Hey All,
I’m preparing to teach a class called, “The Church in Emerging Culture” starting this January. As such, I’m swimming in the blogosphere and swamping my way through a ream of new “emergent church” titles. So, it’s no surprise that the whole issue of “contextualizing” (i.e., speaking the Gospel in ways current culture can grasp) is on my mind.
Just ran across a quote from a John MacArthur interview with Paul Edwards. What do you think?
Edwards: One of the things I get most frustrated about is whenever people like you who are standing for truth point out the error both in the emergent church and in the seeker movement people will immediately run to 1 Corinthians 9 and begin screaming, “You know Paul said, ‘I became all things to all men,’ which means to the grunge I become as grunge, to the Universalist I become as a Universalist.” But in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul isn’t saying that we compromise the message and we become whatever the audience needs us to be in order to make the gospel palatable.
MacArthur: Well, of course not. All he is saying is there’s a foundation in the proclamation of the gospel with the Jew and there’s a different starting point with the Gentile. If I’m going to evangelize a Jew, I’m going to start with the Old Testament because that’s the substantial basis. So every time the Apostle Paul preached to the Jews he started with the Scripture—the Old Testament Scripture. Every time he evangelized Gentiles he started with creation. For example, in Acts 14 and Acts 17 he talks about the unknown God. Who is the unknown God? He’s the God who made everything—that was the foundation.
All he is saying in 1 Corinthians 9 is you must understand the starting point of your audience and here’s the point: ideologically. In other words, how do they think ideologically, philosophically, religiously? What are the ideas, the theories, the viewpoints that they hold? It’s not about identifying with their lifestyle; it’s not about being able to converse about every episode of South Park, every R-rated movie and every Rap song—that’s not it at all.
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.
Can anyone out there tell me how to italicize text? You can tell I’m a real blogger, can’t you. Don’t know how to make it work, though.
Or better yet, just give me a link that you’ve found useful.
BTW: Here’s a link to the original article:
http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11560481/page1/
Administrator
December 19th, 2007
try this link
marc
December 19th, 2007
Thanks!
Administrator
December 19th, 2007
IT WORKS! IT REALLY WORKS!!!
Administrator
December 19th, 2007
Wow. I just read the whole interview with MacArthur. He pulls no punches. I happen to totally agree with him. I think sometimes we use this argument as a way to avoid being seen as “foolish” by the world. “If I know all the cool songs, and I can quote the popular movies, and I dress the way they do, and wear Rob Bell glasses, then maybe they won’t think I’m so strange and maybe they’ll like me.” I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where it says that we will be “liked” by those who don’t follow Christ. We should expect to be called foolish. I even disagree with Driscoll on this (don’t hate me, Adam). I think Paul was able to quote the philosophers of the day (Driscoll calls them the “rock stars of his day”) because he was studying the culture and trying to understand it. I don’t think Paul had these guys in his iPod and listened to them on his lunch break because he really enjoyed them. Do we use contextualization as an excuse to be in the culture? We really like the culture and enjoy being “hip” so we throw out this whole contextualization thing and say “But I have to be like this to win as many as possible”. I don’t think that’s what Paul had in mind.
OK, so that was my little rant… in summary…I agree with MacArthur and think that we have taken contextualization too far. Preach the Word. Allow God to work by his Word and Spirit by lovingly declaring who God is. God can change hearts whether or not I know the latest fashions.
blessings!
btw: I’m glad to hear that you’re not a REAL blogger either (notice how I use caps instead of italics).
Todd
December 19th, 2007
Sweet one, Todd!!! I totally agree that our engagement with culture (that is, with fallen institutions, cultural expressions, art, etc) must be undertaken not as “consumers” but as “creators.” I also agree that too many of us are watching certain movies or listening to certain music not as theological interpreters, but addicted-inhalers.
I’m not sure which Driscoll comments you’re talking about. But if he has said that we’re supposed to immerse ourself in worldly music/movies/etc., then I disagree with him on that point as well (though I love him still!). we’re called to be a holy people, not drawing our joy, laughter, entertainment, inspiration etc. from things that displease the Lord.
Administrator
December 19th, 2007
Things that make you go hmmm, interesting stuff. Especially when you bring it back to the “in the world, not of it” topic from before.
one question, who is Paul Edwards? I didn’t get a chance to read the link.
I think MacArthur in his response hit it out of the park.
One can certainly talk on more simple terms without sacrificing the Truth. Jesus would repeatedly preach in parables. By doing this, was He compromising his message?….I don’t think so.
One of my favorite versus in the Bible is Romans 12:2. This is from the amplified version…
2Do not be conformed to this world (this age), [fashioned after and adapted to its external, superficial customs], but be transformed (changed) by the [entire] renewal of your mind [by its new ideals and its new attitude], so that you may prove [for yourselves] what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God, even the thing which is good and acceptable and perfect [in His sight for you].
so if i like to listen to music or see a movie, am i in trouble? I don’t think its consuming me even though i listen.
well, i ran out of stuff to say for now. Merry Christmas Borderlands bloggers!
Brick T.
December 20th, 2007
Greetings all from North Rhine Westfalia! I am hanging in this part of Germany for the next 10 days. We have some great family friends here.
We are going to visit Munster tomorrow…you know the place where the Catholics chopped protestants to pieces and hung the pieces from the church bells. So yes…looking forward to that one.
Anyway…context.
I think it is nearly impossible to draw a definitive line with this. Of course we hold fast to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints…but movies, music, etc. is a tough one to draw hard lines with.
I think the more important point is to be pursuing the beauty of God so passionately that interface with the culture becomes a spiritual event. I agree with Augustine, Calvin, John Piper, et al…that when we are in a passionate love affair with God we rise above decision and engage the world already full. We consume when we are hungry. We pour out when we are full.
I hope I am making some sense.
Aufveterzen!
Tony
Tony
December 26th, 2007
What I find interesting is this notion that you can either be contextual or not. The reality is that we all speak from a context, there is no neutral. John (pick anyone you want, but I am referring to MacArhtur) is speaking from a context and using cultural tools. He wears a suit, listens to certain radio and maybe even music, has opinions and prejudices.
So he has picked a certain cultural place to live and then feels that it is capitulation to use another cultural category.
And this statement - “He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview.”
I wonder how someone can use a language, have categories of thinking from that culture and language, use the rules of interaction, the tools of communication - be it a lecture, or a sound system, or a computer, with or without italics, and not have “those things” control their thought process and worldview?
That is precisely what they do. It is what always happens in cultural situation.
What I pick up from this blog and website and from others like MacAthur is the notion that there is culture and then the there is the Gospel. As if the Gospel somehow exists outside of cultural setting. The Gospel is good news. That means there is a meaning of good in place, there is news which implies there are people who hear it, in cultural situations.
Culture is not a bad thing, it is an ever present thing for humanity. What is a bad thing though is telling people that we have a view that is so unlike everything else in human experience that it need not play by the same rules. That what we believe is culturally neutral. What makes this so troubling is that it is so clearly not the case and anyone who is not coming from our same vantage point can see that.
In that way we become foolish, and not in a Jesus way, but simply in blinded, ignorant way.
Doug Pagitt
December 29th, 2007
Hey Doug. Thanks for stopping in and posting.
Did John deny that he too is part of a context? I didn’t pick up on that. The closest he comes to that, as far as I can tell, is at the end, talking about the way we dress, etc.
Doesn’t the idea that one can “pick a certain cultural place” presuppose a “contextualess” point of objectivity. I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating that.
I haven’t read “Truth Wars” or, as far as I know, heard one of MacArthur’s sermons. So I can’t comment on his own approach in an informed way.
Totally agree that all of us are impacted by our place-in-culture. I would also agree that the Good News is always incarnational.
But I also believe that Scripture, as God-breathed revelation, has a capacity to expand our point of reference. The Truth we receive in Scripture is not founded on the modernist pretension of an “objective” starting point from which we, independently and/or individually, obtain an exhaustive picture of reality. Rather, this Truth is rooted in God’s a) faithfulness and b) power. Scripture, through stories, propositions and history, communicates to finite humans a coherent picture of reality which corresponds to God’s perfect knowledge.
That last paragraph was a little wordy. But I’m just trying to say this: While we always approach Truth as situated beings, Scripture, as a creation flowing ultimately from God’s intention, in tandem with the Holy Spirit, has a capacity to refine our perceptions and draw us closer to God’s own thoughts on all sorts of things.
As a coherent revelation of reality that corresponds to God’s own thought, Scripture provides the most relevant interpretation of our experience. As Christians in culture, our call is to represent this in our context.
Doug, I agree that there is much good in culture. But doesn’t Paul indicate (in Romans 1 and other places) that human cultures collectively “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” I realize these words come in a particular text written to particular people. But isn’t Paul, speaking to these particular people, using universal terms?
Thanks again for the comment.
Administrator
December 29th, 2007
On culture, On creation …
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Who created culture?
God’s Word should be the lens through which we see and interpret and interact with culture, therefore how we view Scripture is imperative. Is it infallible? Is it authoritative? Does is speak today? Is it God-breathed?
I’m no theologian, I’m not a “fundamentalist” but I love the POWER and TRUTH of the Word of God. I believe the salvation message found in the Word of God is easy enough for the simplest of minds to understand. Regardless of their context.
Sometimes we forget the power of the Spirit to break down all the walls/cultural barriers. We have a responsibility to engage, of course…to be intentional, authentic, real.
Anyway, my context is calling me from above. Let me interpret: My boys are tearing down the house upstairs (they’re supposed to be in quiet time and so am I)
Jen
January 3rd, 2008
Sweet post, Jen! You cut to the heart of the matter, here. Ultimately, it is the promise of God in Scripture, the promise to communicate to us, the promise to send the Holy Spirit so we can understand his Word! Throughout history, through various cultures, God has spoken to us in the Bible. You don’t need a PhD, MDiv or even a high school diploma.
Administrator
January 4th, 2008
Language, Content, Context…oh my!
When my girlfriend (now wife)said to me “I love you” in broken English…broken because she was a Jewish refuge fresh from Russia and raised in an atheist/socialist context…I, the Irish Catholic American… raised in a Post- Post Modern American context still haunted by Judeo/Christian values…said “I love you, too”. And we think we understood each other enough to get engaged.
Then, six months later, we both converted to Christianity. We did this based upon the Word of God found in scripture. We both agreed to what it said.
Seven years later we’re still married and still Christian. Maybe the other shoe…the one that has “Language, Content, Context” written on the sole…will one day drop. But God is bigger than that.
What language does God speak anyway? What music does he like? What are his favorite movies? Can we get beyond our context to understand love? Can when have true relationships built on something beyond the cultural trappings that surround us? Is God “up there”? Does he gives us an objective starting place “down here”?
Isn’t the power of God displayed when someone responds to the Gospel “despite” the barriers, not because of them?
peace,
Tony
Tony
January 4th, 2008
Amen to that last paragraph, Tony.
Jen
January 4th, 2008
Doug Pagitt: “What is a bad thing though is telling people that we have a view that is so unlike everything else in human experience that it need not play by the same rules. That what we believe is culturally neutral”
Is Scripture our view or God’s view? Should we tell God to “play by our rules”? If we believe that Scripture is God’s inerrant Word, then what IS a bad thing is changing it to make it “relevant” for today’s culture. God never worried about offending people with His Truth. The Emergent Church isn’t only about emerging it’s self in today’s postmodern world (which isn’t a bad thing if one isn’t immersing one’s self in our culture’s baser aspects), but it is *embracing* the postmodern culture and with it, the belief that there is no absolute truth. When you lose faith in God’s Absolute Truth, you lose faith in His promises and teachings. You begin to think like Brian McLaren who said in his book “A New Kind Of Christian”, “I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts.”
God IS unlike everything else in human experience and he chose to reveal himself in a way his chosen ones would understand. We don’t need to change God for the postmodern world, it is *through* him, his Holy Spirit, that the world is changed. Rob Bell said in Velvet Elvis, ““This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that ‘Scripture alone’ is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true.” When you begin to distrust God’s inerrant Word, you begin to place faith in “man alone” instead of in Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone. That’s a slippery slope to take. Perhaps instead of taking such a low view of scripture, we should instead take up the challenge which God has given us: study, pray and *know* God’s Word: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”
Kathy Z
Kathy
January 4th, 2008
Great post, Kathy. I’m loving the interaction here.
Administrator
January 5th, 2008