The Discussion of Contextualization at the Shepherds Conference
I am not trying to start any controversy.
I love Dr. MacArthur and the Shepherd's Conference.
I like discussing what Dr. MacArthur asks us to think about.
So here goes...
The concept of "contextualization" is being discussed by the shepherds. Dr. MacArthur condemned the use of "contextualization" in preaching. He used several illustrations to make his point: a pastor who took his staff to a porn movie so they could understand what people were watching these days; a church that tried to teach their congregation how to evangelize without using the Bible. Dr. MacArthur explained that if one learns to properly expound the Scriptures that one does not need to worry about the given context of one's audience. In other words, expository preaching does not contextualize. For example, he said that he never uses an illustration from a movie, TV program, or song.
In many circles today "contextualization" means that one's interpretation of Scripture is as valid as any other. Lately this has been the opinion of Emergent leaders and Church Growth Movement proponents. Thus it is true that this generation abuses "contextualization" worse than ever. Paul warned us in 2 Timothy that this will be the case. But I am not sure that I agree with Dr. MacArthur's argument. It seems to me that "contextualization" is not the problem but the abuse of it is the real problem. I have listened to hundreds of sermons by Dr. MacArthur and he constantly contextualizes. I have seen him contextualize on Larry King bringing the Word of God to bear upon various current events. The music and songs selected for the Shepherd's Conference are specifically chosen to set a certain contextual environment. Dr. MacArthur even explained that he believes that wearing a suit and tie while preaching is the best thing he can do to communicate the importance of the gospel to this generation. Of course, the Apostle Paul believed in Acts 16:1-5 that Timothy would have a better chance in communicating the gospel if he were circumcised! Too bad Timothy just couldn't put on a tie.
Someone said that "contextualization" is best understood as "adapting one's communication of the gospel without changing its essential character." I like that definition. In fact, I think that adaptation to culture is inevitable. To deny it is to deny reality. Rather we should help pastors and churches to use biblical wisdom when contextualizing their ministries.
D.A. Carson said, "No truth which human beings may articulate can ever be articulated in a culture-transcending way--but that does not mean that the truth thus articulated does not transcend culture." In fact, Al Mohler (a key-note speaker at the Shepherd's Conference) has a daily radio program that contextualizes the gospel to bear upon the issues of the world. Here is a good article on this subject.
Posts
16 Spoke Up:
Jason,
I agree with your disagreement. :)
While I too have great respect for MacArthur, that doesn't mean that his equivocation on the definition of "contextualization" is right. I like the stuff you posted by Carson and Keller, we contextualize all the time.
I also think its residual of Francis Schaffer's appologetic methodology, that being: really getting to know the person you're talking to before you jump head long into your pat monologue. Schaffer would say if you talk to an unbeliever for an hour, the first 50 minutes would be you asking him questions about himself, his background, family, religion, etc. and the last 10 min would be you meshing their experience with the truths of Gods Word and bringing them finally to deal with God, sin, judgement and Jesus.
I think the wisdom of that in one-on-one evangelism/apologetics situations translates, at least to some extent, to "knowing the audience" in larger groups and congregations.
Maybe I am behind on the contextualization conversation, but I don't understand throwing the baby out with the bath water. An abuse of anything is just that, an abuse. One thing is clear. There is a poor definition of contextualize being presented by one side of this conversation. I don't know yet who is correct in the definition, but I do agree with Jason that we all do some form of contextualization no matter how you define it.
A dispensationalist speaking out against contextualizing?
sigh...
Johnny Mac just continues to rub me the wrong way. And don't get me wrong - I LOVE johnny mac! He played a big part (though he didn't know it) in my conversion. But i feel as though he's becoming an angry old man...
sigh...
To say that contextualization in all it's forms are wrong is to say that Wycliffe and Luther were wrong to have translated the Bible into English and German.
I think what we have here is a very clear reminder of a truth that should be vividly etched into our memory: that we have an enemy who is seeking to destroy all that is done for Christ.
To hold the amount of influence MacArthur has is also to stand in such a position of constant temptation and attack. For him to slip off unintentionally into a un-biblical side-philosophy that he created over the years after hearing himself preach is, though not excusable, completely understandable.
Given last years performance and now this, there is only one conclusion to be made. J-Mac's got mad cow. You heard it here first.
D.C.
What context did he say that in again??????
Jason.
I am with you...I wrote a post that actually shows, I don't this is news to any of us, that those in the Bible contextualized many times...
Dr. MacArthur tried to show that Peter didn't care about being part of the generation in Acts 2, but I showed how Peter WAS contextualizing in that very chapter to the Jews.
One commenter above said that MacArthur threw the baby out with the bath water...I couldn't agree more...
There are always abuses...and may I also say, to think that a suit helps your sermon is as bad as saying if you have holes in your jeans you are helping the generation to believe...
It goes both ways!!!!
Here is that post...
What is Contextualizaion?
I thoroughly agree with Dr. MacArthur's assertion that we have an "alien" message that appeals to nothing in man's flesh. But I have always considered that apart from the message (within the standards of biblical morality) we have liberty in our means of delivering that message to the world. In other words, what we wear should be culturally sensitive (no suits in tribes of Ecuador or shorts in Siberia). What language we use should be culturally understood. What music we sing should connect with the culture (substance and theology is more important than which instruments are used or not).
Phil Johnson agrees that we should avoid cultural taboos so that the gospel can be understood.
If that is not contextualization, then what is it?
Douglas,
Before you continue to tell us lads to repent, realize that these lads agree with me.
Phil and Dr. MacArthur have decided to reject the word "contextualization" not just the abuses of it. We too reject the abuses of over-contextualization among the proponents of the CGM and EC. But we just don't agree that the word "contextualization" is now a cursed word and a cursed concept.
On a similar note, when the libs hijacked the words "infallible" and "inerrant" and changed their meanings, we did not just quit using the words. We confronted their errors and defended the truth.
In this case, I just have a friendly disagreement with my brothers, Dr. MacArthur and Phil Johnson. I think they have over-reached just a little in their powerful efforts to guard the Truth.
This is very intriguing. I agree with John MacArthur that we don't need to pull in analogies from movies, etc. to "capture" people; however, if it is a non-believing audience, I'm all for it! (1 Corinthians 9)
If it is a bunch of believers who are only satisfied when their pastor is appealing to their flesh with entertaining stories, etc., the question becomes "Are these people here for Christ or for themselves?"
Any thoughts?
I am a bit perplexed by this dialog as neither John MacArthur nor Phil Johnson stated that they were unequivocally against contextualization, but rather spoke against the current trend to syncretism, the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.
More specifically, quoting Phil Johnson ... "But 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.
In the last decade or so, this passion for contextualizing has shown no restraint whatsoever. The result is all kinds of worldly behavior being found in the church under the guise of cultural contextualization."
In the King's honor,
Daniel O'Brien
Daniel,
I understand what you are saying. In fact, what you have written above is what I believe and what Dr. MacArthur and Phil Johnson believe too. But Phil has told me that he attempted to explain what was valid and what's invalid contextualization, and then he explained why he has come to reject the word as useless jargon that no longer describes anything that is truly valid in cross-cultural communication. And that is where I think our good friend has went a little too far in his strategy.
I know what he is doing and why he is doing it. And we completely agree on the substance of the issues. But we disagree on the strategy. I think rejecting the word is itself a useless and ineffective strategy -- but then again, what do I know???
Jason,
Thank you for the clarification.
I would like to ask your pardon for my last post as I left off the main point I wast trying to make where Phil Johnson stated "there is a legitimate sense in which it is necessary to translate the Gospel into the language of (and with awareness of the customs of) those we are trying to reach. There is a point in which it is necessary and legitimate to avoid putting up obstacles to the gospel."
As for rejecting the word contextualization itself, I do not have enough insight into the position of these two men, but if you understand the matter correctly, it sounds much like they feel [contextualization] has taken on a life of its own beyond its original meaning so lets not use the word, but still practice it in its legitimate sense.
Blessings of our Lord to you,
Daniel
“Be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 2:1
Post a Comment