Imperishable Inheritance

I have one more contribution to make, though I may be putting us at risk of ‘information overload’. I want to include additional insight into this topic of contextualization before moving on into chapter 2 and those that follow. You may have noticed that I have posted opposing views with regards to “contextualization”. This was intentional so as not to bias the blogging and allow each of us to make a decision in good conscience. Below are some comments from John MacArthur and others. This, and the comments as well, are worth the read.

NOTE: Due to the extensive thought provoking content of this book I suggest we make our comments ASAP and move forward in our dialogue of chapters 2 & 3. Your comments do not need to be extensive, but would be appreciated, if at the very least they would be an acknowledgment of your having read the material and this blog. This helps us to gauge the pace through which we want to move. Regardless, I am prepared to discuss each chapter at length if the group is so inclined.

The Test of Biblical Contextualization:
One of the topics that one is exposed to in missiological studies is that of contextualization. At first, something doesn’t seem quite right, and I even wrote on this blog my thoughts when I first worked through it. It seems as though some are trying to “water-down” the Gospel to make it more palpable to carnal men. And to be honest with you, there are preachers and evangelists that are taking the idea too far. In fact, they take it to the point where it is no longer the Gospel but instead a hollow, unfulfilling, and un-remarkable truth.

In some of the circles I run in (i.e. Reformed yet intensely missiological) we stand hard-fast by a more biblical definition of contextualization. We believe strongly that the Gospel is relevant without needing to alter it in any way yet we recognize the pattern of the Lord’s witnesses to his truth and holiness expressed most completely in Christ. From Paul on Mars Hill preaching to the Stoics and Epicureans with their paganism (Acts 17) to Jesus’ method to share the same truth in one chapter to Nicodemus (John 3),(a Jewish Pharisee) and the next chapter with a Samaritan woman (John 4). Paul’s declaration that he has “become all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9 doesn’t mean that he shared a different Gospel but that he recognized differing presupposition and starting points in sharing the same Gospel to different individuals.

John MacArthur’s Stance Made Clear
One individual, John MacArthur, has taken some strong stances against what he defines as contextualization. Often he is misquoted on this, so I thought it would be helpful to look at some of what he’s said on the topic.

“I hear a lot today about the necessity to contextualize the message. If I had any sense, I would be wearing a black t-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it and I would have holes in my jeans and there would be no pulpit here. And I would be wandering from pillar to post up here, we would turn the lights down and change this environment because people need contextualization if they’re going to respond. I haven’t found that necessary, nor am I at all convinced that contextualization means anything or has any value in the church. (Source)
The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is (zip-code ministry). The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel.” (Source — a transcription)

It would seem as though John (MacArthur) has a grave misunderstanding on what careful, thoughtful missionaries are doing in their ministries. It puzzles me that as John reads and preaches from an English bible (which is the very nature of contextualization) he outright disdains contextualization. But to be fair he comments on 1 Corinthians 9 in a way reminiscent of what we would hope for.
How do people think religiously, how do they perceive truth? those are the starting points that Paul was establishing. That’s a far cry from saying that to reach this generation we must do their music, we must dress the way they dress, we must live the way they live, we must be familiar with the baser components of their culture. That’s a million miles from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview. (Source)
John (MacArthur) does correctly recognize that presuppositions is the main concern in contextualization, and for this I want to rejoice. However, John apparently marries the idea of contextualization with becoming like the culture around us. That is the very nature of a misunderstanding that some have indeed applied to sharing the Gospel, but it is not what we should strive for in our ministries.

The Test of Biblical Contextualization
This stance of John’s was brought up in this year’s Together for the Gospel. John mentioned it by name, and Mark Dever spoke next. It was interesting to see them balance one another throughout the conference. Mark spoke on “Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology”. It was a fabulous look at the fundamental nature of the Gospel, and he speaks of those who un-biblically exercise what they perceive as “contextualization” to the Gospel. He then outlines very clearly what true, biblical contextualization looks like (in his point #3 around 40 minutes in).
“Contextualization should never make the Gospel more palatable to the sinner–more acceptable. In fact, one test you can use very practical my preacher friend of whether not a particular attempt at contextualization has been successful is to ask if it has made the offense of the Gospel clearer. There’s a test for appropriately reaching your audience. The Gospel is relevant to every sinner on earth.”

Up until that point I had not heard such a God-honoring, biblical, and full definition of contextualization. Mark’s point is the very litmus by which we must gauge not just our contextualization efforts but our evangelistic efforts on the whole.
The Need for Balance
We must recognize that fallen humans can take such as an idea as contextualization and pervert it to the point where we must then look and act like the world in order to be “relevant.” However, a careful study of the Scriptures reveals the tool exercised by the biblical characters to bring glory to God through the tireless, and accurate preaching of the Gospel of God through Christ Jesus.

11 Comments to “The Test of Biblical Contextualization”
• Perry says:
6/16/2008
I too greatly appreciate Dever’s understanding of contextualization.

• Keith says:
6/21/2008
Reading over MacArthur’s words, I am disappointed by what appears to be simple-mindedness, like he hasn’t really thought the issue through. Mark’s insight is brilliant: clearer, not more palatable. A simple, beautiful test that I should like to remember. I also enjoyed your insight concerning language; the fact that our Bible is in English and not Greek or Hebrew is, in fact, a type of contextualization.

• Chris says:
6/21/2008
@Keith: Thanks for the comment. It is a good test I want to remember as well.

• David says:
7/9/2008
I think that it is necessary to distinguish between our methods and our message when we discuss contextualization. I lean toward giving MacArthur the benefit of the doubt because the man knows the Bible as well as I can only hope to one day know it, but it seems clear to me that he is being critical of contextualizing the message, just like you are in this post, Chris. He may or may not have clarified between methods and message before or after the snippets you’ve posted, but I think when he says things like “Contextualization is ‘zip-code’ ministry,” he is merely criticizing those who would seek to contextualize the message according to the zip code.
The degree to which we contextualize our methods according to the zip code is debatable, but contextualizing the message is not. Christ and Him crucified. Period. And, though I really can’t speak for MacArthur, I think he would agree.

• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Thanks for the response. I do say in this post that contextualizing the message is not problematic, but it’s when we compromise the message there are problems. So, am I right to say that you’re ok with contextualizating but not compromising?

• David says:
7/10/2008
I think that any contextualizing of the message is compromising the message. The message is the Gospel, and because we all descend from Adam and inherit his sin and his curse, and because we were all created by the same God and need the same Christ and His Crucifixion, no contextualization of the message is necessary.
Arabs in the Middle East and rich kids in Beavercreek, Ohio need the same Gospel. The only contextualization that we need is in “becoming all things to all men” to gain a hearing with sinners and in expressing the one Gospel in their language.

• Chris says:
7/10/2008
@David: Well, I would disagree that there is never an opportunity to contextualize such as the passages I mentioned above (John 3,4; Acts 17). You might enjoy an earlier article I wrote where I went in-depth on defining contextualization.
Remember, as mentioned in this post, the very fact that you read an English translation is a contextualization of God’s revelation.

• Elenore says:
3/19/2009
I’m late on getting into the discussion…I just stumbled on this article. All of us today have received a somewhat contextualized Gospel. I assume we’re not hearing it in Aramaic. And for Americans or Brits, it was probably in some westernized religious framework.
Good contextualization guards the message so that what the original messengers communicated is understood truthfully. If we fail to contextualize/adapt appropriately, the hearer either may not understand or may misinterpret resulting in a changed Gospel, which is not the Gospel. That is, if he even bothers to listen or read. Failing to contextualize communicates that we have to change our culture, not our hearts. THAT is a changed Gospel!

Reply
• Chris says:
3/19/2009
@Elenore: Very well said!

• Jonathan says:
5/24/2009
I don’t know MacArthur, but in his defense, I think what he is referring to in the comments quoted above is not that he is against contextualization but that he is against the wrong type of contextualization. (as made clear through his reference to the people saying he should wear a t-shirt and jeans) Also I have heard him on more than one occasion encourage people to read the Bible in the original language if they can, and I’m certain that he does so on a regular basis.
Good thoughts though, thanks for sharing.

• Fred says:
10/22/2009
“Christ and Him crucified. Period” hmmmm. Sorry, David, you just emphasized the need for contextualization. First, and foremost, the Incarnation of Christ. God chose to contextualize his redemptive story by coming in the form of a man, why? Because it fits the context. Had he come as a superman, a bird, an ape, it would mean nothing to us. God contextualized.
And then CHRIST CRUCIFIED. If ever there was a contextualized statement it is that. Have you been to any crucifixions lately? No. Well, it certainly fit the CONTEXT of the Roman world Christ entered. Had Christ been gassed, electrocuted, it wouldn’t have really fit. But of course, if God entered our context it would make more sense than crucifixion. We only know about crucifixion because God used this very specific contextual form.
Forms are not meaning, they are simply forms. Meaning is deeper.
(I like this one)

Above content link: http://www.imperishableinheritance.com/2008/the-test-of-biblical-contextualization/

Ending Remarks:
For many of us these writings on contextualization, extraction and syncretism seem somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps because, at this time, we have no notion of personally becoming involved in cross cultural evangelism. Missions is not an option for us or interest. But let me point out that the world we presently live in has changed. Canada particularly has greatly diversified ethnically. (I have included below a couple of sites with information concerning our immigration statistics. Have a look at the charts.)

Canadian Immigration Stats:
http://www.canadaimmigrants.com/statistics.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Canada

Quote:
“Immigration since the 1970s has overwhelmingly been of visible minorities from the developing world… During the Mulroney government, immigration levels were increased. By the late 1980s immigration has maintained with slight fluctuations since (225,000–275,000 annually). Currently, most immigrants come from South Asia and China and this trend is expected to continue.”

This said, Canada can no longer be characterized in the same way it was 40+ years ago. Foreign languages, religious beliefs and their cultures have taken up residency and changed the demographic climate. In short, the mission field has come to us. Canada has become an example of “Domestic multiculturalism”. This means native-born citizens don't have to leave Canada to experience a wide variety of cultures from around the world. However it hasn’t stopped there. It has evolved into something else.

Excerpts taken from Suite101: Canada's Domestic Multiculturalism: Great White North Rich in Global Subcultures http://www.suite101.com/content/canadas-domestic-multiculturalism-a50182#ixzz0znSCKEKM

Our book focuses on how to present the gospel to modern Western culture. To discover the books application to us personally one must understand what the culture we live in looks like.

In an article titled “The New Canadian Ethnicity and Culture: How Young Canadians Are Changing a Generation”; a new Canada is arising that is distinctly different. Tech savvy urbanites. Ethnically generated but not necessarily entrenched. Here are some quotes from an article linked below.

“Identity politics is dead, and with it the outdated models of ethnicity and race. Canada's new generation of young, educated, urban elites is defining Canada. Public intellectual Alden Habacon is among a growing trend of observers who argue that “identity is dead.” … Habacon asserts, “We've out-grown the mosaic model of multiculturalism. . . hybridity is also an outdated concept.”

New Diversity In the New Canada
Diversity, according to these young, educated, mostly stationed in urban centers in Canada, argue that none of the previous models of cultural diversity can account for our unprecedented ability to negotiate our identities and navigate the cultural spaces. Not only have people of different ethnicities value their ancestry differently, the mainstream Canadian society has changed significantly as well.
… ethnicity might be the first thing one sees in a Canadian, it's not the only thing. Regardless, this new and changing definition of ethnicity does not mean ethnicity is discounted and irrelevant. Rather, it is other cultural influences that defines ones experience – and hence, identity – in mainstream Canada.
Complex Web of Cultures and Identity Politics
While arguing that identity politics is outdated and anachronistic, Habacon proposes a new model for cultural identity, or “schema,” where one envisions individuals as dynamic identities that move through a complex web of cultures. Because of this new phenomenon, cultural Navigators view themselves as the product of these networks, available to them through a host of influences, which includes a mixture of immigration, family roots, and residency in other cities of the world.

Cultural Navigators as Cultural Ambassador
Canadian cultural navigators not only desire this new form of cultural modernism, particularly in the arts, media and public life, they swim in it. They are mobile, young, educated, value their ethnicity, but are not ultimately not defined by it. As a result, what we are witnessing is a new Canada that looks substantially different from the old Canada.

Read more at Suite101: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-canadian-ethnicity-and-culture-a120283

So what does all this mean for us? Well apparently a new culture is upon us which is both the offspring of global cultural heritage and postmodern thinking. In fact this new Canadian may exemplify the Postmodernist mindset more than any other. In light of all this, perhaps we may conclude that this book is more relevant to our present situation then we first proposed.

Please post your comments online. Thank you.