Contextualization Changes the Bridge, Never the Message

Ignoring the context of the hearer is not a sign of doctrinal faithfulness but of pastoral negligence disguised as rigor. To contextualize the gospel is to make its message clear to the hearer without making it shallow. That distinction separates genuine contextualization from mere cultural accommodation. The goal is never to make the gospel popular or pleasing at any cost, but to make it understandable to someone who would otherwise never grasp what is being proclaimed.

The New Testament presents four scenes that illustrate this principle clearly. Jesus, speaking with the Samaritan woman, began with her physical thirst and used the well water as a bridge to speak of living water (John 4). Peter, before the Jews gathered in Jerusalem, started from the Scriptures they already knew and respected (Acts 2). Philip, meeting the Ethiopian eunuch, began with a simple question about what he was reading (Acts 8). Paul, in Athens, started from an altar he had noticed in the city, inscribed "To an Unknown God" (Acts 17:23). In each of these situations, the starting point was different. The destination, however, remained the same: every conversation pointed to Christ. Begin where the other person is; end where Christ is.

This flexibility regarding the point of entry has clear limits. Three distorted models help identify the moment when contextualization turns into something else. The imposing model speaks without truly listening and can provoke resistance to the speaker's manner rather than necessarily to the message proclaimed. The pragmatic model measures success by the number of responses, confusing momentary emotion with genuine, lasting conversion. The sociological model, in turn, replaces the center of the message — Christ crucified and risen — with the mere improvement of external living conditions, as though the gospel were, in essence, just a well-intentioned social program. In this context, works of mercy are a legitimate fruit and a necessary companion of the gospel, but they can never take its place.

In any of these situations, the evangelist is a servant of the message, not its owner. He has no authority to alter its content in order to make it more acceptable. Clarity, therefore, is a genuine Christian service. Simplicity does not mean shallowness, just as the use of accessible vocabulary does not mean emptying the message of its substance. To contextualize is to change the bridge that leads to the message, not to change the shore to which that bridge leads. Paul expressed this tension when he wrote to the Corinthians that he preached Christ crucified, a stumbling block to some and foolishness to others, without softening what remained offensive to many of his hearers (1 Cor 1:23).

It is worth, then, doing a practical exercise. List five words frequently used within the church that an outsider would struggle to understand, such as "sanctification," "fellowship," and "anointing." Beside each term, write how you would explain it in one simple sentence, without resorting to jargon. Then identify which of the three distorted models — imposing, pragmatic, or sociological — is most likely present in your own way of evangelizing, and consciously work to correct that tendency in your next conversation. Finally, choose a specific acquaintance and think about what would be the most natural bridge for starting a conversation about faith with that person. Not the easiest bridge for you, but the one best suited to their reality.