Ed,
Thanks. I find the idea of "contending and contextualizing" to be very helpful. It seems like those who are extremely concerned with one fail to recognize their need for the other.

Missionaries around the world have stories of failures on both sides. Not enough contextualization can lead to communicating a false gospel. Others become so concerned with relevance that they never actually get to proclamation of the gospel at all.

I like the distinctions that Hiebert makes, but I think it's still ambiguous. I like to think that I practice critical contextualization, but someone else might say I'm a minimalist. And, of course, I would probably accuse him of being uncritical. It seems like it would be helpful to create some kind of paradigm like Travis' C1-C6 Continuum regarding ministry among Muslims. Has anyone tried to create something like that regarding North American Church ministry.

Ed, another great article. As a reflective practitioner who named his third child after Hiebert and Roberto de Nobili, I almost expect to find a major divergence with you eventually. But, so far, so good. Just a few comments . . .

You’ve written:

“Some of the ways we worship, how we present eternal truths, and how we live in and relate to society all must be considered.”

Not “some”, brother, ALL.

“What we find in the New Testament is that to be biblical requires contextualization.”

I just want to give a hearty, Bible-believing, Jesus-centered, Sanskrit-chanting, AMEN! . . . errrr . . . tathasthu!

“Yes, contextualization is a dangerous thing.”

Ultimately, this may be a statement that I agree with. However, I am tired of it being assumed (Gilliland’s “razor” and Travis’s scale) rather than demonstrated. Why is it that the practitioner of contextualization always has the burden of demonstrating the danger of non-contextualization while everyone just assumes that an essential relationship between contextualization and syncretism exists. Can it be demonstrated that those who are intentionally pursuing contextualization in mission (following Hiebert’s “critical contextualization”) are more likely to participate in and develop/encourage syncretistic practices that those who do not seek to contextualize? And, we need to be as careful to define syncretism (if we are desirous to warn people against it) as we are to define contextualization.

“Thus, contextualization is a tool. Clear gospel proclamation is the goal. We must not confuse the two.”

But so much more than a mere tool. I am convinced that the pursuit of contextualization should be understood as a spiritual discipline that is based upon a desire to imitate the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the Spirit sends us to the ends of the earth. I’d say that the “confusion” that you are warning against is actually to be desired. For there is no full proclamation of the Gospel without an experience of the “Word made flesh” in the particular context of our mission field. Without an true imitation of the incarnation by God’s ambassadors, can we say that the good news has been fully proclaimed and fully understood? Contextualization/incarnation is truly a goal – because it must be seen as an essential component of “clear gospel proclamation”. Dare I say, an essential component of the gospel itself – the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Hmm . . . but you may not be tracking with me on this last paragraph. It is something I’m still processing.

BTW, since I’m on payroll, let me add:

“I affirm the current version of the Baptist Faith and Message.”

Interesting series, Ed. Looking forward to more of it.

The culture/water/fish thing can be helpful, but we should note that some water is contaminated, and the fish who live in it are affected by it. Up here in the Detroit River, there are certain kinds of fish you don't eat, and certain kinds you limit yourself to X number a month. And pregnant ladies aren't supposed to eat any. So while we all live in culture, I wonder if we are not prone to accommodate ourselves uncritically to it.

On another note, do you have any thoughts on Marva Dawn's paradigm that the church must be both parallel and alternate? I forget exactly how it goes (I could look it up if I weren't lazy ... but I am contextualizing myself to a late Monday night after an afternoon and evening of yardwork) ... Something along the lines of parallel so we are not disconnected, but alternate so that we are not identical. The church is, in a sense, creating an alternate reality.

When I was brand new to the faith and very ideological, I questioned why we needed pastors or Christian leaders. I thought Christians could just spontaneously gather and be Christlike. The Bible and experience have clarified why the Lord calls people to be students of His Word and the culture in order to lead and communicate the eternal truths. But as mentioned above, Christ became contextualized as a man 2000 years ago in order to connect with people. The article above once again reminds us the Christianity and faith are contextualized by the very nature of Who God is and how he made us. So the church by her nature of being in time and space is contextualized. The struggle we have comes when we institutionalize the Christian sub-culture to the point that we no longer communicate God's Person, nature and love to the broader culture.

#&#! if You Do and #^%$ if You Don't.

Ed wrote, "Yes, contextualization is a dangerous thing. It is also a necessary thing. Without contextual considerations, we do not transmit the gospel, but we transmit more of our cultural adaptation of that gospel."

And Cody Lorance wrote, "Why is it that the practitioner of contextualization always has the burden of demonstrating the danger of non-contextualization while everyone just assumes that an essential relationship between contextualization and syncretism exists."

Bosch, in his third of seven ideas of contextualization (Transforming Mission 426-32) says: the dangers of total relativism in local theologies equal the dangers of absolutism, especially if that absolutism comes from outside the culture. (paraphrased)

Dangerous if you do, dangerous if you don't. Sadly enough, but in realistic terms, the burden of proof is on the side of anyone wanting to re-evaluate contextualization. Changing a well established system of thinking meets resistance - Jesus found that out.

Can Jesus' questioning of Jewish (contextualization) traditions give us freedom or even responsibility to question and change Christian (contextualization) traditions to fit a changing culture setting and system? Maybe we need to sensitively move forward in the Spirit and hope and pray others will pour out the grace and mercy the gospel actually requires.

Martyn, I haven't gotten that far in Bosch yet. It's on the list.

As to your last two paragraphs, you are either too articulate or too inarticulate for me to follow. I'm honestly guessing the former since you've read Bosch.

Anyway, I am actually okay with defending contextualization. It is healthy and helpful to me as it keeps me a reflective practitioner. But I am going to start questioning and calling for clear demonstration of the assumed contextualization-syncretism relationship.

Bryan,

Yes, there has been an attempt to talk about the Emerging Church related to the C1-C6 contextualization scale. You can find the paper here.

Cody,

I used "some" in relation to church practices because I think there are some practices of church that are better considered as universal and trans-cultural. One easy example is baptism. It is hard to come up with a way to contextualize it. It just is what it is. Another would be public reading of scripture. There are nuances in many cultures, but a baptism tends to look like a baptism in each culture.

And, I am glad you affirm the statement of faith. But, since most of my readers are non-Baptist, they might think that is contextualized! ;-)

Larry,

I would say that all of the water is contaminated and stained by sin. The thing we have to discover is how do we live in it while not becoming stained by it.

Ed

I could think of a number of different components of Baptism that are and should be contextualized. Including:

1. What you call it (this is a language/translation issue -- why do we insist on a Greek transliteration in English, Nepali, Hindi, etc. instead of an actual translation?)

2. At what point an individual is baptized?

3. What baptismal elements will be used (including environment, clothing)?

4. What will be said by the one being baptized and the one doing the baptism?

5. What about the audience? Who will they be and what is their role?

6. What will be done kinesthetically? (involves issues related to physical touch, gender role separation, etc.)

7. What theological themes should be stressed? (e.g. baptizing really does carry a different kind of weight and meaning to a Hindu than a person with no religious affiliation).

On public reading of Scripture:

1. May it only be read or could it also be chanted or sung? May seem like an easy question for one context. However, I've face quite hostile opposition for my choice to chant (more contextual) Acts 4:12 (for example) rather than to simply read it atonally.

2. Can it be read sitting, standing, walking, etc? (Again, I've faced actual controversy over this).

3. Who can read it publicly? (issues of gender, generation, and even caste must be considered)

ALL of these points touch on real and important cultural issues that I have personally had to wrestle with as a cross-cultural church planter. That's why I prefer the "all" to the "some." I cannot conceive of any practice of any Christian community that isn't already contextualized to something and that thus shouldn't be contextualized when making disciples and planting churches cross-culturally.

. . . Cody . . . step away from the Stetzer blog . . . do it now.

Cody,

I'm not convinced. ;-)

Baptism is taking people and dipping them under water. How we do it is a contextual issue.

So, I'm with you on every one of those issues are contextualization issues (and good ones). My point is that there are "some" things related to church are universal marks of the church. How you practice them is contextualized in "some" ways and not in others.

But, I do think there are universal marks. The application and practice of such marks are often contextualized.

So, we should read scripture (universal). How/who/when you read it often a contextual issue.

Hence, my use of the word "some" rather than "all" when it comes to the contextualization of church practices.

But, ultimately, I can make your argument as well if I put it this way, "There are biblical marks that are to be contextually exercised." Seems we agree on the issue but might describe it differently.

Ed

Cody,
It is my intentional vagueness, but also being too inarticulate that caused you to not clearly understand my meaning.

Everyone contextualizes the gospel - we cannot not contextualize the gospel. Those who feel they have the right, yet absolutized gospel resist the idea of re-visiting the issues of contextualization.

I'm also a practitioner, but overseas. Continue to contextualize, even if I don't agree with you, it is my heart to give you a latitude of love and not to criticize, but maybe to discuss. :)

Sometimes we think that since the Spirit is in the church, the church can't go wrong. Some say we should not criticize the bride of Christ and believe there can't be anything basically or essentially wrong; the wrong attitudes of the world is the problem. Even early in the church (Corinthians) things were going wrong, and the 7 churches in Revelation also had problems. Maybe we have traditions we call Biblical, but are actually cultural that need to be changed?

contextualization - you live in Nashville area, that's why your church should do COUNTRY MUSIC on Sunday morning.

Hi Ed,

This is an important topic that certainly needs to be discussed and resolved. I wrote a short piece on theological contextualization a couple of years ago that can be accessed here: http://www.stfmag.com/theological-contextualization/

I agree with Grant Osborne that “it is important to note that what they [missiologists] call ‘contextualization’ is identical to what homileticians call ‘application’”

This puts the focus of the contextualization discussion on hermeneutics since hermeneutics determines application.

But I want to comment on your statement "it seems we are also commanded to contextualize in 1 Corinthians 9:22-23..."

I don't think we should promote the idea that this passage contains a "command" to contextualize. I can't find an exegetical basis for teaching that Paul is "commanding" all Christians everywhere to "contextualize." Can you explain why you are sure that 1 Cor. 9:22-23 commands us to "contextualize?"

Good point... that is probably too strongly stated from that verse alone. Though Paul did say to imitate him. ;-)

But I think that contextualization is described enough in scripture that I see it as a prescribed practice for churches (see my comment about returning to the New Testament approach).

Feel free to weigh on the alternative.

Ed

Ed,

I just have to love that "contending" and contextualizing" in order to "communciate" the gospel in a language or style (form) without compromising stuff. Thanks for the reference, you are a great friend. Keep up all the great writing on contextualization!

Ed,

Not only do we have the example of Paul saying he does it, but he does do it at Mars Hill. He follows the master teacher as well as his disciples who wrote contextualized gospels for clear communication in context without compromise. Weren't the gospels evangelistic tracts spoken and written in different contexts to different cultures and peoples?

Jim

Perhaps I missed it, Ed, but is there a definition here of what you mean exactly when you use the term "contextualization?"

Great article.

I think that all Christian movements will disagree on how or how far they should contextualize in culture. Most Christian movements seem to agree on the absolutes of scripture that we are to contend for. Therefore, I feel strongly that if each Christian movement would be "fully persuaded" in their own minds what they believe on contextualization, contend for the absolutes in scriptures that most Christian movements agree on, not judge "another man's servant"/movement but by faith believe that they are purely from the heart serving the Lord, then I think the world would be a better place. Just some thoughts. JB

Jim,

Good point about the gospels themselves being written to different audiences.

All,

Great discussion.

I am looking forward to part 3.

Ed

Three glaring contextual mistakes that are actually accommodation. Two from long time ago, and one not too long ago. Sycretism has its risks.

Christmas
Easter

Prohibition

Agree?

Where have we not contextualized? Here are two? Trying to hold on to a 1600 translation of Bible, and holding on to exposition/or expository preaching as "the" biblical style of preaching rather than advocating storytelling in postmodern contexts. Just thinking.. just saying.

Ed,

Yes, I think we do agree and are simply wording it differently -- though I think my wording (and your alternative version) is important. I'd say (and I don't think you'd disagree) there are indeed many marks of the church that are universal (beyond the cultus - baptism, communion, Scripture reading. Also fellowship, prayer, mission, etc) and all these marks are always contextualized to something.

That's a point that people need to grasp, everything is contextualized to something(s) - and that, 100%. The question "how far do we go" is the wrong one. We always go all the way. We cannot but do so. The question is will our contextualization be intentional, fitting to the particular context we find ourselves in, and helpful in facilitating the kind of communication that is necessary for true disciple-making.

Ok. Peace.

Great article + comments. Here are
a few pertinent quotes I have used
in my own writing on this issue as
I work in the USA and South Asia:

“The gospel always comes to people in cultural robes.
There is no such thing as a ‘pure’ gospel, isolated from culture.”
David J. Bosch in Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.

“Again, if Christianity be an universal religion, suited not simply to one locality or period,
but to all times and places, it cannot but vary in its relations and dealings towards the world around it, that is, it will develop. Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence.” John Henry Newman

Richard Twiss notes: “Syncretism can be described as a way of thinking that says by performing or participating in a particular religious ceremony or practice, you can alter the essential human spiritual condition in the same way that Jesus does, through His death on a cross, burial, and resurrection from the dead, because they are parallel truths and both equally acceptable in the eyes of God; thus can be considered the same thing and combined together.”