Lewis White
The Whites’ journey began during a summer experience to South Asia, leading them to a shared commitment to missions. This commitment allowed them to learn different languages and live in a number of countries where they sought to live among the people God called them to serve. Their vision is centered on seeing God’s kingdom and community grow and multiply.
Mission Round Table 20:2 (May-Aug 2025): 14-21
To read articles in this edition, visit this post on Mission Round Table 20:2.
Contextualization is a fascinating subject still open to discovering many new and exciting insights. In this paper, I set out some insights and simple principles that I have found helpful throughout our ministry. May we all renew our commitment to this important task of contextualizing ourselves and our message for the sake of God’s kingdom.
When Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples of all peoples, baptizing and teaching them his commands, it would certainly be enlightening to know how they responded to his commission. Did they realize the implications of this command? Did they know that they would need to go to distant lands, meet strange peoples, and learn to speak their languages? Were they aware of the importance of contextualizing the message and its potential implications for their lives and ours?
My wife and I have now served in many different countries and among several different unique ethnic groups over the past thirty-five years. Throughout these years, we’ve tried to embody the core values of the founder of the China Inland Mission and other colleagues who have practiced contextualized living. Would it have been possible for those who went before us to have done anything without the Holy Spirit? We too need him today. And while we try to contextualize ourselves (which is never 100%) and the message, the Holy Spirit is the One who incarnates the message in the lives of people. He is the only One who transforms men and women in their context. Contextualization is a partnership between God and man; and because language and culture evolve over time, the Holy Spirit will need to continually fill us with insight and courage to clothe the message in ways that those around us will see it as their own. One key problem we face is our resistance to change, and unless we change and adapt, we will become cross-cultural dinosaurs that are irrelevant in these rapidly changing times and among the people we serve.
Hudson Taylor was a controversial figure who was influenced by innovative workers like Karl Gützlaff and William Chalmers Burns and wore Chinese clothing during his first term of service from 1854 to 1959. The lessons he learned from these older and more experienced workers helped him develop his concept of contextualization. Even so, it was one personal experience that made a significant impact on his decision to adopt Chinese clothing and appearance and become like a Chinese for the Chinese.
Sometime during his first term of service, Taylor was sharing the message in coastal cities like Shanghai and Ningbo. At the time, he wore a formal coat, called a frock coat. This popular attire for British men had a fitted waist and full skirt. It was worn for formal occasions and also served as a versatile business suit. This Western style of clothing was foreign and strange to the Chinese. One feature of this attire included buttons that were absent from Chinese clothing of that era. On one occasion, while Hudson Taylor was preaching to a crowd and wearing his frock coat, he noticed a Chinese man who was particularly attentive. Encouraged by this apparent interest, Taylor poured his heart into his sermon. After finishing, Taylor approached the man, expecting a question about the message or about Christianity.
To his surprise, the man’s curiosity had nothing to do with the message. Instead, this man was fascinated by the buttons on Taylor’s coat and asked all kinds of detailed questions about them: how they were made, why they were arranged in that way, and what material they were made of. The man even reached out to touch and examine the buttons, marveling at their novelty. For him, the buttons were a far more immediate and intriguing subject than the foreign religion Taylor was preaching. This encounter left Taylor both amused and sobered. He realized his Western appearance distracted his listeners from hearing the message.
Nevertheless, while Taylor’s clothing might have been a distraction, it was also a means to attract people; and it gave him an opportunity to meet and share with people. Even a novelty can lead to significant interactions with others. This is merely a suggestion for contemplation. However, Taylor understood this to be a distraction, so he decided to wear Chinese clothes. He also wore his hair in the Chinese style known as the Manchu queue. Consequently, when Taylor resolved to make this unconventional strategy a policy for the CIM, he faced significant criticism from fellow missionaries and supporters. There were people at home and Westerners in China who thought this strategy was inappropriate for proper mission work. This policy caused other missionaries and Westerners to refer to the CIM as the “Pigtail Mission.” This nickname was a recognition of the mission as well as a derisive term used by Westerners of that time.
We aim to stay connected to cultural and linguistic shifts in our times, both locally and internationally, by understanding and implementing the principles of contextualization outlined in the following pages. By adopting this approach in the present, we ensure our relevance in the long run. We need to practice the following principles and pass on the value of incarnational service to the next generation of workers to ensure that the message continues to be relevant in these fast-changing times and in future generations. The message is above culture; and truth is true for all cultures and for all times, even in a changing world.
Language, cultures, and times are in constant flux. The times and cultures faced by Hudson Taylor were vastly different from those we face today. We live in a time of accelerated technological change. The advancements in technology over the past 100 years have exponentially sped up the movement towards global integration and homogenization. And at the same time, this has separated us into countless different affinity groups. The advent of air travel has made the movement of people around the world easy and relatively inexpensive. Whether it’s for tourism, travel, business, or immigration, the crossing of national boundaries has never been easier. People of all kinds can now intermingle and connect with others. The internet and social media allow for immediate access to untold amounts of information, entertainment of every kind, and content in any culture and language. The internet offers information about different cultures, from amateurish videos to professional online streaming sites. We can find anything we can imagine, from culturally specific ideas, to products and entertainment. The worldwide distribution of Hollywood movies and television shows has significantly shaped the global appetite for Western entertainment. This medium has exerted profound influence on the perceptions of nations, affecting cultural norms and introducing billions to Western values, lifestyles, and storytelling styles. This influence of the American film industry has had a substantial impact on global popular culture for good and bad, and for admiration and criticism.
Another significant global influence is the phenomenon of global pop culture that encompasses music, fashion, and celebrity culture. These elements transcend international boundaries, creating a façade of a shared global culture. The interconnection of international economies is another driving influence that connects diverse parts of the world. The interchange of products, cultural symbols, ideas, and innovations are innumerable. For global brands to successfully market their products for different cultures, they need to contextualize their products. They spend a lot of money so that they can understand a culture’s consumer base, behavior, language, cultural themes, and tastes. So are we just marketing a product or is there a significant difference in contextualizing our message? This marketing effort has changed consumption habits, values, and behaviors through the promotion of a wide variety of products. Analogous to unorthodox religious views and cults sprouting from orthodox beliefs, people copy famous brands for profit, power, or influence. We can observe these changes and the effects they have on a global scale, learn from them, and use them for our advantage. However, the observable layer of cultural expression is only the tip of the proverbial cultural iceberg. The unobservable factors below the surface are the belief systems, familial and cultural norms, values, communication styles, life experiences, communal consciousness, and political systems that still need to be discovered and understood.
This unseen world of thought and understanding, language and mind maps is where the real work begins. The good news is that despite the diverseness and complexity of all this, everyone has a soul, mind, and body. These parts of humanity define us all. We have been created in the image of God with physical bodies and psychological traits. We all have the same spiritual, emotional, and physical needs. No one is exempt from these needs. Using an image from today’s technology, we all have been hardwired with the same hardware, though we run with different operating systems. These cultural operating systems include unique thought processes, communication styles, emotional expressions, beliefs, and personality traits. A people’s physical environment is a contributing factor in shaping their beliefs, values, behaviors, and interactions within the group and with those outside the group. None of us can escape these forces that shape and define us.
Jesus also underwent this shaping in his incarnation.
Jesus, the word of God, became incarnate in human form. He grew up in the context of first-century Palestine. He lived and learned how to be a Jew. He was Jewish through and through. He learned the appropriate ways to express his emotions, connect with others, and navigate between the societal structures of his time. His life experiences and knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures shaped his message and the way he communicated his message to the people. Jesus knew his culture. What we don’t know is how familiar he was with Greek and Roman cultures. He clearly had knowledge of and experience with other cultures, as he lived and communicated his message and mission to the people of his time.
In contrast, his disciples struggled to connect with people who weren’t Jewish. From their youth, they were taught and caught the Jewish worldview. There was a deep and wide gulf of separation between Jews and Gentiles. Jewish dietary laws, customs, religious laws, and moral rules built these walls of separation and affected their effectiveness in becoming cross-cultural communicators. We similarly struggle to disrobe our own cultural clothing, which prevents us from really getting to know the understandings, feelings, religious beliefs, joy of practices, and deeply held values of other cultures. We can answer the simple questions of “What?” and “Why?,” but still fall short of entering into another people’s world. We enter as outside observers and participants in a culture. We observe the culture through the lens of our own culture and, as participants, we experience life among them, feeling their highs and lows, and building deep friendships of trust. Gaining credibility, we discover, is as satisfying as it is threatening. We want to come to the point in our ministry where we no longer think in terms of us and them, but are accepted as a contributing member of their group.
Assimilation and syncretism
As we contextualize ourselves and the message, we need to know that there are dangers to understand and avoid. Assimilation and syncretism are two concepts that involve the blending or merging of different cultures. These two ideas differ only in their approaches and outcomes. Assimilation is the process through which individuals or groups adopt the customs, language, practices, values, and norms of another cultural group. By this method, the dominant civilization often swallows the smaller or less developed people. This process can involve one civilization imposing their culture on another or it might be that a people are willing to adopt the more progressive culture, whether out of necessity or convenience. And so, in assimilation, a culture adopts the dominant culture’s values, beliefs, and practices as their own. The result is a more homogenized society where cultural differences are diminished or erased.
Syncretism, on the other hand, involves the merging or blending of different cultural traditions, beliefs, or practices to create a completely new and unique cultural identity that incorporates elements from two or a multitude of cultures. In syncretism, diverse beliefs and practices coexist. Coexistence has not always been possible between the syncretized culture and the original one. Remember the clash between the Samaritans and the Jews, or the Druze and the majority community in the Levant, Sufis and Sunnis, or offshoots from orthodox Christian beliefs. While in assimilation one people melt into the cultural ocean of another group and disappear, in syncretism we find a unique blending of different religious elements to create a new and unique religious expression.
In the delicate balance between assimilation and syncretism, it is crucial to remain vigilant against the infiltration of unorthodox beliefs into the church. Stories have been told in which the message was lost over time or became something new and different. The Nestorians are one example in which the message became assimilated and was lost. While there are many political and social reasons for the demise of the Nestorian mission work in China, one significant reason their work did not remain was that they contextualized Christian doctrines into Buddhist concepts so much that the uniqueness of their message was lost through assimilation and they became a footnote in history. The over-contextualization of the message proved to be a fatal mistake made by the Nestorians.
Examples of syncretism are similarly many. Catholicism in places like the Philippines and Southeast Asia have become heavily syncretistic. Santo Niño de Cebu—the devotion to the Santo Niño (Holy Child) in Cebu—is a blend of Catholicism with pre-colonial animistic beliefs in which the image of the Santo Niño is revered as a symbol of both Christianity and indigenous spirituality. Cao Dai is Vietnamese religion that mixes Buddhist, Christianity, and Vietnamese folk religion. Followers of Cao Dai pray to Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, and even to Sun Yat-sen and the French writer-poet Victor Hugo.
Syncretism, as an anthropological concept, involves the convergence of diverse religious, cultural, social, economic, political, and technological facets of life, facilitating interaction among them. We shouldn’t think that any of us are really totally free from our own old beliefs and superstitions. Whether or not we believe old sayings like “Step on a crack, break your mother’s back”—a superstition related to avoiding stepping on sidewalk cracks—or “Throw salt over your shoulder”—which was thought to ward off evil spirits—they are part of every culture and remain lodged in our cultural psyche, having been passed down through the generations. So, the phenomena of assimilation and syncretism have occurred throughout history between civilizations, cultures, and religions. This has led to the exchange of ideas, the formation of new traditions, and the creation of rich and diverse cultural landscapes that continue to shape societies around the world. For this reason, God calls his people to be different and distinct from the world around them.
God commands Israel and the church not to be assimilated or adopt the beliefs and ways of those who don’t know him. We are in the world but are to be different from the world. In the Old Testament, the Lord God strictly commanded the Jews to live different and distinct lives from the peoples around them. Israel constantly failed to live up to God’s commandments for them. And it was not until after the Exile that they broke free from these tendencies. But even then, they added commands and regulations to the Law, moving Jesus to reprimand the Pharisees for doing so. With the advent of the Messiah and the birth of the church, the New Testament continued to emphasize this imperative, instructing believers to maintain a distinct identity in the world. Jesus prayed, in John 17:16, that his followers would be sanctified and protected from the evil one, and that they are not of the world just as he is not of this world. Jesus prayed that we would not be controlled by the values and principles of this world. Paul, in Romans 12:1–12, likewise urged the church to not be conformed to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of their minds. Thank God that Jesus prayed for us and that we are aware that we should live outside the influences of this world’s cultural values, desires, practices, and behaviors. This is, however, something that is more easily said than done, because we all have cultural blind spots and have difficulty in distinguishing between what is cultural and what is biblical.
Our perception of the world is inevitably shaped by our cultural background. We are naturally unaware of the cultural influences that have shaped our own cultural identities, preferences, and behaviors. We all interpret the Scriptures through the lens of our own worldviews, and when we try to apply the examples and principles from the Scriptures, we do it from our own particular worldview. In his book, Your Jesus Is Too American, Steve Bezner challenges Americans to reconsider their cultural assumptions and preconceptions about Jesus and Christianity.[1] Bezner asks Americans to reflect on how our perceptions of Jesus may be influenced by societal norms. He then challenges his readers to embrace a more profound and genuine encounter with the teachings and life of Jesus. To effectively contextualize the message, a comprehensive understanding of the Scriptures and our cultural perspective is paramount. Regardless of our background or origin, we all view the world through our cultural lens, a factor that has posed challenges for missionaries throughout history up to the present day. We must learn to be observers of our own culture and understand the histories and cultures of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we will have trouble becoming skilled contextualists.
Bible translators have consistently grappled with this challenge. They know languages cannot be divorced from culture. In his article, “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity,” Alan R. Tippett wrote:
As we look at the Scriptures within their Hebrew and Greek garments, just what is supracultural, and what is cultural? The history of the translation of the English Bible is a story of the struggle for cultural relevance in communication, a struggle for meaning, not only across cultures (Hebrew and Greek to English) but across generations of semantic change (Elizabethan, Victorian and Modern Man). Likewise, in every mission field over the last century, Scripture translation reminds us that the gospel, which is above culture, nevertheless has to be presented in a meaningful cultural form.[2]
A useful and simple rule of thumb in evaluating a custom, belief, or behavior is to decide whether it is biblical, unbiblical, or neutral. The question is what is biblical and then determine what in the culture can be redeemed or what must be changed. Contextualization is thus the means to communicate the Truth in a way that people can relate to and understand it.
A handy tool for assessing contextualization is using a charted scale. This allows us to determine the level of enculturation we desire and the potential risks involved. The C-Scale, commonly referred to as the “C1 to C6 Spectrum,” was devised by John Travis (a pseudonym) as a method to quantify the extent to which churches are influenced by their environment.[3] The C-Scale ranges from C1 to C6, with C1 representing the least contextualization and C6 indicating the highest level.
- C1: Christians in churches radically different from their own culture, where worship is done in a language other than their own mother tongue.
- C2: The same as C1, but worship is done in the believer’s mother tongue.
- C3: Christiansin culturally indigenous Christian churches that avoid cultural forms from their religious past.
- C4: Christiansin culturally indigenous congregations that retain biblically permissible past religious forms in prayer, music, dance, and traditional festivals, infusing these forms with biblical meaning. These indigenous Christians may call themselves something other than Christians. For example, they may call themselves something like “followers of Jesus,” but do not see themselves as part of their previous religious belief system.
- C5: Messianic followers of Jesus as Lord and Savior in fellowships of like-minded believers, who continue to identify themselves culturally as followers of that community’s religion.
- C6: Secret or underground believers, due to fear, isolation, or threat of extreme
We have seen or heard of Christians practicing their faith all along the C1 to C6 spectrum. There has been the hope to change C1–C2 churches so that they become more indigenous, and controversy concerning those who are practicing C5 followers of Jesus Christ. Most of us want to see indigenous believers practicing the message in culturally appropriate ways. This, however, is not always possible or even desirable given that certain cultural expressions of the church have been around for decades, centuries, and even millennia. In other places, the open expression of Christianity would mean severe persecution or potentially death. Some have contextualized the message into practicing C5 communities. When we grapple with C5 Christians, we can debate all the problems in the implementation and continuance of these communities as well as the controversy these communities have generated between mission agencies and the church in the West. We know from history that unless a community is seen as unique and separate, there is a greater likelihood of assimilation over time or syncretism in time. In the end, we don’t want to over-contextualize our message or under-contextualize it.
In the Scriptures and church history, there are examples of both indigenous preachers who have contextualized the message in a unique and innovated way. Peter contextualized his message to his audiences. Peter was thoroughly Jewish in his upbringing. His values, beliefs, and identity were Jewish. Peter skillfully contextualized the message to the crowd of 3,000 at Pentecost. The message was contextualized so that all who heard it understood it from a Jewish cultural background. However, as a Jew, he had internal struggles in his interactions with Gentiles. Even Paul upbraided him in Galatian 2:11–15 when he feared the party of the circumcision rather than staying true to the truth of the message. Likewise, we too can find ourselves in similar situations in which we struggle with really going indigenous while we live and serve in another culture.
In contrast, Paul—like a third-culture kid—was different from Jesus and his disciples who walked with him before his ascension. Even though Paul was Jewish, he was raised in a Greek culture. He knew there were big differences between Jews and Gentiles. He also understood that the message was not linked to any one culture. Like Tippett, he understood the message was above any one culture. It is possible that Paul may not have had a word for the concept of “supra-cultural” without explicit explanation. For instance, it is highly improbable that he would have employed the term “Trinity,” but once it was introduced to him like “supra-cultural”, I anticipate that he would have readily accepted these conceptual words. Paul understood the Greek culture, language, cultural heritage, and worldview. He could thus differentiate between a Jewish context and a Greek context. In the Acts of the Apostles chapter 17, Paul explained the Christian message to a Greek audience at the Areopagus in Athens. He understood that to reach the Greeks, he needed to relate in a language and with concepts they understood. Paul had the wisdom to share the message in a Greek way. He was willing to change himself so that everyone would be able to relate, understand, and respond to the message (See 1 Cor 9:19–22). These two examples from Acts show us that Peter and Paul made the message relevant to their audiences whether they were from the same culture or from a different culture; whether they were from one social class or another.
From the times of the Apostles to this present day, contextualization has been an important concept, even before a special word was invented to describe this process. Saint Patrick is an example of someone who could do this. Born in Roman Britain in the late fourth century, Patrick was captured by Irish raiders at the age of sixteen. After six years of captivity, he turned to the faith and escaped from Ireland. Following a vision, he returned to Ireland as a missionary and spent many years traveling across the country, converting people to Christianity, established monasteries, and spread the message. He was so successful that in succeeding centuries, the Christians from Ireland reintroduced the message to England and the European continent. Saint Patrick was apt in applying a concept we call “form vs. meaning” to share the gospel with the pagans of Ireland.
Saint Patrick used the sacred pagan Shamrock to illustrate the Holy Trinity, effectively changing its meaning to teach about God’s nature. By associating the sun symbol with Jesus Christ, he conveyed the gospel message to the pagan Celts, making Christianity more relatable and appealing. By repurposing old symbols with new meanings, St. Patrick integrated pagan traditions into his Christian teachings, converting the Irish population. This innovative approach allowed him to convey Christian truths in a manner that aligned with Celtic beliefs while fostering deeper understanding and acceptance of Christianity. The adaptability of concepts and interpretations was crucial in introducing the Christian message into the new context. This emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between form and meaning in contextualizing truth.
So what does this idea of form vs. meaning really mean?
Form vs. meaning is all about the difference between what a thing or idea represents and what that thing or idea means. Form can be anything, including an object, idea, or behavior. The meaning is the idea, information, and emotion that the form represents, but remains hidden within the form. Forms and the meaning behind the forms also perform a particular function in a culture. This means that a form serves a particular purpose in a culture and so we need to consider the effect of introducing a new form or changing an old and familiar form without understanding the function that a particular form serves.
Prayer beads are used in three major religions that I know of as an aid to prayer. While the beads used are similar in form and have a similar function; the meanings the religions give to the items are different. Here is an example where the form is different, but where the meaning and function are the same. How do different cultures celebrate the Lord’s Supper? In some places, people taking communion don’t drink alcohol while others do. Some believers in tropical climates use coconut water while other churches in the northern hemisphere might use some other type of liquid. Some places use wafers while others use leaven bread and others use crackers or even sago—a starch extracted from the pith of a tropical palm stem. So, while the form is different, the function and meaning are the same. So, form is the outside appearance, while the meaning is the deeper understanding or significance represented by the form. Understanding this relationship is crucial in communicating our message from one culture to another.
Now before we can begin to replace a form, we must understand our own cultural preferences and prejudices and have a deep understanding of the culture of the people we are called to serve. The etic and emic concepts of perspectives show us the way. In the 1950s, anthropologist and linguist Kenneth Pike coined the terms etic and emic.[4] Pike’s terms refer simply to an outsider and insider’s perspective. Let me explain these two terms and why they are important.
The etic view is an outsider’s perspective of a culture. This view is thought of as observing a culture with a new set of eyes. As outsiders, we compare and contrast a culture in the light of our own cultural prejudices as well as our understanding of biblical culture and truth. Looking at a culture from the outside, we can present a unique perspective of that culture.
Imagine a person who has lived in a bustling city for many years. They have grown accustomed to the noise of traffic, the smells of street vendors, and the sights of crowded sidewalks. To them, these things are just part of their daily life. However, if a visitor from a quiet, rural area were to visit the city, they would quickly notice and point out the honking cars, the aroma of the street food, and the crowded streets that the city dweller may no longer consciously notice due to their familiarity with the environment. This illustration shows how we can filter out familiar stimuli in our own surroundings and become desensitized to them, while newcomers or outsiders may readily perceive and draw attention to these details.
From the etic perspective, we can easily spot areas of life that are different from our own. We can also identify areas in a culture that clash or are diametrically opposed to the message. In other words, we can understand the similarities and differences between cultures and biblical norms. This perspective can give us ideas on what needs to be contextualized and how to contextualize our message in a way that is accepted, understood, and meaningful to our host’s culture.
Even when we can create a list of cultural similarities and differences, our work in understanding a host culture is only partly complete. One way to illustrate this is describe the difference between trees. Our forests and landscapes are a colorful mix of trees, from the deciduous trees that shed their leaves in the fall to the evergreen trees that stay green all year round. There are also coniferous trees with their cones, and many other types of trees that make our natural world beautiful. Trees can be identified based on variety—species and cultivars. Species are trees belonging to the same taxon and exhibit similar characteristics. Cultivars are a variety of trees identified with specific traits like disease resistance, fruit production, or ornamental features. We can also describe trees according to their growth habits, changes depending on environmental variables, and differing leaf characteristics that are observable even within the same variety and kind. We can therefore observe trees (etic view) and make many great observations. However, the observable view is only half of the tree. There is another unobservable part of the tree—the part that grows in the ground. If we were able to examine the root system of the tree with x-ray vision, we would see a very different and essential part of the tree. Likewise, there are parts of a culture that are observable and others that are not. These include beliefs, values, histories—both collective and personal—and the stories told among them. We thus need to know and understand culture from the inside out. Pike terms this the emic view.
The emic view is seeing, feeling, understanding the world like a local. It is crucial for us to recognize that individuals across the globe, irrespective of their ethnic background, exhibit shared human characteristics. These include common psychological and physical needs. Everyone lives within a society in which they share their thoughts and emotions with others. All peoples have the same spiritual condition and have a need for redemption even though they might not recognize or see their spiritual need as relevant. Each ethnic group expresses these spiritual needs, hopes, and ideas in unique and creative ways. A people’s worldview includes their religious beliefs, group values, life experiences, educational knowledge, social and political views, philosophical perspectives, and reactions to world events. These all affect a group’s understanding of the world. Trying to understand it all presents us with a daunting list to work through, because we will need to have a high level of competency in the language as well as spend a significant amount of time interacting with people in our target culture.
While books and other resources can help us with this task, we also must do our own research. We need to remember that cultures change and what was true for a culture at one point in time will not always remain true. This complexity presents us with a challenge when it comes to contextualizing our message.
So what are we to do? We must become incarnational ministers of the message. And as we become adept at participant-observation—seeing a culture from etic and emic views—we will soon discover that meanings within given cultures are not one-to-one or perfect matches.[5]
Different cultures have their own unique ways of saying and doing things. We call this cultural equivalence. So, when we are learning another culture, it’s critically important to understand their original meanings, the little details and cultural significances accepted within the culture. We must keep in mind that there is really no direct one-to-one equivalence between cultures or languages. A thing is a thing, but the connotations and understanding of one thing can be very different for someone living in one place than it is for someone living in another place. Connotations are a collection of associations or emotional responses that a word elicits beyond its literal or primary meaning. These associations can be positive, negative, or neutral. They can be influenced by individual experiences, cultural backgrounds, and contextual factors.
For example, the Star of David is a six-pointed star associated with Judaism. It is a prominent symbol on the flag of Israel and is considered a symbol of Jewish identity and heritage. However, the six-pointed star is also a symbol of the Hindu deity Kumari and represents the union of male and female energies. Additionally, this symbol is utilized in schools across India and Nepal. Different cultures will assign diverse meanings and interpretations to this same symbol.
Connotations significantly impact our interpretation and comprehension of language, providing additional layers of meaning. Different meanings and connotations are identifiable even from one generation to another. So, from looking at culture with emic and etic perspectives and knowing about cultural equivalence, the best we can do at times is to find an approximate value, thus minimizing misunderstandings and promoting mutual understanding and respect between cultures. By aiming for cultural equivalence in communication, translators, interpreters, and communicators can bridge the gap between different cultural meanings and make sure that the message is interpreted and understood as accurately as possible. This means getting to know as many cultural nuances from our own culture and target culture as is possible, and to convey the essence of the original message in a way that is culturally appropriate. By combining both the emic and etic perspectives, we can have a better grasp of our host culture, and, in so doing, can balance our understanding of an insider’s view with our understanding as an outsider, in order to communicate the message more effectively. Awareness from both perspectives will clarify misconceptions about our message and address the cultural barriers we face. In the end, the emic and etic views are a tool to help us contextualize our message, ensuring that the message is communicated meaningfully.
Take away points
- Know that the Holy Spirit is the only One who can open the hearts of men and women and that he is the One who teaches and enlightens them in a way so that they can understand and obey. He is the One who transforms lives and cultures. We are just listening servants who apply humility and obedience to the task God has given us.
- We contextualize the message, but God is the one who indigenizes
- Globalization has brought to the world a universal culture. How does this change our understanding of indigenization? How does this affect our sharing of the gospel?
- Explore how foreign concepts and practices have become integrated into a cultural context.
- Reflect on the strategies you can employ to become an effective participant observer, demonstrating a nuanced perspective that encompasses both an insider’s and an outsider’s view of culture.
- Serving with like-minded colleagues and local believers is crucial for effectively contextualizing the gospel message. By engaging with those who understand the local culture, traditions, and beliefs, we can ensure the message resonates with the audience. Can you identify colleagues or local believers within the culture who can help you communicate effectively and meaningfully within their community?
- Everyone communicates their ideas, beliefs, and values very differently. Discover the way your people communicate. Know the forms, meanings, and functions in context. Understand and apply the concepts that linguists have used to contextualize the truth of the Scriptures in another culture. Knowing and applying these will enable us to become proficient communicators of the truth.
Hudson Taylor was a trailblazer in China and a trailblazer in adopting the principles of contextualization. We have a rich heritage and we do well to continue to emphasize the importance of this. As we, like Hudson Taylor, contextualize ourselves and our message, we will not only face personal challenges to our own cultural preferences, but will also, at times, find ourselves in opposition to our own cultural norms. The phrase “going native” is still a derogatory phrase used today for people like Hudson Taylor. When Taylor incorporated the core values of contextualization in the DNA of CIM/OMF, he realized the tremendous efforts and the significant amount of time that would be needed to learn proficiently the language, culture, and worldview of the Chinese people. As we strive to reduce as much as possible all the cultural barriers that separate people from Christ, we strive to identify as much as possible with the people we live among and become accepted by them. We exert the effort needed to do this due to our desire to become thoroughly competent cross-cultural Christian communicators.
[1] Steve Bezner, Your Jesus Is Too American: Calling the Church to Reclaim Kingdom Values over the American Dream (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2024).
[2] Alan Tippett, “Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?,” in Christopaganism or Indigenous Christianity?, ed. Tetsunao Yamamori and Charles R. Taber (South Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 1975), 13–34.
[3] John Travis, “The C-1 to C-6 Spectrum,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 34, no. 4 (October 1998): 407–408. Books introducing the controversy involving highly contextualized “Christian” communities include the following: Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, 4th ed. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2009); Harley Talman and John Jay Travis, eds., Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus within Diverse Religious Communities (Pasadena, CA: William Carey, 2015); and Doug Coleman, A Theological Analysis of the Insider Movement Paradigm from Four Perspectives: Theology of Religions, Revelation, Soteriology and Ecclesiology, EMIS Dissertation Series (Pasadena, CA: William Carey International University, 2011).
[4] Kenneth Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (Glendale, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1954).
[5] For more on participant observation, see Danny L. Jorgensen, Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 15 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1989); David Silverman, Doing Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Guide, 6th ed. (Los Angeles: Sage, 2021); David M. Fetterman, Ethnography: Step-by-Step, 3rd ed., Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 17 (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010); James P. Spradley, Participant Observation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980).
