MSJ 30/1 (Spring 2019) 147–67 HOW WOULD PAUL ENGAGE TODAY’S SECULARIZING SOCIETY?: AN EXEGETICAL REVISITING OF ACTS 17 Chris Burnett Faculty Associate and Ph.D. Candidate, The Master’s Seminary Proponents across the spectrum of contextualization theory often appeal to Paul’s strategic evangelization through Macedonia into Athens in Acts 17 to either support or decry the theological presuppositions at the root of popular Christian dialogue theories. It is therefore opportune to exegetically revisit this locus classicus to understand the guiding parameters and practices of Paul, especially for mission- aries who daily combat the overwhelming forces of secularism and religious plural- ism. The exegetical analysis of Acts 17 provides crucial, unmistakable conclusions about Paul’s methods of interreligious dialogue and cultural engagement in the for- eign context. The theological and practical constraints of Christian dialogue which emerge from the study should embolden the missionary in the task of propositional evangelism––that is, proclaiming the distinctly Christian gospel to a religiously am- bivalent culture. * * * * * Global Dialogue and the Relevance of Scripture Missionaries to the Majority World work on the cutting edge of innovation and creativity to combat the overwhelming hostility to the lordship of Jesus Christ found in religious pluralism and in secularism.1 As frontline contextualizers, missionaries 1 Secularism, rising in part from the vast array of globalizing worldview options, promotes the athe- istic value of separating religious faith and human reason so that the input and influence in the growth of society and individuals comes from the well of human experience rather than from a transcendent, super- natural source. For general social theory proposals as to the effects of globalization on the secular mindset, see Brian S. Turner, Religion and Modern Society: Citizenship, Secularisation and the State (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011); David Martin, The Future of Christianity: Reflections on Vio- lence and Democracy, Religion and Secularization, (Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 2010). 147 148 | How Would Paul Engage daily wrestle with a debate that has endured nearly two millennia over the controlling authority for evangelistic engagement with differing sources of truth.2 At least two questions relate to the ever-present debate over Christian dialogue method in the secularizing world: If secularism drains the religious and spiritual char- acter of a culture, then how should the missionary attempt to make theological in- roads? Is searching for spiritual commonalities in a foreign secular context a strategy that the apostles would condone? Scripture presents straightforward guidelines for combatting the complexities of the ever-increasing secularization of newly globalizing societies across the world. Broad biblical and theological parameters for evangelistic contextualization emerge in the canon of Scripture through a wide range of strategic approaches and case stud- ies.3 Perhaps no missionary has met the challenges of contextualization from the ba- sis of Scripture more directly and more consistently than the apostle Paul throughout his foreign travels. Proponents across the spectrum of contextualization theory often appeal to Paul’s strategic evangelization through Macedonia into Athens in Acts 17 2 Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 240 AD) warned of the contaminating influence of Hellenistic philosophy on the tenets of Christianity, asserting that enmeshing conflicting founts of knowledge ultimately risks the syncretizing of Christian and pagan worldviews into a “mottled Christianity.” He famously asked, “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?” Tertullian, “Prescription against Heretics,” in Greek and Roman Philosophy After Aristotle, trans. Jason L. Saunders (Simon & Schuster, 1966), 344. More recently, Miroslav Volf’s proposal for greater recon- ciliation concerning Christian-Muslim relations highlights how interfaith dialogue might lead to theolog- ical pluralism (See Miroslav Volf, Allah: A Christian Response [San Francisco: HarperOne, 2011]; see critique by Collin Hansen, “Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?,” online editorial [June 28, 2011], accessed March 22, 2018, http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/do-muslims-and-chris- tians-worship-the-same-god; also see analysis in Gerald R. McDermott and Harold A. Netland, A Trini- tarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014), 62– 65. Contrast with Jason Medearis’s unqualified support of Volf’s methodology (in comments to Georges Houssney, “Analysis of Paul’s Acts 17,” article [April 4, 2011], accessed March 22, 2018, www.bibli- calmissiology.org/2011/04/04/analysis-of-pauls-acts-17/). 3 In the Old Testament one need only look to Abraham, for example, to see how the message of grace-enabled, justifying faith in Yahweh extends from one culture-bound family to all peoples of the earth (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:5–6; 22:17–18). The message of salvation is necessarily transcultural and contex- tual. Peters broadly identifies the “universality” of the OT missionary mandate in George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 21–25. The OT saint is the one who, regardless of culture, repented of sin and sought the one true God (Isa. 55:6–7) as revealed to Abraham’s offspring Israel, Yahweh’s holy nation (Exod. 19:6). Because of the atoning sacrifice of Israel’s Messiah for sinners (Isa. 53:4–11; cf. Mark 10:45), salvation reaches beyond the borders of Israel into many nations through the work of missionaries presently and in the millennium (Isa. 52:7, 15; cf. Rom. 10:15). Of interest for further study on biblical contextualization approaches are the NT intercultural exchanges of Jesus with the Greeks (John 12:20–50), with the Syrophoenecian woman (Matt. 15:21–28), and with Samaritans (John 4:4–43); Philip’s intercultural exchange with the Ethiopian (Acts 8:25–39); Peter’s exchange with Cor- nelius the Italian God-fearer (Acts 10:1–11:18), the contextualization guidelines established by the Jeru- salem Council (Acts 15:1–21), his evangelization at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–47), the implications of his cul- tural hypocrisy in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–21), and his contribution to the doctrines of bibliology which inform contextualization (1 Pet. 1:24–2:3; 2 Pet. 1:16–21); John’s intercultural exchange among the mixed con- gregations of Asia Minor (1–3 John) who were later addressed directly by Jesus Christ (Rev. 2:1–3:22); Paul’s understanding of the spiritual limitations to a culturally rooted gospel comprehension (1 Cor. 1:17– 2:16), and the cultural motivations for messianic believers to perform non-salvific Temple vows and sac- rifices (Acts 21:15–29). The Master’s Seminary Journal | 149 to either support or decry the theological presuppositions found at the root of popular Christian dialogue theories. This article revisits the apostle Paul’s evangelistic activities in Acts 17 with a fresh exegetical analysis in order to provide essential insights for developing an evan- gelical dialogue method suitable to a secularizing society. Analyzing the original text with a straightforward hermeneutic provides crucial, unmistakable conclusions about Paul’s methods of interreligious dialogue and cultural engagement in the foreign con- text. The theological and practical constraints of Christian dialogue which emerge from the study should embolden the missionary in the task of proclaiming the dis- tinctly Christian gospel to a religiously ambivalent culture. But first it is opportune to present some of the key theological presuppositions which undergird the work of the conservative contextualizer who aims to follow the path of Paul in the activity of dialogue. Presuppositions and Definitions Conservative evangelicals need to speak with biblical clarity when they deter- mine to engage growing societal paradigms such as secularization. The task of con- structing a biblically faithful contextualization model in a secularizing society must operate from a high view of Scripture, one which both allows and expects the text to set the priorities and boundaries of the missionary task.4 Contextualization is there- fore necessarily and fundamentally an exegetically harnessed and doctrinally bound work. Thus, the Christian who appeals to the sufficiency of Scripture in missionary endeavors must ascertain the biblical parameters for responding to false theological claims and do so in a relevant way that avoids inappropriately hybridizing true and false beliefs at every level.5 Likewise, the conservative missionary must retain a low view of man, not in terms of one’s affection or esteem for the target audience but with regard to the spir- itual reality upon which to build the gospel message. It must be remembered that nonbelievers from the most diverse contexts and belief systems do not hold entirely distinct or isolated worldviews,6 because at the base of each lies the objective fact 4 In comparison with the this-worldly tolerance of many or no faiths today, a high view of Scripture is exceedingly high. The Bible holds the ultimate authority for defining truth; it demands absolute belief in the reality it proclaims and punishes all disbelief and disobedience with an eternal judgment proclaimed by God Himself. Such a high view of Scripture therefore has the highest desire––the transformation of individual children of wrath into children