Imperishable Inheritance

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 mis-quoted 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 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 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.