Contextualization: Compromise or An Inevitability?

Responding to criticisms and concerns in the PCA about attending to the context of our gospel ministry

Many in the PCA treat a desire among the “missional” wing of the PCA to contextualize as a progressive drift that accommodates culture and forsakes fidelity to Scripture and our standards out of a desire to be liked by the world. This criticism is unfair to those seeking to contextualize their ministry faithfully because it fails to properly understand what contextualization aims to do and why. What these critics interpret as a failure to embrace our standards is actually just a difference in pastoral judgment, that is, a difference in how we move from our standards to pastor and evangelize the people in front of us.

So what is contextualization? Given Tim Keller’s influence on our denomination and beyond, it makes sense that we’d primarily explore what he teaches about contextualization in his books Preaching: Communicating Faith in and Age of Skepticism and Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry. All of the quotes below can be found in these two works.

Defining Contextualization

Missiologists explain that contextualization means, “to resonate with yet defy the culture around you…to antagonize a society’s idols while showing respect for its people and many of its hopes and aspirations…expressing the gospel in a way that is not only comprehensible but also convincing.”

Keller explicitly defines contextualization as: “giving people the Bible’s answers, which they may not all want to hear, to questions about life that people in their particular time and place are asking, in language and forms they can comprehend, and through appeals and arguments with force they can feel, even if they reject them.”

Commenting on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, Keller points out that, “Most acts of communication have the goal of not merely expressing information but affecting the beliefs, actions, or emotions the one(s) receiving them. Everyone uses rhetoric to some degree…choos[ing] vocabulary and metaphors that illuminate and compel.”

In short, he argues that everyone seeks to persuade [c.f. Paul in 2 Cor 5:11], but we must not do so in ways that do not serve but usurp the text of Scripture. Yet, contrary to those who embrace a purely confrontational model of evangelism and exhortation based on 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, Paul “reasons and seeks to convince his hearers rather than merely contradict them.”

We should take “some of [our hearers’] right beliefs and use them to criticize their wrong beliefs in light of the Scripture…show[ing] them that their beliefs fail the test of their own premises….[for] Paul [did] not merely seek to refute them, but also to respect them.”

Keller makes it clear that we can over adapt our message and end up distorting the Christian message. This IS a dange, one the Modernists and others before and after them have done. They adapted Christian beliefs to make them palatable rather than confronting, and this is not faithful to God and His Word.

But we can also underadapt or misadapt as well, which is the mistake of many churches today that say true things, but in ways and with language, reasoning, etc. that doesn’t make sense, is distant/alien, and won’t persuade contemporary hearers. Often this looks like embracing an exclusively confrontational model of ministry that shows little to no concern to actually undersand our hearers.

So everyone contextualizes (makes choices about how to speak, reason, and illustrate), but some do it better and/or more faithfully than others. Those that reject contextualization are still doing it, but they’re doing so less consciously.

Summarizing Faithful Contextualization

So what are examples of good and faithful contextualizing?

1. Using vocabulary that is accessible or that is well-explained to your hearers

2. Employing respected authorities and commonly accepted ideas to strengthen your thesis

3. Demonstrating an understanding of doubts and objections

4. Affirming the God given desires inherent in baseline cultural narratives in order to challenge the idolatry and distortions therein

5. Making gospel offers that push on the culture's pressure points

6. Calling for gospel motivation

Conclusion

What, if anything, is wrong about contextualization when understood in these terms?

I have yet to hear anyone respond with criticism when contextualization is understood in this way. What often gets criticized is ministry that fails to maintain the balance of faithful contextualization. Or, in many cases, contextualization is criticized by those who have adopted a purely confrontational model of ministry in regard to secualr people while demonstrating the patience and care contextualization calls for when dealing with more religious people.

If critics in the PCA believe contextualization is wrong because we ought to adapt a purely confrontational model of ministry, then let’s argue about that. But it’s unfair and unhelpful to label all attempts at contextualization as compromise rooted in a desire to be liked by the world.