tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1656684986155409823..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Paul and ContextualizationPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8002210182109771392008-04-14T00:24:00.000-07:002008-04-14T00:24:00.000-07:00Polycarp,I think you are capturing one of the dang...Polycarp,<BR/><BR/>I think you are capturing one of the dangers facing those who approach sharing and living the good news by those you call emergent or postmodern - the enemy wants to trap them in a lie that they must be relevant - even at the expense of the gospel. <BR/><BR/>But, I think those you call postmodern may be pointing out one of the dangers facign those who approach sharing the good news by those they would call conservative or evangelical - the enemy wants to trap then in a lie that belief is more important than action. <BR/><BR/>It is neither one nor the other; it is both. Belief does precede action but belief without action is heinous. Action without belief is vanity. It sounds to me like there is much truth to be learned from both sides of the aisle - perhaps it is that radical middle we need to be finding - but both sides want to believe that the middle means compromise and God forbid we ever do that. :)Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-4507217705321035842008-04-13T18:51:00.000-07:002008-04-13T18:51:00.000-07:00Bryan:Yes, as in the Bereans, as in Jude, as in Jo...Bryan:<BR/><BR/>Yes, as in the Bereans, as in Jude, as in John's writing, as in Paul's writing...I am quite interested indeed in grouping of people according to their beliefs. Bingo.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I make "conversation" difficult for those who find conversation more appealing than declarations of truth (or equal to it). In light of the latest definitions for conversation within Christianity, I think conversation glorifies man and reduces God to one of the conversationalists. As for what or whom I dismiss, you seem to dismiss anyone who declares distinctions with conviction.<BR/><BR/>Please go back and read your comment prior to mine; it is plainly about the distinction between message and methodology. More specifically, you first explain how important it is for everyone to see the unity a broad range of professing believers have in their core beliefs (message), to which I agree wholeheartedly IF we are indeed talking about people with whom we do have such core beliefs. However, you then go on to minimize the disagreements of those--myself included--who see great importance in examining and scrutinizing methodology among those who claim the name of Christ because we readily embrace Paul's and John's stern warnings regarding "them" groups we need to be on guard against: heretics, aposates, and/or false teachers ("they went out from us but they were not of us" 1 Jn. 2:19). This seemingly "gray area" of methodology is where THEY exploit the freedom we indeed have, and always had, in Christ to speak into the hearts of people--not as robots with programmed message, but as people who are truly motivated by extending the love of Christ and His gospel to the lost. Like all things postmodern, emergents (they) rebelliously like to see just how far they can stretch this allowance. <BR/><BR/>Hence, THEY have taken this wonderful dimension of freedom and turned it into a circus by stretching it out to sheer absurdity...of which I describe as nothing short of blasphemy in many cases. In THEIR efforts to focus on (and hide behind) methodology, they keep their beliefs/message out of the picture by either criticizing doctrinal statements and/or the very presence of doctrine or by simply refusing to state/commit to core beliefs, saying that such a preoccupation gets in the way of worship and reaching the unchurched. In fact, they often cite the pursuit "unity" (ecumenicism?) as their rationale for rejecting the warnings of the NT against false teachers.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84056439391363279962008-04-13T14:55:00.000-07:002008-04-13T14:55:00.000-07:00Bryan,Our presentation of the message does indeed ...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Our presentation of the message does indeed matter if our manner of presentation communicates or implies something about the message that is untrue.<BR/><BR/>This is the problem with the practice of "contextualization." When we believe that we should change our presentation of the message based on the characteristics of our audience we are demonstrating what we believe about the message itself, and what we believe about the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>If the message is truly proclaimed, I don't have to worry about adapting the manner in which I present it to the various listeners I might have, because the message properly proclaimed is sufficient in and of itself to accomplish what God desires (Is. 55:10-11, Rom 10:17, 1Pet 1:23-25).<BR/><BR/>When we think we need to adapt our methods to our audience, we implicitly deny the sufficiency of the Gospel to do what God intends it to do. It really is as if we believe the Holy Spirit needs our help "getting in the door" so to speak, and so we have to help the message with our methods. <BR/><BR/>But this is just not the case. The Word of God properly preached is sufficient. If we say the manner of the presentation of the message doesn't matter, we may communicate something about the message which is untrue. Therefore, methods do matter. They should be consistent with how the Scripture presents the message. Some folks would like us to believe that doctrine is in one closed hand but methods are in another open hand. This is not so. Both are in the same hand, because the methods flow out of the doctrine.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84916036564899460462008-04-13T13:26:00.000-07:002008-04-13T13:26:00.000-07:00Polycarp,It seems to me that you are more interest...Polycarp,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that you are more interested in categorizing people than you are in entering into mutually edifying discourse. It makes a conversation difficult when whatever is said by one is reduced to a box by you that you can then understand and dismiss.<BR/><BR/>You have an understanding of what you think I said that I do not - or at least it seems that most of your comment is nonresponsive to mine. I suppose that means either (a) I'm an awful communicator or (b) you have an amazing talent. LOL. I don't have a problem being a poor communicator in blog comments - although I try to be coherent - and I do use paragraph breaks. <BR/><BR/>That last paragraph is meant to be taken lightheartedly.<BR/><BR/>I'm writing as I read through your comment to me, and i didn't even know I distinguished between method and belief. Fantastic talent I have. <BR/><BR/>As I read your comment I see that you not only know me well, you also know Paul just as well, and all people you call "emergents" (who apparently all want tattoos). Does it ever become difficult walking around with so much knowledge? <BR/><BR/>And, how was all this in your concluding remarks -<BR/><BR/>"Oh, and one more thing, if Paul was in-fact doing all of this "contextualizing" the emergents would like to believe he did, wouldn't we have on record somewhere in the NT a reference to his hanging out, even worshipping ("it's okay, I'm just being missional") at the temple of Artemis? Of course not, becuase he made it abundntly clear what they can do with their idols...and you might recall that bit of a chant by the masses in Paul's name that occurred as a result?"<BR/><BR/>responsive to any of my comment, which really was about getting over the word contextualization and realizing that people across the spectrum of Christendom really are preaching Christ and Christ crucified, just like Paul did?Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37574544915863112642008-04-13T05:03:00.000-07:002008-04-13T05:03:00.000-07:00sorry for the oversight once again with your name ...sorry for the oversight once again with your name (I meant to say: Bryan, Bryan, Bryan). Oh, and one more thing, if Paul was in-fact doing all of this "contextualizing" the emergents would like to believe he did, wouldn't we have on record somewhere in the NT a reference to his hanging out, even worshipping ("it's okay, I'm just being missional") at the temple of Artemis? Of course not, becuase he made it abundntly clear what they can do with their idols...and you might recall that bit of a chant by the masses in Paul's name that occurred as a result?Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51787068545544236622008-04-13T04:52:00.000-07:002008-04-13T04:52:00.000-07:00Brian, Brian, Brian....this is where you miss it I...Brian, Brian, Brian....this is where you miss it I'm afraid, as you believe that so long as you cling to the distinctives that you attribute to the terms "methodology" and "theology", then everything that falls into the former is perfectly okay if it does not interfere with the latter. This is hogwash, and it is the rabbit trail so many "soft" emergents and/or emergent sypathizers seem to run down--clinging to these self-construed notions of distinction between the two terms, and subsequently accepting nearly anything and everything that might be pulled out from the garbage heap as a legitimate form of methodology. Secondly, there is hardly any basis whatsoever in scripture for clinging to these distinctions--between method and belief--because they are simply not there; Paul was complete and whole as a follower of Christ, as a preacher of Christ crucified, as a scholar whose mind was given to Christ, as a theologian who saw Christ in scripture past, present, and future. Whether he spoke to one or to many, I contend that he was the same man, his message was essentially the same, and even his so-called methodology hardly varied beyond an obvious awareness--cognitive, historical, factual, even cultural perhaps--of the audience to whom he preached. If you wish to make distinctions, try this one: Paul's knowlege and/or awareness of his varying audiences, as opposed to the erroneous and ridiculous suggestion that he became one of his many audiences, makes all the difference in the world! Of course, a consistency in the man, the message, and the approach was entirely true of our Lord Jesus. It was true of all the apostles. For that matter, it was true of the prophets of old. But, emergents/liberals want nothing of facts, as they are simply looking for a way out of counting the cost our Lord said we must do if we would call ourselves His followers; they are looking for nice comfy ways around the inevitable rejection and persecution we will receive if we deliver the TRUE Gospel. In seeking to shrug responsibility, emergents so desperately wish Paul, especially, was advocating the life of a cameleon in order to satisfy the guilt (for the ones who are actually believers) from the Holy Spirit who convicts them of their delusion and (intentional?) misunderstanding; however, before they rush out to get that next tat/piercing (that they really just wanted to get for years anyhow), write that next book or create that next blog of rebellious angst and downright blaspemy in too many cases (that expresses what what they really believe, and have believed for some time, anyhow), or attempt to marry the glory of the Lord God with ecumenical pluralism/paganism as they look for the "good" among harlot false religions (that they have really thought were given a bad rap for too many years by modernist Christians anyhow), they should consider seriously in whose name they are doing any of it or where exactly they think they find sanction in the Bible for it. You see, the supposed line of distinction between method and belief is an amplification (into serious error) of nothing more than ordinary and commonplace. For example, I teach various groups of students different courses; I even teach more than one section of the same course quite often in a given semester. When this occurs, I am the same person when I teach all of these sections of the same course (and all of the other courses for that matter); I do not become someone different in each classroom, although I make myself aware of various details, namely those factors that might pose a challenge to my ability to teach effectively. The audience varies drastically sometimes, especially when I teach the same course on different campuses, but I do not and the course content certainly does not, as such would be absurd. I do not "become one of them" as various gurus of my discipline and/or higher education in general suggest we do if we really want to "connect" with our students. Of course, in the pagan world of humanism and postmodern liberalism, this is of no surprise, but in the church?????Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39983642267674884752008-04-13T02:03:00.000-07:002008-04-13T02:03:00.000-07:00As I read through the comments I still see a lot o...As I read through the comments I still see a lot of common ground - at least once you get away from the twenty-five cent word, "contextualization." It seems to me that those who call Jesus Lord and desire for the world to know Jesus as Lord and Savior all agree that we cannot water that Truth down. It is Truth. Jesus is Truth. Period. <BR/><BR/>Jesus as Christ alone - Truth.<BR/><BR/>Jesus as Lord alone - Truth.<BR/><BR/>Jesus as Savior alone - Truth. <BR/><BR/>Jesus crucified and risen - Truth.<BR/><BR/>These things are all straightforward and true. We seem to be arguing about really trivial and unimportant things when we talk about whether the gospel should be presented in clown outfits or not so long as the gospel is presented by people who are seeking to present the gospel as God leads them to do. We all have different gifts and passions, and they were all placed in us by our loving Heavenly Father, so that we can use them for His glory - given their diversity they will be presented in a myriad of ways.<BR/><BR/>Just because the method of presenting the message makes it easy for someone to understand the gospel doesn't make it bad. The message is easy to understand - it is the good news that even a little child can accept. ultimately, it doesn't matter how the message is presented nearly so much as whether the individual receiving the message is given the grace to be able to hear God's Spirit speak and then the grace to believe and obey. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, isn't it silly to base the correctness of an argument on the absence of comment from others one perceives to be opposed? That would be very subjective to interpret the absence of comment as favorable to one's apology. People might be busy; they might agree; they might not care at the moment; they might be tired; they might not like argument; they might be....[fill in the blank].Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67182448212307422822008-04-12T20:51:00.000-07:002008-04-12T20:51:00.000-07:00Brilliant!The only one who did not have a mask to ...Brilliant!<BR/>The only one who did not have a mask to hide behind (as if he needed to) was Paul.<BR/>The rest of them, and I say that the entities behind the greek idols are included, stand behind these masks. These Stoics and Epicureans were standing behind theirs of "materialistic determinism" and a belief in "sovereignty of blind, mechanistic chance"<BR/>Evidently a mask given to them and inspired by demons! This whole affair was abit of a Mardi Gras. Paul was the only one they could all see and understand whether they accepted him or not.Atar Jacob Kashathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06412277385367172961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75319738153206320982008-04-12T18:39:00.000-07:002008-04-12T18:39:00.000-07:00Phil,http://www.fairoakschurch.org/index2.htmlChec...Phil,<BR/><BR/>http://www.fairoakschurch.org/index2.html<BR/><BR/>Check out the link. The church is having a new sermon series on The Gospel according to the Beatles. You just can’t make this stuff up…Check out what he says about Paul using the “secular poets of his day”. Someone may want to give him a heads up on your post before his sermon series starts. <BR/><BR/>Here are some excerpts:<BR/><BR/>“We all know about the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John but have you ever considered the good news according to John, Paul, George & Ringo?”<BR/><BR/>“I’ll be sharing a sermon series in April entitled The Gospel according to the Beatles.”<BR/><BR/>“I will use some of their unforgettable music as a springboard to a discussion about important and relevant aspects of God’s word to today’s culture.”<BR/><BR/>“The Apostle Paul used secular poets of his day to get the attention of the Athenians. He understood that culture is like the wind..it could be harnessed and used.” <BR/><BR/>“…The Gospel according to the Beatles at Fair Oaks Church every Sunday in April.”anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07194252226135811667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-8372848600136464972008-04-12T17:33:00.000-07:002008-04-12T17:33:00.000-07:00Speaking of people who define contextualization th...Speaking of people who define contextualization this way or that way, where's our buddy Drew? Did he ever get banned?Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88060543085111128172008-04-12T16:05:00.000-07:002008-04-12T16:05:00.000-07:00dac: "It's just that I am curious as to which evan...<B>dac:</B> <I>"It's just that I am curious as to which evangelical, or emergents use the word in the manner defined by Phil."</I><BR/><BR/>I have on more than one occasion cited <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2008/04/coffee-klatsch.html" REL="nofollow">a string of concrete, well-known examples of "contextualization" that all illustrate my definition perfectly</A> (but these <I><B>don't</B></I> fit your toned-down definition)—ranging from "the changing of <I>sheep</I> to <I>sea lions</I> in Bible translations, to the revisionist treatment of Scripture practiced by Eugene Peterson. . . , to the unsanctified slogans and imagery used by the XXX Church, to Mark Driscoll's blasphemous description of Jesus as someone who 'needs Paxil,' to the argument set forth in <A HREF="http://www.aiias.edu/jaas/vol6-2003/muchee_testament.html" REL="nofollow">[this]</A> document."<BR/><BR/>All of those things have been done under the rubric of <I>contextualization.</I> Would all the purveyors of those tactics <I><B>if pressed</B></I> accept my definition of the word? Probably not, because the definition exposes precisely what is wrong with the practice. They certainly would not accept my definition in the heat of controversy about it, because it's a favorite tactic of the postmodernized mind to avoid uncomfortable truths by quibbling about definitions. You, <B>dac,</B> have been doing that throughout this comment-thread (and this is not the first time I've pointed that out).<BR/><BR/>However, the question you need to grapple with is whether the kinds of things Emergers and other post-evangelicals are actually <I><B>doing</B></I> fit my definition or not. The answer to that question is simpler than I suspect you want to admit:<BR/><BR/>Of course they do.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86951070169567774732008-04-11T16:10:00.000-07:002008-04-11T16:10:00.000-07:00I said,"But Presson thinks that Phil objects to Pr...I said,<BR/><I>"But Presson thinks that Phil objects to Presson's kind of contextualization. Doesn't that mean that Presson has a broader definition?"</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, the other possibility, which I pointed out to Presson, is that he was misunderstanding what this series is about. Maybe Presson just cares about good T&I, too. And maybe he sticks a lot of things under the "contextualization" label--but that doesn't necessarily mean he's putting anything <I>bad</I> under that label.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74279579403710295412008-04-11T14:10:00.000-07:002008-04-11T14:10:00.000-07:00Al Hsu from Christianity Today writes: "Because w...Al Hsu from Christianity Today writes: "Because we are a biblical people, <B>we want to preserve the gospel in as pure a form as possible</B>, which is why many people and institutions (like this magazine) prioritize substitutionary Atonement. But because we are an evangelistic, missional people, <B>we want to contextualize the gospel</B> to reach as many as possible."<BR/><BR/>Translate-and-Illustrate contextualizers says that we can do both. Gospel Fidelity and Contextualization can both be done if we translate-and-illustrate accurately.<BR/><BR/>But with what measures can one safely discern that contextualization has been wrongfully abused and that false converts are being generated?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5694074832318269122008-04-11T13:15:00.001-07:002008-04-11T13:15:00.001-07:00dac said,"If no one uses the word in the way Phil ...dac said,<BR/><I>"If no one uses the word in the way Phil defines it, who is there to have a conversation with?"</I><BR/><BR/>If there's no one to have a conversation with, why did Presson speak up?<BR/><BR/>Phil is saying that when "contextualization" means anything other than "good translation & illustration", it's bad. You're saying that no one uses it in another way. That no one has a broader definition.<BR/><BR/>But Presson thinks that Phil objects to Presson's kind of contextualization. Doesn't that mean that Presson has a broader definition?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45815502908348698672008-04-11T13:15:00.000-07:002008-04-11T13:15:00.000-07:00In 500 years you'll be a hero to the Buddhist Chri...In 500 years you'll be a hero to the Buddhist Christian Catholic United Church because of something you we're supposed to have said about liking Brian MacLarens giant tortise collection...<BR/><BR/>But we'll know the truth...<BR/><BR/>(Hey, if the Arminians can claim Spurgeon...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74164032719194058312008-04-11T12:41:00.000-07:002008-04-11T12:41:00.000-07:00Nice. I have my own adjective now.Of course, like...Nice. I have my own adjective now.<BR/><BR/>Of course, like all words, it can mean different things to different people in different contexts. :DJugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-16401929406669172602008-04-11T12:38:00.000-07:002008-04-11T12:38:00.000-07:00I thought that Dac's assessment was a little un-Ju...I thought that Dac's assessment was a little un-Jugulumish...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78743434047545549692008-04-11T12:14:00.000-07:002008-04-11T12:14:00.000-07:00Jugulum has expressed his wonderment at how wide s...<I>Jugulum has expressed his wonderment at how wide spread this definitional use is.</I><BR/><BR/>Uh, "wonderment" is the wrong word. That means "astonishment".<BR/><BR/>I think you meant that I've expressed that I <I>wonder</I> how widespread that use is. That is, I just don't know who uses which meanings how often.<BR/><BR/>This is a little bit different from you and CMP. Y'all are saying that you think Phil's definition is rarely-if-ever used. I'm saying, I don't have much basis for judging either way.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43480557110741831732008-04-11T09:33:00.000-07:002008-04-11T09:33:00.000-07:00Daryl:Phil has put forth a very technical, correct...Daryl:<BR/><BR/>Phil has put forth a very technical, correct definition of contextualization, one that people do use. He is absolutely correct that it is not supported in anyway by Acts 17.<BR/><BR/>It's just that I am curious as to which evangelical, or emergents use the word in the manner defined by Phil. All other evangelicals and emergents that I am aware of define the word differently than the one that Phil has provided. <BR/><BR/>And I am not alone in this. Jugulum has expressed his wonderment at how wide spread this definitional use is. CMP has commented that he is not aware of anyone who uses this definition.<BR/><BR/>If no one uses the word in the way Phil defines it, who is there to have a conversation with?David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65500473239220417092008-04-11T07:47:00.000-07:002008-04-11T07:47:00.000-07:00Dac,I thought Phil was pretty clear about the iden...Dac,<BR/><BR/>I thought Phil was pretty clear about the identity of the hordes. I'm pretty sure he meant all the EC commenters who run to the battle when anything sarcastic or satirical is posted on this blog (like the posters for instance). Those who so quickly accuse this blog of being "uncharitable", where are they?<BR/>Never mind the nether regions of the blogosphere, where are the ones who comment here.<BR/><BR/>When a solid answer is provided...they don't comment, when that same point is brought home satirically, they comment, on the satire, not on the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19133403123717401232008-04-11T07:41:00.000-07:002008-04-11T07:41:00.000-07:00You have completly won the field of battle. I am j...<I>You have completly won the field of battle. I am just not sure there was anyone on the other side.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL!David Ruddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12572780147564110421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36465195021380916362008-04-11T07:11:00.000-07:002008-04-11T07:11:00.000-07:00PhilNo, actually I am curious as to who these hord...Phil<BR/><BR/>No, actually I am curious as to who these hordes are. The purpose of my google search is to find them. I do not see any great hordes of evangelicals who both<BR/><BR/>Define contextualization the way you have for this article<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>Use Acts 17 to justify it.<BR/><BR/>Andrew doesnt. Tim Keller doesnt. John Piper does not. CMP does not. I dont. <BR/><BR/>Just who are these hordes you are inviting to a conversation?<BR/><BR/>Now many people believe contextualization is important. None of them define it as you do.<BR/><BR/>Usage defines a words definition. Many (most?) evangelicals define the word differently than you have.<BR/><BR/>Note I am not arguing with the veracity of your definition. Many words have multiple usages. Neither am I disagreeing with conclusion - it fact I agree - you have completly slayed the arguement, so long as you use the word "contextualization" exactly as you have so precisely defined it.<BR/><BR/>You have completly won the field of battle. I am just not sure there was anyone on the other side.David A. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00465387359523299616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28067329396142019272008-04-11T05:09:00.000-07:002008-04-11T05:09:00.000-07:00Just a small point here...universities are hardly ...Just a small point here...universities are hardly a case for Christian contextualization. They, like hospitals, were originally Christian instiutions which non-believers eventually took over and copied for their own devices.<BR/><BR/>If anything, they are an example of the world "contextualizing" themselves for the church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83668688639052761982008-04-11T04:50:00.000-07:002008-04-11T04:50:00.000-07:00I have a somewhat different take on Presson's comm...I have a somewhat different take on Presson's comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Is that why we meet on sunday mornings?</I><BR/><BR/>This really doesn't fit in your list, since the New Testament has at least enough references to the disciples gathering post-resurrection on the first day of the week that you should charitably allow that Christians are following this practice from biblical conviction, even if you disagree.<BR/><BR/><I>And have steeples on our churches?</I><BR/><BR/>OK - yes. A contextualized symbol on our buildings - means something in our culture. We could do without it.<BR/><BR/><I>and sing hymns that are rewritten bar tunes?</I><BR/><BR/>Already pointed out on this thread to be a mythical statement. Reformation hymns were a unique development in music, not directly related to anything that went before. They were almost anti-contextualized.<BR/><BR/><I>And make christian music that sounds just like everything else except for the lyrics?</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, that's contextualization. Shouldn't happen, really.<BR/><BR/><I>and write christian fiction books?</I><BR/><BR/>Kind of useless, really.<BR/><BR/><I>and try and use science to prove God (a-la ray comfort)?</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't.<BR/><BR/><I>and create massive liberal arts universities (liberty university - of which I and most of my EC peers are alumni)?</I><BR/><BR/>That raises an interesting question: are Christians parroting the culture by creating universities, or has the culture counterfeited the church?<BR/><BR/><I>and make christian movies?</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't.<BR/><BR/><I>and have christian law practices?</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't.<BR/><BR/><I>and try and create a christian nation?</I><BR/><BR/>That means so many things to so many people it's tough to categorize.<BR/><BR/>Alright, so in my opinion you've misfired a few times but identified some things which could rightly be called "contextualization" - even if we take the word to mean "changed to fit the culture." Let's categorize them:<BR/><BR/>Some of these are contextualizations of church methods and practices - music based on secular forms, possibly steeples, and really not any others. These are at most issues to be discussed under the category of the Regulative Principle. The most adamant teachers of the RP, though, will distinguish that principle in importance from the gospel message.<BR/><BR/>Some other issues here, such as forming a law practice, are matters of personal life. You could argue that a Christian plumber runs a Christian plumbing business, but he's not really contextualizing. It's the insistence that these things be stamped with ichthus medallions and called "ministries" that offends - but again, the offense is minor.<BR/><BR/>Where in your list is there even a hint of contextualizing the message of the gospel? The contention here is that the truth claims of scripture are too precious to be fuzzied up by loose handling. <BR/><BR/>Only on those items on your list which have to do with communication of truth is there a possible connection. In those matters: whether it's writing a Christian novel or making a movie to communicate the gospel culturally, or even adopting an evidentialistic apologetic, you'll find a range of responses from those of us who oppose "contextualization" as Phil has defined it. Some of us may only say, "Be very careful of the message," while others would say, "Don't do that." All of us would want to see the truth claims of the gospel remain intact. <BR/><BR/>That's where your list falls short. Phil was responding to the idea that Paul adopted the Athenian worldview and tailored the gospel message to it. We're talking about the truth claims of Scripture, here. Even if some of us may happen to agree that other practices are silly and unnecessary, they don't correspond with the truth issues under discussion here.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-79849604456089616952008-04-10T20:29:00.000-07:002008-04-10T20:29:00.000-07:00PS: The above comparison is BY NO MEANS an endorse...PS: The above comparison is BY NO MEANS an endorsement of Socrates nor his particular views; as a believer and follower of Christ, I'm well aware of the fact that recognition of any value in the general content of Socrates' worldview is highly inconsistent and downright wrong. He and Callicles, in my example, merely serve as types--rhetorically first, and to some extent as representative types of modernism/postmodernism perhaps.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01930864320573865515noreply@blogger.com