evangelism and contextualization

“It is because we are committed to Evangelism that we must speak in antithesis at times. If we do not make clear by word and practice our position for truth and against false doctrine, we are building a wall between the next generation and the gospel. The unity of evangelicals should be on the basis of truth, not evangelism itself. If this is not so, "success" in evangelism can result in weakening Christianity. Any consideration of methods is secondary to this central principle.” ~ Francis Schaeffer

HT:ID

Masterful!!! The consideration of method is secondary to the Truth of the message. At the same time, consideration of the method is not unhelpful.

It's true I suppose that some distort the message under the guise of contextualization but by definition, contextualization is what we read occurring throughout Scripture. Unfortunately some, I imagine in response to this abuse, declare contextualization as inherently wrong. In that they fail to see that they themselves are contextualizing and even create a new definition of contextualization. If one examines this closely however, it is easy to see that the attack is not about contextualization but toward those presenting the message in a way different than then these accusers. These few have imagine their method as the sole approach endorsed by Scripture. Interesting sad.

John MacArthur is one of these. In the opening session of the Shepherd's Conference, he rightly states:

This message must be a transcendent message – meaning that it transcends all languages, cultures, social statuses, contexts, everything. At this time, cultural identity was very fixed. There was no “global village.” There were hard lines drawn between different cultural groups. Yet the gospel transcended all of these. Those differences had no effect on the message.

Jesus said in Matthew 28 to go into all the world and preach the Gospel. In Acts 1, Jesus explained that the power of the Spirit and the power of the Gospel is all that is necessary to reach the ends of the earth. Then in Acts 2:8, the disciples preached that message in the various languages of those who had come during Pentecost. They could proclaim the same message to people from many different countries and it had a powerful impact. It was a message (as evidenced in Peter’s later sermon) of sin, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ.

Whether the gospel was preached to Jews or to Gentiles, the message did not change. And all those whom God had chosen, responded to that message in faith.

But then MacArthur befuddles the Biblical mind when he jettisons sound Bible teaching for this remarkable bit of analysis.

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.

Does your message ignore the trends and superficial icons of culture, and bring heaven down in its transcendent reality? Can you take your sermons and preach them anywhere?

The Lord built His church with straightforward gospel truth. The Corinthians, for example, were upset that Paul was not more contextualized. But Paul didn’t care. The Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus were out of sync with their culture. But it did not matter.

Of course he is right if one redefines contextualization to mean deviation from the message and/or a focus on the method above the message but I have not heard that definition proposed by all that MacArthur and his team would like to accuse. The take that and apply it to all that are different than they are in their approach. And of course, once again, somehow MacArthur's approach is exempt from critique.

Phil Johnson spoke at session 7 of the conference. Here Johnson admits the term contextualization does not mean the same to everyone but he opts to focus on the negative stating:

It is a catch-phrase of recent history. But the term doesn’t seem to mean the same thing to everyone. And the term is also used, at times, to justify vulgar and base behavior — as though you can use vulgarity or obscenity and then justify it by claiming that you must use such speech to reach a certain subculture.

,,, people who speak of contextualization today usually turn that term on its head. Instead of trying to avoid impolite or offensive cultural distractions, the contextualizers of today want to maximize the shock value of their methodology. They attempt to adapt the biblical message to the target worldview of the postmodern generation they are hoping to reach. In practice, contextualizers assimilate as much worldliness as possible in an attempt to earn the world’s esteem – because the idea is that if the world likes us they will also like our Jesus.

The statement, while true, represents on part of a bigger picture. It is designed to leave the listener with a sense that Johnson and MacArthur are not contextualizing themselves and that all who are not like them are like those that Johnson describes. Both points are of course not true.

Johnson then uses the rest of his time trying to prove that Paul did not contextualize in Athens. I think he failed. Read it for yourself and consider this, this, this, this, and this. The clear difference in all of this is the starting point of the speaker. MacArthur, Johnson and others begin from a place of disdain for others while the great Bible teachers begin from a place that mirrors the heart of God, which is that people matter and God is sovereign.

Technorati Tags: evangelism