Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Join the Youthworks Ministry Support Team as they discuss how to have an effective youth and children’s ministry in every church in conversation with local ministry workers as well as national and international voices.
Get in touch - effectiveministrypodcast@youthworks.net
This is part of our House Conference
2026 lead-up series exploring the
conference theme, anchored and
adaptable, where we'll be diving
into a theology of contextualization
in youth and children's ministry.
On the House Conference Committee
and at YouthWorks, we are really
genuinely excited about the challenge
of thinking deeply about theology
and moving from there to practice.
But we do know that it is
just that, a challenge.
And so this series is here along
with a whole bunch of other
resources to help people to prepare
for House Conference really well.
And maybe you're listening along
and not coming to House Conference.
Well, lucky you, you get
to get stuck in as well.
And so across these three episodes
in this series, you're gonna hear two
conference papers read out and a group
reflection that is meant to help us to
move from theological reflection into
some practical ideas for discipling
and ministering to young people in the
context of a really well-thought-through
theology of contextualization.
And so in this episode, you're
gonna hear Derek Brotherson's
paper read out, How Far Is Too Far?
Distinguishing Contextualization
from Syncretism.
And to further help you access this
paper, we've included a glossary of
big words in the show notes, . But
here are some of the highlights.
First of all, contextualization.
This is faithfully communicating and
applying the gospel and Christian ministry
within a particular culture or context,
but without compromising its essence.
Syncretism.
This is the incorporation of
non-Christian beliefs or practices
or cultural elements into Christian
faith, distorting it into something
no longer authentically Christian.
You're gonna hear about the idea of
form, which is an outward practice,
ritual, symbol, or expression
used in worship, such as a prayer
posture, festival, or ritual meal.
And you're gonna hear about meaning in
relation to the idea of form, and that is
the significance, belief, or function that
a community attaches to a worship form.
I hope front-loading some of these words
will help you to access the paper, and
I really hope that as you listen to
this paper, you'll be able to think
really deeply about contextualization.
And imagine what your youth or children's
ministry might look like as it moves
into practice from that belief.
Really hope that you enjoy the paper
Speaker: How Far Is Too Far?
Distinguishing Contextualization
from Syncretism by Derek Brotherson,
Principal, Sydney Missionary and
Bible College, Australian University
of Theology, Sydney, Australia.
AI disclaimer.
No AI tools were used in the
preparation of this paper.
All clumsy phrasing, poor grammar,
and spelling mistakes are completely
human and belong to the author.
One.
Once upon a time in Southeast Asia.
In twenty-ten, our family moved to a
Muslim-majority country in Southeast
Asia to serve as missionaries.
The local people group were
ninety-nine point nine percent
Muslim and had a reputation for
having negative misconceptions
about Christianity and generally
being very suspicious of Christians.
Christians bring a morally
corrupting influence from the West.
Christians will show
pornography to your children.
Christians will try to
force you to convert.
We knew that even getting a hearing
for the gospel would be an uphill
battle, and we were ready to do what we
could to remove unnecessary obstacles.
If Paul was willing to give up rights
and freedoms for the advance of the
gospel and to put up with anything
rather than hinder the gospel of
Christ, One Corinthians chapter
nine, verse twelve, we would be too.
If Paul was willing to become all
things to all people so that by
all possible means he might save
some, One Corinthians nine, nineteen
to twenty-three, we would be too.
And so, even before we left Australian
shores, we began the work of devising
our contextualization strategy.
We had heard that if we ate pork
or drank alcohol, that would likely
inhibit local Muslims from wanting
to befriend or spend time with us,
and so we committed to abstain.
We had heard that wearing shorts or
singlet tops was likely to mark us
out as people of low moral character,
robbing us of credibility to speak
on matters relating to God, and so
we decided to wear modest clothing.
But before long, we found
ourselves asking the question:
How far should we go in this?
Is there such a thing as going too far?
I met a believer from a Muslim background.
He did not identify as Christian, but
rather as a Muslim follower of Isa.
Isa is Arabic for the name
Jesus and is the term used
to refer to him in the Quran.
When he prayed to God through Jesus,
he used a modified version of the
Muslim Shalot ritual prayer routine.
He performed the customary ablutions,
faced the direction of the Kabah in Mecca,
rolled out his Muslim prayer mat, used
the traditional Muslim body postures, and
used some wording from the Muslim prayers.
Although he substituted Bible
quotations for Quranic ones.
He also participated in Muslim festivals
and observed fasting in Ramadan.
In short, many of the worship forms
he used were Islamic, and yet he
confessed faith in Jesus as savior
and Lord and a conviction the Bible,
not the Quran, is the word of God.
In time, I met the missionaries who
had first shared the gospel with
him and guided him in adopting this
contextualized identity and the associated
contextualized worship practices.
They championed their methods as an
exciting means of catalyzing movements
of Muslims turning to Christ in
previously highly resistant contexts.
Their approach, they said, enabled
new believers to adopt faith in
Christ and yet remain inside their
existing social religious communities.
It removed unnecessary barriers to
conversion, while also enabling new
believers to function as witnesses to
Christ within their Muslim communities.
This raised a whole series of questions
for me, both regarding what contextual
practices would be wise and faithful
for cross-cultural missionaries
like me to adopt, and also what
would be wise and faithful for local
believers from a Muslim background.
I was willing to go far if doing
so would advance the gospel.
But I had questions about whether
some practices were going too far.
What I sought was a biblically
grounded method for distinguishing good
gospel-advancing contextualization from
problematic gospel-distorting syncretism.
Eventually, I enrolled in a PhD to
investigate this question more deeply,
seeking to discover how scripture helps us
discern where faithful contextualization
ends and syncretism begins.
Two, different context, same question.
As I spoke with people serving
Christ in different contexts and
described my research question to
them, I kept hearing the same thing.
"That's our question, too."
Missionaries serving in Buddhist and Hindu
contexts, as well as pastors ministering
in secular expressive individualistic
Australia all shared with me how, one
way or another, they were also wrestling
with the same fundamental problem.
How far is too far?
How do we distinguish
contextualization from syncretism?
On reflection, this should
not have surprised me.
Whatever our ministry context, we are all
engaged in the same task: communicating
and applying the unchanging message
of scripture within a particular
ever-changing cultural context.
Every Christian must wrestle with
how to show and tell the gospel
faithfully in their context.
The specific challenges may differ
from one context to another, but the
underlying question remains the same.
How can we engage culture with the
gospel without compromising the gospel?
Three, the context of
children's and youth ministry.
In what ways might this universal
question surface in the context
of children's and youth ministry?
The possibilities are, of
course, almost endless.
The following examples will help
to illustrate the types of concrete
scenarios we might encounter.
Point one, a children's and youth
ministry leader is proposing to
use the season of Diwali, the Hindu
festival of light, as an opportunity
to run some themed events designed to
connect with the local Hindu community.
She would like to portray Jesus as
the light of the world, embracing but
also adapting key Diwali terminology.
Based on Doug Fields' ministry model
articulated in Purpose Driven Youth
Ministry, the leaders of a youth ministry
in a small suburban church plan to hold
hot nights, a term coined by Fields for
social nights in his youth ministry.
These are high energy, culturally
familiar social gatherings
designed to build relational trust.
There is no explicit gospel content.
The leaders of a K to two children's
ministry have been using a children's
Bible that retells, adapts, and
illustrates key Bible narratives.
It is designed to be relatable and
understandable for children in that
age bracket, but not all the leaders
are comfortable that it accurately
conveys the meaning of scripture.
A church plans to stop running its
Friday night youth group at the
church building so that it can launch
a surf church at the local beach.
The goal is to connect with local youth
who would never venture into church.
They plan to hand out hot chips to
surfers while asking questions designed
to provoke discussion about Jesus, such
as what surfboard would Jesus ride?
The leaders of an upper primary
children's ministry in a politically
left-leaning area have developed a
ministry strategy which partners with
environmental and other community
groups to do environmental cleanups,
pack hygiene kits for the unhoused,
and organize mental health support.
The goal is to demonstrate that the
gospel brings tangible good for society.
In each case, the ministry workers
are proposing a particular strategy or
practice for the sake of reaching and
discipling a particular target group.
Are the proposed steps
good contextualization or
problematic syncretism?
How can we tell the difference?
Four, what is needed?
A method for distinguishing
contextualization from syncretism.
What ministry practitioners need
is a method for discerning which
ministry strategies can be embraced
as good contextualization and which
would be better avoided because of
the potential to produce syncretism.
And yet, missiologists have found
the task of articulating such
a method notoriously difficult.
As missiologist Van Rienen notes, this
is partly because the two concepts,
contextualization and syncretism, are
conceptually dependent and overlapping.
Syncretism cannot be defined without
an understanding of contextualization,
since the two processes are interrelated.
What is considered authentic
contextualization by some may be
interpreted as syncretism by others.
The problem becomes clear when
we compare common evangelical
definitions of the two concepts.
Definition one: contextualization is
typically defined as the process of
faithfully relating the message of
scripture to local cultures and contexts.
Definition two: syncretism is defined as
the inappropriate blending of biblical
faith with non-Christian elements from
the local culture, with the result
that the former is negatively impacted.
Thus, the two terms describe one and
the same process, that of relating
scripture to a given context.
The difference between the two
terms is subjective and evaluative.
We use contextualization when we
make a positive evaluation and
syncretism when we make a negative one.
As missiologist Gary Corwin points
out, when we seek to distinguish
contextualization from syncretism, there
is a real danger that the discussion
will reside at the level of subjective
feeling rather than objective standards.
He facetiously comments, "What's
the rule-of-thumb definition
for the difference between
contextualization and syncretism?
Simple.
It's contextualization when I do
it, but syncretism when you do it."
As evangelicals, we rightly
turn to scripture at this point.
How does scripture guide us in evaluating
proposed contextualized strategies?
In my doctoral research, I sought to
produce a biblically grounded framework
that ministry practitioners can use when
deciding whether to embrace particular
contextualized strategies and practices.
To this end, I studied a selection
of biblical texts that address a
particular scenario, God's people using
the worship forms of other faiths.
Here is the list of texts along
with the relevant worship form.
See chart page seven.
In each text, God's people either
use a worship form borrowed
from another religion or are
warned against doing so or both.
Some texts appear to be strongly
against such form borrowing, while
others appear to be more permissive.
My research goal was to understand
this apparent ambivalence and
produce a synthesis of the biblical
theology principles that emerged.
In the remainder of this paper,
I will summarize some of the
key insights from that study.
Although my study focused on Christians
borrowing forms from other faiths,
the theological principles are also
helpful as we consider borrowing forms
drawn from the surrounding culture.
It is my hope, therefore, that what
follows will equip children's and
youth ministry workers to proceed with
increasing clarity and confidence, whether
they are considering ministry practices
that borrow forms from other religious
traditions, such as Diwali-themed
event, or from other aspects of culture,
such as hot nights, surf church,
and social action-based initiatives.
Five, unhelpful tests.
When we evaluate a proposed
ministry method, we typically do
so by applying a particular test.
One finding of my research was that
the most common tests being used to
evaluate contextual practices, both
by practitioners on the ground and
also by scholars in the relevant
literature, were not the most helpful.
This is because they formulate the
evaluative question in a way that
does not correspond to scripture's
own treatment of the issue.
By contrast, there is a test that is far
more helpful based on what we discover to
be the concerns of the biblical authors.
I will begin by addressing two
common but less helpful tests before
moving on to what I believe is a
more helpful one for evaluating
contextualized ministry practices.
One, the restrictive test:
where does it come from?
This test is preferred by those who
are methodically conservative and are
generally suspicious of contextualization.
Beginning with the borrowed form,
whether it be a Muslim prayer ritual
or a concept from Diwali or a cultural
script from local surf culture,
they ask, "Where does it come from?"
If it is of a problematic origin,
then they reject the use of it in
Christian ministry as syncretistic
But what constitutes a problematic origin?
For many advocates of this test, if a
form is from another religion, it is
automatically viewed as problematic.
For example, missiologist Larry Poston
argues that using local cultural forms
is legitimate contextualization, whereas
using local religious forms is syncretism.
The biblical justification for
this approach is typically based
on texts that warn of the dangers
of using the forms of other faiths.
For example, Poston cites Deuteronomy
12, a text in which the Israelites
are commanded to destroy all vestiges
of Canaanite worship: sanctuaries,
altars, sacred stones, Asherah poles,
and to ensure that they do not imitate
Canaanite practices, Deuteronomy
12:2-4 and Deuteronomy 12:29-32.
On the basis of Deuteronomy
12, Poston concludes that the
importation of non-Christian
religious practices into a Christian
context is never to be tolerated.
There are a range of mythological
problems with this approach.
For example, the distinction between
religion and culture is too simplistic.
Defining religion and separating it from
culture is a notoriously difficult task,
and even if it could be done, surely
the integrity of Christian faith can
equally be distorted when mixed with
elements that do not originate in another
religion, such as cultural values or
political ideologies that are in conflict
with Christian values or convictions.
However, my focus here is
to evaluate the test from a
biblical theological perspective.
From this perspective, the problem
with the test is that it works
from the assumption that certain
forms are automatically off-limits
by virtue of their origin or
connection to a false religion.
This does not reflect the new covenant
position regarding worship forms.
While it is true that in the old covenant,
including in texts like Deuteronomy
twelve, legitimate divinely approved
worship forms are prescribed, while
illegitimate ones, often associated
with other religions, are prohibited.
In the new covenant, Jesus is
presented as fulfilling and replacing
many of the old covenant-prescribed
outward forms, and the Mosaic law is
presented as fulfilled and in many
of its external expressions obsolete.
According to the New Testament, Jesus
ushers in a new era in which worship
is focused on Him, with the result
that there now exists a far greater
freedom with regard to outward forms.
No blanket prohibition on the
use of borrowed religious forms
exists for new covenant believers.
It is simply not a faithful
representation of the New Testament's
position on worship forms to argue
that some are automatically off-limits.
Poston's error is to directly apply
Deuteronomy twelve to our contemporary
ministry contexts without first
considering relevant redemptive
historical developments affecting the
contemporary application of Mosaic law.
Forms cannot be rejected outright simply
because of their problematic origins.
Such an approach is inconsistent
with the new covenant approach
to worship and worship forms.
Although the focus of my study was the
borrowing of religious forms, it is easy
to see how this restrictive test might
equally be applied to cultural forms.
Advocates of this test might conclude
that a cultural form is automatically
off-limits because it has been drawn
from a subculture that is anti-Christian
or in some way at odds with the gospel.
For example, they might reason that to
hold hot nights would involve borrowing
forms from a godless party culture,
or that to start a surf church would
involve borrowing forms from hedonistic
or anti-authoritarian surf culture.
On this basis, the forms by virtue of
their origin would be rejected outright.
My response to such a use of the
restrictive test would be the same.
We cannot rule a practice out
merely by virtue of its origin,
since that is inconsistent with
the new covenant approach to forms.
Two, the permissive test.
Is there anything inherently
disqualifying about this form?
If the first test is favored by
the methodologically conservative
and contextualization suspicious,
then this second one is preferred
by those who are methodologically
adventurous and who enthusiastically
embrace contextualization.
They highlight the ministry advantages of
using culturally familiar forms, be they
religious or cultural, arguing that they
are to be preferred to imported or foreign
forms and should only be rejected in
the relatively rare cases that the forms
themselves are inherently problematic.
According to this test, we should
retain anything that is compatible
with the Bible, reject those elements
that are not, and reinterpret those
elements that can be redeemed.
Forms are rejected if they are
intrinsically immoral or otherwise
explicitly prohibited in the Bible.
So forms with a dark, deceptive,
destructive character or which are
ethically abhorrent, such as pagan
practices involving infanticide,
will be rejected as incompatible
with the gospel and untransformable,
while everything else is available
for contextualized adaptation and
reinterpretation.
Thus, rather than asking where a form
came from or how it was previously used
as per the restrictive test, advocates
for the permissive test look at the
form in isolation and ask whether
it is inherently acceptable or not.
When proponents of the permissive
test seek to provide a biblical
justification for their more expansive
approach to form borrowing, they
often appeal to biblical precedent.
They point to a series of similarities
between the worship forms used by
Israel and those used by the surrounding
nations in the Old Testament era
as evidence that borrowing worship
forms is the norm for God's people.
In addition, Melchizedek, Naaman, the
sailors in Jonah, the Samaritans in John
four, early Jewish believers, and the
Gentiles of Acts fifteen are all presented
as examples of people coming to faith in
the true God, but continuing to worship
from within their preexisting religious
system using the forms of that system.
Davis, for example, cites a series of
terms and rituals that were first used
by pagans and only later by God's people.
In the Old Testament, these include the
term El, the covenant-making ritual,
circumcision, festivals and feasts, and
the architecture and design of the temple.
And in the New Testament, baptism and
the Greek philosophical term logos.
Davis writes, "God took what was already
in the pagan culture and transformed
it by giving it both distinctive
outward form and new inner meaning."
According to Davis, these examples are
precedents for gospel workers today,
compelling us to likewise use local forms.
Whatever else one may deduce, one
must accept the fact that Yahweh
is in the business of validating
all cultures by using what is
there, even the architecture, and
transforming it for his usage.
If Yahweh did it, why are his servants,
missionaries, so reluctant to follow suit?
If Israel could borrow from
other surrounding cultures which
were familiar to them, why is
it wrong for Asian Christians to
borrow from their own cultures?
Surely the heart cry of the African is
to express his worship to God, not in
unfamiliar foreign forms and meanings,
but in local forms that are vital to him
because they belong to his own culture.
This biblical precedent argument has had
significant influence among evangelicals.
However, for the following
two reasons, it is a flawed
argument and should be rejected.
First, if we study the relevant texts
in which pagan forms are apparently
borrowed, we find that there is no
evidence for an authorial intent to
establish a precedent for form borrowing.
Typically, the author does not even
acknowledge that the form is already
in use by the surrounding nations.
For example, in Genesis 17, when God
gives Abraham the form of circumcision, He
simply commands Abraham to use the form.
He does not say, "Use this religious
rite which I am borrowing from your
pagan neighbors and then, just as
I have borrowed this form, you go
and do likewise with other forms."
In such circumstances, it cannot be
concluded that the author's intent
is to persuade the reader to make
analogist form borrowings themselves.
Second, most who advance the biblical
precedent argument construct their
case based on an unbalanced and
unrepresentative selection of texts.
They cite only texts that appear
to affirm the borrowing of forms.
Most do not account for or even
discuss the counterbalancing set
of texts which exist that appear
to warn against such borrowings.
No claims should be made that a
wide-ranging permission to borrow
forms exists without first considering
the message of these warning texts.
Thus, what we need is a test to
evaluate proposed contextualized
practices which is sensitive to the
biblical writer's more nuanced stance
towards the forms of other faiths.
A better test.
Will it facilitate faith and worship?
Both of the above tests employ what
is sometimes called a structuralist
approach to distinguishing
contextualization from syncretism.
It is structuralist because it locates the
key evaluative question in the structure
of the practice, that is, in what the
form is or where it comes from, rather
than in the meaning and function that
form assumes within a Christian context.
Although the two tests reach different
conclusions about which forms may be
used, both assume that the decisive
factor lies in the form itself.
I suggest that structuralist approaches
are out of step with the way the New
Testament equips us to think about forms.
In the New Testament, forms simply
by virtue of their previous use by
other faiths are neither prohibited
outright nor permitted outright.
Rather, using particular forms becomes
a problem if it leads to a corruption
or distortion of faith and worship.
Therefore, instead of a
structuralist test, it is better
to use an outcome-focused test.
Instead of asking, what is the nature
of the form or where does it come
from, it is better to ask, what will
be the impact of using the form?
This requires a shift from primarily
investigating the origin or inherent
nature of the form to investigating
how that form will be used and
what meaning will be given to
it in its new Christian context.
Missiologist Tan Cheng Pong uses
a cooking metaphor to explain
the outcome-focused approach.
Authenticity is measured not as
much by the presence of certain
ingredients, but by the actual
outcome of the cooking itself.
When we adopt an outcome-focused
test instead of simply asking if
a form can be used, we focus our
attention to how helpful it will be
in facilitating faith and worship.
When I studied the 10 texts listed
above, I found that the key concern
for the biblical authors in the
form selection process was how
God's people engage with God.
In each text, the author's primary concern
is to equip God's people to engage God
in true faith and worship or to help them
avoid corrupted faith and false worship.
Therefore, the test I propose involves
considering the impact a given form is
likely to have on faith and worship,
asking, "Will it facilitate or hinder
believers in their faith and worship?"
In answering this question, the potential
impact needs to be thoroughly evaluated.
If using a particular form is likely
to undermine or compromise faith and
worship, then syncretism could be present.
If it is likely to facilitate faith
and worship, then the use of the
form could be characterized as
an appropriate contextualization.
Seven, considerations
when determining impact.
If we adopt a test based on the likely
impact of using a form, we need to be
equipped to evaluate such impact in
a way that reflects the concerns and
priorities of the biblical authors.
What follows is a summary of
key considerations drawn from
the 10 texts that I studied.
One, forms have the potential to
shape beliefs and dependencies.
Forms have the power and potential
to shape beliefs and dependencies.
They reinforce theological truth
and influence the way we think
about God and engage with Him.
For example, in Exodus 12 and 13,
when the biblical author gives Israel
a form, the Passover, it comes with
remarkably detailed prescriptions
about what to eat, how to prepare
it, what they should wear, and so on.
Each detail is richly imbued
with appropriate meaning.
End comments.
One thing we can learn from this is the
importance the Bible places on ritual.
Ritual breeds familiarity.
It seeps into one's subconscious
and, however subtly, begins to
exert a formative influence.
Ritual has always been and will always
be a means of securing for future
generations the power and reality
of the gospel The things we do when
we gather are our rituals and forms.
If they shape what people believe and
where they place their trust, then
they are not theologically neutral.
The evaluation of contextual practices
is therefore not a peripheral
matter of ministry technique, but
an important theological task.
Whether we are considering hot
nights, offering chips to surfers,
or any other contextual practice,
we need to ask what vision of
God, the gospel, and the Christian
life will this practice cultivate?
The forms we choose will form the
people who participate in them Two,
the function of forms is to facilitate
an appropriate engagement with God.
If we are to select forms wisely, we
need to understand how they function.
In the text that I studied, the function
of worship forms is to facilitate
an appropriate engagement with God.
Forms are a means by which God's
people express their faith response
to God's prior action of making
relationship with him possible or
otherwise conferring blessing upon them.
For example, in both Genesis seventeen
and Exodus twelve and thirteen, the
God-given forms are not a means of
securing God's blessing or favor,
but rather one of taking hold of
that which God graciously gives.
In Genesis seventeen, circumcision
is commanded after the covenant
promises have been made.
Genesis twelve.
In Exodus twelve and thirteen, the
Passover is given as a celebration
and remembrance of God's gracious
rescue, not a way of earning it.
The dynamics of the gospel are
evident in this theology of forms.
What we do is in response
to what God has done.
What we do is an expression of faith
and thanks for God's prior action.
This Christian understanding of the
function of forms differs from that found
in other religions in the ancient world
and in many religious traditions today.
In those contexts, forms were
commonly understood in instrumental
or transactional terms, such that the
performance of a given ritual was believed
to produce or secure the desired outcome.
This is important to understand when
we evaluate proposed contextualized
forms, whether we are contemplating
borrowing forms from other
religions or from local culture.
We should seek forms that reinforce
the gospel dynamics of engaging
God as a response to his grace.
Likewise, we should be wary of forms that
promote patterns of thought in which the
form might be used to secure God's favor
or to secure that which he has already
made available to us through Christ.
Three, the forms of other faiths have the
potential to corrupt faith and worship.
Some of the texts that I studied
warn about the dangers associated
with using the forms of other faiths.
Such forms have the potential
to corrupt the way in which
the believer engages with God.
I will give two examples of this.
First, in Hosea eight, where the
Israelites are rebuked for long-term
use of a calf idol to worship Yahweh, we
discover that over time, the Israelites
have come to treat God as if he were
a Canaanite fertility god, who they
can coerce and manipulate through
the correct performance of a ritual.
This is a profound and serious
danger of using the forms of other
faiths, the possibility that we will
end up treating God as if he were
like the god of that other faith.
Second, in Colossians two, Paul
is addressing a situation where
false teachers have been advocating
certain practices borrowed from
local pagan religion, such as angel
worship and ascetic practices.
Paul opposes this teaching because the
forms have the potential to undermine
confidence in the sufficiency of Christ.
For example, angel worship was
performed by pagans as a magical
invocation to ward off evil.
And yet Christ has triumphed over
spiritual beings, Colossians two, ten
and fifteen, and so warding off evil is
unnecessary, Colossians two, eighteen.
The very serious end result
was that people who used these
forms would lose connection with
Christ, Colossians two, nineteen.
Regarding ascetic practices, the
pagan belief was that the sinful
human disposition could somehow
be restrained or overcome through
denigrating the body and self-denial.
Again, Paul opposes the borrowing
of this form because its meaning
undermines the principles of true
worship and the sufficiency of Christ.
For believers, the sinful human
disposition has already been
removed through the spiritual
circumcision of Christ.
And so to attempt to achieve
this by other means is to fail to
depend on what Christ has done.
The fact that the forms of other
faiths have the potential to corrupt
faith and worship does not mean that
they are automatically off-limits
as per the restrictive test.
But it does mean that we need to heed
the message of these warning texts and
consider the possibility of the form to
function in this way so that we can either
take steps to mitigate such an impact
or choose to avoid the form altogether.
Four, a specific risk associated
with using the forms of other faiths
is that unwanted worship-distorting
meanings could be imported.
A key way that the forms of other faiths
might corrupt faith and worship is through
the meanings previously attached to these
forms remaining attached to them when they
are used in the new Christian setting.
Again, I will give two examples.
In Exodus thirty-two, the Israelites
use a borrowed form, a golden
calf idol, to worship Yahweh.
As part of a polemic against idol worship,
the author cleverly portrays the fact that
the Israelites have not borrowed this form
in isolation from the meanings commonly
attached to idols in A&E idol worship.
Rather, those meanings, especially the
belief that a deity can be accessed
and controlled through creation
of the idol, are imported into
Israel's worship along with the form.
Second, in one Corinthians eight,
eating idol food is problematic
for the new believer because its
old meaning remains attached to it.
Paul acknowledges that eating
idol food is not in and of itself
an inherently idolatrous act,
chapter eight, verse eight.
The food is not contaminated simply
through being offered to idols.
This is confirmed by chapter ten,
verses twenty-five to twenty-seven,
where Paul encourages the Corinthians
to eat marketplace food, which may
or may not be idol food, without
inquiring as to its origins.
However, when the weak eat food which
they know has been offered to idols,
they eat it as an act of worship,
honoring the god represented by
the idol, and so commit idolatry.
Some people are still so accustomed to
idols that when they eat sacrificial
food, they think of it as having been
sacrificed to a god, and since their
conscience is weak, it is defiled.
One Corinthians chapter
eight, verse seven.
Fee comments on the meaning of the
phrase, "Still so accustomed to idols."
Even though they know that the god does
not exist, their former association
with him or her as a god is still
part of their experience of reality.
Their former way of life is woven into
their consciousness and emotions in
such a way that the old associations
cannot be thus lightly disregarded.
Therefore, when they eat idol
food, they think of it as having
been sacrificed to an idol.
The problem is with their state of
mind when they eat, Garland explains.
For those with knowledge, the banquet
may be only a social occasion, but it is
not so for those with a weak conscience.
Eating sanctified food had always
been an act of worship that honored
the god lurking behind the idol.
Their minds are still infused with old
conceptions that spring up involuntarily.
Thus, the weak in chapter eight,
verse seven are not able to detach
the pagan meaning from the pagan form.
An unwanted meaning is thus imported
into their worship as believers,
with the result that their worship
is corrupted and they are defiled,
chapter eight, verse seven, even
destroyed, chapter eight, verse eleven.
As we consider contextual strategies
and the possibility of borrowing
forms from other religious or cultural
contexts, we need to be aware that
along with the forms might come the
importation of unwanted meanings.
This means we not only need to be aware
of the meaning of the form in its original
context, but also assess whether any
unwanted meanings could be removed if it
was incorporated into a Christian setting.
Five, we need to consider the
distinction between form and meaning.
It is clear from the above discussion
that when evaluating a proposed
contextualized practice, our attention
must extend beyond the form itself
to the meaning likely to be given to
the form in a new Christian setting.
We need to consider what it will
signify and what beliefs and patterns
of dependence it is likely to cultivate.
This distinction between form and
meaning has long been recognized
in missiology, and yet there is no
consensus on how to characterize
the relationship between the two.
Some, such as Kraft, depict forms
as essentially neutral vehicles
that people use to convey meaning.
Kraft argues that an old meaning couldn't
ordinarily be separated from a form and
that almost any cultural and religious
forms can be borrowed, reinterpreted,
and given new Christian meanings.
Others, such as Hiebert, maintain
that the relationship between form and
meaning is more complex and varied.
He places forms on a spectrum ranging
from those which have a loose or
arbitrary link to meaning through to
those which have a tight link to meaning.
Hiebert suggests that while the
former can usually be given a new
Christian meaning, the latter cannot
because they are too closely tied
to the old non-Christian meanings.
My research affirmed that Hiebert's
articulation better reflects the
perspective of the biblical authors.
Form and meaning cannot
always be easily separated.
In some of the texts I studied, the link
between form and meaning is intrinsic.
In Genesis seventeen, a promise relating
to offspring, meaning, is signified by a
mark on the male reproductive organ, form.
In Exodus twelve and thirteen, a dramatic
and sudden rescue, meaning, is remembered
with a series of symbols of haste, form.
In these cases, the meaning is clearly
built into the form, and thus the link
between the two is extremely strong.
In other texts, even though the link
is not intrinsic, it is nevertheless
so well established in the minds of
worshipers that they are unable to
discard the old meaning, with the
result that false worship ensues.
The Israelites in Exodus thirty-two to
thirty-four and Hosea eight are unable
to detach deity manipulation, meaning,
from the use of a bull idol, form.
The weak believer in one Corinthians eight
is unable to eat idol food, form, without
forging a worshipful connection with the
God represented by the idol, meaning.
Thus, when we are evaluating the
likely impact of a borrowed form,
we should consider the strength
of the connection between the form
and its meaning in the culture.
We need to be aware that some forms
are likely to be so saturated in
non-Christian meaning that any use
by Christians is likely to result
in distortions of the gospel.
If we determine that the link is less
strong and the form can be borrowed, we
should think intentionally about how we
can discard any old unwanted meanings
and replace them with Christian meanings.
Eight, some forms are best avoided.
If we determine that a form
carries potentially problematic
meanings, it will require wisdom
to determine whether to borrow and
reinterpret or to avoid that form.
As we seek wisdom for this, it
is worth recognizing a pattern
in scripture of avoiding forms
that are spiritually dangerous.
In Deuteronomy twelve, Moses calls the
Israelites to eradicate, not reinterpret,
the spiritually dangerous Canaanite forms.
In Acts fifteen, James prohibits Gentile
believers from using various forms
associated with pagan temple worship.
And in one Corinthians eight and ten,
Paul encourages Corinthian believers
to refrain from eating idol food, even
though he accepts that the food is not
in itself spiritually contaminated.
The mindset that Paul calls the
Corinthians to adopt here is very
helpful for the contextualizing process.
They should not simply be guided by
knowledge, chapter eight, verses one to
three, that a form is morally neutral.
Chapter eight, verses four to six, and
eight, ten, twenty-five to twenty-seven.
Rather, they must be guided by love,
which edifies, chapter eight, verses
one to three, and which produces a
willingness to forego rights for the
sake of the gospel, chapter eight,
verses seven to nine and twenty-three.
Rather than making decisions based on
the conviction that I have the right
to do anything, chapter ten, verse
twenty-three, they must understand
that not everything is beneficial
and not everything is constructive,
chapter ten, verse twenty-three.
Good contextualization requires pursuing
that which is beneficial and constructive.
That is, whatever
facilitates faith and worship
Eight, conclusion and implications.
How far is too far?
There is no simple answer.
As we have seen, it depends on
the impact a form is likely to
have, which in turn depends on its
meaning in its particular context.
Faithful contextualization,
therefore, requires careful
biblically informed discernment.
My hope is that the above principles will
assist us as we seek to engage people with
the gospel in ways that are both faithful
to Christ and effective in mission.
The framework I have outlined raises
important issues for reflection
for ministry practitioners at
both ends of the conservative,
adventurous methodological spectrum.
I will conclude by drawing out
some implications for each.
One, for the methodologically
conservative.
For those who are more methodologically
conservative, the above analysis
shows that we need to move beyond
rejecting ministry strategies simply
because they use forms drawn from other
religions or from cultural practices
that appear to conflict with biblical
beliefs or ethical commitments.
Rather, the decisive question is
not simply the origin of the form,
but the meaning it is likely to
carry within its new context and the
extent to which it will foster or
distort genuine faith and worship.
Not only that, but the methodologically
conservative may need to consider
what meaning attaches to the
established so-called Christian
forms that they currently use in
their children's and youth ministry.
Culture, and therefore the meanings
we attach to forms, is something
that is constantly changing.
It could be that a certain practice which
once facilitated faith and worship no
longer does so for the present generation
of children and youth because new
meanings are now attached to old forms.
We need to regularly reassess the
function and meaning of the forms
we use and seek out those that
best facilitate faith and worship
A further implication is
that we should be wary of
one-size-fits-all ministry strategies.
A method designed for use in a particular
city in America will not necessarily
transfer to Sydney or to rural New
South Wales, because the meanings
associated with the relevant forms may
be different in these different contexts.
Two, for the methodologically adventurous.
For the more methodologically
adventurous, the challenge is to move
beyond selecting forms purely for their
capacity to enhance cultural connection.
Instead, attention needs to be given
to the meaning that attaches to
the proposed borrowed form and its
likely impact on faith and worship.
We need to hear the warning sounded
in the various texts discussed above.
Borrowed forms have the potential to
bring with them anti-gospel, faith,
and worship-distorting meanings.
Some forms may need to
be avoided altogether.
Others may be capable of being
reinterpreted and invested with
a more constructive meaning.
But where that path is chosen, it requires
intentional and careful pastoral work to
mitigate potential dangers and to help
shape the meanings that participants
are likely to attach to the form.
Three, for us all.
So what about Diwali-themed
events, hot nights, children's
Bibles, surf church, and social
action-oriented ministry strategies?
No sweeping transcultural
conclusions can be drawn here.
Each proposal and the
associated forms require careful
context-specific evaluation guided
by the framework outlined above.
The conclusion you draw in your context
may be different to that which I draw
in mine, but provided that the ultimate
aim remains the faithful communication
of the gospel and the cultivation of
genuine faith and worship, and provided
that discernment is exercised under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, appropriate
contextual means will emerge within our
particular settings for the glory of God.