Biblical Support for Contextualization

When it comes down to it, Scripture and its principles are the foundation for all our thinking on the church. How refreshing that Scripture supports wholeheartedly the idea of contextualization.

Here are some arguments:

1) Paul circumcising Timothy in order to contextualize his witness to the Jews (Acts 16).
2) Paul adjusting his speech before the learned folks at Mars Hill (Acts 17).
3) The gospel narratives being written in different styles with different content (The gospels) (haha).
4) Paul teaching that he became all things to all men in order to win some (a slam-dunk) (1 Cor 9).

There are four very good biblical arguments for contextualization. The Bible nowhere presents one particular cultural approach to church and evangelism. The Bible gives trans-cultural principles that inform our witnessing and churching, but it nowhere lionizes any one culture and holds it up as sacred. So first century culture was not sacred, tenth century culture was not sacred, the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries were not sacred (ahem, Reformed types), and the 1940’s were not sacred. The culture changes, and that’s fine. We are free to match it, as we see in the New Testament. It is the truth that must remain. It must remain, and it must remain unchanged.

We are totally free, though, to adapt our churches to certain cultures to reach them. Let me give you another example that illustrates my point. If you wanted to be a missionary to India, you would likely study the culture of India. You would study its style of dress, food, social customs and so one before you went there. Then you would go, having adapted yourself to its culture as much as possible in order to be an effective witness and not erect needless stumbling blocks to the gospel because of food, clothing, etc. And–note this carefully–if you were going to Northern India, you would most certainly tailor yourself culturally in a different fashion than if you were going to Southern India. Though the regions are part of the same country (India, in case you’re struggling to follow), they have, I’m sure, different customs. What is typical in one region may well be taboo in another. You, in order to be an effective witness, would wisely tailor yourself accordingly in order not to be a stumbling block. Though the people of India may look similar and generally have some other similarities, you would have been wise to realize that there are in fact important cultural differences depending on where you go.

In the same way, we are wise to tailor our churches culturally in America. We would not plant the same style of church in Harlem that we would in Appalachia. That’s foolish. In the same way, we would not plant the same style of church in Cambridge, MA that we would in the potato country of Maine. In none of these churches would we cater only to one group of people. No way, just as the Indian missionary would not seek only Brahmins. But with the Indian missionary, we would wisely tailor our church to the culture in which we ministered. So far from being harmful, that would be wise.

I do hope that this is stimulating thought. The traditional church is undergoing a revolution in America, and it doesn’t sit easily with many at first thought. But this is a new era. Tomorrow, we’ll examine how things have changed in our culture, and how that changes the way we do church–though the foundation, the ground beneath our feet, is always the hefty concrete of God’s word.