Andrew Jones' C1-C6 "Informality Scale"

I appreciate Andrew's reflections on contextualization and his joining me in answering John McArthur's anti-contextualization rantings.  You can read what he's written yourself here.

Just for fun, you may also find his "Church Informality Scale" humorous.  Which best describes your church? Both churches that I pastor are somewhere between C3 and C4:

OK, a little off topic but still related:

Here is another kind of C1-C6 scale that I created to measure your church's formality or informality. Don't take it too seriously, but how would your church service rank?

THE CHURCH INFORMALITY SCALE

C1 - Courtroom. The most formal. Assigned seating. Silence while being addressed by a robed official sitting higher than everyone.

C2 - Corporate business meeting. No agenda deviation. High dress code but more interactive.

C3 - Classroom. Orderly but interactive within boundaries. Semi-formal dress. Leadership from front.

C4 - Coffee Shop. Interactive but people seated and orderly.

C5 - Club. No seating. All casual dress. Fully interactive.

C6 - Children's birthday party. No dress code. Interactive games and activities. Food. Laughter. Gift-giving.

"Grace to You" Continues to Rage Against Contextualization

To be honest, there isn't really much more to say in response to the current series of blog posts that is being featured on the Grace to You (the ministry connected to John Macarthur) web site.  There is a third offering today and I suppose it will be followed by others, but again, if you do not accept the unsubstantiated assumptions that they begin with, everything else falls apart.  And by the way, I really wish GTY hadn't disabled commenting on their blog as I would love a more direct conversation with them about this.  Perhaps they will re-enable commenting soon.


Catching you up -- My responses to GTY's anti-contextualization series PART 1, PART 2


GTY continues to essentially equate contextualization with a selling out of the gospel, which it fundamentally is not.  Today's post on their site doesn't add to that or really say anything constructive at all.  It simply stoops to new lows in its slandering of those who are pursuing contextualization as missionaries of the gospel.  Here's a brief quote:

By contrast, the “contextualization” of the gospel today has infected the church with the spirit of the age. It has opened the church’s doors wide for worldliness, shallowness, and in some cases a crass, party atmosphere. The world now sets the agenda for the church.

This is demonstrated clearly in a book by James Davison Hunter, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia. Hunter surveyed students in evangelical colleges and seminaries, and concluded that evangelical Christianity has changed dramatically in the past three decades. He found that young evangelicals have become significantly more tolerant of activities once viewed as worldly or immoral—including smoking, using marijuana, attending R-rated movies, and premarital sex.

To blame contextualization for immorality is sad and wrong.  Further, it is more than a little hypocritical coming from those for whom the gospel and Christian life has already been contextualized.  In my humble opinion, GTY is a great ministry that has stumbled at this point.  Pastor Macarthur should rectify this matter.  These anti-contextualization slurs and slanders should be withdrawn.  GTY has accused falsely faithful missionaries and Christ-followers who are pursuing contextualization as incarnation at great personal cost and are seeing the Lord honor their work by bringing many souls into the family of God.  The so-called "church marketeers" are not the same thing as those who are pursuing contextualization and the equation of the two is irresponsible, unkind, and unprofitable for the family of God.

Grace to You's "Giving Up to Gain" - latest on contextualization

I want to simply make note of the fact that Grace to You has posted a new article related to contextualization -- well, a post that is really seeking to be against contextualization.  I responded in detail to their first post and I would encourage you to read my comments on that first. The new article posted by Grace to You is entitled "Giving Up to Gain" and it truly doesn't add anything to their case unless you accept the false assumptions set forth in the first article.  That is, particularly for this second post, one must accept that the pursuers of contextualization are "church marketing specialists" who are willing to sacrifice the message of the gospel to gain hearers, to modify its content to suit the world, to compromise its truth instead of calling people to faith and repentance.

Of course, the fundamental problem with what GTY is doing is that they have begun with a wrong definition of contextualization.  They are attacking something which I would agree is bad but inappropriately naming that thing contextualization.  It is something else.


In terms of what GTY offers as interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:19-23, I essentially agree with what they are saying about Paul desiring to give up his rights in order to win others.  But that's exactly what my point was when I argued in the previous response to GTY that this text is most certainly a pro-contextualization passage. Here's what I wrote then:


I would suggest reading it in the larger context of chapter 9 and then comparing the language to the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2.  Is it not clear, that Paul has in mind the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ as he reflects on his own ministry philosophy?  Paul, though free from all, makes himself a slave to all just as Christ, who was in the form of God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant.  What was this slavery for Paul?  It was becoming a Jew to Jews, a Greek to Greeks – all things to all men.  In this, Paul’s vision was clearly Christ who was found and human likeness and was obedient to the point of death on the cross.  So this was not a matter of experimenting with novel new ministry methods for Paul.  It was slavery.  It was a laying down of his rights and life that he might win more people to Christ.


Writes GTY:


So winning people to Christ was his one objective. In order to do that, Paul was willing to give up all his rights and privileges, his position, his rank, his livelihood, his freedom—ultimately even his life. If it would further the spread of the gospel, Paul would claim no rights, make no demands, insist on no privileges.


What GTY fails to see is that included in this -- perhaps even the most obvious implication -- is that Paul was willing to give up his cultural preferences and identity.  He was willing to become a Jew to the Jews and a Greek to the Greeks -- all things to all people.  To argue that this is not a text describing Paul's pursuit of contextualization as incarnation seems to be really missing the mark.


I guess at the end of the day, I don't really have a huge disagreement with GTY.  I think that what they are opposing -- if it actually exists out there somewhere -- is something that I would also oppose.  The problem is that whatever and wherever it is, it simply isn't contextualization.  I don't care if the proponents of it drop that term here and there -- they just don't know what they are talking about.  They are playing a game and not pursuing the difficult and cruciform road of incarnation.


The whole contention with the Darrin Patrick crowd comes at the same issue from a different angle.  It would seem to me that GTY would be at odds with Patrick on the issue of contextualization.  Of course, I'm not sure.  But I think the fundamental problem here is a poor understanding of the key term.  For GTY, contextualization means essentially to conform to the culture, blend in, sell out the gospel.  Patrick doesn't really disagree with this.  He seems only to offer the modification that "over-contextualization" means to conform to the culture to the point of selling out the gospel.  For Patrick that is contextualization but it is too much of it.


So long as Patrick and those in his school of thought grant that there is a necessary connection between contextualization and slipping into heretical syncretism, the GTY-types can always respond by saying something like, "Why not just stay far away from anything so inherently dangerous?" And this wouldn't be a bad question.


No! This connection must be denied.  Syncretism, heresy, licentiousness and the like are not the special domain of contextualizers for they flow not from the incarnational life but rather from sin, ignorance of the Scripture and sound doctrine, and a deficient commitment to Christ.   One certainly does not have to be involved in contextualization to fall into these pits.  Contextualization is not to be imagined on a continuum with normal, sound, and good Christianity on the "non-contextualized" left and increasingly dangerous examples of contextualization moving off to the right until they eventually fall off into the fires of friendship with the world and hatred toward God.   Contextualization rather has as its model the incarnation of Jesus and its aim the enfleshening of the Christ-life in every historic human context. 


If Patrick and others like him could grasp this, then they might be much more effective in their advocacy and pursuit of contextualization, being thus able to respond to the GTY-types, "You know that's not what we mean by that term don't you?  Not at all."


To the GTY author, perhaps it was John Macarthur himself, again, I'd encourage you to get to know better the people who are really doing the work of contextualization.  I don't know any "church marketing specialists"; I probably wouldn't get along with them very well if I did.  But I can tell you that we pursue contextualization full on and have called many people to repentance and faith in the process.  In fact, just did so this past Sunday.

Answering "Grace to You" on Contextualization

Grace to You, the ministry associated with Bible teacher John MacArthur has apparently decided to target contextualization for the next few days on their blog.  It continues to boggle my mind that there seems to be no end to the attacks on the pursuit of contextualization.  Well, you can read the first edition of their series, “All Things to All Men” here.  For the most part, you can probably guess at my responses based on my previous writings on the subject.  Nevertheless, let me attempt a brief reply.  GTY's words are in italics.

The notion that the church must become like the world to win the world has taken evangelicalism by storm. Virtually every modern worldly attraction has a “Christian” counterpart. We have Christian motorcycle gangs, Christian bodybuilding teams, Christian dance clubs, Christian amusement parks, and I even read about a Christian nudist colony.

The above is a game.  From the first paragraph, it is clear to me that the author either hasn’t interacted with a confessing Christ-follower who is a genuine practitioner of contextualization.  Is he seriously suggesting that a “Christian nudist colony” is a serious example of contextualization?  The above list is designed to shock a particular audience rather than to educate.  It is disappointing to me and others who have paid a great price in order to cross-cultures incarnationally with the gospel.

Where did Christians ever get the idea we could win the world by imitating it? Is there a shred of biblical justification for that kind of thinking? Many church marketing specialists affirm that there is, and they have convinced a myriad of pastors.

Okay, I suppose I must pause here for a moment and admit that there may indeed exist a movement of American Christians (“church marketing specialists”) who do all kinds of stupid stuff under the label of “contextualization”.  But, I would argue that anyone who has the imitation of the world as their goal isn’t practicing true contextualization.  As I’ve said before, Biblical contextualization – real contextualization – is focused on the imitation of Christ’s incarnation.  This is what Paul practiced and it is what must be aimed for today.  We must not fall into the trap (either in our advocacy or in our opposition) of thinking of contextualization as merely a way to market a church.  Properly understood, it has less to do ministry techniques and methods than with spiritual discipline.  The one who has practiced contextualization truly, particularly in cross-cultural situations, has done so at great personal cost.  He or she doesn’t have to be convinced that living incarnationally -- voluntarily giving up ones personal cultural preferences, language, and food for the sake of the gospel – is spiritual discipline.

Ironically, they usually cite the apostle Paul as someone who advocated adapting the gospel to the tastes of the audience. One has written, “Paul provided what I feel is perhaps the single most insightful perspective on marketing communications, the principle we call contextualization (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). Paul … was willing to shape his communications according to their needs in order to receive the response he sought.” “The first marketeer was Paul,” another echoes.

Okay, well people who are reading Paul in this way – as a marketing strategist – are being silly.  But again, this isn’t contextualization as incarnation.  It is marketing.  Marketing is simply not what I am advocating for.  However, before GTY criticizes marketing too much, they should ponder for a moment why they engage in it themselves.  After all, they do market their ministry and resources all the time.  They adapt the form of these things all along the way in order to reach more and more people.  One wonders what exactly they are condemning here.

After all, the apostle did write, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it” (1 Cor. 9:22, 23). Is that a mandate for pragmatism in ministry?

I’m not sure what is meant by a “mandate for pragmatism in ministry”, however I will say out right that this certainly is a mandate for the pursuit of contextualization.  I would suggest reading it in the larger context of chapter 9 and then comparing the language to the Carmen Christi of Philippians 2.  Is it not clear, that Paul has in mind the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ as he reflects on his own ministry philosophy?  Paul, though free from all, makes himself a slave to all just as Christ, who was in the form of God, emptied himself and took the form of a servant.  What was this slavery for Paul?  It was becoming a Jew to Jews, a Greek to Greeks – all things to all men.  In this, Paul’s vision was clearly Christ who was found and human likeness and was obedient to the point of death on the cross.  So this was not a matter of experimenting with novel new ministry methods for Paul.  It was slavery.  It was a laying down of his rights and life that he might win more people to Christ.

Was the apostle Paul suggesting that the gospel message can be made to appeal to people by accommodating their relish for certain amusements or by pampering their pet vices?

No, of course not.  While there are some people who would perhaps seem to think that this is what is meant by contextualization, it is not what I mean.  Nor is it what anyone that I know means who practices contextualization.  For contextualization to be genuine, it must enable the Christ follower to bring God’s prophetic word to bear on a given cultural context – and to do so in a way that can be understood, preferably (like Jesus did) as an insider to that culture. 

How far do you suppose he would have been willing to go with the principle of “contextualization”?

Paul was willing to go all the way because his model was Jesus who became fully human, fully Jewish, fully Galilean, etc.  The “how far” questions miss the point on contextualization and, I must add, are usually asked by Western Christians for whom the gospel has already been fully contextualized!

This much is very clear: the apostle Paul was no people-pleaser. He wrote, “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). Paul did not amend or abridge his message to make people happy. He was utterly unwilling to try to remove the offense from the gospel (Gal. 5:11). He did not use methodology that catered to the lusts of his listeners. He certainly did not follow the pragmatic philosophy of modern market-driven ministers.

Correct.  He was no people-pleaser.  He didn’t seek to remove the offense of the gospel.  Nor was he intentionally trying to tick people off – he was careful to not add to the offense of the gospel by a failure to be incarnational.  So he didn’t preach in Hebrew at Lystra.  He didn’t preach the same sermon in Antioch Pisidia as he did in Athens.  He didn’t write to the Ephesians in the same style as he wrote to the Philippians.  This was not amending or abridging the gospel “to make people happy”.  This was about discovering how to communicate it with clarity through word and deed. 

What made Paul effective was not marketing savvy, but a stubborn devotion to the truth.

No, actually what made Paul effective was the work of the Holy Spirit.  Not that I am arguing for “marketing savvy”, but let’s be sure on this point.  Effectiveness in ministry comes neither from our “stubborn devotion to the truth” nor our “marketing savvy” but by the sheer grace of God.  That being said, God does, for his glory, bless and honor obedience and the pursuit of contextualization as incarnation is obedience.

He was Christ’s ambassador, not His press secretary. Truth was something to be declared, not negotiated. Paul was not ashamed of the gospel (Rom. 1:16). He willingly suffered for the truth’s sake (2 Cor. 11:23–28). He did not back down in the face of opposition or rejection. He did not compromise with unbelievers or make friends with the enemies of God.

I don’t like this paragraph because it is designed to suggest that contextualizers don’t want to proclaim the truth, are ashamed of the gospel, are unwilling to suffer for truth, constantly back down in the face of opposition or rejection, compromise with unbelievers, and make friends with the enemies of God.  Sorry GTY, while this is a problem in the Church is simply isn’t exclusive to those who practice contextualization.  I find it offensive that this is being suggested.  First, walk in our shoes for a week.  If at the end you think that we are ashamed of the gospel or afraid to suffer for truth, feel free to write such things.  Otherwise, I believe that this suggestion should be retracted.

Paul’s message was always non-negotiable. In the same chapter where he spoke of becoming all things to all men, Paul wrote, “I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). His ministry was in response to a divine mandate. God had called him and commissioned him. Paul preached the gospel exactly as he had received it directly from the Lord, and he always delivered that message “as of first importance” (1 Cor. 15:3). He was not a salesman or marketer, but a divine emissary.

This is more of the same.  It is a straw man fallacy really.  This idea is to present pursuers of contextualization as wimpy Christians who are ashamed of the gospel and afraid to suffer and then to say, “Well, Paul wasn’t like that so contextualization must be bad.”  Sorry, this is just bad and, I believe, irresponsible argumentation.  To the author, I would love to introduce you to a few disciples of Jesus who would blow you away in their boldness. 

He certainly was not“willing to shape his communications” to accommodate his listeners or produce a desirable response.

Of course, Paul was willing to shape his communications and did so to win people to the Lord.  One has only to compare the sermons he delivered in Antioch Pisidia, Lystra, and Athens and ask the question, what accounts for the fact that they are not the same sermon?

The fact that he was stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19), beaten, imprisoned, and finally killed for the truth’s sake ought to demonstrate that he didn’t adapt the message to make it pleasing to his hearers! And the personal suffering he bore because of his ministry did not indicate that something was wrong with his approach, but that everything had been right!

In what sense does Paul’s persecution demonstrate that he didn’t adapt his message?  I would agree (as would most pursuers of contextualization) that he didn’t make adaptations for the sake of pleasing people.  However, that he adapted his message is incontrovertible.  There has certainly been persecution in church history that has arisen from people misunderstanding the intentions of gospel proclaimers.  However, contextualization also leads inevitably to suffering and persecution just as the incarnation led to the cross.  In fact, I’d suggest that contextualization as incarnation inevitably leads to suffering because it allows people to come in contact with Jesus as the word made flesh for them.  For some, their response will be faith and repentance.  But others will reject this Christ and oppose him – sometimes violently.

So what did Paul mean when he wrote, “I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel”? As always, the context makes his meaning clear. We’ll be taking a look at what Paul really meant over the course of the next several days. I hope you stick around.

It will be interesting to read the articles to come.  I hope I have time to treat them here on the blog.  However I think there is an ironic sentence in this closing paragraph that is worth a second look.  “As always, the context makes it clear.”  Here, GTY is reminding us of a helpful principle for Biblical interpretation.  However, the principle is more generally applicable.  The context does make the meaning clear.  That is the point of the pursuit of contextualization in the end.  The idea is to use elements native to a particular context to make the meaning of the gospel clear.  What must be understood is that the hearers of the gospel will always use their context to interpret our message.

Okay. Spending too much time on this lately.  Peace.