contextualization Biblical?
Although the term “contextualization” only recently appeared in missions literature (1972), the practice of contextualization can be traced back to the New Testament church as it began the task of missions. The earliest examples of gospel contextualization are found in the New Testament. A. Scott Moreau maintains that “the New Testament itself is a contextualized document.”[11] Throughout the New Testament one finds the biblical writers producing contextualized documents as they communicate the unchanging message of the gospel to the various sociocultural contexts of their day. From the four Gospels to the letters of Paul to various sayings of Jesus, contextualization is the New Testament standard.[12]
The Gospel Writers Contextualize
The historical events that take place in the Gospels have specific cultural settings and those settings are critical components of the Gospels. The gospel story is a story with a specific context. The gospel writers communicate the historical events that took place in one context to audiences in different cultural contexts.[13]
In other words, the four Gospels address different “target audiences.” Matthew writes for a Jewish audience, Luke addresses both the Gospel and Acts to a Gentile named Theophilus, and John writes for a Greek audience. The writers of the four Gospels contextualize the gospel message to clearly communicate with their respective audiences. John, for example, uses the Greek concept of “Logos,” which literally means “world-soul,” and infuses this word with a Christian meaning to point to a personal God in terms Greeks could easily understand.[14]
Sometimes it is easy to overlook the two different contexts one finds in each of the Gospels. For example, one may think that the events that take place in Matthew and the “target audience” to whom Matthew is writing (his first readers) represent the same context. But this is not correct. While there may be some cultural similarities, Matthew communicates events that happened in one context to people living in a different context. This is the case for all the gospel writers.[15]
Paul Contextualizes
The Pauline epistles are “occasional” letters, each written to a specific audience in a specific cultural context struggling to live out the Christian faith. Paul’s epistles are contextualized documents. Conceivably, Paul could have sent a generic document entitled “How to Be a Christian” to all the churches to whom he related. This generic document could have contained Christian principles without reference to a specific context. Instead, Paul addresses issues the early believers dealt with in their respective contexts. Paul never divorces the Christian life from the context in which it is lived.[16]
In addition to his epistles, Paul contextualizes the gospel he preaches. As Paul addresses a Jewish audience in the synagogue in Antioch (Acts 13) he speaks about patriarchs, prophets, and prophecies of old fulfilled. His Jewish audience readily identifies with these themes. However, when Paul preaches the same gospel in Athens (Acts 17) he changes his language in order to relate to intellectual Gentiles. He speaks to them about an “unknown God” (v. 23), a concept already present in their culture. Paul even quotes from one of their poets (v. 27-28) as he calls them to repentance (v. 30) and warns them of the coming judgment (v. 30).[17]
Paul never compromises the gospel, but he always communicates his message in a way that considers the cultural and religious background of his hearers. He spells out his principle of contextualization in 1 Cor 9:22b: “I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”[18]
Jesus Contextualizes
Perhaps the greatest example of contextualization is the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Jesus physically enters the context of mankind. Although the cross-cultural minister cannot enter another culture in the same way Jesus did, the incarnation does illustrate the high priority Jesus places on contact with the receptor culture for the purpose of ministry.[19]
In addition to the incarnation, Jesus frequently contextualizes his spoken message of redemption. Don Richardson calls this type of contextualization a “redemptive analogy.”[20] For example, Jesus uses a redemptive analogy when he speaks to Nicodemus. To the Jewish teacher Nicodemus, obviously familiar with the story of Moses erecting a brass serpent so Israelites dying of snakebite could look at it and live (Num 21:1-9), Jesus says: “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life (John 3:13-14).” In this case, Nicodemus’ Jewish culture helps him understand Jesus as Redeemer. Richardson says that redemptive analogies “facilitate human understanding of redemption” as they “precondition the mind in a culturally significant way to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.”[21]
Is Contextualization Always Biblical?
Today, not every practice done in the name of contextualization follows the biblical pattern. Contextualization is necessarily concerned with two elements: Scripture and setting. These two elements, however, do not have equal authority in the contextualization process. Those involved in contextualization choose to give primacy either to Scripture or to the setting as they decide which element will set the agenda for the contextualization process.[22]
Conservative evangelicals begin with Scripture and acknowledge that the Bible has ultimate authority in the contextualization process. In mission and church planting literature this approach is referred to as a “translation model.”[23] The role of the contextualizer is to communicate the unchanging message of the Bible in such a way that it makes sense to those in a different cultural setting. The contextualizer must possess a profound understanding of the new setting to facilitate effective communication. The setting, however, never becomes more foundational than the biblical message.
Another option is to elevate the context above Scripture. This approach is referred to as an “existential model” and is generally expressed in one of the following two ways.[24] Some contextualizers begin with the context and look for ways that God is already working in the culture and then demonstrate how the biblical message is already present in the setting. In other words, a biblical message from outside the setting is not communicated to those within, instead the message is found to exist within the setting and then is revealed.[25]
Others begin with context and look for ways God is bringing liberation to the oppressed people of a specific setting. This route leads to any one of the many expressions of liberation theology.[26] Convinced the Bible teaches that God’s priority for mankind is freedom from oppressive social structures, the contextualizer strives to empower the marginalized to achieve this freedom. Liberation theologians apply liberation passages of Scripture, such as the exodus, to the marginalized peoples in their specific social context.
Paul Hiebert’s Critical Contextualization
Either the setting or Scripture will drive contextualization. Among evangelicals who view Scripture as authoritative in contextualization, the most prominent approach to contextualization is Paul Hiebert’s “critical contextualization.”[27] The critical contextualization process leads a community of believers to scrutinize cultural practices in light of biblical truth. The first step is an exegesis of the culture. While the believers study various aspects of a local culture, they temporarily suspend judgment concerning questions of truth. The believers uncritically analyze the culture’s traditional beliefs and societal customs for the sole purpose of understanding. Second, the community exegetes Scripture and engages in cross-cultural hermeneutics. Specific issues from the study of culture are subjected to the authority of Scripture. A leader guides the community of believers to compare specific cultural practices and beliefs with biblical truth. The third step in Hiebert’s critical contextualization is the community’s response to their cultural tradition or practice in light of Scripture. A decision must be made. They may keep the old practice because it does not conflict with biblical truth, reject the old practice because it directly conflicts with biblical truth, or modify the old practice to infuse it with Christian meaning. As they choose to infuse old practices with new meaning, the community enters the fourth step and develops new contextualized practices.[28]
Dynamic and Literal Approaches to Scripture
Although Hiebert’s model seems straightforward enough, evangelicals differ on how to apply contextualization principles. These differences stem directly from alternative viewpoints concerning the nature of Scripture itself. The two most popular approaches to Scripture in the contextualization process are the dynamic and literal approaches.
Charles Kraft is perhaps the leading missiologist who advocates a dynamic approach to Scripture. He argues that the Bible is “God’s inspired casebook.”[29] God’s revelation to mankind is “receptor oriented” and therefore may be described as “subjective and continuing.”[30] The most important aspect of God’s revelation is the meaning and not the form of the revelation. The words themselves are not critical, but the revelation’s impact on the readers comprises the essence of the revelation.
David Hesselgrave disagrees with Kraft’s understanding of revelation. Hesselgrave maintains that only contextualization based on a literal view of Scripture, instead of a dynamic view, does not distort Scripture. Hesselgrave identifies his literal approach to Scripture as the “verbal-plenary” view of inspiration. He argues that the human authors of the Bible “were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God in such a way that every word they wrote expressed literally and propositionally the precise thought that God intended to communicate.”[31] In Hesselgrave’s view not only the meaning and ideas communicated in Scripture, but also the very words, are inspired revelation.
The view of Scriptural inspiration one adopts impacts contextualization in concrete ways. For example, workers involved with the Jesus film in North Africa decided to use the title “Messiah of God” in reference to Jesus instead of “Son of God.” While the latter is the literal biblical phrase, Western workers opted for “Messiah of God” because it is less confrontational. In the name of contextualization, they gave up the literal biblical form. An Iranian Christian leader observes, “When it comes to Islam, the issue of contextualization is sometimes taken too far . . . . In the beginning we fought with them [Muslims], then we ignored them, and now there is a tendency to appease them.”[32]
How Can a Church Planter Know His Context?
If a church planter is convinced that contextualization is the biblical pattern and that he must take great care in the contextualization process in order to remain faithful to biblical authority, the question then becomes “where does one begin?” Following Hiebert’s model of critical contextualization, one must begin with an exegesis of the context.
Two important characteristics of contextualization must be kept in mind while gathering information about a context. First, good contextualization is interdisciplinary. The Bible is always the one source of authority in the contextualization process, but in addition to the Bible insights may be drawn from academic disciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, communication studies, psychology, economics and politics.[33] These disciplines may provide understanding into specific facets of a context.
Second, good contextualization considers the fluid nature of the context. The context is always changing; not static. Globalization connects societies and cultures to an historically unprecedented extent.[34] This contact fosters rapid social change. Therefore, contextualization is never a finished process.
Brian Galloway argues that the culture of any context has two components: observable culture and unobservable culture.[35] He likens culture to an iceberg. There is a section of the iceberg that is observable above the water and there is a section of the iceberg, typically much larger, that is submerged. To know a context, one must understand both the observable and the unobservable features of culture.[36]
Know the Observable Features of the Cultural Context
Understanding a specific context begins with the observable facets of social structure. Social structure includes three elements: identifiable cultural characteristics, society typology, and demographics. The cross-cultural minister must understand each element of the social structure in order to understand the cultural context.[37] The following three steps provide a sequential order for understanding the social structure of a given context.
First, the contextualizer must identify the observable distinctives of the people in the culture. These are the things normally associated with culture. What kind of food do the people of this culture eat? What kind of music do they enjoy? How do they greet one another? Do they look each other in the eye? Also, one must identify types of art, modes of transportation, monetary unit, language, housing, and economic transactions.[38] While some of these distinctives may not make sense at first, the observer will eventually understand why the people do what they do as he or she considers worldview issues.
Second, the contextualizer must identify the general type of society in which he is working. Tribal societies, rural societies, peasant societies and urban societies each have distinguishing characteristics. Societal typology indicates how people in the group relate to each other and how they make decisions.[39]