How should Masai tribes people recently converted from animism worship God as Christians? How should we preach Jesus to Muslims on the Indian subcontinent, where some biblical phrases like "Son of God" are widely misunderstood? Is it valid for former Buddhists to continue past meditation practices after conversion to Christianity? How far should North American churches go in accepting music popular in youth culture? All these questions deal with the matter of contextualization.
How can the unchanging revelation of the eternal God find expression in the diverse and changing life of human beings? The church has a vital challenge to communicate God's salvation in the con text of the world's many religions and cultures. People can respond only to a message they clearly hear in their own context.
Contextualization was not born in the ivory-towered halls of the great universities or in the studies of theologians. It comes with urgency from the front lines of mission, where those communicating Jesus struggle to tell the gospel story. Proclaimers want animists, Buddhists, Muslims, the secular minds of the West and elsewhere, rich, poor, slave, free, Jew, Greek, all to hear the message clearly. The question is so urgent it must now become the concern of all Christians, from lay member to church pastor, from mission president to university professor, from foreign missionary to home missionary.
Factors requiring contextualization
Four factors in our world make contextualization particularly necessary right now actually, an issue of present truth.
First, the worldwide Christian missionary movement must be cross-cultural. To reach the world in a global mission, missionaries must meet people where they are. The unreached cannot be won unless the gospel comes to them in harmony with their own thought patterns.
Second, travel, immigration, and communication advances over the past decades have internationalized the world and the church. We are no longer isolated entities able to live our own lives and think our own monocultural thoughts. In this global city, Christianity must show that it is a world religion.
Third, the development of anthropology and sociology has led to greater awareness about other peoples. This has heightened sensitivity to their cultures. When recognizing others as children of God, fully equal to ourselves, it is hard to maintain a sense of cultural superiority. Rather, we have a new desire to communicate the gospel in a way that allows local cultures to remain true to their heritage.
Four, cross-generational communication in a rapidly changing society involves cross-cultural communication; the older generation faces major challenges in communicating with their own children and grandchildren. We must learn to communicate meaningfully to our children in their subculture so they do not hear truth as dead, irrelevant orthodoxy.
Biblical basis of contextualization
Contextualization by its very nature involves risk. Are there principles in God' s Word to guide us? Consider 1 Corinthians 9:19-23: "For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I be came as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law though not being myself under the law that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." *
Note, first Paul's action of contextualization. He becomes all things to all people. Seeking to reach Jews, Gentiles, and those with weak consciences, he incarnates himself in these cultures. The apostle clearly does not forsake his principles (note verse 21), yet he regards contextualization as his very mission, a fulfillment of the "law of Christ." The previous chapter (1 Cor. 8:9-13) offers additional insight into Paul's strategy.
Notice, second, Paul's attitude of contextualization. Though free from all, he has made himself a slave to all. The easiest path is always to avoid contextualization and simply follow one's own culture, Paul says that theoretically we are free to do so. However, he rejects the easy path and makes himself a slave to others. It takes work and humility to be all things to all people, but Paul is following the path of his Lord, who, according to Philippians 2, took the form of a slave in order to contextualize Himself as a human and communicate with us.
Ponder, third, the aim of contextualization. He aims to "win the more" (verse 19) or "save some" (verse 22) for the "sake of the gospel" (verse 23). To lose sight of this aim is to turn contextualization into an empty intellectual exercise.
Contextualization is also clearly espoused by Ellen White.1 She states that the usefulness of Gospel laborers who follow such principles would increase a hundred fold.2
With such a need in the world and a definite inspired mandate, how should we proceed with contextualization? To that issue we now turn our attention. We will deal first with the spheres of contextualization, followed by the methods and models that explain the process. Then we will examine guidelines to help us discern where God is leading in contextualization and ways to guard against dangers. Finally we'll consider a case study to illustrate how contextualization has worked in my ministry.
Spheres of contextualization
The three major spheres where gospel contextualization can take place are church life, ethics, and theology. Church life includes the realms of hymnody, architecture, worship style, ecclesiastical structure, methods of governance, decision-making, etc. Ethics involves the standards and moral life of the church. Theology includes doctrinal beliefs, statements of faith, and explanations about God. While to some extent these areas overlap, each presents its own special challenges. Contextualization should take place in all three spheres.
Should Zambians be required to hold worship services based on a North American pattern? Should the order of service, the songs sung, and the use of time be the same in Africa as they are in America? I think not. Zambian worship should fit within the Zambian context.
Should Muslims be told about Christ and the Trinity in the terminology of Western Christians, or in terms they can relate to? Language not directly abhorrent to Muslims can be found to express the essence of the gospel. By judicious use of Bible passages that do not offend, combined with a knowledge of Jesus from Muslim sources, a valid contextualization in the theological sphere can take place.
A strange anomaly exists. Tradition ally for Adventists the theological sphere has been the central core of our identity. The ethical sphere is a close second, while church life would clearly be third in the minds of most. This seems to imply that contextualization in church life is the easiest and that contextualization in the sphere of theology would require the most care and effort. In real life the opposite is often true. Adaptations for the sake of the gospel in church life are often harder for people to relate to than theological contextualization.
The present controversy in our church over "celebration" worship is an example of this. Practicers of celebration worship do not see themselves as changing church ethics or theology. Others, upset at this movement, have tried to move this matter of church life into the theological sphere so their critiques can gain credence. A fellow Adventist pastor remarked that it would be easier in his church to preach a new viewpoint on one of our fundamental beliefs than it would be to change the order of service!
Church life is hard to contextualize because it is visual and affects the way people actually live their lives. Theology, on the other hand, is not as concrete and visible in daily life. Whether we are dealing with church life, theology, or ethics, God has called us to communicate our message in a powerful, contextualized way for the sake of the gospel, even if we meet with misunderstanding.
Methods and models
Here are three principles that govern contextualization:
1. A difference exists between form and meaning. Form refers to the outward act or object that transports the inward concept which is the meaning or con tent. Think of it this way: Form is like the pipe; meaning is the water passing through that pipe. All of life and religion have both form and meaning; the two go together. Both form and meaning change over time, even within a single culture. Absolute biblical meanings can be expressed in different forms.
Cross-culturally, of course, having different meanings for the same form is a major problem. For example, silence is a form of human behavior. The silent person in many Eastern cultures is seen as profound and deep, full of wisdom. In most of the West, however, silent people are perceived as backward, introverted, perhaps slow-witted or even angry. The form silence is the same, but the meaning given that form radically varies by culture.
The wedding ring is a form with varied meanings. For years North American Adventists shunned it as a violation of Christian principles regarding adornment. Most European Adventists, however, have regarded the ring not as jewelry but as a symbol of deep commitment to the Christian wedding vows. If the meaning we see in the ring form is sinful adornment, wearing it is wrong. But if the meaning is a commitment to principles related to Christian marriage, it is not wrong.
Properly evaluating any belief or practice requires examination of both form and meaning. Contextualization requires that we ask: Does this issue deal with form or meaning, or both? Has either form or meaning changed over time? Does either need to be changed? What does this form mean in another culture?
Answers are not always easy, but separating form and meaning can help us understand many issues that have faced the church as times change and we meet other cultures.
2. Contextualization is a translation process. When church life, ethics, and theology are translated into the target culture so that receivers can "read" Christianity in their own environment, contextualization is taking place. In a most basic way, translating the Bible into various languages involves interpretation and thus contextualization. Muslims seek to avoid this contextualization to this day there i no true authorized translation of the Koran. It can only really be understood in Islamic theology by those who know Arabic.
The theory of how translation should be done has changed over the years. Not long ago, literal or "formal" translations were the rule. Many came close to word for-word translations. The American Bible Society has convinced most Christians to day that dynamic equivalence translation: are best. The idea is that the essential thought should be translated rather than simply all the words. A slavish word-for-word translation may in fact distort the meaning of the original, because of differences in grammar and word order.3
Contextualization in presenting the gospel should follow the same rules used by good translators. Styles of worship, marriage customs, and statements of belief should all go through "translation" when the gospel goes into another culture.
3. Contextualization requires a "trialogue"—a three-sided conversation among proclaimers and their culture, receivers and their culture, and the Bible.
Much early mission work took place in a straight line that went from the Bible through the missionary to the target group. The proclaimer made the decisions about the message and delivered them as a pack age to the hearers. If the missionary was sensitive, there might be some feedback so that the action was reciprocal. If not, the missionary produced carbon-copy Christians living as aliens in their own country.
Some suggest that the proclaimer must set up a dialogue between Scripture and the missionized so they can discover God' s will and express it in their culture. While this is an improvement on the straight-line method, it remains deficient. First, it is an ideal that is not possible: usually the mes sage comes first through a living cross-cultural evangelist; if not it comes through a translated Bible from a cross-cultural missionary. Second, when people become Christians they become part of a multicultural, universal, worldwide church, and theology must be shared. The unity of the body must be maintained.
I suggest that the best vehicle for contextualization is a trialogue an on-going three-way conversation among the Bible, the missionary, and the missionized Thus theology, ethics, and church life can be contextualized to the receivers' situation while remaining consistent with Bible truth and with worldwide members in other cultures. Such a trialogue not only contextualizes the theology of the missionized but in fact enriches the theology of the missionary. At the same time it preserves the centrality of Scripture and the unity of the body.
This trialogue is not done only once but is a continuous dynamic process that under the Spirit's guidance leads to an ever clearer vision of God's will.
Dangers of contextualization
The process of contextualization faces two major dangers. The first is superficiality. This can arise from ignorance or insensitivity. Sometimes a few outward forms are changed, but a deep awareness of the receivers' values and culture never takes place. The few who become Christians do so by converting culturally to the ways of the missionary, thus becoming strangers in their own land and ill-fitted to reach their own people with the message of Christ. The brand of Christianity practiced be comes increasingly irrelevant to the needs of people. As one young man said: "What the preacher said sounds nice, but I never get the idea he is really talking to me." The eternally relevant gospel is perceived as irrelevant, not on the basis of what it really is, but on the basis of the cultural baggage contained in its presentation.
The second danger is syncretism, the mixing of differing beliefs. That happens when contextualization has gone so far that it has lost its Christian principles. Form and meaning have been captured by the culture, and the essence of Christianity is lost. Instead of Christianity using the vehicle of culture to communicate its message, culture has taken over Christianity to use the faith for its own aims. In our attempt to communicate with culture, we must take care to preserve absolute biblical principles. The church must constantly guard against these two extremes in contextualization.
Guidelines and safeguards
How can we safeguard contextualization from syncretism?
1. Maintain close connection with the Scriptures. Continually check the direction of contextualization in every sphere with the whole counsel of God's Word.
2. Pray for and trust in God's leading. The Holy Spirit has promised to guide us into all truth. We must believe that pledge and really allow Him to lead.
3. Check our motives and attitudes. Are we truly trying to give the Gospel as clearly as possible, or are we just making excuses for laxity? Do we have the mind of a servant, or are we just pushing our own agenda and culture?
4. Consult the community of believers. Often individual decisions are not good ones, reflecting only one viewpoint. The church is a body; there is wisdom in hearing what the Spirit is saying to the whole body.
5. Realize that over time, truth surfaces. Sometimes haste forces wrong decisions. Allow the Spirit time to bring about right ones. Sometimes questionable decisions are reversed as we allow God time to operate.
6. Maintain concern for the weak. Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 says that we become all things also to the weak. The weak in this context refers to those who are bothered by certain changes taking place in the church. Committed contextualizers always consider the feelings of their brothers and sisters and try to relate to them while also relating to those who need to hear the gospel.
Case study
How does all this work out in practical circumstances? Illustrations could come from any place, even subcultures in North America. For me, the clearest example comes from my own mission experience. In the mid-1970s we were working with the Hmong people in northern Thailand. Most Hmong people are spirit-worshiping animists, and in our area they had had no previous genuine contact with Christianity. The first challenge we faced was presenting the gospel in a way that spoke to their real needs. Traditional Western ways of presenting the good news of Jesus did not work.
Theology contextualized
In the West we usually present Jesus in one of three different ways: 1. Jesus is the answer to guilt, able to pardon our sins and enable us to overcome them. 2. Jesus loves and cares for people who haven't experienced love. 3. Jesus gives meaning to life now and offers eternal life.
None of these three approaches scratched the Hmong where they itched. To them, shame posed a larger problem than guilt and sin. Sacrifices to get rid of sin already existed. They experienced love and care in their extended, close-knit family groups, so loneliness and lack of caring were not a major issue. The notion of "meaning of life" was abstract, and they already had some hope for a hereafter in their religion.
Continued contact and discussion with the Hmong convinced us that Jesus Christ was extremely relevant to them in two ways: First, they lived in constant fear of the spirits who they believed caused misfortune, crop failure, sickness, and death. Jesus Christ had power over these entities. This biblical theology had little relevance to Americans but powerful meaning for the Hmong. Second, the Hmong believed in a high God, and they knew His name but little about Him. They were eager to learn more and discover that He has a Son who cares about their fear of the spirits and has power to conquer them.
This contextualized gospel brought numerous Hmong to immediate faith in Christ. Many decided to follow the living God after only one hearing of the gospel. They rid their homes and their bodies of all the spirit-related charms and paraphernalia used for generations. They joyfully looked for the Second Coming, when they could see this Jesus.
Ethics contextualized
As this new phenomenon of Christianity entered Hmong life, many questions arose as to what it meant to live as Adventist Christians. One had to do with the circles of silver that both men and women wore around their necks. To Western missionaries the circles looked suspiciously like necklaces and hence jewelry or adornment. Did these silver circle forms have the same meaning for the Hmong? There were no banks in their remote villages. Some said the circles were the safest and easiest way to store money a kind of safe deposit box in place of the local savings and loan. Would we be accused of making theft easier if we suggested that the circles of silver be removed? What should we do that would uphold the principle of nonadornment and stewardship and yet be sensitive to the Hmong culture?
We arranged with local Hmong pas tors and leaders that the members them selves should decide what to do. First, we reviewed together the Bible teaching on adornment and jewelry. We then discussed available options. After a season of prayer, we opened the matter for discussion and debate in the body of believers. I purposely excused myself from the dialogue. I felt that I had already done what I could and it was time for them under the Spirit's guidance to choose what they should do.
The members pondered the matter for quite a long time before reaching their decision. They determined to not wear the circles of silver on a day-to-day basis, judging that even in Hmong culture the circles were more adornment than they were safe-deposit boxes. On festival occasions, when donning traditional costumes for the Hmong new year, they would wear the circles as a part of that costume in that case, they were more like a pin or tie tack than jewelry.
Everyone was satisfied with the decision. No grumbling took place because they had made the decision and outsiders had not imposed it. Clear Bible principles had been translated into Hmong culture by the Hmong themselves.
Conclusion
More than 2 billion of the world's population will hear the gospel only if cross-cultural missionaries make themselves servants and become all things to them. From tribes in Africa to heavy-metal rockers in the "jungles" of New York City, from the sophisticated professional to the troubled teenager next door, people desperately need to hear the gospel in a context they can understand. Who will humble themselves and become incarnate as slaves for the sake of these souls? Who will go through the hard, risky business of contextualization so others may clearly hear the gospel?
*All texts are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
1. See especially the books Gospel Workers (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1915), pp. 117-119; Testimonies for the Church (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn., 1948), vol. 2, p. 673; and Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1980), book 3, p. 217.
2. Gospel Workers, p. 119, par. 3.
3. Charles H. Kraft, Christianity in Culture (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1979), pp. 261 -275.
