I’ve been thinking a bit lately about contextualization—not so much the contextualization of language (‘charms’ and ‘calms’ and so on), but the contextualization of lifestyle: becoming “all things to all people” (as in 1 Corinthians 9:22).
My thoughts were sparked by an evening we spent with our next door neighbours recently. As Dave and I were clearing things away at the end of the night, I reflected on the evening and the way that I’d approached it.
Before our guests arrived, I had chosen an outfit that approximated the style of clothes my neighbour wears, I made an extra-gourmet salad and I bought a couple of fancy cheeses. Over dinner and afterwards, I spent a lot of time talking about mortgages and extensions and consumer products. I had also talked a lot about work—the work I used to do (before kids)—in an instinctive effort to establish the kind of education and career credentials that might be taken more seriously than my current job as a full-time mum. And finally (this is the killer one!) I found myself squirming in my seat, wanting to change the subject, when they asked my four-year-old daughter what her favourite thing in the world was, and she answered, “Jesus”.
All this got me wondering what’s the difference between contextualization (or whatever word you want to use to describe doing what it says in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23) and chameleonization (or whatever word you use to describe not doing what it says in Matthew 5:13-16)?
It seems to me that it’s easy to tell the difference when the thing you’re doing to blend in is flat-out, black-and-white sinful. Furthermore, it’s easier to see the importance of learning the language and the customs if you’re Hudson Taylor in inland China.
But what about the thousand little adjustments I instinctively make to minimize the social awkwardness that comes from the differences between the lifestyle I’ve learned as a Christian and the lifestyles of my friends and neighbours? What about the gap between the Christian subculture and the mainstream culture of Australian suburbia? How hard do I need to be working at teasing out the differences between the non-negotiables of the Christian culture, formed by the word of God, and the dispensable Flanders-family cringe factors?
Here’s my current thinking (NB: still a work in progress!):
- Maybe the array of terms that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (“Jews”; “those under the law”; “those outside the law”; “the weak”, etc.) is not really a long list of examples of various cultural differences to be overcome by contextualization. Maybe in Paul’s situation, it all boils down to one issue: the impact of old covenant food and purity laws on who he is able to sit down and share a meal with.
- Maybe the main application point of that passage for me is not about trying to look and sound more like my neighbours when we sit around the table talking; maybe it’s simply about overcoming the kind of preferences and prejudices that would stop me from sitting around a table with them at all.
- Maybe I’ve been hiding behind “all things to all people” as an excuse for not obeying “let your light shine before others”.
- Maybe I should focus a bit more on having dinner with the neighbours more often, and focus a bit less on trying not to look like the Flanders family when I do.
- Maybe I should pay a bit more attention to loving my neighbours, and pay a bit less attention to looking like them.
What do you think?
Thanks Nicole, we are preaching through 1 Corinthians at the moment, and although we’ve passed this chapter, it’s such a big issue.
Let me see if I have got your thoughts by using the example of smoking; say eating with friends or neighbours who smoke like chimneys. I think you’d be saying:
(i) you don’t have to start smoking so you can become a ‘smoker to the smokers’;
(ii) but you do have to get over your “preferences and prejudices” that might stop you sitting down with them at all.
This is a big one, because although smoking is not sinful; certainly it’s become totally ‘on the nose’ for health and other reasons, and it is seen as socially unacceptable in many of our circles.
In fact it’s my right to breathe clean air. But 1 Corinthians 9 is all about giving up my rights for the sake of the gospel.
Sandy, That’s it exactly!
I wish I had thought of using that example.
There is a real tension, isn’t there? I was interested to listen to the recent Gospel Coalition conference which was bookended by Tim Keller’s talk on identifying and destroying idols in secular culture, and Don Carson’s talk on this very passage (ie 1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
I think the main point is that however you “become all things to all people”, the goal of that exercise needs to be to preach the gospel (woe to me if I do not! v16) and “that I might save some” (v22), that is to say that contextualisation without the gospel has no value.
Full marks to your 4 year old daughter!
Thanks for your honesty, Nicole. And well done on your parenting.
I haven’t been pondering 1 Cor specifically, but I have been thinking about contextualisation a lot recently. I think Sandy’s got the gist of 1 Cor 9. More broadly about contextualisation: I wonder if the point of contextualisation is not to “fit in” with the target culture, but to employ the communication techniques of the target culture in a sufficiently deep and thorough way, so that the challenge of the gospel is clearly communicated? So we need to be “like them” enough so they know what we’re talking about; but “unlike them” enough so they know we operate by different priorities – a different culture. In the world but not of the world.
What do you think?
Full marks to your 4 year old daughter!
Yes! But not to me for being so worried about what she’d say next!!
So we need to be “like them” enough so they know what we’re talking about; but “unlike them” enough so they know we operate by different priorities – a different culture.
Yes, I think so too. And maybe, as well as the ‘language’ issue (“employ the communication techniques of the target culture”) there’s a proximity/visibility issue (the “among” of 1 Peter 2:12, or the “before” of Matthew 5:16). I think the “all things to all people” attitude that Paul is describing in 1 Cor 9 can help with that as well.
Thanks Nicole!
I think you hit the nail on the head. Frankly, I feel more like a Chameleon with the hope of not sticking out like a sore thumb. Then, if my neighbors like me, I can someday in someway “talk around/about/tangentially about Jesus”. I think if I had been at the dinner and your neighbor had asked me, I would’ve squirmed in my seat, too!! I think your daughter exemplified what Jesus meant by “faith like a child”. They have no pretense of reputation to uphold because they just love Jesus. How wonderful!! Thank you for sharing with us.
BTW, Michael Horton (in America) in last month’s issue of Modern Reformation speaks about this very issue.
Sincerely,
James
Thanks Nic.
We have chosen to have a worse house than we can afford so we have more flexibility with our money for the sake of the gospel. We also want to make sure we are learning not to have our treasure here.
But then I spend time worrying about what my unbelieving visitors think about our old kitchen and bathroom. This squirmishness makes me hesitate to have them over at all.
So often I want to use contextualisation to justify my materialism.
Your post has helped point me in a good direction. Love, relationship and looking different, that Jesus might be made known and his people brought in.