If you have been around the blogosphere for any amount of time, you have probably heard of the term “contextualization.” The term has been thrown around by Christian theologians for a while now, but has come into prominent use in the last few years. But what is contextualization? Why is it necessary?

Introducing Contextualization
Contextualization is primarily used in terms of expression- such as in theological discussion, Gospel proclamation, etc.- though not always. It can also be used stylistically, including worship styles and even dress. Whether discussing contextualization in terms of expression or style, the basic idea is still the same- so I will discuss it generally, in regards to theology, and give an example of stylistic contextualization.

One of the best, though brief, treatments comes in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology, so I will be borrowing heavily from there.

What is contextualization? A general definition of it is giving a contemporary or culturally relevant expression of the underlying essence to something. Something is explained or shown within it’s own context. Contextualization, then, involves two things: 1)a grounding authoritative idea, and 2) a situation. Erickson is here using Paul Tillich’s terminology. Here, the authority is the Bible. Theology should be grounded in its source. It is the bible that gives us the source and essence of doctrines. Situation, as defined by Tillich and used by Erickson, is the art, politics, etc of a culture- “the whole expression of the mind-set or of the mood or outlook of a given society.” In other words, the situation is culture.

We can see how these two things interact by using a question and answer format. The culture asks a question, and the authority gives an answer. The culture gives an orientation to the answer, but the authority gives the content. What we must remember, however, is that the culture cannot change the answer but only give us a paradigm of explaining the answer. The point, then, is not to make the answer acceptable to all, but to make it understandable to all. This is all very esoteric- what does it actually mean for theology?

Contextualization and Theology
Theology has a setting. It has an audience. Our goal in theology in relation to the audience is to make Biblical teaching understandable. If we are unable to allow others to understand what we are saying, then have no communicated anything. Making something understandable is the goal of contextualization.

When there is an audience, there is necessarily a culture. The problem is in making something understandable, what role does culture play? Historically, there have been three ways of answering this question- two extremes and one middle ground.

Cultural Christianity, one extreme, says that theology is derived from already existing cultural values and beliefs. Doctrine is determined by what is already thought or believed. “We know that miracles can’t really happen, therefore the ones in the bible are pre-scientific myths.”

Non-cultural Christianity, the other extreme, believes there is a pure Christianity that is completely expressed outside of any culture. In a sense, this is actually naive cultural Christianity, because they are blinded by their own culture as informing their theology. What they mean by “pure” Christianity is really “how we see Christianity,” not realizing that their expression is informed by their values, beliefs, and particularly their language.

Contextualized Normativity is the middle ground position. It holds that the essence and truth of Biblical teaching must be maintained, though the expression of it is contextualized within a given culture. We must seek ways to communicate biblical teaching that it can be properly understood, yet we must also make sure that we do not make truth relative. As Erickson says, we must “clothe the timeless truth in an appropriate form.” This is the position I hold.

But how do we do this without changing the essence of the truth? How can we change the form without changing the content? We must analyze the culture. If we do not have a deep understanding of the culture we find ourselves in, then we will never be able to appropriately respond to that culture. This is important, because if we do not understand the culture thoroughly, we are liable to give the wrong expression- to use the question and answer analogy, we might be answer the wrong questions posed. For example, if our church is in a neighborhood that is predominantly illiterate or untheological, the phrase “Jesus is our propitiation” will have very little meaning to those in our context. Neither will phrases such as “hypo-static union,” or “eschatology.” The message will not be communicated, though it will be true as stated. Instead, we must meet them where they are at, and provide those same truths using terms, definitions, and analogies that are understandable to them. That is contextualization. After the message is understood, then you can begin to build, and use terms and labels that you deem helpful. We do not redefine propitiation and expiation in this context, but explain them in terms that the culture can understand.

Erickson gives us a decent analogy of this within the church. He has us consider a ladder. The top rung is what I call theological studs- people like Calvin, Augustine, and Wesley. Next are your “professional” theologians, then your theology students. The bottom rung is untrained laymen. True contextualization is when we can express the same truth at each level without changing the meaning of that truth. To reiterate, contextualization leaves the essence, truth, and substance unchanged, while adapting the form to be understandable.

Contextualization and Style
This is essentially the same as contextualization and theology, but in regards to stylistic differences. Instead of discussing everything again, I will give some examples.

A lot of people believe that part of “church” (defined as where we go and what we do on Sundays, not the biblical definition) is dressing up. They believe that it shows the importance of the message. And in most of their contexts, suits and ties probably do point out reverence and importance. But what about cultures and contexts where the only people wearing suits are dishonest businessmen, or perhaps the clothes worn only by oppressive regimes that order the pillaging of small villages. Certainly, “reverence” is not the emotion that would be given if rich white men in business suits were planting a church in a small, poor African village. And honestly, they wouldn’t fair to well in parts of my home state either. To put it another way, if your neighborhood is eating bread and rice everynight, it would be unwise to feast on caviar. Suits are not demanded in the Bible, so why are they demanded outside of contexts that respect them?

Another example might be building style. The early church met in houses at best, and usually in catacombs (or, to be contextual, tombs). This is a far-cry from “tradition” brick building with huge white steeples and stained glass windows of the western world. Neither does this match the adobe and straw huts from other areas of the world. And all of this is vastly different than the ornate cathedrals of the middle ages. Style is derived from context. It would just be weird if we were all wearing suits while meeting in catacombs and tombs anyways.

Brief Thoughts on Contextualization and Translation (Excursus)
Those who want to argue for a form of Christianity that exists apart from any cultural influence must overcome a huge obstacle: translations. Translations themselves are an exercise in contextualization- it is taking something, and rendering it in understandable expression. Consider this example. Someone asks me to tell them what the Bible says, literally. They want to know the very words of the Bible. This person is an average english-speaker. What good is it to quote to them from ‏בְּרֵאשִׁית of Genesis 1:1 to πάντων of Revelation 22:21? In order to make it understandable, I must first translate it into their language, and their language is based on their culture and context. This brings me to several points. The first point is that given that a person’s introduction to Christianity is going to be through their own language, contextualization is an inescapable reality. Though we might argue on the amount of contextualization that is involved, we cannot argue for the absolute absence of contextualization. The second point is that translation provides us with a clear picture of what contextualization is about. Here, the object is not to change the truth, but to capture the truth in a way that is understandable to a given context. This is exactly what true contextualization hopes to achieve. The third and final point is one for translators: translators must have a thorough knowledge of both the original language and the receptor language, or else we will be “answering the wrong questions.” Though I won’t take the time to get into translation theory here, suffice it to say that no language has a 1:1 correspondence, and any amount of translation requires a deep knowledge of how to communicate truth in a way that is understandable and clear without sacrificing any of the essence of the original. Translation is contextualization, and vice versa. Formal translations are a contextualization for one context, and Dynamic translations are a contextualization for another. Both are helpful, and needed.