One of the challenges facing many of our churches across the SBC is that we are often not well positioned—or well contextualized—to reach the people in our communities. In many cases, our churches are still shaped for a community that no longer exists. The mission field has changed, yet we continue to do ministry as though we are still speaking to the mission field of 20–30 years ago. This affects everything: our worship, ministries, preaching, evangelism, and even the appearance and atmosphere of our facilities.
A failure to contextualize the gospel for our 21st-century communities has contributed to the decline of many churches. Faithful, biblical contextualization is therefore a critical church health and renewal issue.
Before considering a few guiding principles, it’s important to clarify what we mean by contextualization. Ed Stetzer defines it as an “attempt to present the gospel in a culturally relevant way.” It reflects the heart of Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 9:22 to “become all things to all men.” Contextualization involves translating the unchanging truth of God’s Word and the gospel into language, expressions, and forms that can be understood within a particular culture.
Tim Keller captures this well:
“Sound contextualization means translating and adapting the communication and ministry of the gospel to a particular culture without compromising the essence and particulars of the gospel itself.”
Some may see this as overly academic or unnecessary—as if all we need to do is preach God’s Word without regard for the cultural setting in which we proclaim it. But that perspective is not only misguided—it ignores the biblical pattern. Scripture shows us, particularly in Paul’s ministry (Acts 17:16–34), how the message was faithfully tailored to the audience he addressed. A lack of biblical contextualization has had a noticeable negative impact on many of our churches.
In the rest of this article, I’d like to offer several principles that I hope will bring greater clarity to this vital subject.
First, everyone contextualizes to some degree.
Bible translators have been doing this for centuries—taking the unchanging truth of the gospel and expressing it in the language of the people they seek to reach. In the same way, we do not preach on Sunday mornings in Hebrew or Greek. We communicate God’s Word in the language and forms understood by the culture we hope to impact.
The real question, then, is not whether we contextualize, but how well we are doing it. Many churches are still contextualizing to a culture that no longer exists—or to a very small subset of people who remain in that past context. Without realizing it, we can end up tailoring our ministry to a niche subculture rather than to the community we have been called to reach today.
We must be intentional and discerning to ensure we are contextualizing the gospel to the culture around us—not to the one behind us.
Second, under-contextualization—or minimal contextualization—inevitably leads to inward-focused and declining churches.
When we fail to contextualize the gospel appropriately, we limit our ability to reach people beyond a narrow segment of the population. As a result, the gospel does not meaningfully advance into the broader community.
This is one reason (though not the only one) why much of the historical growth within SBC churches has been lateral—Baptists moving from one SBC congregation to another. Many churches remained focused on a shrinking niche of people, often those with Southern roots and a Baptist background. Because they did not contextualize beyond that familiar group, they struggled to reach the wider and rapidly changing communities around them.
Third, contextualization is not the same as compromise.
Some conservative Christians instinctively assume that contextualization equals watering down the gospel. They fear that any adjustment in how we preach, worship, evangelize, or minister is a step toward abandoning biblical truth. Certainly, there are ministries that over-contextualize—those who surrender biblical authority in an effort to appear relevant, forfeiting gospel power and losing doctrinal clarity in the process.
But this has not been the primary issue in most SBC churches. Far more often, our struggle has been a reluctance to relate the gospel meaningfully to the communities around us. This hesitation frequently stems from the mistaken belief that any contextualization is inherently a compromise with culture. In reality, faithful contextualization seeks to communicate the unchanging gospel in forms that people can understand—without yielding to the negative influences of the culture.
Fourth, refusing to properly contextualize the gospel to your unique culture can become an issue of idolatry.
When a pastor or church resists biblical contextualization, they often elevate a particular cultural style or method of “doing church”. In doing so, they mirror the concern Jesus raised in Mark 7:8—“You abandon the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
This resistance is not simply about strategy; it can become what might be called cultural preference idolatry—treating personal traditions or familiar ministry patterns as if they were biblical mandates. When we cling to past forms and refuse the hard work of connecting the unchanging gospel to today’s culture, we risk elevating our preferences above God’s mission.
Fifth, sound biblical contextualization requires us to immerse ourselves in the culture—without allowing the culture to immerse itself in us.
We are “not of this world,” yet we are deliberately placed in the world, and Jesus makes clear that we are not to withdraw from it (John 15:19; 17:14–16).
Tim Keller puts it succinctly:
“The first task of contextualization is to immerse yourself in the questions, hopes, and beliefs of the culture so you can give a biblical, gospel-centered response to its questions.”
To do this well, we must practice good “cultural exegesis.” We intentionally love, study, serve, and understand the people who make up our unique mission field. Rather than expecting them to cross the cultural divide to reach us, we take on the mindset of cross-cultural missionaries. In this post-Christian 21st century, we build thoughtful bridges into their world so that the unchanging gospel can be clearly heard and faithfully received.
Sixth, proper contextualization isn’t limited to one style of worship.
When discussing contextualization, many assume we’re arguing for contemporary over traditional services, informal over formal structures, or modern over historical practices. This misses the point entirely. Sound biblical contextualization isn’t the property of any single expression of church life. Rather, it applies across all forms—traditional and contemporary, liturgical and informal alike. Every church, regardless of its style, must grapple with what faithful contextualization looks like within its own setting.
Seventh, improper contextualization produces inflexible expressions of the gospel.
In some of our Baptist churches, we can become just as rigid about our music styles, evangelistic methods, and church structures as we are about the gospel itself. Though we would rarely say it out loud, we often treat these expressions of the gospel—such as worship styles, ministry approaches, or service times—as if they were as unchangeable as Scripture.
When this happens, the gospel can actually become obscured. By clinging to methods and structures that no longer communicate effectively, we allow outdated forms to hinder the message rather than serve it.
Eighth, improper contextualization signals to our community that our message is irrelevant.
Whether we like it or not, people often judge the credibility of our message through the forms, methods, music, building appearance, and ministry approaches we use. When these are outdated or disconnected from the lives of the people around us, many will assume—rightly or wrongly—that our message is equally outdated.
I’ve seen this especially in the physical appearance of some church facilities. When a visitor walks into a building that feels dated or neglected, they often conclude—consciously or subconsciously—that the church has nothing relevant to offer. The form becomes a barrier to hearing the message.
In the end, sound contextualization is an act of love. If people are going to be offended, let their offense come from the gospel itself—not from our cultural insensitivity. Jesus certainly offended many (mostly religious people) with His message of repentance and faith, yet He intentionally built relationships with those far from God. He did not expect them to come to Him; He went to them. He entered their world, identified with their struggles, listened to their hopes and sorrows, and showed how the gospel could transform their lives. That is contextualization.
This is our task as Southern Baptist churches in Rutherford County. Faithful contextualization is obedience to the Great Commission and an expression of the second great commandment—to love our neighbors as ourselves. To refuse the hard work of contextualization is, in practice, to withhold love from the lost. It becomes an expression of self-interest rather than gospel mission.
Let us instead choose to love well by presenting the unchanging gospel in ways our neighbors can recognize, understand, and engage.
In His Service,
Dr. Wes Rankin
Association Mission Strategist