Comments on: The Test of Biblical Contextualization

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:27:36 +0000

“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 crucifixtions lately? No. Well, it certainly fit the CONTEXT of the Roman world Chrsit entered. Had Christ been gassed, elextricuted, it wouldn’t have really fit. But of course, if God entered our context it would make more sense than crucifiction. We only know about crucifixtion because God used this very specific contextual form.

Forms are not meaning, they are simply forms. Meaning is deeper.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Sun, 24 May 2009 19:58:07 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:59:41 +0000

@Elenore: Very well said!

By: Elenore

Elenore — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:46:18 +0000

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!

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:41:14 +0000

@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.

By: David

David — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:00:36 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:50:33 +0000

@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?

By: David

David — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:31:31 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:54:11 +0000

@Keith: Thanks for the comment. It is a good test I want to remember as well.

By: Keith

Keith — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:58:08 +0000

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 our that our Bible is in English and not Greek or Hebrew is, in fact, a type of contextualization.