Macarthur on Contextualization
By Jonathan Dodson | March 6th, 2008 | Category: Missional Church | 14 commentsThis is almost funny…check out John Macarthur’s castigation of contextualization and the discussion at Boars Head Tavern. An excerpt from Macarthur:
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.
Macarthur is out of his league here. Some his statements are just naive. He clearly hasn’t understood the difference between contextualization and syncretism, but what’s more is that he has neglected the ultimate paradigm of contextualization–the Incarnation. An excerpt from my article on Missional Discipleship:
When the Father sent the Son, Jesus left the glory of his trinitarian abode and became a helpless infant in the care of humans he created. This required an accommodating humility. Jesus grew up and became a first century, toga-wearing, sandal-sporting, temple-frequenting Jew. He accommodated first century Jewish culture (also known as contextualization). So, within reason we should take on the trappings of our culture in order to contextually relate the gospel. This can entail wearing broken-in jeans, togas, hand-made sandals or a suit and tie.
Everyone is contextualized; all truth is expressed in cultural forms. The Bible is contextualized…Hittite treaties, Greek epistles, vice and virtue lists, sea stories…Macarthur is contextualized…
However, contextualization is not purely cultural; it is missional. It leads us to immerse ourselves into the humanity of our neighborhoods and cities in order relate the gospel to people and their needs. Being a local missionary requires more than relevant attire; it demands humility of heart to listen to the stories of others, to empathize with their frustration, suffering, and brokenness and to redemptively retell their stories through the gospel. To be sent by God is to follow the example of the incarnation, to redemptively engage others with a humble heart and cultural accommodation.
Yeah…that comment is ridiculous…I posted on that if you want to take a look and give me your thoughts…would love for people to see that this is just a ridiculous assertion.
What is Contextualization?
wow.
that quote is amazing.
ugh… has he read acts 17??
[...] John MacArthur reportedly said a few weeks ago at the Shepherds Conference that “contextualization is a curse” and [...]
[...] John MacArthur reportedly said a few weeks ago at the Shepherds Conference that “contextualization is a curse” and “the [...]
[...] week there was quite a bit of stir on varios blogs due to some comments made by John MacArthur regarding contextualizing the Gospel. MacArthur’s comments were quickly followed up by some [...]
[...] with many of those questions in a recent Three Part Series addressing some rather *interesting* comments from John MacArthur and [...]
Kudos to Johnny Mac. One will NEVER reach the lost adapting God’s Word to culture. missional=humbug Men are enamoured with what they can do rather than what the Sword of the Spirit DOES. Heb. 4:12 God’s Word is sufficient.
So are you saying that the Word wasn’t missional, that the Spirit doesn’t enter culture?
[...] really struck home with me about what Jonathan wrote, was his comments about Jesus and the Bible. Jesus himself is God – entering into our context. [...]
It is concerning that you say that MacArthur’s comment is “almost funny”…To say that contextualization is necessary or “more effective” is to say that the gospel itself is not powerful enough to save my friend. THE GOSPEL ALONE is the power of God unto salvation and not our witty methods or cultural relevance. And on the fact that Christ came and was a Jew. Of course He was. He didn’t come as a Jew to be culturally relevant, He came as Jew because it was necessary to fulfill the prophesies spoken by the Jewish prophets…Oh and not to mention, the fact that it was necessary for the Messiah to fulfill the ENTIRE MOSAIC LAW so that He would be a spotless and perfect Lamb of God. If you say that Christ came as a Jew to contextualize the gospel is straight up false, I’m sorry but it is. He submitted Himself fully to the Law of God and all of it’s commandments, statutes and requirements because it was necessary for Him to be perfectly obedient to the Law of God, not to be “culturally relevant” You should be careful to not make fun or mock men who are proven to be men of God like Johnny Mac. We must have a balanced view. We also cannot completely ignore culture but we cannot become so culturally relevant as to make the gospel itself not sufficient enough. You may listen to John Piper instead of MacArthur since it seems you have something against MacArthur. Please watch this, “Don’t Contextualize the Gospel”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVjPhSTSNYM
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for your comment. For the record, I meant no disrespect or mockery to MacArthur. He is a great servant of God and pastor for whom I am grateful.
The irony here, what I meant by “funny”, is that neither you nor MacArthur’s position adequately account for the gospel. There is no “naked gospel”; it comes to us in cultural forms, language, concepts. It doesn’t just drop from the heavens irrespective of history and culture. I agree entirely that the gospel alone is powerful to save—salvation comes by faith alone in Christ alone (isn’t it wonderful?), but the gospel is never alone. It is always expressed in cultural form. The gospel, Jesus, and the Bible are all contextualized. They enter history in a specific time, place, and culture, sometimes critiquing other times cloaking in culture.
The Law and Context
To your point regarding the Law is only half true. Jesus came to place redemption in our context. To say that Jesus and the gospel are a product of OT prophecy does not conflict with Jesus and the gospel as cultural. It is not an either/or. The Law is contextualized, Jesus fulfilled this ancient way of communicating, and then placed the gospel in a new Jewish context. Then Paul placed it in a Greek context. A few examples:
1. Jesus referred to the Jewish Law, which borrows (and reworks) the Code of Hammurabi.
2. He worked within the Jewish concept of covenant, an relationship that follows the pattern of Hittite treaties
3. Jesus articulated the gospel in the form of Eastern parables.
The Law, and the rest of the Bible, is cultural, placed in a specific context. Jesus is divine and Jesus is cultural. The Gospel is from God and to people.
The Gospel and Culture
To reject contextualization is to reject the incarnation—Jesus in the flesh, in history, in time, and in culture. It is not about being witty, nor “relevant” but about expressing the truth in love, in a way that humanity can understand it. To follow your line of thinking, we would all need to speak in Hebrew, follow OT law, and not communicate the gospel in any other language. Surely you don’t agree with that! This blog is a cultural expresssion of the gospel, as well as your comment. We are using English, referring to God by an Anglo-Saxon/German derivative “gott” which is pagan in origin, to refer to the Creator God of the Bible. We can’t escape the gospel in culture.
The critical thing is that we adequately and faithfully express the gospel, preserving its full meaning, in our cultures. This isn’t novel. This is historical. I highly encourage you to read up on the subject. I think you are confusing contextualization with syncretism. A good place to start would be:
Contextualization in the New Testament, Flemming
Every blessing,
JD
Hello,
Thank you very much for your response. You did clear some things up for me regarding what you meant in your original post. Just to clear things up, my line of thinking would not lead us to say that we would all have to be speaking in Hebrew and not communicate the gospel in any other language. At the end of my comment I did state that we cannot completely ignore culture like some do, but I’m only saying that we cannot be so concerned with making the gospel so culturally relevant as to make the gospel not sufficient enough to save the lost as many do in modern day American Evangelicalism. But you cleared up the issue and it seems that you are saying we must strive to clearly communicate the gospel in the context of whatever culture we are in. I say amen to that.
And I stand with you in saying that, “The critical thing is that we adequately and faithfully express the gospel, preserving its full meaning, in our cultures.” I will definitely look into the book you recommended. Once again, thank you for your reply. Blessings.
Soli Deo Gloria
Thanks for responding to my response so graciously. With you in Jesus.
And thank you for your gracious reply to my first comment as well. This taught me to better examine something I read before I make assumptions about what the author is trying to communicate to the reader. My lack of enough wisdom to control my zeal gets the best of me sometimes and I apologize for that. I thank Him because He is faithful to correct and teach me as my walk with Christ progresses. Thank you for your time. Grace and Peace.