EMQ » October–December 2019 » Volume 55 Issue 4
By Brian A. DeVries
Which method of contextualization best serves the ministry situation in which you are serving? The field of contextualization is broad, with a vast diversity of definitions and models and methodologies.1 Evangelicals have accepted the term contextualization and have carefully refocused its meaning.2 There are now many useful models of contextualization from which to choose. For example, in his definitive book on the subject, A. Scott Moreau surveys 249 evangelical models and proposes a map for understanding and assessing this radically diverse collection of contextualization methodologies.3
Thus, a wide variety of helpful contextualization models are now available for gospel ministry. But, clearly, there is no one-size-fits-all solution; the diverse collections of options are not equally valid or useful or effective in all contexts. Many methods are specific to the context in which or for which they were developed. Furthermore, not all contextualization methodologies are equally acceptable or faithful to Scripture and gospel witness. The present ongoing debates among evangelicals,4 and the recent contributions of questionable non-evangelical contextual theologies,5 demonstrate that more research and much more discernment is needed in this important area. The question of this article, however, is more practical: how does one choose the best method for his or her ministry situation?
From a practical perspective, the ministry context or situation is a key determining factor in choosing the most effective contextualization method for a specific application. The constraints of each specific ministry context must significantly influence the choice of methodology. It is helpful, therefore, to organize the various contextualization models and methods based on the ministry context for which they are designed. The purpose of this article is to consider six distinct ministry contexts, each of which require a different contextualization methodology. Admittedly, this is a deductive approach with a very practical orientation;6 I will not attempt to include representatives for all models. Rather we will create a practical functional framework—based on the contexts of ministry—for organizing and assessing the vast array of contextualization models and methods.
X-1: Incarnational Contextualization
The first context to consider is also first in the logical order of missional ministry progression: the incarnation of gospel witness in a missional context. This type of contextualization is common in at least two significant cases: (1) the Word become flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14); and (2) as Christ was incarnated into the human context, so we who are called into cross-cultural ministry also seek—in a less radical and less amazing manner than our gracious Lord—to be incarnated into the sociocultural context of the people group to whom we are sent. Like Christ (the Word), we (sent ones) leave our natural contexts (sending culture) and go into other contexts (receiving culture) to share the gospel. In both cases, we call this incarnational contextualization.
Let’s analyze the underlying concepts of this mode of contextualization: the agent of contextualization is the missionary who is called to live cross-culturally in a context different from their own. The object to be contextualized is the person of the missionary—her lifestyle, language, thinking, and even values and emotions; in short, every aspect of the worldview must be contextualized at least in part. The stage for this activity of contextualization is the sociocultural setting in which the missionary serves, especially the new audience for gospel witness. The flow of this contextualization is linear and one-way; the missionary adapts her practice to the culture of her audience.
An example in the Bible of X-1 is explained with the apostle Paul’s familiar words: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.” The ultimate goal of X-1 is to “win” people for Christ from among all nations, to be used by the Spirit to “save some,” and to participate with the nations in the blessings of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). Missionary biographies covering the past two millennia are replete with excellent examples of how faithful men and women have followed Paul in so far as he followed Christ in X-1. The literature gives us many faithful models for X-1; the struggle is usually not how to do it but rather with our need for grace to be faithful as we do it.
X-2: Missional Contextualization
For the missionary to be faithful to the message of the gospel, a second mode or context of contextualization must immediately follow the first. So X-1 is logically followed by missional contextualization, which I have labeled X-2. This mode of contextualization takes place within a missional context, and it requires what has been called third-horizon hermeneutics.7 It involves the communication of the gospel message (the Word) by the missionary (sent one) to a person (receiver) in the local sociocultural context (receiving culture).
The underlying concepts of X-2 are well known: The agent of contextualization is again the missionary who is living cross-culturally. The object to be contextualized is the message of the gospel. The stage for this activity is the sociocultural setting in which evangelism of non-Christians and discipleship of new Christians takes place. The flow of this contextualization is also linear and one-way; the missionary speaks the eternal unchanging Word in a specific and changing local context. In practice, however, this official one-way gospel proclamation is greatly aided by a dialogical two-way conversation between the Sent One and the Receiver.8
The goal of X-2 is to accurately communicate the gospel, within a different language and sociocultural context, in such a way that is understandable and without any unintended distractions or misapplications. Biblical examples of X-2 (and its challenges) include the preaching of Paul at Lystra in Acts 14:6–18, communication that was at first misunderstood. This incident highlights the importance in X-2 of third-horizon hermeneutics and faithful Bible translation. Evangelical literature abounds with faithful models for and insightful reflection on X-2.9 It is helpful, however, to keep in mind the crucial distinction between X-1 and X-2: in X-1, the person of the missionary must be incarnated and adapted to fit into a new culture, while in X-2, the truth of the Bible must be translated unchanged into a new language.
X-3: Ecclesial Contextualization
When the Lord blesses cross-cultural missional ministry, a third mode or context of contextualization will logically follow. New believers are gathered into local churches and faithfully discipled so that, by God’s grace, a maturing church is established in a new sociocultural context. Evidence of the new church’s spiritual maturity includes the practice of self-theologizing, the confessing and teaching of biblical truth (Word) by indigenous people within the local church (receiver) in the language and worldview of the local context (receiving culture). This modified context requires a modified method of contextualization, which I’ve called ecclesial contextualization since it happens within the thinking and teaching of a local church.
In ecclesial contextualization, the agents who engage in contextualization are indigenous Christians from the local culture, ideally guided by the spiritual leaders of the local church. The object to be contextualized is still the message of the gospel, motivated by a sincere desire to improve the local teaching and confession. The stage for this activity is within the church, often by second or third generation believers. The flow of this contextualization is cyclical, as a hermeneutical spiral. In this way the indigenous church refines its collective Bible knowledge and confession of the gospel.
The goal of X-3 is to improve the accuracy of the local understanding and application of biblical truth (theology), to answer to local questions that challenge biblical thinking (apologetics), and to confront the sin of local traditions (prophetic preaching). The church in Berea, after being planted by the Apostle Paul, is a biblical example of X-3 (Acts 17:10–12). Evangelical literature also abounds with faithful models of X-3.10 It is important to note the vital distinction between X-2 and X-3: while X-2 logically precedes in ministry progression, X-3 is an indication of a more mature ministry environment.11 The missionary is no longer directly involved in X-3, and so the process no longer involves third-horizon hermeneutics.
X-4: Reformational Contextualization
The fourth context of contextualization involves the outward-facing ministry of a local church. When a church is faithful, its members will engage in gospel witness—both by words and deeds—within their own community and public space. This missionary activity of the local church in its own particular sociocultural context is different from X-2, the cross-cultural gospel ministry of a missionary. So it requires a different method of contextualization, which can be called reformational contextualization.12
In reformational contextualization, the agents are faithful members of the local church who are guided—again, ideally—by their spiritual leaders. The object to be contextualized is the public witness of the church in the world, which is tailored to the specific needs and issues within its particular sociocultural context. The stage for this activity is the public space and community surrounding the church. The flow of this contextualization is both linear and dialogical: it is dialogical as a prophetic conversation between the indigenous believers and the local culture; but it is also linear as a prophetic proclamation of the gospel’s truth claims to local unbelievers and their unchristian cultural practices.
The goal of X-4 is to speak against sin in the culture and social structures of the local community, to answer contemporary challenges to the claims of the gospel, to preach the gospel in the language of contemporary culture to the felt needs of people in that context, and to be used by God to reform local society and rebuild it on a gospel foundation with a Christian worldview. The church in Rome is a biblical example of X-4; the Apostle Paul thanks the Lord that their “faith is proclaimed in all the world:” (Romans 1:8; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:6–10). There are other excellent examples of X-4 in church history, including many Protestant churches during the European Reformation of the sixteenth century, and the revivals in England and America during the Great Awakenings that eventually led to an end of the Atlantic slave trade and the great century of Protestant missionary expansion.
X-5: Reflectional Contextualization
A fifth mode of contextualization is often the byproduct of faithful X-1 and X-2 that is motivated by X-3: it describes the changes that take place in the missionary’s own worldview. The worldview differences in cross-cultural ministry, which may initially cause culture shock and other reactions, should lead to careful and humble reflection by the missionary (sent one) about his own worldview (sending culture) and the sociocultural context in which he is ministering (receiving culture). This contemplation is a feedback mechanism, usually resulting in some changes in the missionary himself, which can be called reflectional contextualization.
The underlying concepts of X-5 are different from the modes of contextualization already considered. The agent in X-5 is again the cross-cultural missionary himself. The object to be contextualized, as in X-1, is the person of the missionary. But unlike X-1, this reflection and the resulting changes are often much deeper within the missionary’s worldview due to a more mature understanding of both his sending culture as well as the receiving culture. The stage for X-5 is usually very personal—within the missionary’s thinking and perhaps his family—and it often causes tensions such as reverse culture shock. The flow of this contextualization is again linear as the missionary adjusts his worldview and becomes multicultural.
The goal of X-5 is to grow in our understanding and application of biblical truth and to mature in multicultural ministry. The Book of Acts gives much attention to X-5: a relatively large number of verses are devoted to explaining how the Apostle Peter, together with the whole New Testament church, learned that the gospel was for both Jews and non-Jews (Acts 11:18, cf. Galatians 2:11–14). A classic example of X-5 in evangelical literature is Paul Hebert’s “Flaw of the Excluded Middle.”13
Note that X-5 could be grouped as a subset of X-6, global contextualization, the final context of contextualization to be considered next. But I decided to keep it separate and place it first for several reasons: (1) it is vitally important in our missional practice as an antidote to ethnocentrism in practice, (2) it logically precedes global contextualization and is often the precursor to effective X-6, (3) it is a linear flow as a feedback mechanism rather than being a dialogical or organic process of contextualization, and (4) it changes the missionary (sent one) and not necessarily the missionary’s culture (sending culture) as in X-6. So it is better to keep X-5 distinct and consider it first.
X-6: Global Contextualization
The humble conversation among many mature churches from various cultures results in global contextualization, the final context for us to consider in our functional framework. This conversation takes place in many ways:
- When sending churches humbly listen to receiving churches to learn from them how to be more faithful and effective in gospel ministry (similar to X-5 but on a broader scale).
- When all churches wisely reflect on church history, carefully learning from the experiences of those gone before, humbling correcting the mistakes and weaknesses, and thus standing on the shoulders of others and they continue to serve Christ in their generation.
- When networks of churches from various sociocultural contexts engage each other in order to further refine the collective understanding and confession of the gospel.14
In global contextualization, the agents are believers within the international church community. The object to be contextualized is the aspects of each of our own sending cultures and the gospel message understood and confessed within it. The stage for X-6 is global, ideally the whole body of Christ everywhere in every local church. The flow of this contextualization is cyclical and organic, the conversation among Christians within all cultural contexts.
The goal of X-6 is maturity and unity in the worship and witness of each local church. We desire that all churches “attain to the unity of the faith” and knowledge of Christ (Ephesians 4:13, cf. 1–16). This process of X-6 will guard the Church—both locally and globally—as it continues to think God’s thoughts after Him and practice His deed more faithfully.15 The classic biblical example of X-6 is the gospel defense by the young multiethnic Antioch church at the Jerusalem Council (Act 15:1–31). Delegates from this church argued against those who insisted that non-Jewish believers must keep Jewish traditions; the Antioch delegates argued that justification was by faith alone (cf. the message of the book of Galatians). Thus the Holy Spirit used Antioch’s gospel defense to refine the theology and confession of the whole church.
Using the best tool for the job
Evangelical missiology does not need another new method for contextualization. We are not looking for another golden key to unlock an envisioned door that seemingly hinders the rapid progress or massive success of our gospel ministries. The challenge in our ministry practice is usually not with deciding if or when to contextualize, but rather it is often more practical: the challenge of choosing the best method for my unique ministry situation. We can often feel overwhelmed by the available options. While certainly more work must be done to refine some of the existing contextualization methods, there are already enough good options available to us. Furthermore, this refining work (by research, in practice, and with spiritual discernment) will be greatly aided if the present methods can be better tailored to suit the particular context of ministry in which they are employed.
When I was younger and helping at home, my father taught me the value of using the right tool for each specific job. The right tool is helpful, not only because it often makes the job easier, but also because it usually produces a better result. With this analogy in mind, the available collection of contextualization models and methods can be seen as a toolbox of instruments that all should serve to assist us in gospel ministry. But the various contexts and situations each call for a specific tool, a specific methodology. Thus it is wise to identify carefully the right tool for the specific task at hand.
The choice of a tool (i.e. which methodology for the specific context) depends on several factors. There are essential criteria: is it biblical (is it faithful to God’s Word and biblical hermeneutics)?; is it ethical (does it promote Christian witness and Christian values)?; and is it missional (does it support the cause of my specific calling within God’s mission)? There are also functional criteria (is it useful?), both conceptually for personal understanding and teaching others, and practically for ministry practice and guiding local Christians. Our choice of methodology seeks faithfulness and functionality for the specific circumstance in which the specific work needs to be done.
Which tool is best for the work you are doing? Or to repeat the initial question of this article: Which method of contextualization best serves the ministry situation in which you are serving? We don’t need another new method for contextualization. Rather, we just need to reorganize the toolbox, hopefully in a more helpful way, so that we can more carefully choose the best tool in order to be more effective in our ministry work.
Brian A. DeVries (PhD) serves as Principal and Senior Lecturer at Mukhanyo Theological College in KwaMhlanga, South Africa. He has planted three churches in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as Visiting Professor in Missiology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, United States, and as Senior Lecturer at North West University in Potchefstroom, South Africa. He and his wife Lanae have four children.
1. For several well-known classifications, see Robert J. Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985); Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1992); Dead S. Gilliland, “The Incarnation Matrix for Appropriate Theologies,” in Appropriate Christianity, ed Charles Kraft (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2005), 493-519; and Charles Van Engen, “Five Perspectives of Contextually Appropriate Missional Theology” and “Towards a Contextually Appropriate Methodology in Mission Theology,” in Appropriate Christianity, ed Charles Kraft (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2005), 183-202 and 203-226.
2. For a concise summary of this history, see several related articles in Evangelical Dictionary of World Mission, ed. A. Scott Moreau (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000): Dean Gilliland, “Contextualization,” 225-227; Harvie M. Conn, “Indigenization,” 481-482; and John Mark Terry, “Indigenous Churches,” 483-485.
3. A. Scott Moreau, Contextualization in World Missions: Mapping and Assessing Evangelical Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2012. This book is very helpful, not only for its comprehensive scope, but especially for its academic reflection on the history of this field and various factors in the discussion.
4. Two prominent examples of this debate are (1) the differing evangelical perspectives represented in the views of Charles Kraft and Paul Hiebert, summarized well in Moreau, “Contextualization” (2012), 77-98; and (2) the extended discussion of “how far is too far” in Muslim evangelism, summarized well in Timothy Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 193-218.
5. Consider, for example the divergent contributions surrounding missions and wealth as reviewed in Henning Wrogemann, Theologies of Mission, Intercultural Theology, vol. 2, trans. Karl E. Bohmer (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 293-305.
6. Moreau has already made a thorough and definitive inductive study in this field: “Contextualization” (2012). This article builds on Moreau’s study, as well as the work of several other helpful evangelical categorizations of contextualization methodology: David J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989); Marc Cortez, “Context and Concept: Contextual Theology and the Nature of Theological Discourse,” in Westminster Theological Journal 67.1 (2005): 85-102; and Marc Cortez, “Creation and Context: A Theological Framework for Contextual Theology” in Westminster Theological Journal 67.2 (2005): 347-62.
7. “The first horizon is that of the biblical documents or, as some would have it, of the first generation of Christian believers as that perspective is preserved in the New Testament. The second horizon is ours—i.e. that of established Christians who seek to understand the Scriptures. … Contemporary discussion of mission, however, goes a step farther and deals with the ‘third horizon’ — viz, the horizon of understanding of the group or people being evangelized.” Donald A. Carson, “Church and Mission: Reflections on Contextualization and the Third Horizon,” in The Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson, 213-57 (Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1987), 218.
8. For further discussion about this distinction between one-way gospel proclamation and two-way evangelistic dialogue, see Brian A. DeVries, “Witnessing with the Holy Spirit: Pneumatology and Missiology in Evangelistic Theory” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Seminary, 2007), 291-294.
9. A favorite book for many missionaries is David J. Hesselgrave, Communicating Christ Cross-Culturally, 2nd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1991).
10. Much has been written about the so-called fourth self: self-theologizing. Paul Hebert’s critical contextualization works well in this context.
11. For more on this distinction, see Brian A. DeVries, “Towards a global theology: Theological method and contextualization” in Verbum et Ecclesia 37.1 (2016), 8-10.
12. I’ve used the term reformational since the result of this activity is the social and spiritual reformation of the local community. It could also be called transformational contextualization, but the words transform and transformation are often used more broadly and could confuse the precise focus of X-4.
13. Paul G. Hiebert, “The Flaw of the Excluded Middle,” in Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 189-201.
14. As Hiebert teaches, “Just as believers in a local church must test their interpretations of Scriptures with their community of believers, so churches in different cultural and historical contexts must test their theologies with the international community of churches and the church down through the ages,” Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections (1994), 103; see also Paul G. Hiebert, “The Missionary as Mediator of Global Theology” in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity, eds. Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, 288-308 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 305-308.
15. Note that faithful X-6 does not lead to further fragmentation and confusion, but rather a “unity of the faith” and maturity in Christ (Eph 4:13). As D.A. Carson argues, “Instead of appealing to the principles of contextualization to justify the assumption that every interpretation is as good as every other interpretation, we will recognize that not all of God’s truth is vouchsafed to one particular interpretive community—and the result will be that we will be eager to learn from one another, to correct and to be corrected by one another, provided only that there is a principled submission to God’s gracious self-disclosure in Christ and in the Scriptures.” Donald A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 552; see also DeVries, “Towards a global theology” (2016), 10-11.
