tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post606802883206994165..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Why I Don't Like the C-WordPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60470238992288057722008-03-19T08:16:00.000-07:002008-03-19T08:16:00.000-07:00Thanks, Phil. I will definitely take some time to...Thanks, Phil. I will definitely take some time to research this word and its concepts. God bless you, brother.Jason Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286144758784567864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77143152722092700362008-03-19T07:23:00.000-07:002008-03-19T07:23:00.000-07:00Hmm, but on second thought, I think he was saying ...Hmm, but on second thought, I think he was saying that Muslims <I>inappropriately</I> contextualize, reading the Bible & various ancient Christian sources anachronistically. So he was using it as a bad word.<BR/><BR/>Never mind!Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21095519064752367112008-03-19T07:18:00.000-07:002008-03-19T07:18:00.000-07:00Oh dear, the C-word really is widespread!I just no...Oh dear, the C-word really is widespread!<BR/><BR/>I just noticed that 17 minutes into the <A HREF="http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20080207fta.mp3" REL="nofollow">02-07-2008 broadcast of The Dividing Line</A>, James White says, "The problem--the main problem that Muslims have in hearing what we are saying is contextualizing their relationship to Christianity."<BR/><BR/>Oh, Dr. White, not you, too?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36084319272099402322008-03-19T00:20:00.000-07:002008-03-19T00:20:00.000-07:00Jason:No one needs to apologize for disagreeing wi...<B>Jason:</B><BR/><BR/>No one needs to apologize for disagreeing with me. I disagree with myself sometimes.<BR/><BR/>I'm not looking for a debate over words, here, though. I don't think our difference can really be boiled down to the simple question of whether we should use a word or not. The issue I have raised is <I>not</I> a parallel to the question of whether <I>fundamentalism</I> (once a fine word) is useful any more or not, now that the media have demonized and redefined it. I'm suggesting that <I>contextualization</I> was a bad word and a bad idea from the start, and although some decent and generally sober-minded people like you want to stress only the elements of translating and illustrating truth for different cultures and language groups, the meaning of this word was never that simple. Search out the origin and history of the word in missions and see or yourself.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, the concept people generally have in mind when using that word is so laden with the baggage of postmodern relativism that there are real dangers in touting the idea uncritically.<BR/><BR/>I'll try to make another post later this week in which I'll explain some of those concerns in more detail.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68112809130963812082008-03-18T23:07:00.000-07:002008-03-18T23:07:00.000-07:00So, do I understand correctly that statements like...So, do I understand correctly that statements like <BR/><BR/>[Since Israel was under Roman rule...] "Jesus knows what it is like to be a poor black man oppressed by rich white men" (etcetera) are the sort of Biblical misrepresentation you mean?<BR/><BR/>Or is that <I>heresy</I> a completely separate issue?Theophilushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01550702039587569902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81990328075332131212008-03-18T22:11:00.000-07:002008-03-18T22:11:00.000-07:00I am in South Louisiana preaching in a 4 day meeti...I am in South Louisiana preaching in a 4 day meeting in a small country church that runs less than 100. Talk about contextualization going on... sheeesh... and I got a phone call that said I might want to read this comment thread. So I found a computer, dialed up the internet and read where someone named Karen said I should apologize to Phil (or MacArthur) in light of this post.<BR/><BR/>Phil and I are friends as far as I know. We have talked about this subject in private emails. And I have blogged about the debate over this word publically, expressing my understanding of Phil's position, expressing my complete agreement with his issues with the EC's and CGM's abuses of this word, and have expressed my opinion. Futhermore I linked to a list of very respected men whose opinions are more respected than mine -- who also see the necessity of contextualization in effective ministry.<BR/><BR/>As much as I love and respect our beloved pyromaniac, I believe the word in question is one that we should deal with, not ignore or deny or refuse to use. I think to ignore it is futile and to refuse to use it is vain.<BR/><BR/>I once told Phil in a private email that I have found that many Calvary Chapel preachers claim to be expositors of the Scriptures, but are not expositors at all. I think many of them have terribly distorted the true definition and practice of expository preaching. But that doesn't mean that I am going to stop using the word expository.<BR/><BR/>In the end, what is truly at stake is not just words or methodology but the EC and postmoderns have leveled a new attack against the sufficiency of Scripture. Their compromising of the gospel stems from a lack of faith in the sufficiency of Scripture. And I feel like focusing on whether we should use a word or not is just a gross distraction from this real issue.<BR/><BR/>So... I do not know for what I should apologize... or to whom.Jason Robertsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02286144758784567864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-779909074438479052008-03-18T19:23:00.000-07:002008-03-18T19:23:00.000-07:00I think you're confusing contextualization with sy...I think you're confusing contextualization with syncretism. If you look closely at what the emergent types are doing (Rob Bell, Brian McLaren), you will see they are being syncretistic, not contextualizing. Don't confuse the issue and do your research. Look at what David Hesselgrave and Phil Parshall have to say on the subject. Unless you think we should be building white-washed church buildings in the middle of the jungles in Africa.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80402127836849181022008-03-18T17:30:00.000-07:002008-03-18T17:30:00.000-07:00"But what strikes is that while I think (and many ..."But what strikes is that while I think (and many others think too) that standing firm in the faith and delivering the faith once delivered to the saints is a good thing; others will paint it in a different manner and call it "hardening of the categories" and becoming neo-fundamentalistic."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let them call it what they will. Because they will call it what they want. I think that many do not draw the right categories. At P&P, the categorization of evangelicalims in my opinion further confused rather than defined anything. And, it misses the point that was attempted to be made on othodoxy. There is an orthodoxy and we best be about defining it, for that is the job, like it or not. And, when the boundaries are discovered they are not rigid because man has made them so, but God is the one who has placed them there, and has warned us that he does not take kindly the moving of the boundaries of the widow who is under his protection.Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23324510696381882682008-03-18T15:48:00.000-07:002008-03-18T15:48:00.000-07:00With regards to the divided state of evangelicalis...With regards to the divided state of evangelicalism, one person proffers this prognosis:<BR/><BR/>"In fact, there is a significant hardening within the Evangelical church that has lost its roots, not only those gained in the 40s and 50s, but in history. This Evangelical church is becoming more and more fundamentalistic. I won’t name any names here, but these would be referred to as neo-fundamentalists. Then there is the part of the Evangelical church that has completely lost its way and has lost the Gospel in favor of the Wally World of entertainment.<BR/><BR/>This is where the two stands of the emerging church come in. One strand is the Emergent that over compensates in response to the Fundamentalist side, in my opinion. And then there is the emerging-evangelicals, who I believe in a lot of ways are reclaiming what is best in evangelicalism. <BR/><BR/>I think that this is going to cause another separation, like that of the 40s. <B>Those that have hardened in their categories will become more fundamentalistic.</B> Those who over react to this will become the modern liberals. Those who fall in the middle will carry on the evangelical (now with a small “e”) principles with the Gospel."<BR/><BR/>It could be the case that this pastor is thinking of TeamPyro and John MacArthur as exemplars of those evangelicals who are hardening the categories and becoming neoFundamentalists. (But maybe not).<BR/><BR/>But what strikes is that while I think (and many others think too) that standing firm in the faith and delivering the faith once delivered to the saints is a good thing; others will paint it in a different manner and call it "hardening of the categories" and becoming neo-fundamentalistic.<BR/><BR/>An internal civil war.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89518336365871433422008-03-18T13:51:00.000-07:002008-03-18T13:51:00.000-07:00PJ: "... it unleashed an avalanche of forceful rea...<B>PJ</B>: "... it unleashed an avalanche of forceful reactions from people in the blogosphere—ranging from shocked disbelief to angry derision."<BR/><BR/>This is why I really like PJ and Dr. John MacArthur who wrote "The Truth War".<BR/><BR/>They know they're in a war. They know they're going to get forceful reactions for uttering the discernments that they do. And they don't appease, and they don't acquiesce and compromise the message of their discernment about how others are distorting the Gospel. False ecumenical harmony is not for them. No apology for tone or substance. Just continued explanation for the reasoning undergirding the discernment offered.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90378746596148877222008-03-18T12:09:00.000-07:002008-03-18T12:09:00.000-07:00One question... How does one "shut up and preach"?...<I>One question... How does one "shut up and preach"? Now that, I'd like to see!</I><BR/><BR/>Heh... yeah... <BR/><BR/>I guess shut up = "Stop with all the talk about contextualization and culture and missional and felt needs and relevance." I suppose I should say what I mean by "preach the Gospel" too, since so many folks don't get it, but Matthew 13:13-15.<BR/><BR/>Although, I could get pretty theological with the idea of shutting up and preaching. Think about it. Romans 10 says they can't believe in Him <I>whom</I> they have not heard (if you have the NASB). Not "about whom" or "of whom," but "<I>Him</I> whom." And how will they hear <I>Him</I> without a preacher. Plus, we have John 10 where it talks about the sheep hearing His voice and coming. So really, shutting up and preaching makes sense. I stop all my PhD cleverness and just let the Good Shepherd speak through His own Word.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76403063670165575322008-03-18T10:42:00.000-07:002008-03-18T10:42:00.000-07:00(Eschatological note: the cat's out of the bag&mda...(Eschatological note: the cat's out of the bag—I'm posttrib premill.)Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6979388293357903612008-03-18T10:41:00.000-07:002008-03-18T10:41:00.000-07:00TUAD:It's all in God's sovereign hands. Remember ...TUAD:<BR/><BR/>It's all in God's sovereign hands. Remember that those who hold tenaciously to the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, for the glory of God alone and according to Scripture alone, are probably a small minority of the worldwide visible church.<BR/><BR/>We hang out on blogs like this, think of folks like Piper or MacArthur, and see the Reformed resurgence in the SBTS, and may forget in our fishbowl world that we are a small community. Outside of this narrow core, of course there are many (perhaps millions) of godly believers around the world; but many more than that who profess belief in Christ, who have been seduced by teachings that add to or subtract from the Gospel, that teach some variety of works-based semi-Pelagianism (or worse). ...And hasn't this always been the way, even since the days of Paul? The Adversary will never tire of deceiving Christians until the day that Jesus Christ finally binds him in chains.<BR/><BR/>What can we do, except stand upon the Word of God, and pray that in His eternal wisdom and providence, God is working out all things for His glory.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88946137313067170482008-03-18T10:07:00.000-07:002008-03-18T10:07:00.000-07:00Definition of dystopia: "An imaginary place or sta...<B>Definition of dystopia:</B> "An imaginary place or state in which the condition of life is extremely bad, as from deprivation, oppression, or terror."<BR/><BR/><I>TUAD: Your vision is reductionistic and dystopic — and probably true.</I><BR/><BR/>Stefan, thanks for teaching me a new word... dystopic. <BR/><BR/>But please, anyone!, tell me that I'm badly wrong in my prognosis that there will be an intractable civil war within Christendom. <BR/><BR/>I grant you that the elephant in the room will be politely stepped around, and that the leaders-that-be won't publicly acknowledge this major internal war, but there will be sniping at each other from behind the unacknowledged elephant.<BR/><BR/>I hope I'm wrong, but TeamPyro, Triablogue, etc... are on the frontlines of this doctrinal/ecclesiastical-evangelistic/gospel war within Protestant christendom.<BR/><BR/>If war is the right metaphor, and if civil war (meaning an internal matter of utmost importance) is the correct refinement, and we have "true" shepherds contending against "false" shepherds, then what is the way forward and how should the way forward be conducted?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40521979153896977502008-03-18T08:44:00.000-07:002008-03-18T08:44:00.000-07:00TUAD:Your vision is reductionistic and dystopic&md...TUAD:<BR/><BR/>Your vision is reductionistic and dystopic—and probably true.<BR/><BR/>It seems that the greatest threat to the Gospel comes not from outside the visible church, but from those who claim to be within it.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50088435627059078732008-03-18T08:32:00.000-07:002008-03-18T08:32:00.000-07:00Amen Mike!!Amen Mike!!S.J. Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922550763548455625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90865161404778262222008-03-18T08:18:00.000-07:002008-03-18T08:18:00.000-07:00Mike,One question...How does one "shut up and prea...Mike,<BR/><BR/>One question...<BR/><BR/>How does one "shut up and preach"?<BR/><BR/>Now that, I'd like to see!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68113982003297812272008-03-18T07:20:00.000-07:002008-03-18T07:20:00.000-07:00Mike,You are dead on. Short and sweet =)Mike,<BR/><BR/>You are dead on. Short and sweet =)Affyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16553822567399201625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-15284392576873968032008-03-18T07:19:00.000-07:002008-03-18T07:19:00.000-07:00Let me give you an example of how this is often us...Let me give you an example of how this is often used in mission circles. There are six different levels of contextualization among mission types (C-1 - C-6) At the most extreme, often advocated in Muslim countries, the C-6 new believer in Issa (arabic for Jesus) will recite the Shahada (There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet), he will pay the alms, pray 3-5 times a day depending on the Muslim context, do Ramadan, the Hajj and even fight in Jihad against his Christian brothers if called upon. But secretly he will pray to Issa in the Mosque on Friday. He will not get baptized, he will not meet with Christians at church, he will usually deny such teachings as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the substitionary atonement and any other doctrines most offensive to Muslims.<BR/>One example of this was cited several years ago by a good friend Dr. James Bjornstadt (ministered with Dr. Walter Martin and was a philosophy teacher at Cedarville until they bought the pomo farm!) who attended a meeting of the EMS or Evangelical Mission Society, which is sort of a parallel to the ETS. One session he was in praised a West African church made up of Muslim "converts" as a wonderful model of Contextualization. This church's doctrinal statement explicitly denied the deity of Christ!!! But for many at the EMS, that is no big deal.<BR/>The contextualization argument is not new. You can see it in the alleged mission work of Ricci and Xavier some 500 years ago. One can make a good case that it was the thought process of Clement and Origin at the Alexanderian school, which sadly de-judiazed the faith and instituted the multiple joys of platonic thought as a foundation for the faith. But is has never produced actual Christian disciples, who have been baptized and "taught all things that Jesus has commanded you". <BR/>Some things to think about.<BR/>Bill HonsbergerBill Honsbergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04836300411894206079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73347938842476090542008-03-18T05:06:00.000-07:002008-03-18T05:06:00.000-07:00I have two questions...1) What is contextualizatio...I have two questions...<BR/><BR/>1) What is contextualization supposed to do? That is, why do it? What end is it accomplishing?<BR/><BR/>2) Does not the Gospel on its own, unbridled and untethered, unhindered by any too-clever-for-our-own-good, "scholarly" concepts and terminology, accomplish the end(s) for which we're trying to contextualize?<BR/><BR/>If yes, shut up and preach the Gospel.<BR/><BR/>If no, you either misunderstand the Gospel, or are trying to accomplish things the Gospel isn't intended to accomplish.<BR/><BR/>So shut up and preach the Gospel.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26999359751521457842008-03-18T00:25:00.000-07:002008-03-18T00:25:00.000-07:00Phil,I am an expatriate working in Asia and (unfor...Phil,<BR/><BR/>I am an expatriate working in Asia and (unfortunately) very fluent in C-jargon, which is spouted and taught by fellow workers in-country. Looking forward to more posts on the topic.East Java, Indonesiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07516335116731572387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34049456076351673892008-03-17T23:14:00.000-07:002008-03-17T23:14:00.000-07:00Unbridled enthusiasm about this sort of contextual...Unbridled enthusiasm about this sort of contextualization has dramatically changed the evangelistic strategy so that the number one goal in contemporary evangelical outreach is for the church to assimilate into the world as much as possible—and above all, be cool—so that the world (or some offbeat subculture) will like us. <B>That is actually the driving idea behind both seeker-sensitivity and the Emerging church approach.</B><BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/><B>But the whole idea is actually unbiblical, counter-productive, and contrary to the real strategy the apostle Paul modeled and advocated.</B><BR/><BR/>My assumptions:<BR/><BR/>(1) PJ has accurately captured the sophistry and self-deception of the seeker-sensitive, post-modern emerging, and mainline liberal in both doctrine and practice.<BR/><BR/>(2) There are only two sides to this doctrinal/ecclesiastical-evangelistic chasm. Historic evangelical orthodoxy VERSUS liberal seeker-sensitive postmodern emerging mish-mash-mush.<BR/><BR/>(3) Liberal seeker-sensitive postmodern emerging mish-mash-mush is here to stay. Not a fad, won't die out, may evolve, but will remain as an indefatiguable Hydra-headed monster.<BR/><BR/>(4) Compromise with the Hydra-headed post-evangelical monster is an implicit victory for the Beast.<BR/><BR/>Based on these 4 assumptions, doesn't intellectual honesty compel us/me to state that there will be and is a doctrinal and polemic civil war going on right now within Christendom? And that it will be thus for the long forseeable future?<BR/><BR/>Tell me I'm mistaken. I wouldn't mind being wrong on this one.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57164075359738219362008-03-17T21:49:00.000-07:002008-03-17T21:49:00.000-07:00This is context!<A HREF="http://sbcoutpost.com/2008/03/15/building-bridges-and-breaking-strongholds/" REL="nofollow">This is context!</A>Strong Towerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834108238546908018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19659629697264132962008-03-17T21:22:00.000-07:002008-03-17T21:22:00.000-07:00...Or translating from the passive voice:I get you......Or translating from the passive voice:<BR/><BR/>I get your point.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84831125149772626202008-03-17T21:21:00.000-07:002008-03-17T21:21:00.000-07:00Vcdechagn:Your point is well taken.Vcdechagn:<BR/><BR/>Your point is well taken.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.com