23 October 2024
Becoming all things to all people: How far is too far?
Derek Brotherson
1. Contextualising is important…
In 2010, my wife and I moved our family to a Muslim-majority context to serve as cross-cultural missionaries. We had just graduated from SMBC, and one of many highlights of our time studying at college was learning about the profound importance of contextualisation in Christian ministry.
Contextualisation is the process of communicating and applying the truths of Scripture in a culturally appropriate way. It involves working hard to understand the worldview, values, and cultural practices of the people in the context where we serve. It seeks to remove barriers to hearing and understanding the gospel. It seeks to identify the specific implications of the gospel in the particular context. When Paul declared “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22), he was describing his commitment to what we now call contextualised ministry.
"Contextualisation is the process of communicating and applying the truths of Scripture in a culturally appropriate way."
When we moved to a Muslim-majority context in 2010, we worked hard at studying the worldview and cultural practices of our new neighbours, and adapting our words and actions accordingly. One simple step we took was to abstain from eating pork or drinking alcohol, since doing so had the potential to erect unwanted barriers. It wasn’t long before the benefit of doing this became clear to us.
When I became friends with some young men in our neighbourhood, some of the older folk—the moral gatekeepers of the community—were worried about me being a bad influence. “Christian” foreigners, after all, were known for their loose morals. So one day, a group of them asked me a series of questions in what felt a bit like a job interview!
“So, Derek, you’re from Australia?”
“Yes,” I said.
“Australians go to bars a lot, right?”
“Yes,” I said. “Some do. But my wife and I don’t drink alcohol.”
“Oh? Very good, Derek. Very good. But what about pork? Australians like to eat a fair bit of pork, right?”
“Yes, many do,” I said. “But out of respect for the people here, my family doesn’t eat pork.”
“Oh, really? Very good, Derek. Very, very good.”
With those answers, I passed the test! And from that day on, the suspicion was gone and the community was open to us. We were welcomed into people’s homes. We got invitations to community events. I was invited around for Saturday night card games. And as we were embraced into the community, opportunities began to open up for us to share the gospel: to tell Bible stories, to give our testimonies, and to invite individuals to read the Bible. I doubt that we would have had those opportunities if I had failed the alcohol and pork test that day.
This is a simple example of our early efforts at contextualisation, but it illustrates its importance. As we seek to carry out our Saviour’s command to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19), it is critical that we work hard at removing unnecessary barriers, and making our gospel communication and application clear, compelling and culturally informed. Contextualisation is important!
2. …But how far is too far?
But are there limits to this? In our efforts to become all things to all people, how far do we go? How far is too far? To put it another way, when does contextualisation become syncretism?
Syncretism occurs when the interaction between Scripture on the one hand, and local culture, beliefs and practices on the other, results in a compromise of the gospel. Whereas good contextualisation makes the gospel clear and promotes true worship, syncretism distorts the gospel and promotes false worship.
"But the difficulty is that both contextualisation and syncretism involve an interaction between the same two elements: the Scriptural text and the local context."
So, we want to do contextualisation, to remove barriers that would otherwise stop the gospel going forward; but avoid syncretism, which blurs the line between true and false religion. Good. But the difficulty is that both contextualisation and syncretism involve an interaction between the same two elements: the Scriptural text and the local context. And what might have started out as healthy contextualisation (like avoiding alcohol and pork) may become a theological problem down the track—from our avoidance, people may come to believe that avoiding alcohol and pork is essential to Christianity, as it is to Islam.
So how do you contextualise without blurring the lines? And are there aspects of local culture and religion which we simply must not adopt and embrace? In becoming like the Greeks to win the Greek, how far is too far?
3. Narrowing the question: should we ‘borrow’ the forms of other faiths?
This is actually a very broad question. Let’s narrow it down for the purposes of this article. One issue that missionaries often grapple with is whether or not to use (or ‘borrow’) local worship forms in contextualised evangelism and worship. In a Muslim context, the question might be: should a missionary or a Muslim background believer wear a headscarf? Or should they use a Muslim prayer mat when they pray? The goal of doing so would be to remove barriers, and help locals to see that Christian faith need not be something foreign and threatening, but rather something that can be expressed in culturally familiar forms.
This issue has led to a lot of controversy in the mission world. Some say “yes”: we can and indeed should use the forms of other faiths. They argue that a worship form (such as a Muslim headscarf or prayer mat) is simply a neutral vehicle used to convey meaning. In most cases, they say, the meaning given to a form can be changed. And so, good contextualisation involves giving a new Christian meaning to a local religious form. This is better, they say, than importing a foreign, unfamiliar (often Western) “Christian” form.
Others say “no”: we must avoid using the forms of other faiths, like prayer mats and headscarves. Doing so, they argue, amounts to an unacceptable mixing of Christianity with elements of other faiths, resulting in theological confusion and syncretism.
The stakes are high. While the “yes” group argues that the practice enables authentic expressions of faith for new believers, and opens up exciting opportunities for movements to Christ in previously resistant areas, the “no” group says it distorts the gospel, and stunts spiritual growth in the long-term.
"this is not just a question for cross-cultural missionaries. Wherever we are in the world, we need to decide whether to use the forms of the dominant culture around us as we communicate the gospel"
What’s more, this is not just a question for cross-cultural missionaries. Wherever we are in the world, we need to decide whether to use the forms of the dominant culture around us as we communicate the gospel and express and apply our faith. In a secular and materialist context like some parts of Australia, the questions we ask might look more like this:
Should we buy an expensive coffee machine for our church? Is that syncretising to materialism and hedonism? Or is it good contextualisation in a coffee-loving culture?
Should we use famous people’s testimonies? Is that syncretising to idolatry of celebrities? Or is it good contextualisation in a culture that listens to celebrities?
Should we put physically attractive people up the front at church? Is that syncretising to the idolatry of beauty? Or is that good contextualisation in a culture that listens to the beautiful?
In each of these cases, the “forms” may be seen as neutral, but each comes laden with cultural meaning.
4. Some biblical principles to guide our decisions
The question of whether we should use the forms of other faiths is a complex one, and dealing with it well requires more space than we have here. But what I would like to do here is outline three biblical principles that might guide our decisions.
First, we have considerable freedom when choosing forms. If we lived during the Old Testament era, we wouldn’t have had to spend much time deciding what worship forms to use, because worship forms—from the tabernacle, the temple, the altar, right down to the priests’ clothes—were prescribed in considerable detail in Scripture (see, for example, Genesis 17, Exodus 20-40, Leviticus 1-27). However, in the New Testament, Jesus is presented as fulfilling and replacing many of these outward forms. He ushers in a new era in which worship is focused on him, and there now exists a far greater freedom with regard to outward forms (see, for example, Acts 2-7, 15; Colossians 2).
Second, we need to exercise biblically-informed wisdom in choosing forms. Just because we have freedom in choosing worship forms, this doesn’t mean that all forms are equally good or helpful choices. The function of worship forms is to facilitate an acceptable worship response to God’s grace to us in Jesus. Not all forms do this well. In choosing worship forms, we should seek those that help promote true worship and avoid those that are likely to confuse, corrupt or distort.
Third, the forms of other faiths have the potential to corrupt true worship. There are no doubt some contextual benefits with using culturally familiar forms. However, there are also dangers, and we need to be aware of them. A special danger associated with using the forms of other faiths is that unwanted, worship-distorting meanings could still be attached to these forms in the minds of the new believers.
"The function of worship forms is to facilitate an acceptable worship response to God’s grace to us in Jesus. Not all forms do this well."
Let’s consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 8. At issue here is whether Corinthian believers from a pagan religious background should use the forms of their pre-conversion faith; specifically, whether they should eat idol food—food which had been offered to a pagan god as part of a pagan cultic ritual.
Paul discusses a scenario where a “knowledgeable” believer (one who knows that pagan gods don’t exist and thus that idol food is not spiritually contaminated: 8:4-6) emboldens a “weak” believer (one without such knowledge: 8:7) to eat idol food, resulting in the spiritual ruin of this “weak” believer (8:9-13). Although Paul accepts the that there is nothing wrong with the food per se (8:8; 10:25-27), he calls the Corinthians to avoid anything which might cause a brother or sister to stumble (8:9), saying that, to this end, he is willing “to never eat meat again” (8:13).
So, what we have here is Paul urging the Corinthians to avoid a form from their pre-conversion faith. Why? Because he’s concerned that the old meanings will stay attached to the forms when they’re used by some new believers. The problem Paul envisages is that when the “weak” eat idol food, they will not eat it as mere food, “but as an act of participation in the worship of an idol”,[1] since this is the meaning which they still attach to eating idol food (10:7).
Thus even though eating idol food is not in and of itself an inherently idolatrous act, when the “weak” eat it, they do commit idolatry (8:7). And the reason is that this form carries theological baggage. For them, eating idol food used to be an act of worship to pagan gods, and “their minds are still infused with old conceptions that spring up involuntarily”.[2]
The outcomes, says Paul, is that these believers are defiled and spiritually ruined (8:7, 11). Thus the use of an otherwise neutral form can result in false worship, because of the meaning associated with that form by the worshipper.
5. Conclusion
Is contextualisation important? Absolutely! Should we be working hard at understanding the context in which we serve, and developing contextually appropriate communication and application of the gospel? Yes!
Might we go ‘too far’? Yes, we might. While we do enjoy great freedoms in choosing worship forms, we need to exercise those freedoms with biblically-informed wisdom. And in particular, we need to heed the warning in 1 Corinthians 8: the forms of other faiths—even if neutral in themselves— still have the potential to corrupt true worship.
Let’s study culture well, and be eager to break down barriers for those who are coming to Christ. But let’s always be ready to throw off any practice which has the potential to cause believers to stumble in their worship of the one true God, through his one appointed Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Derek Brotherson
SMBC Principal
[1] R. E. Ciampa and B. S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 392.
[2] D. E. Garland, First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 380.
