Pulpit Magazine

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Phil begins by directing our attention to Acts 17.

This is where Paul preaches among the elite philosophers of Athens. It is one of the best known passages of Scripture, but it is one of the most abused. It is a favorite passage today for those who are attempting to fashion a postmodern version of Christianity.

People repeatedly ask how to define “contextualization.” It is a catch-phrase of recent history. But the term doesn’t seem to mean the same thing to everyone. And the term is also used, at times, to justify vulgar and base behavior — as though you can use vulgarity or obscenity and then justify it by claiming that you must use such speech to reach a certain subculture.

The term itself has a history in the dynamic equivalence of Bible translation. It is the practice of altering either the terminology or essence of the message in order to reach a certain culture. Obviously, 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.

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.

(After a lengthy discussion of postmodernism and the weaknesses of missional ministry, the full transcipt of which will probably make its way to the blogosphere soon, Phil lists four elements found in Acts 17 which Paul approached differently than contemporary postmoderns.)

1. Culture

The Apostle Paul, in his missionary journeys, had made enemies in Thessalonica and Berea (so much for being sensitive and non-offensive). As a result, he went to Athens. Interestingly, Paul does not try to assimilate the culture. He is instead repulsed by it (v. 16). His spirit was intensely provoked within him – the Greek word contains the idea of extreme outrage or indignation.

Paul was highly educated and knew all about the Greek pantheon of gods. But this was his first time to be in Athens and see all of these temples with his own eyes. Wherever he looked he saw the signs of pagan idolatry. It was the defining mark of that culture and it grieved Paul deeply.

He immediately began confronting the idolatry by preaching Christ. He publicly proclaimed the truth in a place where people could not help but hear him. He disputed and debated with both those in the synagogue and in the marketplace. He faithfully proclaimed the message, confronted their false beliefs (rather than accommodating them), and answered their questions and objections with the truth (cf. v. 17).

When certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met him, they interacted with him, and they were not impressed. They were not enchanted by his cultural sensitivity or won over by his intellectual arguments. Instead, they called him an “idle babbler” (v. 18) or literally, a “seed picker.”

Paul was grieved by Athenian culture. He did not embrace any of the spiritual aspects of that culture. He confronted the culture rather than accommodate it. He stood in opposition to all of the philosophical schools of Athens: the Epicurians, the Stoics, and the Cynics. Paul was clearly out of step with every system of human wisdom at that time – he was entirely counter-cultural.

Paul’s preaching was a novelty. So they, out of curiosity, brought him to the Areopagus so that they could hear what he had to say (vv. 19-21). His speech before the Areopagus is recorded in verses 22–31.

Paul begins with a reference to their beliefs and makes that the point of contact. In context, we must understand from verse 16 that it was the idolatry of the Athenians that most upset and disturbed Paul. Thus, he began with the point of culture that he most hated, not that he most wanted to embrace. He wanted to answer their idolatrous superstitions with the truth of the gospel.

Paul’s use of the altar to the “unknown god” was in no way an affirmation of their culture. It was, instead, Paul’s way of focusing in on that which was most odious in their culture. Here in Athenian culture, the seat of philosophy and wisdom, was a monument that underscored their ignorance regarding the one thing that mattered most. He found a place where they admitted their own ignorance, and then he used that as an opening to proclaim the truth.

In proclaiming absolute truth, he could not have been more counter-cultural.

2. Conversation

Paul’s proclamation certainly did not encourage a dialogue or a discussion. He is preaching, not inviting a conversation.

Notice in verses 24–27, Paul simply proclaims the truth. He is not looking to discuss it. It is, instead, a clear declaration of the fact that God made the world and everything in it. He affirms the authority, spirituality, sufficiency, sovereignty, transcendence, imminence, and power of God. All of it flatly contradicts what these philosophers believed.

There was no give-and-take exchange of opinions. He does not assume a false humility and prepare that he is a truth-seeker on a spiritual journey looking for companions on the way. Instead, he declares to them the truth of God in a bold and confident fashion.

3. Contextualization

Paul did not use this favorite tactic of postmodernism either. Sure, he spoke in Greek not in Hebrew. But Paul did not adapt his message in any way to the basic values or belief systems of the Athenian culture. That’s what we mean when we speak of contextualization.

Paul quotes two well-known pagan poets in verse 28. But they were poets who were already ancient by that time; thus it was the literature of the Athenian’s forefathers. Paul was using that ancient literature to confront the contemporary worldview of those philosophers.

In verses 29–30, Paul directly confronts the worldview of his philosophers. Paul makes numerous points that would have been offensive to those in his audience. He was challenging their most precious presuppositions. He was attacking the most precious aspects of their worldview. Paul summarily dismissed all of the fundamentals of Greek-style religion. He further insisted that the true God was not just another deity who belonged in the Greek pantheon. This was tantamount to a bold and wholesale dismissal of every aspect of Greek religion.

At every point, Paul affirmed the offensive truth of the gospel over against the popular, but wrong, philosophical views of the Athenians. He even refers to their philosophical history and culture as “ignorance.” His message was highly and intentionally offensive.

In the sense that postmoderns use these terms, Paul did not employ culture, conversation, or contextualization in his sermon to the philosophers on Mars Hill.

4. Charitableness

By “charitableness,” we are speaking of the postmodern tendency to not speak dogmatically or critically about any other worldview or belief system; but instead always seeking to be conciliatory to others – no matter how unbiblical. That kind of charitableness often uses appeasement rather than confrontation to try to win the esteem of the other party.

Did Paul do that here? Certainly not. He declared the truth with clarity and conviction. And he boldly preached the doctrine of the resurrection, a point which he knew they would not accept. And in fact, it was that doctrine which ended Paul’s sermon (v. 31).

Verses 33 and 34 give us three reactions to Paul’s presentation. Some mocked (which is what would be the expected response to a message which the Greeks considered foolish). The fact that they rejected Paul’s message does not mean he was not faithful. Their response had nothing to do with whether or not he had been faithful to the message.

But some agreed to hear Paul further, and some (probably only a handful) believed and became disciples.

This is a picture of what faithful ministry looks like. It doesn’t cower before the opposition or waver from the truth. It doesn’t shift and change its content to fit the felt-needs the audience. It has one theme, and that is Christ in His death and resurrection. And it has one strategy, to unpack the reality of Christ and His death and resurrection as clearly as possible.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS