CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE GOSPEL

by Roger Shepherd

In my educational experience I was taught contextualization in ecumenical mission circles starting in the 1970s. The core idea of contextualization is the idea of taking the gospel to a new context and finding appropriate ways to communicate it so that it is understandable to the people in that context. It is more than theology; it includes developing church life and ministers to people in their cultural context (Michael Pocock, Gailyn Van Rheenen, and Douglas McConnell, The Changing Face of World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends, 15). It gained acceptance and utilization among Evangelicals. Missionaries should communicate the gospel in all cultures or contexts foreign to one’s own. Understanding the concept in this context allows the gospel to be fully integrated into the diverse cultures and societies of the world starting in America. I intend to teach the need for contextualization (teaching the gospel in context) in world mission by addressing relevant questions.

Do we have a need to contextualize the Bible in teaching and preaching? Yes! This concept is in the Pauline methodology as he exercised his liberty in taking the gospel to all contexts whether they are Jew or Gentile (1 Cor 9). Paul did “all things for the sake of the gospel [used nine times in chapter 9], so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:23). In some contexts Paul related to the people as a Jew. In other contexts it was Gentiles, rabbis, various religious groups, the weak and strong saints, and then, the common people. Why did he do this? He said, “I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:23).

Contextualization in Missiological Settings

What are some examples that are related in missiological settings? Remember, contextualization is derived from context that means the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event or situation. I agree with missiologists who say that we should teach the gospel in all contexts, but that context does not dictate the inspiration and meaning of the Bible. It only affects the methodology used to practice the meaning of Scripture. It is the capacity to respond meaningfully to the gospel within the framework of one’s own situation. Contextualization has to do with how we assess the peculiarity of mission fields such as third world contexts. Indigenization tends to be used in the sense of responding to the gospel in terms of a traditional culture.

Contextualization, while not ignoring this, takes into account the process of secularity, technology, and the struggle for human justice, which characterize the historical moment of nations in the Third World (David Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 135). Another example is communication that is the imparting or interchanges of thoughts, opinion, information, and the message of Christ by speech or written documents. It is also the means by which we send messages such as telephone, telegraph, computers, radio, television, and pulpit. The way we communicate in Africa is different than Europe, Canada, Barbados, Guatemala, New Zealand, and especially in America. I have done mission work in all of these countries.

Communicating the Gospel

The significant point in contextualization is a specific methodology of communication. How well do we communicate the gospel? Do we care or know how to practice good communication? The science of communication has three significant areas:

1. Aristotle defined rhetoric as the art of discovering in every case “the available means of persuasion.” Persuaders were successful to the degree to which they actually brought the audience to “right,” belief and action (2 Cor 5:11). Persuade people in their setting.
2. The better term is identification in rhetoric that is the study of effective language in the art or science of prose or verse, commentary, figures of speech, and the art of influencing the thought and conduct of the audience (John 10:24; 16:25, 29). Thus, identify with people in their context.
3. The emphasis is on listening. That includes analyzing the causes of misunderstanding and positing remedies (Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 36–38). Listen to the people in their context (Jas 1:19).

In the biblical context there is a significant need for good communication. I suggest the following seven ways to effectively communicate the true gospel in the biblical context regardless of the culture:

1. Speak the Truth (Eph 4:15; John 17:17)
2. Speak with Love (Eph 4:15; 1 John 2:1)
3. Speech is seasoned with Salt/Wisdom (Col 4:6)
4. Speak with Gentleness (Gal 6:1-2)
5. Speak with Exhortation (1 Thess 2:3, 11)
6. Speak Plainly/Boldly (John 1:17; 10:24)
7. Speak with Confidence (Acts 4:29-31)

Do we have a need to contextualize in a foreign mission field, and even, stateside? Yes, I recommend using it as a strategy. The following five things are significant in communicating Christ in culture that cannot be changed in any context:

1. Paul wanted all cultures to understand that the Christian message is one of divine revelation and not of human origin (1 Cor 2:9–10; Gal 1:11–12; 2 Pet 1:16–21).
2. The way in which Paul communicated the message was in keeping with the nature of the gospel and the purposes of God (1 Cor 2:1, 4; 9:16f).
3. Paul forcefully and faithfully communicated Christ (Acts 18:4-5; Col 1:27–28).
4. Solid conversions and spiritual growth cannot be divorced from sound thinking and right knowing (Ps 1:1f; Phil 4:8).
5. When we have made concessions to people of other cultures, it has been in the form of learning something of what we think. Not until recently have we given much attention to how they think and how they formulate their ideas. Therefore, our ultimate goal should be to bring them—and ourselves—to a completely Christian way of thinking. That is missionary communication! (Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 289–95).

Contextualization and Other Disciplines

There are four basic trends, philosophies, or positions in these areas to explain contextualization: First, classical or traditional liberalism which is basically syncretism that means the blending of the teachings of all religions in such a way to produce a common religious experience. The result of this is a new “syncretistic gospel” and a “new interfaith spirituality” that the Bible does not allow. Second, a classical or traditional orthodoxy in which the Bible is the religious standard for all contexts. I hold this view (2 Tim 3:15-17). In this context God’s man is complete and culture must conform. This is how Paul preached to lost cultures (Acts 13:41; 14:6-17; 17:22–31) and many other places. He preached only one gospel to the legalistic mind of the Galatians (Gal 1:6–12; 2:7–10). Third, Neo-liberalism holds the view that the Bible only contains the Word of God in imperfect form because of its human authorship. The Bible is the inspired Word of God regardless of the context we preach (John 16: 13; 2 Pet 1:16–21). The Bible did not just fall out of the sky. It was delivered by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, Neo-orthodoxy that is nothing more than existentialism gave birth to postmodernism. This view primarily holds the position that we can make the Bible say anything, which many expositors do.

Epistemology by definition is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. In view of missions it is the study of the basis of knowledge or the approach to knowing the truth utilized by a particular culture. Culture does not dictate what we can and do know about God. Most of the orthodox and evangelical world holds a unified universe and epistemology. In other words, how do we know what we know? It has been revealed to us in the Bible. The world did not emerge from idolatry, polytheism, Islam, naturalism, humanism, existentialism, modernism, now postmodernism, and many other philosophies that discount the supernatural order of the universe and assign it completely to the basis of human reasoning or will that makes it very much incomplete and misleading (Rom 1). The role of missions is to teach that God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, and Christianity can and must be understood through the normal and even rigorous historical and literary study of the Bible. For example, we experience a personal relationship with the one transcendent God through the seven pillars of doctrine (Eph 4:1–7), converse with Him through prayer (Matt 6:5–15), walk in his Spirit (Rom. 8), praise him in adoration (Ps 22:3), do all to his glory (1 Cor 1:31), and enjoy Him in the community of believers in the body of Christ (Matt 16:13-19; Acts 2:36–47).

Where is this field of study in academic circles at the present time? It is widely used by Evangelicals. Many leaders (elders, deacons, preachers, and missionaries) in the Churches of Christ are beginning to understand contextualization as a result of academically trained evangelists now ministering in many local churches. It cannot be unscriptural to preach the pure gospel in all contexts or cultures of the world. Culture can never dictate what the gospel teaches. The gospel never changes in what it says about God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, marriage and the home, hell, and heaven to accommodate culture. The method used to communicate the gospel can change within cultures. However, culture is changed to a Christian environment by the teaching of the gospel.

How does contextualization assist us in addressing questions about government and Christian-Muslim relations? It aids us from the standpoint of getting to know people in their culture, understand their needs, and then teach them what the Bible says concerning their beliefs. I have personally seen Christianity change the government in mission fields, and I believe it can continue to impact those societies, if we have the courage to teach Christ. I have experienced many Muslims accepting Christ as a result of personal Bible studies, sermons, and even debates in the streets in African nations where it could have been a very radical expression of the Muslim religion. We cannot blend with these religions. We have the responsibility to teach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15–16).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the church must know the context of the particular people she is evangelizing. It is a huge mistake to ignore the significance of contextualization. I summarize what Darrell L. Guder wrote, “The gospel is always conveyed through the medium of culture. It becomes good news to lost and broken humanity as it is incarnated in the world through God’s sent people, the church. To be faithful to its calling, the church must be contextual, that is, it must be culturally relevant within a specific setting. The church relates constantly and dynamically both to the gospel and to its contextual reality. It is important, then, for the church to study its context carefully and to understand it” (Missional Church, 18). It is not a liberal method just because we may not know the significance of contextualization. We can change the world one culture at a time! Changing the world begins in America, and then one nation at a time (Matt 13:38). Jesus believed the gospel was relevant in any cultural context. How about you?