I have long struggled with the terms Over-contextualization, Under-contextualization, and Non-contextualization.

Paul Hiebert (using terms “uncritical contextualization” and “non-contextualization) stated that the danger of the former is syncretism (unhealthy degradation of essential aspects of the Christian faith by non-Christian beliefs within the recipients’ culture) while for the latter, the concern is a “foreign gospel” of a practice of Christianity where a ‘thin veneer’ of Christian practices covers non-Christian worldview and beliefs.

I find this valuable… but would also agree with Jackson Wu in stating that non-contextualization (we are speaking from the missionary’s perspective) still leads to syncretism— the unhealthy mixing of Christian beliefs with non-Christian belief’s in the missionary’s culture. I am a missionary from the United States who serves in Asia. If any American’s think that Christianity is not detrimentally affected by American culture… well, you really need to get out more (as in visit places outside of the US and meet Christians from other countries).

I really don’t have problem with Hiebert’s work on Critical Contextualization beyond the clarification by Wu. However, other terms used by some is under-contextualization (a failure to contextualize the Gospel message adequately for it to be understandable and resonant in a new setting) and over-contextualization (a failure coming from damaging the message of the Gospel in an attempt to contextualize the Gospel in a new setting).

This seems simple enough, except I have heard some examples of over-contextualization and under-contextualization that sound like each other. I mean, some examples of of under-contextualization sound to me like over-contextualization (and vice versa).

Perhaps the problem is perspective. Consider the diagram below.

Suppose we are looking at three cultures— the home culture of the missionary, the home culture of the recipient (that of the mission field from the perspective of the missionary), and “Bible culture” (more on this later).

Suppose a missionary (Timothy) leaves his home (I will assume Australia for this example) and goes to Indonesia (again for this example) to evangelize and plant churches.

Suppose people are led to Christ and begin to form into a community of the faithful. Timothy then is discipling the believers and in doing so makes sure that the new believers dress the way he dresses, listens to the “Christian” music he listens to, gathers in church groups in a manner very similar to his own churches back home and (perhaps most importantly) teaches them answers that resonate with him to questions that are relevant in Australia (rather than giving answers that resonate with Indonesian believers to questions of concern to Indonesians). We might describe this as non-contextualization, as Hiebert would. I don’t have a problem with that.

But is it over-contextualization or under-contextualization. It depends on the perspective. From the Indonesian perspective, it is under-contextualization. But from the Australian perspective it is arguably over-contextualization— that is, contextualized so much to the Australian setting that it is not relevant or resonant with the Indonesian setting. If Timothy, in an effort to make the message “hit home” with Indonesians, waters down the message and sets aside critical aspects of the faith, one could say that the gospel message with over-contextualized to the Indonesian setting. One could also, in theory, say that this over-contextualized message for Indonesia is under-contextualized for Australia, but we normally would not think of it that way, except in “reverse missions.”

Looking at the figure above… one might say the red-circle defines “orthodoxy.” Within that circle, the Christian faith is sound and outside of it is not. Of course, there is no such clear line of demarcation. The border is “fuzzy.” Still, conceptually one can imagine that there is a range of beliefs and practices that could be considered orthodox (even if not everyone agrees on what the range is) and there are places where one has drifted out of bounds (pulling the sports analogy from Stephen Bevans).

The Yellow colors those areas where over-contextualization occurs. It can happen with regards to the Missionary culture, with the Recipient culture, and (yes) with the Bible culture. Periodically restoration movements seek to do things because “the ancient Israelites did things that way” or because “the first century Hellenistic church did things that way.” While that feels right. the Bible is pretty clear that neither the Jews nor the Greeks got things completely correct.

So what should a properly contextualized faith look like in a culture? Well, I would like to suggest three things:

1. It should have a resemblance to the Universal church. It’s uniqueness should not undermine the fact that it is part of the Body of Christ. Particularist groups often are at risk in this area. When such groups suggest that “we are the only true church” and all others are damned, I think such a group is in a dangerous place. Additionally, when a group says, “We don’t value the critique or dialogue with other Christian groups because they simply don’t understand our truth and situation” I think such a group is in a very dangerous situation.
2. It should resonate with the culture. It should address issues and concerns that people are asking (or feeling without verbalizing). It should ‘scratch where it itches’ and bring new answers that are from outside but expressible with insider language and concepts.
3. It should scandalize the culture. The gospel will always, in some ways, scandalize or challenge whatever culture it is in. If it doesn’t, that doesn’t mean that this culture is so awesome, but that the message of the gospel is over-contextualized.

I would like to clarify the drawing a bit.

A. While I show different cultures at the vertex of the triangle. Rather, one can think of the culture as radiating from such a vertex with a wide range of beliefs and and variety of people that fit loosely into the culture. The drawing below attempts to show that. Cultures overlap with other cultures. In fact, the overlap on a LOT because we are all humans and are driven by very similar needs.

B. All cultures agrees with the Gospel message in some ways or may even be resonant with it— and this could be suggested by that part of the culture that is in the green section. All cultures also will be scandalized by the Gospel message and this would be what is in the yellow.

Whenever a missionary shares the gospel in such a way that the green and yellow are in some ways obscured, there is over-contextualization. Over-contextualization to the missionary culture will look at the recipient culture as bad… and reject aspects, including aspects that are good. Alternatively over-contextualizing the recipient culture takes away some critical aspects of scandal where the message no longer gives prophetic voice to change.