Click here to access part 1 and part 2.
This four-part series explores the foundations of Christian mission through the lens of missiology, the study of God’s mission and our participation in it. It begins with the character and mission of God, then considers the nature of human culture, the challenge of contextualization, and the story of the church’s missionary witness across history. Together, these reflections offer a biblical and practical vision for joining God’s redemptive work in the world.
What is Contextualization?
Contextualization can be defined as “the dynamic and comprehensive process by which the gospel is incarnated within a concrete historical or cultural situation” [1]. This process applies not only to communicating the gospel itself but also to all Christian beliefs, which must be expressed in human language to a particular group at a specific place and time. It also applies to church practice, including the forms and structures of local Christian witness. Finally, it extends to the way Christians live in response to the gospel. In all three areas: message, church, and lifestyle, the truth of the gospel must take on flesh in human cultural forms [2]. This is contextualization.
The concept of contextualization must be considered because the process is inevitable. “The Gospel is always expressed in cultural forms and cannot be otherwise” [3]. The only questions are whether the process is visible or invisible, intentional or unintentional, done well or poorly. This is important to recognize because it means that contextualization is not only a concern for foreign missionaries. It also shapes our own experience, understanding, and expression of the gospel.
God as the First Contextualizer
The process of contextualization begins with God, who chose to reveal himself to particular people, in particular places and times, in ways they could understand. God did not speak in a divine or heavenly language but through the tongues of men, through the prophets, and in written human languages, through the Scriptures. A profound example of this appears in Genesis 15, where God makes a covenant with Abraham by dividing animals. This method of sealing an agreement was something Abraham would have recognized from his own cultural context in Canaan. Because God wanted Abraham to trust his commitment, he expressed it in a form Abraham could grasp.
Jesus communicated in a similar way. He spoke to the crowds using metaphors and imagery drawn from their everyday agrarian life. His parables were a form of contextualization, conveying divine truth through human culture. The most significant act of contextualization, however, is the incarnation itself. God not only took on a human body but also entered fully into the language, customs, and practices of the Jewish people. Because God desires to be known and understood, he spoke Aramaic with a human tongue. As we will see, this fact alone should compel us to do the same so that others might come to know such a God. “The incarnation of Jesus makes contextualization not just a possibility but an obligation” [4].
Hermeneutics as Contextualization
Because we are not first-century Jews living in the land of Israel, another step is required in the process of contextualization. This step is known as hermeneutics. For God’s Word to speak meaningfully in our own time and place, we must first understand it in its original setting and then translate it into our own. This process is not complete until we are able to communicate the message in our own language and live it out in our particular context.
It is important to recognize that this is not something done once and for all, but something that must be repeated continually. Our world is not static, and neither is our culture. To speak faithfully to it and to represent the gospel rightly, we need a living theology. As one writer puts it, “A church needs a living theology to be a truly Christian witness in the world. Such a theology must be constantly formulated to make the gospel meaningful in new settings and to guard against emergent new heresies. A church with a static or immature theology is easily led astray” [5].
If we fail to generate gospel-shaped answers to the new questions raised by culture, we will inevitably settle for cultural answers that may conflict with the gospel itself. Faithful Christian living is contextualization.
Contextualization and Cross-Cultural Mission
We also engage in contextualization when we seek to communicate across cultures. What we call missions is, at its core, an act of contextualization. As Paul Hiebert explains, “Building bridges between cultures is … the central task of missions” [6]. Just like the bridge we build from Scripture to our own culture, cross-cultural contextualization is not complete, and missions itself is not complete, until the gospel is fully incarnated in the language, setting, and cultural forms of the people we seek to reach.
The call for the gospel to speak in a culture’s voice is not the same as allowing the gospel to speak the culture’s own thoughts. A truly contextualized message is always culture-specific but must never be culture-bound [7]. When the gospel is understood within a culture, it will both affirm and confront. Some elements of the culture will be affirmed, others will be challenged. Certain aspects will be relativized, and others will be transformed [8].
We see this dynamic in Paul’s message to the Athenians. He quotes their poets and draws from Stoic philosophical categories, but he does so in order to confront their idolatry and proclaim Jesus as Lord [9].
A model for faithful contextualization can be found in the book of Acts, where the Jerusalem church wrestled with the inclusion of Gentiles in the Christian community [10]. Welcoming Gentiles as Gentiles, rather than requiring them to become Jewish converts, exemplified living theology in action. Key elements in that process included Spirit-led experience, fresh engagement with Scripture, and communal discernment [11].
When contextualization is carried out cross-culturally as part of missionary work, our communication must be receptor oriented [12]. This means learning and understanding the culture of the audience well enough to communicate the gospel in a way they can genuinely grasp. As the audience responds to the message, missionaries must help the receptor culture embody the gospel through church practices and Christian living that are appropriate to their context.
The missionary may serve as an advisor, helping identify what aspects of culture need to change. However, meaningful transformation—both in depth and in outward expression—must be led by insiders. Only someone within the culture can shape lasting and appropriate innovation [13]. As noted above, this process must be guided by the Spirit, rooted in Scripture, and discerned in community.
Conclusion: The Gospel in Every Tongue
When rightly understood, contextualization is simply communication. Whether God is speaking to us or we are speaking to others, the message and its meaning are truly conveyed only when they are understood and applied within a cultural context. The calling of individual Christians and the church is to fully embody the gospel in their own lives and to make it comprehensible to others so they too might respond and do the same.
Because God’s Word reflects his character, embodying the message fulfills our identity as his image bearers. In God’s great wisdom, these image bearers are not uniform. They form a colorful mosaic from every nation, tribe, people, and language, each offering praise to God in their own voice [14].
Bibliography
Ashford, Bruce Riley, “The Gospel and Culture.” In Theology and Practice of Mission God, the
Church, and the Nations, edited by Bruce Riley Ashford, 109-127. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2011.
Flemming, Dean E. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Hiebert, Paul Gordon. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1985.
Smith, Ebbie, “Culture: The Milieu of Missions.” In Missiology, edited by John Mark Terry, 235-
251. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015.
References
[1] Flemming, 19
[2] Smith, 243ff
[3] Ashford, 119
[4] Flemming, 21
[5] Hiebert, 207
[6] Hiebert, 229
[7] Flemming,138
[8] Flemming, 126-150
[9] Flemming, 79
[10] Especially Acts 9-10 and 15
[11] Flemming, Chapter 1
[12] Charles Kraft’s term, quoted in Hiebert, 163
[13] Smith, 247
[14] Revelation 7:9
