Contextualization of the Gospel – Darrell L. Delaney

In seminary, one can study for a Masters in Divinity. This degree is comprised of biblical training and education to be a minister of Word and Sacrament. If this person took the raw education and experiences of academia to the world of urban ministry in its purest form, chances are the words, concepts, and terms would be widely misunderstood, rarely comprehended, and at times, hopelessly rejected. This, among many other reasons, constitutes a need for contextualization and therefore makes the need for contextualization of the gospel in urban ministry indispensable.

What is contextualization? It is the translation of form, meanings, and symbols of a particular culture into another, done in a vernacular they can understand. This can be done in a variety of ways, through song, dance, teaching, and drama. Contextualization is, in essence, a parable: a truth hidden in the indigenous culture that one must unearth and use in a way they understand and can receive. Darrell Whiteman, professor of cultural anthropology at Western Theological Seminary, states it this way: “Contextualization captures in method and perspective the challenge of relating the Gospel to culture.” [1]

Many questions come to mind when considering contextualization. One is: why contextualize, in other words is it really necessary for the gospel to be “translated” in this manner? Another is: how do we contextualize, or, what would be some steps one can use to critically contextualize? These two questions will be addressed in the remainder of this paper.

Why even bother contextualizing the gospel message anyway? Isn’t the message for all people? While the gospel may be for all people, it has to be contextualized in order to be palpable. When the “Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (Gospel of John, New International Version, Zondervan Reference Bible) [2], God in essence, contextualized his full and final revelation to us in the person of Jesus Christ. He went on through Jesus, to contextualize the concepts of the Kingdom of God in parables, using forms, meanings, and vernacular of the people he wanted to reach. He spoke it in their modern languages (most likely, Hebrew and Aramaic), so that they would understand him. If God had not done this, there would be no way the Jews of the time could understand Jesus as Messiah, or that salvation would come through the person and work of Christ.

Seeing that Jesus is our example and we should emulate him in every way, we should be contextualizing the gospel as well. If people do not do this, what are the alternatives? People will begin to proselytize their own culture as the supreme standard by which many will come to know Christ, especially if the indigenous culture’s practices are deemed “evil” or “pagan”. Paul G. Hiebart puts it this way: “Past missionaries often made the decisions and tended to reject most of the old customs as “pagan” (Hiebart, 1985, 184).”[3]

This tends to create problems in the culture of the people one is trying to reach. According to Hiebart this leads to three problems: “First, it left a cultural vacuum that needed to be filled, and too often this was done by importing the customs of the missionaries (Hiebart, 1985, 184).”[4] Ever hear of Reformed churches planted in the East with a Western culture? This is why. If an African church is started, is it right to make it Dutch as well? Is it right to make an urban church suburban? Do the indigenous people have to be culturally castrated to become Christian?

Paul Hiebart goes on to say, “A second problem with suppressing old cultural ways is that they merely go underground…In the long run when pagan customs are practiced in secret, they combine with public Christian teachings to form Christopaganism- a syncretistic mix of Christian and non-Christian beliefs (Hiebart, 1985, 184).”[5]

He continues, “A third problem with the wholesale condemnation of traditional cultures is that it not only turns missionaries and church leaders into police, but keeps converts from growing by denying them the right to make their own decisions (Hiebart, 1985, 185).”[6]

The reason why we contextualize the gospel cannot be stated better than what Darrell Whiteman dictates: “Contextualization attempts to communicate the Gospel in word and deed and to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people’s deepest needs and penetrates their worldview, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their own culture (Whiteman, italics his).[7] In other words, the indigenous people are allowed to “be who they are, in the Spirit of God.” This concept is golden and in my opinion, what God wants.

We must now turn our attention to the question of how. How should missionaries contextualize the gospel? One must become a student of the people and culture, paying close attention to detail in the area of forms, meanings, symbols, analogies, definitions of words, actions, and so on. It may take months, even years to be able to understand the underlying meanings behind the things of culture. One can never fully immerse into another culture, but noticing and paying attention to details will help see where God is using the things of the other culture. This process is called critical contextualization. This happens when ones who feel called to urban ministry move into the neighborhood and become a part of the community. Hiebart’s definition: “They (old beliefs and customs) are first studied with regard to the meanings and places they have within their cultural setting and then evaluated in the light of biblical norms (Hiebart, 1985, 186).”[8]

How is one to go about this? Hiebart explains in steps: “First, an individual or church must recognize the need to deal biblically with all aspects of life. Second, local church leaders and the missionary must lead the congregation in uncritically gathering and analyzing the traditional customs associated with the question at hand. In the third step, the pastor or missionary should lead the church in a Bible study related to the question under consideration. The fourth step is for the congregation to evaluate critically their own past customs in the light of new biblical understandings and to make a decision regarding their use (Hiebart, 1985, 186-7).”[9]

What does this mean? It means that the indigenous culture must use the lenses they have to help the missionary or pastor to see what they see. In addition, the missionary or pastor must connect biblical concepts to cultural ones. The native people will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable in the light of their newfound faith. This must be a collaborative effort.

In conclusion, it is impossible to evangelize in a vacuum. The gospel must be contextualized in order to be communicated effectively to any people or culture. God did it in the Old and New Testament, through various prophets, nature, and finally and most fully in the person and work of Christ. Even the Lord’s followers contextualized the gospel and had to address this very issue in the New Testament church (see Acts 15). The truth of the matter is that one does not have to culturally emasculate in order to become Christian. People must be allowed to be who they are in the Spirit of God, within the biblical framework of a Christian worldview. This is possible with the Lord’s help.

It is easier to understand what was just written in the context of foreign missions, but what about in the context of domestic ministry? Urban ministry is where contextualization of the gospel is needed most; where these methods and various others can be employed to win souls to the Kingdom. I am enlisted. Are you?

[1] International Bulletin of Missionary Research, “Contextualization: The Theory, The Gap, the Challenge”, http://firstsearch.oclc.org/html/webscript.html:%3Asessionid=fsapp2-36926-fs56a12l-b2kw77:sessionid=fsapp2-36926-fs56a12l-b2kw77:, Accessed March 10, 2009.

[2] Zondervan Reference Bible, New International Version, Gospel of John 1:14a, Accessed March 10, 2009.

[3] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 184.

[4] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 184.

[5] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 184.

[6] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 185.

[7] International Bulletin of Missionary Research, “Contextualization: The Theory, The Gap, the Challenge”, http://firstsearch.oclc.org/html/webscript.html:%3Asessionid=fsapp2-36926-fs56a12l-b2kw77:sessionid=fsapp2-36926-fs56a12l-b2kw77:, Accessed March 10, 2009.

[8] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 186.

[9] Paul G. Hiebart, “Anthropological Insights for Missionaries,” Baker Books, (1985), 186, 187.

Darrell Delaney is a graduate of Western Theological Seminary, with a Master of Divinity degree and the Graduate Certificate of Urban Pastoral Ministry.  Darrell has over 12 years of youth ministry experience.  Darrell looks to a future where he continues his studies at Calvin Theological Seminary, for his Master of Theology degree in Pastoral Care, and then toward PhD work in Practical Theology.

Darrell embraces the dual call of preaching and teaching in various contexts.  He is very passionate about the word of God and discipleship, and looks down the road to a pastoral call and teaching theology in undergraduate institutions – which could be sequential or simultaneous, paths toward which Darrell seeks to be open to what God makes possible.

He has been married for eight years to his lovely wife Kia, and they have two shining sons, Christopher, 4, and Tristan, 2.   For fun he enjoys games with the kids, quiet walks on the beach of west Michigan, reading, and basketball. Little known fact: Darrell has studied Taekwondo and made it halfway to black belt.