What culture is the church that you attend? Is it “biblical” culture, or American culture? You may read that question and be a bit confused – are they different? The truth is that every church looks a lot like the culture around it, and not so much like first century culture. And that’s a good thing. If we lived like first century people, the church would be, well, irrelevant. The Bible does say that the gospel causes offense (1 Cor 1:18, 1 Pet 2:7-8; Gal 5:11), but what should be offensive is the gospel message, not the way that it is proclaimed. This is called contextualization.

In its simplest form, contextualization means putting the gospel into a form that is understandable within a particular cultural context. The core of the gospel message is unchanging, but the “clothes” that it wears may change depending on the context. This means that believers in the US might wear jeans, meet in a large building, and use a guitar, while believers in Africa might wear tailored and brightly colored outfits, meet outside under a tree, and use drums. However, both preach that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

Hudson Taylor was one of the first to realize the importance of contextualization, though he realized it in the way he presented himself. When he went to China in the early 1800s, missionaries wore European clothing. However, these missionaries were not making much headway, and ended up rather isolated from the very people they were trying to reach. Hudson Taylor, however, decided to wear Chinese clothing and grow his hair in the traditional Chinese style. He had much more success in evangelization because of this change. Hudson Taylor contextualized himself into Chinese culture. He changed what he wore, but not who he was at his core.

Missiologists who study missions and the best way to bring the gospel to new cultures have started to consider contextualization on a scale – the C-scale. This scale goes from 1 to 6. The first three levels are dependent on the culture of the missionary. How much does the newly planted church reflect the missionary’s culture? The second three levels are actually dependent on local culture, and even local religions. How much have local religious forms been adapted to Christianity?

At level C1, there is basically no contextualization. The missionary brings his or her own culture along with the gospel. Early missions often functioned this way, requiring people to wear Western clothing, meet in a Western-style building, and sing Western songs. While they did bring people to Christ, the presentation of the message was often an obstacle for new believers. C2 contextualization means that some small things have been changed – perhaps wearing local clothing and translating from a trade language to a local language. It is slightly more effective, but still quite foreign. C3 churches still reflect the missionary’s culture, but are a middle ground between the two cultures. The church worships in a culturally appropriate style, but worship is still loosely based on the missionary’s home culture. This is where many recent church planting movements land, and is relatively effective. C4 churches move into the realm of churches that are based on the local religion rather than Western Christianity. Again, I do not mean that the gospel message has changed, but rather that the presentation and worship styles have changed. As an example, in some other religions people pray by standing, kneeling, and bowing. In a C4 church, believers may continue to use this form, but with the full understanding that they are praying to the God of the Bible. These churches are very attractive to local people, and many new church planting movements aim for this level. C5 churches are considered an “insider movement”. In this case, new believers stay “inside” their local religion and culture, but feel that these practices are redeemed for Christ. They may be more inclined to say they are a Jesus-following member of their current religion. C6, the final level on the scale, represents those who are secret believers – they are Christians, but cannot express it out of fear for their safety. 

You can probably guess from reading this that there is some controversy over “how far is too far.” Is there a level of contextualization that is really moving into syncretism – blending two religions rather than truly following Christ? That is a question that many missionaries ponder, and I do not have a hard and fast answer. Instead, I want to consider contextualization in the area where I work.

When I first went to the African church in the area where I work, I was sure I had stepped into another world. I thought that those who accused Christians of simply importing Western culture were most certainly misguided. The church service was completely different than anything I had experienced in my home culture. The service started with community prayer. A leader introduced a subject, and everyone prayed aloud at the same time for this subject. This was followed by a time of worship, which was loud, long, and boisterous. In my home church, we routinely sing three songs. In this church, we sang for thirty minutes! Not only did we sing, but everyone danced, some people even dancing up and down the aisles. It was so loud that afterwards my ears were ringing! This was followed by a sermon. The sermon was preached in French and translated into a local language. During the translation time, there was a hum in the room as many people translated into other languages for their friends or relatives. The service ended with an offering – where each person danced to the front and put their offering in the offering box. The offering was counted during the final announcements and the amount announced to the congregation. This church service truly seemed “foreign” and “contextualized” to me! There were many things my home church would never do – praying at the same time, dancing during worship, and announcing the offering total. At the same time, one can also see how it was loosely based on Western churches. There were songs, a sermon, and an offering. It met in a building where the pastor stood in front and the congregation sat in pews. This would probably be categorized as a C3 church. While I could see Western roots, the churched seemed fully African, and a great fit for the culture. I thought this was a good example of a contextualized church.

I was very surprised, then, when I heard that the grandmother of one of our African colleagues had told him never to attend a “Christian” church. She found the loud singing and dancing to be irreverent and inappropriate based on her own religious practices. Suddenly I wondered if what I had considered to be an excellent example of contextualization was actually keeping people from the gospel! I wondered if we might need to change our contextualization strategy. We may need to move from having Western forms of worship as the basis for the church service to having local religious practices as the basis for structured worship. We may need to move from C3 to C4. This means the church may look different, and our job now is to separate our culture from the gospel, and to figure out how to place the gospel into their culture. Here are a few things which might be effective. First, we may need to take “church” out of the building and put it in a less threatening context, such as Scripture reading groups in people’s homes. This way, it will not seem connected to any religion, so people will not be afraid to come. Second, we should find ways to incorporate local song and dance styles. I do think this is important in African culture, but if we can find a way to use local styles and, again, do it outside so it is not in a “religious” setting, people will be more open to worship in this way. Third, I think we may need to adapt a few things from local religions, such as their style of prayer. In these ways, we can share the gospel without offending people by the “forms”. Many more people will hear and be able to consider the true message of the gospel.

This is the purpose of contextualization – not to change the gospel, but to change the means of delivery so that the message can be heard. My desire is for the people that I work with to hear the gospel in a way that is unhindered by culture – to hear the gospel in such a way that makes them wonder about Jesus, not about Americans. Contextualization, with wisdom and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is an essential part of that process!