Contextualization in Mission
The term contextualization
was first coined by Shoki Coe and Aharoan Sapsezian in 1972 at
WCC report on ministry of context in the circle of the
Theological education Fund (TEF) with a view particularly to the task of the
education and formation of people for the church ministry.[1]
It
was mandated as a response to the widespread crisis of faith and the urgent
issues of human development and social justice; the dialect between as
universal technological civilization and local cultural and religious
situations. Contextualization is not simply a catchword but a theological
necessity demanded by the incarnational nature of the Word.[2]
It implies all that it involved in the term indigenization, which
normally relates to traditional cultural values, it also deal with contemporary
socio-economic, political issues. The very word of contextualization identifies
with two type of theology namely indigenization and socio-economic model. These
two have different aspect the former is more toward inculturation mission,
later on evolutionary.
Contextualization in mission is the effort made by a particular
church to experience the gospel for its own life in the light of the word of
God.
S.D Ponraj
states Contextualization as ‘the means to translate or interpret the gospel and
its implications in terms of the needs of the whole man and society.’ In
mission practice visible aspects of contextualization were closely related to
older terms such as Accommodation, Adaptation, inculturation and
indigenization. But the term contextualization tended to raise the fear of
Syncretism.
Dan
Gilliland defines contextualization as a tool “to enable,
insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus
Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human
situation. Such a tool is necessary because while the human condition and the
gospel remain the same, people have different worldviews which in turn impact
how they interpret themselves, the world and the things you say.”[3]
According
to F. Hrangkhuma, “Mission is always context, it take place in
concrete cultural and geographical situations.” When tracing back to the root
of doing mission, one could not turn from the creation itself, the church must
focus on God’s purpose and be able to understand the contextual issue and their
significant.
Aspects
of Contextualization
There
are three main aspects of Contextualization;
1. Contextualization
is a witness; the each local church is the media to witness about Christ.
2. Contextualization
in evangelistic method; usually our evangelistic method is not the evangelistic
method of Contextualization, it should be used the method of music, dance,
television and etc.
3. Leadership
and the Church; suitable leader is very much essential in the church; leaders
must be contextualize in all the aspects of the church activities. Leader must contextualize the church into the
likeness of the indigenous people for the better growth. Church also should contextualize finance for
the self-support and should take care of the poor in the church. The worship style of the church also must be
contextualized to the life style of the people.[4]
Motives of contextualization
Some
of the motives of Contextualization are:
·
Because of the
task in which we are engaged, in order to fulfil the mission, therefore,
contextualization is important.
·
To train the
preacher to understand the people, so that people will understand and the
message.
·
Because of the
cultural differences.
·
In order to
understand the context of the church.
·
It can be aid to
the communication.
·
Because culture
is constantly changing and varying.
·
Change of
attitude.
·
Appropriate forms
of communication.
Contextualization and Mission
The goal of mission
The
goal of mission is to carry out the activities of God’s salvation throughout
the whole world, bringing the kingdom of God into existence. Mission must be to
heal sick, to feed the hungry, to give shelter to the homeless, to stop unjust
oppression in the society but the one who is also moved by a sense of
obligation to make known the gospel of salvation goes much deeper. Also it is to witness about Christ in such a
way that men will put their faith in Him, and the church of Christ will be
established and built up. This is the
goal that includes both evangelism and teaching.[5]
Contextualizing the Gospel
To have an effective communication
response and better presentation of the gospel, the gospel communicators must
have a depth in root in the likeness of the people ‘where and to whom’ he/ she
is presenting. Gospel should be
presented in the context of the people without changing its core meaning and
value of the message. It must be addressed to both religious aspiration and
socio-economic and political problem faced by the people. For such a culturally
relevant interpretation, the local Christians are the best interpreters and the
missionary should identify to teach and train such people. There need to be certain commitments on the
part of the Gospel interpreter which will enable him/her to safeguard the
Gospel from the dangers of syncretism and universalism.[8]
Interpreting the Gospel to the context
In
this, the question has to be asked how the Gospel can be present in effective
and meaningfully to the boundary of the people.
To present the Gospel relevantly and meaningfully without changing its
core meaning, the presenter must convey its message basing on the context of
the people. Interpreting the gospel always relevant to the culture of the
interpreter will have no effect to the listeners.[9] In this aspect there is no such best culture,
according to the cultures of the people and context, Gospel has to be
interpreted. As Jesus lived His life within the confines of a culture and
context, and so also the Gospel can find relativity in any culture that exist
in the world.[10]
The Church and the contextualizing of the gospel
In the final analysis, the
Contextualization of the gospel is not our work but God’s. It is only as the word of God becomes flesh
in the life of the people of God, that the Gospel takes shapes within
cultures. According to God’s purpose the
Gospel is never to be merely a message in words but a message incarnated in His
church. If the church is to reveal Christ within culture, it must first
experience the reality of Christ’s death with regard to culture.[13]
The task of the Church is not the extension of a culture Christianity
throughout the world, but the incarnation of the Gospel in each culture. The
contextualized churches are ‘dynamic translations’ that produce in their own
society the same kind of impact as that which was produced by the early church
in the history. The Contextualization of the Gospel can only be a gift of grace
granted by God to a church that is seeking to place the totality of life under
the lordship of Christ in its historical situation.[14]
Contextualization and its Importance
Contextualization cannot take place unless Scripture is read and
obeyed by believers. This means that believers will study the scripture
carefully and respond to their cultural concerns in light of what is in the
biblical text. But scripture is something that is outside and must be brought
into the cultural setting to more fully understand what God is doing in
culture, and to find parallels between the culture and the Bible. The missiological significance for contextualization is that all
nations must understand the word as clearly and as accurately as did Jesus’ own
people in his day.
Diverse Approaches to Contextualization
a. Adaptation Model: One of the earliest
approaches was to make historical – theological concept fit into each cultural
situation. Traditional ideas were the norm and these are brought to the local
culture. The faulty assumption here is that there is one philosophical
framework within which all cultures can communicate, assuming that other forms
of knowledge are not legitimate.
b. Anthropological Model: The beginning
point is to study the people concerned. The key to communication and pathways
to the human heart and spirit lies in the culture. The assumption is that
people know best their own culture. World view themes, symbols, myths are
repositories of truth for all people. While this is true, unless discernment
about a culture is brought to the word for affirmation or judgment the
contextualization exercise can become distorted and misleading.
c. Critical Model: The critical aspect of this
approach centres on how features of traditional culture are brought under the
scrutiny of Biblical teaching. Here the culture and the Scriptures are
evaluated concurrently in the search for new ways to express belief and
practice
d. Semiotic Model: It is the Science of “reading
a culture” through signs. Semiotic can be used as a tool in order to study the
traditions of the church in a process of opening up both the local culture and
Christian practice.
e. Synthetic Model: This model brings four components
together: The Gospel, Christian tradition, culture and social change. These
elements are discussed together using insights of the local people. Also there
must be recognition of sharing insights with the outsiders. Each contributes to
the other while each maintains its own distinctiveness.
f. Transcendental Model: This model does not
concentrate on the impersonal aspect of theology, that is, to prove something
“out there,” but is primarily concerned with what any truth means to the
subject and the members of the subject’s community.
g. Translation Model: Based on translation
science, the nearest possible meanings of the original text are sought out in
the receiving culture. Attempts were made to identify the kernel or core of the
gospel which then would apply to all cultures.
Challenges within Contextualization
These are the following challenges in contextualization when it
loses in its new cultural, contextual soil by forgetting the essence of the
truth and Gospel.
a. One has to be careful to recognize the danger involved in
existential contextualization which takes the context of religious pluralism
seriously but moves away from the centrality of Christ and the triune God.
b. Over emphasis on contextualization tends to universalise the
particularities of the Christian faith. The reality of Jesus Christ is either
reduced to mere historical Jesus or lifts Jesus of history to the ideal of
cosmic Christ.
c. The principle of complementarity espoused by these attempts reduce
the reality or the possibility of truth.
d. There is the progressive absorption. i.e., all
claims to supra-cultural uniqueness and finality is absorbed by naturalistic
and humanistic ideas and practices. “Nature finally eats up Grace”.
Indian contextual mission
With the changes of times and context, there is a call
for continuous rethinking of what mission is and how it need to be pursued. In
India, the socio- economic, political and cultural situation is changing.
Moreover, to be able to respond to the situation. One need to reflect
theologically in context. The major challenges in India for the church
and its mission is to overcome exclusion. Exclusion is present everywhere in
the world, in particular India. Exclusion in other word is caste system in India. The people who enjoyed the benefit of it’s would
never understand the need and desire of those belong from lower strata. Most
exclusion is felt by the so called outcastes i.e., the Dalit. The challenge
presented here is to build the bridge between divided groups. An inclusive
community has to be the priority of mission of the church.
[1] David J.Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in
Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis Books, Maryknoll, 2006), 527.
[2] Bruce J. Nicholls, Contextualization: A Theology of Gospel and
Culture (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1979), 21.
[3]
www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2014/october/what-is-contextualization.html
(Accessed on 22-11-17)
[4] Donald R. Jacobs, “Contextualization
in Mission’’, ed., James M. Philips and Robert T. Coote, Towards the 21st
century in Christian Mission (Michigan: W.M.B.Eerdsmans Publishing Company,
1993), 34.
[5] Harold R. Cook, An
Introduction to Christian Mission (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 69.
[6] J. Sahi, “Culture in Relation to
the Mission”, Mission Today Oct-Dec, 1999, Vol.1, No.4 (Shillong:
Vendrame Institute Publication, 1999), 322.
[7] Ibid, 322.
[8] S. Devasagayam Ponraj, Church
Growth studies in Mission (Tamil Nadu: Bethel Bible studies Publication,
1988), 81.
[9] Rene Padilla, “The
Contextualization of the Gospel,” ed., Charles H. Kraft and Tom N. Wisely, Reading
in Dynamic Indigenity (California: William Carey Library, 1979), 288.
[10] Donald R .Jacobs, Towards the
21st century in Christian Mission…, 236.
[11] Ibid, 237.
[12] S. Devasagayam Ponraj, Church
Growth studies in Mission…, 65-66.
[13] Rene Padilla, The contextualization
of the Gospel,” ed, Charles H. Kraft and Tom N. Wisely, Reading in Dynamic
Indigenity…, 306-307.
[14] Ibid, 307-308.
.jpg)
.jpg)
