Dr. Yarnell has a new paper concerning Acts 17:16-34 coming soon on BaptistTheology.org . Recently he presented it in the chapel service at Southwestern. If you wish to see the service, click here. Below are a couple of snippets from the written product:
It is quite common today to read this particular passage, first, as an apology for natural theology, then second, as a paradigm for cross-cultural encounter. First, because Paul cites a pagan poet or two, it is assumed that Paul is thereby inviting Christians to look for general revelation within the philosophical and religious speculations of other religions and cultures. Second, because Paul engages with the philosophers of Athens, it is assumed that he has established herein a paradigm for trying to make the Gospel relevant to a culture unfamiliar with or hostile to Scripture. Specifically, some missiologists argue that Paul is encouraging Christians today to preserve the worldviews of other cultures as avenues of Gospel relevancy. In the exegesis that follows, I argue to the contrary. Paul’s use of a pagan poet or two does not establish an apostolic principle that other religions should be searched for helpful statements that we can then identify as authoritative general revelation. Paul’s use of a pagan poet or two does not mean that all cultures are neutral conveyers of Gospel relevancy. Acts 17.16-34, which contains Paul’s famous Areopagus or Mars Hill speech, is neither an excuse to find general revelation in other religions, nor is it a paradigm for finding relevancy in culture rather than Scripture. The Areopagus sermon is a subtle but open proclamation of the good news that every man in every culture must hear.
And later he says:
Paul’s speech upon Mars Hill must be read contextually, not only within the culture of ancient Athens, but especially within the 17th chapter of Acts, the book of Acts, the context of Paul’s thought, the context of the New Testament, and the context of the Old Testament. When approached in this way, the speech can no longer be seen as an attempt to build bridges through pre-evangelistic apologetics; rather, Paul was attempting to proclaim the Word evangelistically with confrontational power. The text clearly teaches the confrontational nature of the sermon, the biblical nature of the sermon, and the evangelistic nature of the sermon. Because my European ancestors worshiped false gods, I am so glad that Paul did not cater to European culture, but proclaimed the truth of our evil ways without compromise. Surely, we should be careful to present the same courtesy of forthright speech as we proclaim the gospel to other cultures.
Dr. Yarnell, may we all present the gospel with forthright speech and trust the Spirit to convict the hearts of men.
“nor is it a paradigm for finding relevancy in culture rather than Scripture.”
what?
Thank you all so much for praying for my son, Caelan. He is doing very well right now and we are praising God for His healing power. You have all shown the love of the Body of Christ. Thank you.
Regarding Dr. Yarnell’s paper, these comments are a bit confusing to me. Is he saying that people use this passage to give them permission to find relevancy in pagan culture? Who says that there is an “apostolic principle that other religions should be searched for helpful statements that we can then identify as authoritative general revelation”? Is he talking about the Camel Method here, or does he have some other practice in view?
I think that we can assume that people are asking spiritual questions. That much is obvious by the proliferation of world religions. There is nothing wrong with taking their questions and exploring how they have answered those questions and showing them that what they are looking for is really found in the Biblical God. That is what Paul seems to be doing. When this type of approach defines what we mean by contextualization, it is biblical and appropriate. We should speak in language that people understand when presenting the gospel clearly. Sometimes that means that we use ideas that people are familiar with to explain biblical concepts. Is Dr. Yarnell saying that this is wrong, or is he speaking of some other practice that is not obvious by the passages that are quoted?
IF & Alan
Until the paper comes out in full, you can watch the sermon from the video link above. These excerpts are only teasers to either go to the sermon or wait for the paper to be published in full. To relieve any confusion, I suggest either waiting or going to the sermon link.
God Bless
Well I guess Robin has already said that there will be no interaction on this until the full paper comes out but I still feel the need to say I am frustrated by this teaser. Why? Because on the surface I agree with what Dr. Yarnell has said here. But if he is referring to the Camel method I guess I need to say one more time that whatever it is they think is being done is not being done. Camel, nor what I do which is not Camel but is not traditional western ev either, is not a way to water down the Gospel but rather a way to make it heard all the more loudly. Many of us on these comment streams have said this many times but Malcolm, Bart, Robin and others do not hear us. This kind of miscommunication is annoying and may eventually end up in policies that hinder the Gospel.
Brother Strider
I do not believe Brother Robin is saying that no discussion will happen until the paper comes out. I believe he is saying that if you listen to the sermon many of the questions will be answered.
Blessings,
Tim
sounds like Dr. Yarnell may have live-streamed Dr. MacArthur’s shephards conference.
I read this a couple days ago and didn’t post.
But I’m still struggling with this statement, “not all cultures are neutral conveyers of gospel relevancy.”
Considering context, I assume that it’s a statement of the superiority of Western culture’s mores and methods.
I’ll withhold further comment until someone can confirm to me if that’s a remotely accurate interpretation. No sense hijacking a comment stream.
Brothers and Sisters,
What you are reading from Dr. Y is his take on a most renewed and appropriate controversy in evangelical-dum, that is . . . Inclusivism vs. Exclusivism! Please read the newest book published on that very subject, “Faith Comes By Hearing,” edited by Dr. Chris Morgan, Associate Dean of Christian Studies, Cal Baptist University.
Pingback: The Back Story to the Great Commission Resurgence « Provocations & Pantings