Dr. Malcolm B Yarnell III, or as I affectionately call him, “Yarni”, (that’s not a knock in all honesty) has published a paper for the Center for Theological Research entitled, “Shall we ‘Build Bridges’ or ‘Pull Down Strongholds’?” I confess to not holding the education of Dr. Yarnell, nor am I an academic type. Despite the fact that I have sworn off posting about the SBC for the most part, I am choosing to respond to this paper because it deals with missiology and missional theology.

In this paper, Yarnell has two purposes. First, he hopes to demonstrate that “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.” He also hopes to convince the reader that Acts 17:16-34 is not an excuse for “finding relevancy in culture rather than Scripture.” It appears to me that he attempts to state that someone who argues for contextualization suggests the move by Paul at the Aeropagus indeed is an illustration of general revelation. I don’t know of anyone who makes this assertion.

Sadly, this is an attempt to brand those who attempt to contextualize the Gospel as neo-liberal. It is an anathema to him that Christianity has different expressions in different cultures. For Dr. Yarnell, there should be one meta-narrative for the whole world. This is an expression of modernism, which Dr. Yarnell apparently does not understand is not necessarily the dominant worldview either historically or geographically. In fact, the majority of the world has even yet to approach modernity in thought. Only those influenced by Western thought have a modern worldview and therefore, post-modernism only exists where the modern worldview has been dominant. There is a post-modern West, but not a post-modern world. Also, in his noting this, he has elevated Western thought to a place where it does not belong. It is arrogance to say that Christianity in a modern worldview is the best (or only) appropriate worldview. Not only is it arrogant, it is wrong, especially understanding the rise of Christianity occurred within an Eastern worldview.

Dr. Yarnell also makes broad generalizations that only apply at best to fringe thought and treats them as normative. He intimates that some of the most conservative evangelicals are really wolves in sheep’s clothing. Though differentiating “emergent” from emerging, he states that “[i]f the emergent movement is shaped by a liberal outlook that is moving toward syncretism, the emerging movement may be shaped by a post-liberalism that tries to avoid syncretism but still struggles to be considered orthodox.” He lumps Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer into the emerging category and implies that they are either neo-liberal or post-liberal but certainly not orthodox. Actually, Driscoll is one of the most conservative and orthodox theologians of our day (some would even say hyper-conservative) and Stetzer should in no way be considered liberal or post-liberal. He is as conservative as they come. Yet Yarnell embraces John MacArthur’s views on the emerging church. MacAthur is a modern-day heresy-hunter, going after anyone that doesn’t agree with him while not truly understanding those he is attacking.

Yarnell seeks to take apart the arguments of David Bosch and Dean Flemming, (though primarily Flemming) whom he identifies as liberal and borders on heretical. He also associates Ed Stetzer here with Flemming and indicates that Stetzer is a leading contributor to Driscoll’s missiology.

Flemming, Yarnell says, has made three critical mistakes. “First, he incorporated a hostile form of exegesis from which to construct a theology of contextualization. Second, he downplayed the confrontational aspects of Paul’s sermon in order to stress convergence. Finally, he even asserted that gospel preaching could occur without reference to the cross.”

While I, at this time, cannot speak to the first mistake, I will speak to the final two. Yarnell does not define confrontational until the end of his paper. When he does get to defining it, he notes, “the necessary factors for a confrontational, biblical, evangelistic presentation of the gospel are present in this passage: divine sovereignty, human lostness, the death and resurrection of Christ, the coming judgment, a call to repent, and a willingness to believe.” If this is what a confrontational, biblical model of a gospel presentation is, then I have to believe that Jesus was neither biblical or confrontational in his presentation. Whether is was the story of Zaccheus, or the woman caught in adultery or the woman at the well, none of those aspects are found in Jesus’ presentation. In fact, in Jesus’ presentations hell is not mentioned and heaven is only associated with salvation in one instance - the rich young ruler. He often pronounced judgment on the religious leaders for their attempt to place extra-biblical burdens on the people trying to control behavior, but not to those with whom he shared.

Peter must not have been confrontational or biblical either. In Acts 10:34-43, he leaves out divine sovereignty, a call to repent and a willingness to believe.

In Yarnell’s interpretation of the Areopagus sermon, he attempts to re-place the sermon within the context of the book of Acts, the New Testament, the Old Testament and specifically, Acts 17. I absolutely agree that is what he should do. And that is what each of us should with every text. Unfortunately, in his attempt, he fails to understand that context. He goes through an extensive exegesis process to develop an interpretation of the text. Yet Dr. Yarnell attempts to make the reader believe that those Paul would have been talking to understood all the implications of his exhaustive exegesis. Even if we assume that what he intends for us to understand is exactly all of what Paul was trying to communicate, that communication would have been in vain had the hearers, the Athenian academy, not understood what Paul was trying to say. So Yarnell inappropriately assumes that the hearers of Paul’s sermon would have understood the implications of what Yarnell believes Paul is trying to say.

As he sums up his paper, Yarnell turns to five applications to the Post-modern context. In his first application, he states: “To speak of ‘enabling’ the gospel or of ‘making’ it ‘relevant’ appears to imply a low view of Scripture. It appears to assume either that grace actually resides in us rather than in Scripture, or in the culture rather than in Scripture.” This is a falsehood. Actually, making it relevant implies that we attempt to announce the gospel in language and terms that our hearers understand, i.e., to translate it for others. The preaching of the gospel means that we preach the message of Christ in the language of the people, in their own context. Choosing not to contextualize the message is condemning people to hell; if they can’t understand it, why even share it? If they don’t understand it they might “die tonight and spend eternity in hell” and we wouldn’t care because we’ve done our part. And since they didn’t understand it the way we shared it they’ll spend eternity in hell. (Of course, one could believe in the gift of tongues and assume that if we attempt to share the message the best way we know how, the Spirit will help the hearer understand it in his/her own context.)

In his attempt to liberalize contextualization, Yarnell has really demonstrated that he is more bound to a methodology than a theology, or if to a theology, a theology that only comprehends one model of expression. He also demonstrates that he wishes to label conservatives who are methodologically different as liberal or post-liberal, assuming a guilt-by-association stance.

In addition, in Dr. Yarnell’s attempt to strike at contextualization, he never asks the question, How would the Athenian academy understand what Paul said? He tells us what he believes Paul was saying, but not how it would have been heard. And that is ultimately what the proclamation of the gospel is all about, isn’t it? We need to partner with the Spirit to speak in a way for the message to be heard, and that doesn’t happen unless we contextualize.

Does he achieve his premise stated at the beginning? I would say no. There are limited stories in Acts that we have of the disciples sharing in a context outside of their own. Many do not include a true confrontational or biblical expression of the gospel according to Yarnell’s definition. Yet we do have a case where extra-biblical, cultural material is used to make a point. (Paul’s use of the poets in Acts 17). While narratives do not always demonstrate a universal principle, it can give a model to employ. And when dealing with people in different cultures and backgrounds, Paul chooses to use cultural components to re-enforce, or make his point. This brings into question the validity of Dr. Yarnell’s assertions.

In addition, it appears that all he wants to do is to take a swipe at missiologists. He has taken to building straw men so he has something to burn while preaching and teaching at SWBTS.

If you found this page useful, consider linking to it. Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site. It will look like this:
A Response to Dr. Yarnell’s Latest Paper

<a href="http://www.wdavidphillips.com/2008/03/17/a-response-to-dr-yarnells-latest-paper/">A Response to Dr. Yarnell’s Latest Paper</a>

Related Posts: