How much can "Context" hold?

by Robert Fraire

This year I had the privilege of going to the Shepherd's Conference at Grace Community Church in Southern California. This is an annual trip for me, as I get to visit with my extended family while I am out there.

One of the main sessions this year was presented by Phil Johnson. I have always enjoyed listening to Phil over the years and I consistently listen to him and Don Green at Gracelife via their podcast. In this session Phil took on the topic of contextualization as he examined the popular passage Acts 17:16-34.

Phil had many great points; as he pointed out how the in vogue way some professed Christians insist we must be and act to reach the current culture, actually contradicts what Paul did in this passage even though they often use it as Biblical support.

For more in depth understanding of Phil's message you can download the audio of it for $2 from the Shepherd's fellowship site. (here) In this post I want to focus on a singular aspect of this larger picture.

After Phil had finished his sermon I went with my pastor Steve Kreloff to the front in order to see Phil. A couple of people were ahead of us to greet Phil, and I heard both of them ask him questions concerning Paul's sermon. Both their questions could be boiled down to this: "Isn't it true that Paul was utilizing contextualization by quoting their poets and referencing their idols?"

Phil's answer in brief was "No"!

As I thought about it, I could see what the men who seemed to me to be honest and sincere in their questions were saying. I could see how under a reasonable definition of context, it was absolutely true that Paul chose elements of their culture in his proclamation of the gospel. BUT I completely agree with Phil's answer to the questions. Paul was not using "contextualization" in his Gospel message.

The rub in my estimation goes to how much meaning can you put into a word or phrase. When in college I had to take a class on US Military Law (since I was at West Point, it only makes sense we would study military law). And one concept the professor made clear was that the law used a concept known as the "reasonable man" or "reasonable person" standard. This standard is defined as: what a reasonable person would be expected to do in a given situation. If a person strikes another person and claims self defense, the question is asked, would a reasonable person have felt in danger given the circumstances.

I bring this up because an important concept is that one can only fit so much action into the word reasonable and it still meet the standard. A person who is threatened by a stranger might reasonably run or strike the stranger in order to defend himself, but if he then takes the strangers wallet and burns his car: those actions add too much weight for the phrase "reasonable person" to carry.

In a similar way, Phil made it clear that Paul did accommodate his audience by speaking in a language they understood and he did use some points of culture of which they would have been aware. And if this is all the proponents of "contextualization" meant then I can say confidently we would all be in agreement. But sadly this is not all they mean. In addition to this they want to load the word of context with: use of low brow vocabulary, denial of absolute truth, hiding of the gospel message, etc.

It is for this reason I believe that Phil steadfastly refused to call what Paul did at Mars Hill "contextualization". We believe that what Paul did is, with some reasonable accommodations to his hearers, boldly proclaim the gospel message in a way that violated their sensibilities, honored Christ, and made clear their need for a saviour. On the other hand what is being advocated these days takes these reasonable accommodations and goes FAR beyond. We will not accept that approach nor will be allow those who do so to use Acts 17 to cover their actions. What they advocate does not pass the "reasonable Christian" standard which is the only standard by which we may operate.

The Importance of Reminders - Part 2

In Part 1 of our examination of 2 Peter 1:12-15, we saw how the apostle Peter considered reminding his readers of the truths of the Word with which they were already familiar to be of crucial importance. We examined verses 12-13 in the first post, and so we continue now with the rest of the passage.

Notice verse 14: “knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.” Peter knows the end is near. In John 21:18, Jesus had told Peter in the presence of other disciples, “Peter, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” And right after that in verse 19 it says that by those words Jesus was saying that Peter was going to die an unpleasant death as a martyr, most likely by crucifixion.

At the point in time that Peter is writing this letter, more than 30 years have passed since Jesus spoke those words. Peter is not a young man any more. He senses and knows that the end is near. He sees what is taking place around him, and he realizes the animosity and opposition to the gospel is going to catch him in its snare and result in his execution. So it is all the more important that he devote himself to reminding these people who will be left to stand firm in the face of deceitful teachers, false doctrine, and corrupt lifestyles. They must defend the truth and be faithful.

Peter is like a parent who is dying while his children are still young. What do parents in that situation want to do? They want to call their children around them and talk to them and exhort them. They say things like, “Remember to do this. Promise me you will do that.”

And it’s important that they do such because they won’t be here for them to fall back on. They won’t be here to remind them. So they have to do it right away. Sometimes it’s hard for the children to appreciate how important it is that they hear it again, but it is important. So Peter says, “My life is near its end. I have to keep reminding you.”

I sometimes wonder how I would have reacted if I knew how I was going to die, like Peter did. How would you have reacted if you knew about your life what Peter knew about his? I think it would probably have been downhill from John 21 for many of us. All we would have been able to think of is, “Oh, boy, I don’t have much to look forward to. They’re going to martyr me. I’m going to die a painful and unpleasant death.”

If it was one of us, we would say, “Oh my, how can I serve the Lord? I’ve got this awful prediction by the Lord about my death hanging over me and I don’t like pain. I know what they can do to people. And with the passing of years, it is gotten harder because every knock at the door makes me jump. I am afraid to share the Word of God because I think that could be the event that triggers it.”

But you don’t see that attitude in Peter. And the apostle Paul doesn’t take that approach either in his last letter, 2 Timothy. They had a much more biblical view of death.

I’ve often thought that all I want to do is to be faithful in my ministry until I die. And sometimes I’ll start thinking, “Oh man, even if the Lord grants me long life, I only have 20 or 30 years left on this earth. I need to get ready to retire and start enjoying life. I have to get to the point in my life where I don’t do anything but relax and do nothing.” And we here in America have people retiring at 50 or 55, idling the rest of their time away. But we somehow justify becoming idle and pleasing ourselves because life is short.

It is short, but do you know the difference between believers and unbelievers? Believers are strangers and pilgrims here. We are servants of the living God, going diligently about his business until He calls us to glory.

Yet when we know we are going to die, or when we get near the end of life, what do we think? “I have got to take advantage of all the remaining time I have. I just got to go and see all the scenery and enjoy life, and do all the things I didn’t get to do when I was younger.” So the question I have to ask is, “Where are you going?”

The world says, “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” Well, they ought to live like that because it’s all they have. But if you have been living in a ratty, torn, ragged tent and you are about to move into a $50 million palace, you don’t say, “I have just got to spend as many years as I can looking over this tent and the weeds around it. I don’t want to miss anything here. This is just so wonderful!”

If that is the case, I don’t think you have the right perspective. Is it any wonder the world doesn’t see us as being any different? We’ve adopted its lifestyle. We might not say it, but we often think, “I’ve got to go for the gusto! I have got to get all I can here because, you know, life is short.” Praise God that it is short because then we can finally get on to glory!

I’m not saying we should be anxious to die. But I am saying we ought to view death differently than the way that it is viewed by the world. If you ever read some of the old writers like John Calvin you will find that they drew a line between believers and unbelievers on the basis of how they viewed death. We ought to learn something from them and from the apostle Peter.

In his wonderful little book titled Don’t Waste Your Life, John Piper gives a very powerful illustration of what I’m talking about. He writes the following words:

I will tell you what a tragedy is. I will show you how to waste your life. Consider a story from the February 1998 edition of Reader’s Digest, which tells about a couple who “took early retirement from their jobs in the Northeast five years ago when he was 59 and she was 51. Now they live in Punta Gorda,, Florida, where they cruise on their 30 foot trawler, play softball and collect shells.” At first, when I read it I thought it might be a joke. A spoof on the American Dream. But it wasn’t. Tragically, this was the dream: Come to the end of your life—your one and only precious, God-given life—and let the last great work of your life, before you give an account to your Creator, be this: playing softball and collecting shells. Picture them before Christ at the great day of judgment: “Look, Lord. See my shells.” That is a tragedy. And people today are spending billions of dollars to persuade you to embrace that tragic dream. Over against that, I put my protest: Don’t buy it. Don’t waste your life.

In contrast to that story, he also tells the story of two great women of God. He writes:

In April 2000, Ruby Eliason and Laura Edwards were killed in Cameroon, West Africa. Ruby was over eighty. Single all her life, she poured it out for one great thing: to make Jesus Christ known among the unreached, the poor, and the sick. Laura was a widow, a medical doctor, pushing eighty years old, and serving at Ruby’s side in Cameroon. The brakes failed, the car went over a cliff, and they were both killed instantly. I asked my congregation, Was that a tragedy? Two lives, driven by one great passion, namely, to be spent in unheralded service to the perishing poor for the glory of Jesus Christ—even two decades after most of their American counterparts had retired to throw away their lives on trifles. No, that is not a tragedy. That is a glory. These lives were not wasted. And these lives were not lost. “Whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark. 8:35).

You ask, “Bruce, are you saying it’s wrong to retire?” That’s exactly what I’m saying. I don’t mean that it’s wrong to retire from your job. In fact, I plan to do just that in a few years, Lord willing. I just mean that it’s wrong to retire and do nothing for the Lord. The concept of retirement is never found in the Scriptures.

I like what missionary and mission organization founder Ralph Winter has to say about this issue. He writes: “Where in the Bible do they see that? Did Moses retire? Did Paul retire? Peter? John? Do military officers retire in the middle of a war?”

You see, man was intended to work until the day the Lord calls him home. It may not be in the secular business world, but every one of us needs to be working for the Lord to the best of our physical ability until the day we die.

Every mission organization and every church I know has ministry needs that need people who have available time to fill them. We certainly do at my church, and I’m sure the same is true at yours. So plan now to work for the Lord throughout whatever years He chooses to give you.

Finally we come to verse 15. Peter writes: “And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.” That word “departure” is literally the word “exodus.” It is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, concerning the exodus out of Egypt by the people of Israel. It is also used in Luke 9:31 when Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration about His “departure,” that is, His impending death at Jerusalem.

They used the word “exodus,” because that is what death is. The body without the spirit is dead, and at physical death the spirit exits. The real person moves out, and the physical “tent” collapses. But one day God will raise that tent, it will be remade with indescribable glory, and the spirit will move back in.

I hope you have noticed that there is a lot of repetition in these verses. Peter says, “I want to remind you. I want to remind you. I want you to remember.” Because of that emphasis on reminding and remembering, the importance of the truth that God has given has been strongly emphasized in these verses. Acts 2:42 says the people in the early church “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching.” That was not to change after the apostles passed off the scene. We don’t need something new. These are not different days. We do not even need new methods.

I want to conclude with something that I know will get me in trouble with some people. I believe the method and the message are inseparable. Many in the American evangelical community have created an environment where they no longer give sermons; they tell “stories.” And they provide entertainment and act it out.

And all that does is move believers away from apostolic doctrine and create a superficial knowledge of biblical things that does not prepare or equip them to face false doctrine and false teaching. The only way you prepare yourself for those assaults is by laboring in the Word and doctrine, not with skits and drama.

Skits and drama can illustrate a point and they can communicate a truth, but they do not teach the meat of the Word upon which you build the foundation that will withstand false teaching. Entertainment can never take the place of biblical instruction.

As many churches get larger and more popular and people are more excited about them, we often see true, sound, apostolic doctrine being removed from their services. So when people say, “We’re changing some of the methods, but we are not altering the message,” my response is, “Yes, you are. You are no longer focused on grappling with the Scripture and seriously wrestling with the text. You are giving a presentation of truth in a general sense. That is not preaching apostolic doctrine.”

Now, I’m not saying you can’t use new technology to help communicate truth. Being able to use PowerPoint and computers to show things on a screen helps people know what you are talking about. But replacing the expositional teaching of the Word with sound-bite sermons and a comedic skit is a recipe for spiritual disaster later on when the false teachers show up—and believe me, they will show up.

We must stand steadfast in the truth. And we need to be continually reminded of these things, and we need to continually remind those who are following in our footsteps so that after we are gone, they will still remember the truths of God’s Word and cling without compromise to it.

Don’t cheapen the ministry with methods which leave men and women unprepared for the dangers they face from false teachers.

The Importance of Reminders - Part 1

This post is built on my sermon at church today, so those who were there will recognize the material right away. In order to avoid a post that would be too long for the average reader, I will divide it into two parts and post the second part in a few days.

In 1879, J.C. Ryle, an English Anglican bishop, wrote a book titled Holiness. It has been republished and is available today. In fact, I discovered a couple of weeks ago that the entire book is available to read on-line for free at www.gracegems.org/Ryle/holiness.htm, so I would encourage you to take the time to read it. I want to quote some excerpts from it in which Ryle wrote about the condition of the church of his day. He wrote this almost 130 years ago, but I think you will agree that except for the older style of writing, it sounds like it was written yesterday about the American church. Ryle wrote:

There is much in the attitude of professing Christians in this day which fills me with concern and makes me full of fear for the future. There is an amazing ignorance of Scripture among many, and a consequent want of established, solid religion. In no other way can I account for the ease of which people are, like children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine. There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is truth. There is an incessant craving after any teaching which is sensational and exciting and rousing to the feelings…Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and as long as the preacher is clever and earnest, hundreds seem to think it must be all right, and call you dreadfully narrow and uncharitable if you hint that he is unsound.

That was from the first part of the book. Let me quote from the last part:

The times require at our hands distinct and decided views of Christian views of Christian doctrine. I cannot withhold my conviction that the professing church of the 19th century is as much damaged by laxity and lack of distinctness about matters of doctrine within as it is by skeptics and unbelievers without. Today a myriad of professing Christians seem utterly unable to distinguish things that differ. Like people afflicted with color blindness, they are incapable of discerning what is true and what is false, what is sound and what is unsound…They are destitute of spiritual sense, apparently, and cannot detect error…These people live in a kind of mist, or fog…They are eaten up with a morbid dread of controversy, and an ignorant dislike of ‘party spirit’, and yet they really cannot define what they mean by these phrases.

The explanation of this boneless, nerveless, jelly-fish condition of soul is not difficult to find…Above all, the natural heart generally likes the praise of others, shrinks from collision, and loves to be thought charitable and liberal…For your own soul’s sake, dare to make up your mind what you believe. Dare to have positive, distinct views of truth and error. Never, yes never, be afraid to hold decided doctrinal opinions. And let no fear of man, and no morbid dread of being thought party-spirited, narrow or controversial, make you rest contented with a bloodless, boneless, tasteless, colorless, lukewarm, undogmatic Christianity.

Mark what I say! If you want to do good in these times, you must throw aside indecision, and take up a distinct, sharply cut doctrinal religion. If you believe little, those to whom you try to do good will believe nothing.

I would echo those words regarding our churches today. That is the same danger that today’s believers face in those churches where they get very little biblical teaching. They are going to raise a generation that believes nothing. J. C. Ryle continues:

The victories of Christianity, wherever they have been won, have been won by distinct, doctrinal theology…But depend on it: If we want to do good things and shake the world, we must fight with the old apostolic weapons and stick to dogma. Without dogma there will be no fruit. Without positive evangelical doctrine there will be no evangelization.

This is a reminder that things have not changed. These comments sound as if they were written to the church at the beginning of the 21st century, not at the end of the 19th century. And we are reminded that the devil does not change his tactics. He is constantly working to move the church of Jesus Christ away from its solid, doctrinal, biblical foundations.

That was the same concern of the apostle Peter as he wrote his second letter. He was concerned about the infiltration of false teaching and false doctrine. He was concerned enough to remind believers of the truth that is been given to them, because the best defense against error and false doctrine is a thorough knowledge of the truth, which we are to implement every day of our lives.

In 2 Peter 1:12-15, Peter places a strong emphasis on his responsibility to remind these believers of biblical doctrine and of their responsibility to remember it. In this passage, Peter’s focus is that God’s plan for His people has not changed. His plan is that we are to be continually focusing on the truth that He has given. We need nothing new. We need nothing more. We need nothing else. Rather, we need constant reminders of the old truth.

Notice how Peter starts verse 12. He says, “Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things...” He is using the future tense when he says, “I will always be ready to remind you of these things.” He is saying, “Whatever ministry I have with you now, or will have to you in the future, will be a continuation of the ministry I had to you in the past. It will be a presentation of the same truths. I am going to be reminding you. I will always be ready to remind you.” And in verses 13-15, Peter tells them that he will constantly remind them of the truths that Christ has made clear to him so they will be able to remember those truths after he dies.

The term “these things” refers to the things of verses 1-11. That doesn’t mean that those verses contain everything that could be said, but that this is a basic summary of God’s truth—from God’s salvation, right on through our growth as believers in preparation for the coming eternal kingdom. These are the things on which Peter wants us to focus.

Verse 12 continues: “...even though you already know them and have been established...” in them. Peter uses two participles: “even though you know them” and “are established in them.” Those are what are known as perfect participles. In the Greek language, the perfect tense denotes something that has happened in the past, but the results continue in the present. This is truth they have known and continue to know; that they have been established in and continue to be established in. But Peter still wants to tell them of this truth again and again.

But just because we know these things and are established in them does not mean that we are not susceptible to being lured away and losing that stability if we become careless. We have a master opponent: the devil. He is brilliant; he is clever. We should never, ever underestimate him. That is what Peter is concerned about. He says, “You know these things; you are established in them, but I don’t want that to change.”

Notice that the end of verse 12 says they “have been established in the truth which is present with you.” What was handed down is the truth of God, the gospel of God, the revelation that God has given through His servants to His people. It is interesting to see how many times in the New Testament that God’s Word is called the truth. Remember what Jesus said in His high priestly prayer in John 17:17 as He prayed to the Father? He said, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

During the past several years, the church has been passing around this little cliché that says, “All truth is God’s truth.” You might ask, “What’s wrong with that?” The problem with that thinking is that the assumption behind it is that there is some type of valid truth about man that is found outside the Word of God.

When the people who promote that idea talk about it, they are not using that cliché to refer to things such as mathematics or physics. They are not saying, “Well, it’s true that 9 x 9 = 81, and that truth is not found in the Bible.” If that was what they meant by what they were saying, I would agree with them.

But when they say “All truth is God’s truth,” they are using it to refer to truth about man’s nature and character. In other words, they are the psychologists who are claiming that the things they have “discovered” about the character of man that are not found in Scripture are true and that it is God’s truth.

That goes contrary to the basic, foundational reality of the Word of God, so we shouldn’t even go down that road. God’s Word is sufficient. 2 Peter 1:3 says it contains “everything pertaining to life and godliness,” so we don’t need to be mixing human wisdom with divine wisdom. All we need to know is that only biblical truth is salvation truth. Only biblical truth is sanctification truth. You can’t take biblical truth and mix it with human wisdom and claim that the end result is all truth.

But many people who haven’t thought through these issues are not prepared. They haven’t carefully considered and kept before them this basic, foundational matter—that we know and have been established in the truth, which is the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. And as a consequence, all kinds of corruption have infiltrated the church under the slogan, “All truth is God’s truth.”

Verse 13 says, “I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder.” Peter is saying that it is his God-given responsibility and obligation as a servant of Jesus Christ to constantly remind them of God’s Word.

That phrase, “as long as I am in this earthly dwelling” is a picturesque way of saying “this physical life.” The word translated “earthly dwelling” is simply the word for “tabernacle” or “tent.” In other words, Peter views his physical body as a temporary residence, and it will soon be folded up and set aside because He will be moving out.

Notice his attitude as he says, in effect: “As long as I am in this physical body, I must be serving my Lord. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up. I know the opportunities for serving the Lord on this earth will soon be past, so I want to take every occasion to remind you, to stir you up.”

He uses that phrase in a picturesque way, and it’s in the present tense—to be stirring you up. It is a word that carries the idea of awakening someone from sleep or to alert someone who has become drowsy. The picture is that he wants to keep them spiritually alert and ready. The danger is that spiritual drowsiness will overtake them, and they will become insensitive to the danger of the false teaching. Peter says, “I don’t want that to happen to you. These reminders are a way of shaking you, of keeping you alert, because we do tend to get drowsy. And we get drowsy with spiritual things.”

You remember how it is when you were first saved. You just couldn’t get enough of Bible teaching and listening to the Gospel. It was new and you wanted as much teaching as you could get. You were at the church every time the doors were open.

But after you were a believer for a while, you began to think, “Well, I don’t see why we need to be in a Bible study during the week. After all, there’s a lot going on with our family. The kids are busy with sports, I have to work long hours, and we are just so busy. We need some time together as a family, so I think we’ll cut out Sunday night church.”

And when we do that, we fail to appreciate that it is no less important to be reminded of the same truths after we have been Christians for 25 years than it was when we had been Christians for only two days.

But we become somewhat lax. We were willing to alienate friends and relatives left and right in those early days. But now we say, “Now that I’ve been a believer for 25 years, I realize I don’t want to alienate everybody around me. They have their beliefs and I have mine, and so it’s best that we just don’t get into it. So I’ll just be a good witness to them while we watch the game on Sunday night rather than going to church.”

That’s what Peter doesn’t want to happen. He is saying, “You keep this constantly before you. Keep constantly alert.” The apostle would not agree with those who consider gathering with other believers for the rigorous study of the Word to be unnecessary, too difficult, or burdensome. And he would insist that Christians stand for the truth in all circumstances and situations, even if the unbelievers around us find it offensive and we suffer as a result.

We'll finish examining this important passage in my next post, and we'll see how this continual focus on the truth should impact our lives.