Contextualization is often misunderstood

Are we sure we understand contextualization? This afternoon I stumbled across an article on Reclaiming Contextualization by Dr David Sills, a Professor of Christian Missions and Cultural Anthropology.

David comes from a much more conservative background than myself, so our sensitivities differ somewhat, but I really appreciated some of his comments on contextualization which struck me as very thoughtful and balanced. Here is a sample.

"When someone argues that Paul never contextualized the gospel and so they do not either, it is obvious that someone has redefined the term contextualization."

"The problem is not the practice of contextualization; it is a misunderstanding of what the word means."

"...contextualization is simply the process of making the gospel understood."

"The only reason to utilize filthy language or to reference explicit sexual behavior would be if the local culture communicated used filthy language in every conversation so much that no message would make sense without it. Television programs without such language would require subtitles for them, as they would not understand the message without filthy language and sexual anecdotes. Of course, this is not the case. In fact, much of what many call contextualization is simply an effort to be trendy and edgy. It may be effective, it may attract a hearing, it may not be offensive to the hearers, but that is not contextualization; that is marketing."

"Because no missionary or preacher would ever want to change the gospel message in any way [Ed: there are subtleties to this that require reflection], many shrink back from the hard work of contextualization. However, if you do not contextualize, you are doing just that—changing the gospel. You become a modern-day Judaizer."

"The term glocalization refers to the ways that multinational corporations carry on the same business in many countries but with subtly nuanced changes. McDonalds still sells hamburgers in Malaysia but the girls behind the counter wear their little paper hats on top of their head-coverings and they call their product “beefburgers,” not hamburgers, to avoid offending the Muslims who would never eat ham. We don’t eat ham on our burgers either, but the culturally offensive name prevents Muslims from getting near enough to find that out. It is the exact same product but clothed in a culturally sensitive form. Contextualization is essential, not simply trendy or stylish, and it does not water down Christ’s message."

Critical contextualization provides the needed balance. On one hand, failure to contextualize at all adds extrabiblical requirements to salvation. On the other hand, allowing the culture to contextualize with no theological or biblical limits results in syncretism and aberrant expressions of Christianity.

This is where the hermeneutical community brings the needed balance. As the believers in a culture have come to know the Lord, they join the preacher in studying the Bible to know how to contextualize it among them.

When the preacher or missionary does not understand the culture, language, or rules of the game in a society, his presentation of the gospel is often offensive for all the wrong reasons. When hearers reject the cultural misfit who does not understand them or their cultural heritage, they also reject the gospel without even knowing it.

Of course, we must contextualize the gospel message so that our hearers can properly understand it. Shame on us if we ever debate that. The current debate may be over marketing techniques but let us never sacrifice the necessity of critical contextualization.

I recommend you read the rest of the article, but I will leave you with this thought: how much of what you call contextualization is just marketing? This article prompts me to ask that of myself once again. Part of the reason it is called critical contextualization is because we are called to critique ourselves. Before we throw stones at Driscoll or his detractors or anyone else, have we examined our own practice?

Comments

[Janet]

Just to add a nuance (probably one not intended)... I think it's worth noting that "marketing" is not a dirty word, unless it's done in inappropriate ways.

If you wanted to run some kind of community event, for example, you'd be wasting your time if you didn't have some kind of "marketing" strategy.

It's not the same as contextualisation... contextualisation involves a different skill set and drilling far deeper into the theological well, so to speak. I still think there's some overlap (understanding your "audience" is a skill that overlaps both areas).

[Matt Stone]

True, true, I agree marketing isn't all bad, there is a fair bit of marketing behind this blog after all! I think he is just pointing out that when call marketing "contextualization" we've devalued the word and made some theological blunders in the process.

[Steve Hayes]

I don't think that the McDonaldization of Christianity can be called "contextualization", and it is certainly not what it's all about.

When the word was first introduced it became a theological buzz word that people dropped into all sorts of conversations, whether it was appropraiate or not.

I had a friend who taught English to students at a seminary, and she once threatened to take things the lecturers said and use them as examples of bad English.

One of the heads of the seminaries said at a meeting that their teaching must be "context centred", and she called him on it, and said "The context is what comes before and after -- what on earth does 'context-centred' mean?"

I thought it was a useless jargon word, and tried to avoid it, because few of the people who used it (like that seminary professor) understood it or could explain what it meant. They sprinkled their conversations and academic papers with it to sound trendy and give people the impression that they were keeping up with the latest developments in the field, and managed to sound obscurantist because of their use of long words.

Then I heard Orlando Costas explain it, and it made perfect sense.

It is an image from textile (TEXTile, get it?) manufacture, where the warp is the threads that are stretched out on the loom, and the weft refers to the threads woven crosswise.

The warp represents the gospel, and the weft represents the life around us, which is woven into, up and over, down and under, the warp of the gospel. So "contextual" means that all life becomes part of the life of Christ as we live it, instead of separating it into "sacred" and "secular". It's a seamless garment.

The warp is the gospel of the kingdom, and the weft is our life and work and politics and economics and culture and agriculture and everything else, which are transformed and transfigured by the gospel.

[Matt Stone]

When people speak of "McDonaldization" they're usually talking of homogenization and efficieny. What the author was pointing out here is that even McDonalds cannot afford to be completely homogenous if they wish to compete in a diverse global culture. So tribalization is going on at the same time as globalization. I think the analogy is apt, as even though Christianity has a universal, transcultural message it needs to be culturally translated, localized if it is to be understood. I understand contextualization as nothing more than fancy academic shorthard for saying we need to be in the world but not of the world. Your illustration fits well with the 2D diagram I drew here: http://mattstone.blogs.com/christian/2007/07/can-you-be-too-incarnational.html

[Matt Stone]

An additional thought everyone: what does it mean to contextualize for low context cultures?

I am not sure how many of you are familiar with the term so here is a brief explaination: "The general terms 'high context' and 'low context' (popularized by Edward Hall) are used to describe broad-brush cultural differences between societies. High context refers to societies or groups where people have close connections over a long period of time. Many aspects of cultural behavior are not made explicit because most members know what to do and what to think from years of interaction with each other. Your family is probably an example of a high context environment. Low context refers to societies where people tend to have many connections but of shorter duration or for some specific reason. In these societies, cultural behavior and beliefs may need to be spelled out explicitly so that those coming into the cultural environment know how to behave." Source: http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html

Makes you think doesn't it? In fact I think it is even more complex. When you take subcultures into account I think its fair to talk of high context mircrocultures intermingling within a low context macroculture. Multiple levels of contextualization going on simultaneously!

[Hamo]

And another key qn here is 'what is core to the gospel and what is actually uinconsequential?'

I am tired of us getting het up about insignificant issues eg the odd dewar word and missing the core of the gospel.

Contextualisation will always be contentious among Christians because we see different issues at the core and periphery.

[Hamo]

That should have been 'swear' word... Bloody iPhone

[Matt Stone]

I had to laugh, after reading your comment I went off scanning for a past article, came back and only realized on the third reading that you'd said "bloody" and may be attempting irony. I totally missed it. Doh. As I said, my sensitivities are somewhat different to the above author.

Anyway, I couldn't find it but it differentiated between dogma (essential), doctrine (less essential but still important) and opinion (definitely less essential), making the observation that fundamentalists elevated everything to dogma and liberals wrote everything off as opinion. Nevertheless, while there are grey issues we'll all differ on, I think I'm safe to say the overwealming majority of Christians agree Christ is core and the colour of the carpet in the church sanctuary is periphery (at least on reflection, though some old ladies may disagree). I have readers of many denominations and theological readings engage with this blog and i am yet to find many that substantially disagree with that even if we may haggle over minor points

[brad]

Okay, Matt, since you asked what I thought, based on my recent post on contextualization, here’s a download of a few key thoughts/rants …

I find Dr. Sills’ article well-reasoned and extremely balanced overall. But then, I am by training a linguist, I reject the modernist myth of “cultural relativity,” and for 30 years I have been asking specific questions about the underlying difficulties in cross-cultural communication. Contextualization has been on my radar for a very long time: for communications in general, for missions, for church planting.

Besides the problems of modernist anthropology and theology that Dr. Sills addresses so well, I appreciate his emphasis on two other issues that could easily get clouded behind the intellectual issues involved.

First, we really have no common definition of the term “contextualization.” If we did, and if we used the definition and description Dr. Sills’ suggests, I suspect we’d be able to see more clearly that the current fight isn’t so much about real contextualization as it is about personal preferences for cultural styles and symbolisms. I worked at a theological conservative seminary from 1996-2007, and it’s clear enough to me that it’s at best a badly misunderstood term if the professors, students, and administrators even knew it.

(Sidenote: I find it ironic that the proponents and opponents mentioned in the article may actually contextualize for their own local audiences, yet want to superimpose – homogenize – their same homebase approach for national audiences.)

Second, we really don’t understand well the implications of not contextualizing. Our appropriate theological hesitancy to dilute or change the gospel message can actually cause us to do exactly that, as Dr. Sills notes: “Because no missionary or preacher would ever want to change the gospel message in any way, many shrink back from the hard work of contextualization. However, if you do not contextualize, you are doing just that—changing the gospel. You become a modern-day Judaizer. You are in effect telling your hearers that they must become like you to be saved.”

May I rephrase? We may be theologically motivated to communicate the gospel. But when it comes to communicating the gospel cross-culturally with critical contextualization, then ultimately WE ARE LAZY. That doesn’t mean we’re inactive or passive. Obviously, we’re quite active. It just means we choose to put our energies into other things than self-evaluation of how “incarnational” we are being when we seek to share the good news on the turf and in the terms of someone different from us. LAZY. It is convenient, comfortable, and easier to communicate according to our own default. It is convenient, comfortable, and easier to assume that those who hear us are like us. LAZY.

Look – I know that I fail on this very account. If you read my blog, you’ll find that probably 90% of my material is excruciatingly long, densely layered, often assumes details from multiple disciplines, and relies on complex interconnections among concepts. That’s because I wrote it for me as a way to process by myself, for myself, what I’ve been experiencing, questioning, reflecting upon. In most of my posts, I am the context I wrote for. That shows no critical contextualization. In that way, I show I have a lazy streak.

But, if/when I really want to ensure it connects with a broader audience, then it takes a lot longer to write the same material more simply and clearly – and probably takes twice as long to write it short! For instance, I think one of the longest posts I wrote with outside audiences in mind was over 6,000 words on issues related to the Lakeland Revival, and it took over 30 hours to produce it.

(Sidenote: My purpose in presenting blog posts without filtering them for any other person or culture is because my usual choice is to post something rather than nothing. I rarely have the energy to do otherwise, and definitely don’t have financial backing to cover the time involved. [However, how many non-contextualizers are full-time professional ministry people who are paid to prepare and then communicate? They perhaps at least have the possibility …])

A final note. In my opinion, critical contextualization is a hallmark of the so-called missional movement. In the most basic of terms, it means we are acting like cross-cultural missionaries in our own neighborhoods. As missional people, we use our own native language in sensitive ways culturally because we understand that our neighbors’ use of English does not carry the same systems of meaning or the same potential cultural heritage of Christian assumptions. And so, missional = intentionally incarnational = contextually cross-cultural in communications.

And there you go, because you asked … thanks Matt.

[Matt Stone]

Brad,

In response to your first sidenote, that was exactly what I was thinking when I penned my last comment on low context cultures. When we’re addressing national (or more, international) audiences, we’re inevitably dealing with a “low context” cultural context. That means we’re gonna have to explain ourselves more and be careful about our personal preferences and idiosyncrasies when we do so. I find that with blogging, given who I see my audience as. Though I have a couple of high context communities I engage with (emergents and pagans for instance) and drop all sorts of dog whistle comments, I am conscious that my audience is much, much wider than that. As I have become more experienced I’ve become much more reluctant to use insider language outside of closed forums, and much more conscious of the need to explain. Hence why I now have more FAQ pages and tend to be more explicit about where I am coming from theologically, even where jargon is unavoidable.

Now, I agree that “critical contextualization is a hallmark of the so-called missional movement” but it’s my observation that the missional movement does most of its contextualizing off line. What I see online is not so contextual at all, ones it is recognized that people beyond the missional movement are reading it too. I can cite a number of ironic instances where I saw non-Christians try to engage with missional conversations only to be rebuffed for intruding. This gets me wondering whether we understand contextualization either.