“For the time that is past suffices…”

With the growing distinction between emerging and non-emerging (or traditional/institutional) churches in American Christianity (and abroad) we are seeing a rise in buzzwords that tend to be championed by one side and demonized by the other. “Contextualizing” (and “contextualized,” “contextualization,” “context-driven,” etc.) is one such word.

A rough definition of “contextualization” for the church is “being aware of the cultural context in which lost people around them live, and [making] every effort to bring the love and truth of Jesus in word and deed to be ‘all things to all people’ using ‘all means’ to ‘save some’” [Mark Driscoll, Vintage Church, p.228]. It is “not making the gospel relevant, but showing the relevance of the gospel” [ibid.].

This last portion is the place where I think a lot of traditional churches miss the boat and sell-out the idea of contextualizing. They see any attempt to use means outside of their comfort-space as being a compromise of the gospel and the commands of Scripture. Any flux from the bubble of G-rated movies, button down shirts, Charles Wesley hymns, and home schooling is seen to them as a departure from the revealed Word of God and is a method which will not lead anyone anywhere except into further debauchery and wantonness of the truth. As a Southern Baptist, this is a position which I have seen people in my denomination and theological tradition taking a little too frequently for my liking.

Now, I know I have come out awfully harsh against the apprehension towards contextualization, and yet I have not offered any evidence for why we should use this. At this point the standard argument develops from Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 where he says,

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

I think by now everyone on both sides is familiar with this passage, and since this is the case those who still stand against contextualization seem to have found some way of arguing against its fairly obvious face meaning. As well, this has gotten to be a bit cliche, and so I think perusing over a fresh idea might do us some good in defending context-driven ministry and evangelism. To do this I ask that we look to the book of Acts.

Throughout the record events in Acts we see many sermons and gospel presentations made by the leaders of the early church. Among these I would particularly like to focus on Peter’s sermons, first to the Jews in Acts 2.14-36 and then to the Gentiles in 10.34-43, and Paul’s sermon to the philosophers of Athens in Acts 17.22-31.

In Acts 2.14-36 we find Peter and the Apostles (or the whole early church, however you read it) filled by the Holy Spirit, “speak[ing] in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (v.4). This occurs on the day of Pentecost, a harvest festival celebrated 50 days following the Passover in Jerusalem by Jews from all over the known world. Thus, when Peter goes out to preach, he addresses the “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem,” meaning the pilgrim and native Jews (v.14). The sermon which follows is unmistakably Jewish in audience, as Peter quotes from the Prophet Joel (vv.16-21) and from David (vv.25-28, 34-35), as well as making statements such as, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (v.36).

Later on, in chapter 10, after having been sought out by the Lord in a vision (vv.9-16) and by the men representing Cornelius (vv.17-23), Peter realizes that God is moving in him to deliver the Gospel to the Gentiles as a people, specifically to the house of Cornelius, the Roman Centurion. This he does, only now, unlike when amongst the Jews in Acts 2 (and Acts 3), he does not speak of the fulfillment of the OT prophets words, but instead points to the mighty works of God in salvation and in the miracles surrounding Jesus’ anointing (v.38), his death on the cross (v.39), and his resurrection (v.40). He then bears witness to his calling to proclaim the gospel and tells that “everyone who believes in [Christ] receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (v.43).

Finally, in Acts 17, we find the Apostle Paul fleeing from the Jewish mob, wandering about Athens. While in Athens “his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols” (v.16). Because of this Paul began reasoning with the Athenians, both Jews in the temple and Gentiles in the marketplace (v.17). Eventually Paul finds himself before the philosophers at the Areopagus where they ask him to give “this new teaching” that Paul has been speaking about (v.19). This Paul does, delivering the gospel message to the “Men of Athens” (v.22). However, unlike Peter to the Jews in Acts 2, Paul does not argue from the prophets, nor like Peter to the Gentiles in Acts 10 does he speak of his witness to the life of Christ, but instead he appeals to the Athenian philosophers search for God, testifying to them of God’s sovereignty over creation (even using the words of Greek thinkers to support himself, v.28) and of God’s coming judgment upon the sins of mankind, a judgment which is only survivable by repentance and Christ’s righteousness imputed to believers through his death on the cross (vv.30-31).

So, three sermons, three proclamations of the gospel, three different audiences, and three different contextualizations. To the Jews we see Christ preached as the fulfillment of prophecy, to the common Gentiles he comes as a Spirit-filled servant of God dying on the cross and being raised to life for the forgiveness of sins, and to the intellectuals in Athens he is the only hope for avoiding the wrath of an Almighty God. The pattern of evangelism, ever since day one, has been contextualization. Yet, at no point do we see Apostles pervert or weaken the message they have been entrusted with. Instead what we see is them pointing to different facets of the one great jewel that is the birth, life, death, and resurrection of the Christ and what all this entails.

This has never been about compromise, it has always been about reaching people for Christ in a way which is most appropriate for their life. It is not a thing we should be afraid of; “contextualizing” is not a dirty word, it is the way of biblical evangelism.