A Response to Dr. Yarnell’s Latest Paper

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.

Alan Hirsch Knocks a Grand Slam

I love Alan Hirsch. I love the book The Forgotten Ways. He has immensely impacted my theology of missional and is one of my favorite authors and bloggers. Now if I could just meet him. Maybe I can be at some conference where Bob Roberts and Alan Hirsch and Len Sweet are all gonna be and we can have a big pow-wow. That would be such an wonderful and wild discussion. It would almost be better than my brisket combined with Dreamland Ribs and Milo’s Hamburgers and Publix sweet tea. And a Hardee’s chicken biscuit for breakfast. Boy I miss the food in Alabama.

Anyway, Alan has a great post on incarnational ministry. You need to check this out. I especially love the point about presence. All I can say is….WOW! This rocks.

He says:

The fact that God was in the Nazarene neighborhood for 30 years and no-one noticed should be profoundly disturbing to our normal ways of engaging mission. Not only does it have implication for our affirmation of normal human living, it says something about the timing as well as the relative anoninymity of incarnational ways of engaging in mission. There is a time for ‘in-your-face’ approaches to mission, but there is also a time to simply become part of the very fabric of a community and to engage in the humanity of it all. Furthermore, the idea of presence highlights the role of relationships in mission. If relationship is the key means in the transfer of the Gospel, then it simply means we are going to have to be directly present to the people in our circle. Our very lives are our messages and we cannot take ourselves out of the equation of mission. But one of the profound implications of our presence as representatives of Jesus is that Jesus actually likes to hang out with the people we hang out with. They get the implied message that God actually likes them.

Praying for Unbelievers

From the Your Journey Blog.  There are 11, here are 5 of the 11.

1. That God draws them to Himself - Jn.6:44: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him …”

2. That they seek to know God. - Acts 17:27: “God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.”

3. That they believe the Scriptures - 1 Thess. 2:13: “And we also thank God continually because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God …”

4. That Satan is bound from blinding them to the truth - Mt. 13:19: “When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart.”

5. That the Holy Spirit Works in them - Jn. 16:8-13: “When the Holy Spirit comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment…..He will guide you into all truth…”

Lessons From Spain: Redefining Success

I’m finally feeling like I am over this Spanish Flu bug. So I have another Lesson from Spain. We have to redefine success.

One of the things that I heard while sitting around the coffee/cola table with these missionaries is that we have to understand that how success is viewed needs to be redefined. When these missionaries from Western Europe look around at their work, they are not seeing 10,000 churches a month being planted like those in Asia. They are seeing 2-3 people per year coming into a relationship with Christ. Do you know how disheartening that is to tell people back home? When you come home on furlough and people ask how many churches were planted or how many people came to Christ this past year, or something like that, and you know you have worked your hardest, been obedient to God and yet you are not seeing the astounding numbers or the expected numbers that other missionaries are seeing in in other parts of the world, there is part of you that feels like you are a failure. That is because we in the States are intrigued and in love with numbers as the defining aspect of success. Sadly, if that was the case, Jesus and Paul could be described as failures.

The reality is that Western Europe needs people who are willing to do the hard work of preparing the soil. They need people to understand that in a land where the gospel seed has not been planted, you can’t reap huge numbers. You cannot and will not for some time see huge explosions of churches and hundreds of thousands of people being saved - except for an outpouring of the Holy Spirit which can and does happen. The soil hasn’t been freed of the rocks and thorns and hard ground.

Sadly, in a world where success is defined by largeness and not obedience, many don’t really understand the context in which those wonderful men and women who spend their lives in Western Europe are working. People in the states don’t see “success”, and the missionaries struggle themselves to feel like they are accomplishing God’s work.

So church in America, we need to rethink success. Because it’s become this way here.

Let me share a note from Bob Roberts new book, Multiplying Churches (page 25):

I have a vision and a dream. Let’s start a thousand churches over the next ten years, each one running a minimum of two thousand members, and in just ten years we will turn America upside down with the gospel! That would work, right? Wrong - that scenario just happened over the past ten years, and there are fewer people in the church today than ever before…Thom Rainer, author and columnist, wrote:

I am by nature an optimist. I have seen the hand of God too often in my life to live in a state of despair and defeatism. However, the state of evangelism in the American Church is such that I do have my moments when I wonder if the Church is headed down the path of many European congregations: decline and death. The facts of a 2004 research project I led are sobering.

In Delaware, we are seeing much of the same responses as those in Western Europe. I was having a discussion last week with our state Church Multiplication missionary, and he noted to me that Delaware was more like the Northeast than Maryland. Delaware takes time to be able to engage people in a discussion about them considering Christ - at least a discussion where they will continue to talk with you and not just ignore you after the conversation. The work is hard and success is seen in small ways, not large numbers. We don’t have 1000’s coming to Christ every year. People are not open to talking about the gospel. People don’t have a lot of interest in Christianity. It’s ok if you embrace it, but they have other issues to worry about other than the church.

We are going to have to wake up to the post-Christendom that is moving in on the US, and to transition our thoughts and feelings about the largeness of Christianity and the rules of success.

At our church, we use this measure for determining success: Have a I made another person’s life better today. Did the person I met on the street or in the restaurant or wherever, is their life better after I met them?

What is success to you? You define success by what you measure…

Lessons from Spain: Evangelism

I want to do a few posts, now that I am getting back to some degree of health, about what I learned by spending a week in Spain as it applies to ministry in the US. Western Europe is post-Christian, maybe better stated post-christendom. People do not view the church as important or necessary, and because their lives are generally taken care of by the government, they have no real pressing needs. One of the people we hung out with made the comment, “Spaniards work to live. Americans live to work.” The desire for more isn’t as strong as in the US. They actually answer the question, how much is enough?

Despite the fact that cities spend millions of dollars on building and maintaining churches, they are mainly empty on the weekends. This is becoming the norm in America. The missionaries in Western Europe spend more time plowing the ground than reaping. The ground is hard from centuries not spent preparing the soil and planting the seed evangelistically. They have difficult work. They told of how confrontational evangelism, ie. the Way of the Master, or CWT, or EE or the 4 Spiritual Laws, would not work in Western Europe. People will not engage you in those conversations. Guilt doesn’t work either. As a side note, I find it interesting that Jesus never used this type of evangelism. The missionaries I talked with noted that as well.

The church harvesting and planting movements of the East do not happen in Western Europe. And it’s hard for the missionaries to come home to the traditional churches and share that, because people don’t understand why they can’t be starting 10,000 churches a month like those missionaries in Asia.

What I was told worked was relationships. Long-term relationships, being there when crisis hits, just being a friend, was the most effective method of evangelism for these missionaries. Now hop a plane across the pond…

In Delaware, the same things are evident. People are busy and despite the many needs they do have, don’t really recognize them. We are not seeing large numbers of people coming to Christ. It is more like a Northeast culture than a Mid-Atlantic culture. If you are an outsider, it takes a long time to get integrated into the community. Confrontational, guilt-oriented evangelism does not work here either. The way that I have been able to express the Gospel in a way that people hear it is through sustained relationships and through blessing other people. What I see happening in Europe I see already in parts of the US. And in 10-15 years, I have to believe it will be widespread throughout the country.

This will mean reframing our evangelistic conversations. It will me engaging the culture relationally through already established groups and organizations. It will mean that we may have to deconstruct our understanding of how to understand and express the gospel in a world that will be at best ambivalent to it. This means we will have to see people as people, not as numbers or projects. It will also mean we have to redefine success.

This will be difficult for the SBC, and for many of its churches. We might consider preparing our people for it now.

PS…to my new friends in Western Europe, please let me know if I get any of this wrong!  I would hate to have misunderstood my experience…

Next Page »