Contextualization is not just for the "mission field."

Over the past 12 years, I have trained and been trained in contextualized approaches to evangelism and discipleship in my specific church planting context. However, my mind was expanded in these few pages to see the need of contextualization in all aspect of ministry. Contextualization is not just for the mission field. If we believe that contextualization is only a missionary’s tool, then we will miss our calling to reach the nations at our door and understand Scripture in its fullest context. Dean Flemming1 asks this provocative question, “How should the church inculturate its faith when increasingly its field of mission is not just a single target culture but a multi-faceted cultural mosaic?”

Much of the reading holds up Paul as a model of contextualization. Paul is equally shown to contextualize his message for the Jew as for the Greeks. Previously, I viewed missionaries as the only ones that needed to contextualize; the local pastor, ministering within his home community doesn’t need to contextualize. This error follows from 2 incorrect premises: first, that a culture is 100% homogeneous and second, the Scriptures do not have their own local context.

First, no culture is entirely homogeneous. All cultures are divided at least by generations and genders. Any minister working within his home culture has the responsibility to contextualize biblical teaching. Granted, some situation may be more challenging than others. Some communities may contain distinct languages, cultures, and stories. Other communities might be less diverse but never entirely devoid of diversity. The more common situation is a homogeneous church surrounded by a diverse community. Here, many churches are blind to their need of contextualization the gospel. They pay the bills just fine without it. Many churches find themselves in situations like this. Some are in denial or unwilling to change, while others are willing to change but lack the training to contextualize for other worldviews. Have missionaries also been blind to the need of the American church and see “stateside” time as their time to rest and raise funds for their ministry? Have we (missionaries) become too focused on the “ends of the earth” and forfeited our witness to our “Jerusalem”?

Second, the Scriptures shouldn’t be read as if directed at any culture today. How have I not seen this before? We all must seek to contextualize Christ’s teaching in our lives and for the lives of others. There’s no good ministry without good contextualization. Interestingly, I live and work among Arabic speaking Muslims, which linguistically and culturally have more similarities to cultures found in Scripture, than anywhere in the West. We work hard to contextualize the gospel for our “missionary” context; however, the gospel might be better understood by a Chadian-Arab in its raw form than an American-postmodern.

The need to contextualize is ever-present. Paul is a great example of this. He presents the same gospel to different worldviews in different ways. He adjusts his starting point based on the culture and education of his hearers, but he still arrives at the gospel of Jesus with all he evangelizes. The gospel is big. It is impossible to delineate our culture’s version of the gospel as the “real gospel”; God created every culture to praise him. The guilty come to God seeking forgiveness, the helpless come to God seeking power. The gospel is both. 

1: Flemming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and

Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2005.