Are we sure we understand contextualisation? 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 contextualisation is just marketing? This article prompts me to ask that of myself once again. Part of the reason it is called critical contextualisation 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?
Curious Christian 
Leave a reply to Steve Hayes Cancel reply