It is not the business of the church to adapt Christ to men, but men to Christ.-- Dorothy Sayers
Contextualization
Lately, there have been several blogs devoting space to the topic of "contextualization," specifically contextualization of the Gospel. In many cases, the subject was/is prompted by comments John MacArthur made during this year's Shepherds' Conference:
I believe that byword has become a curse. “We have to change the way wedress, look, sing, in order to ‘contextualize,’ to connect with people at the level of their exposure to broader culture...” He states a little later--"...Some people ask, why do I wear a tie? Because I have respect for this responsibility. I wear a suit because this is a more elevated experience for people. I’m trying to convey what people convey at a wedding: this is more serious than any normal activity. This is the most serious occasion anyone will attend in their life: the preaching of the Word of God."
The "suit" comment really set some people off. People like Tim Reed and Michael Spencer1 decried MacArthur's comment, insinuating he was condemning any other dress code than that of a suit and tie. I was there--at the conference--and that was not the tone or the point. The point was that the Bible doesn't need to be changed to adapt to its readers. We don't need to dumb it down for people to understand it. And we certainly don't need to make the Bible more entertaining or palatable.
Church/preaching of God's Word is serious business and shouldn't be approached lightly. God certainly didn't mince any words in His instructions to Moses as to how the Levites should not only present themselves, but carry out their duties. MacArthur wasn't saying "you HAVE to dress a certain way to come to church." He's smart enough to understand that everyone doesn't own a suit. The crux of his statement was about attitude, honoring God in the way we approach Him and worship Him. (NOTE: I do find it interesting that the same people that would scream and holler over a dress code--for lack of a better phrase--think nothing of showing up at church in a t-shirt, shorts, and flip-flops, but they will go to the trouble to wear their best clothes to a funeral or wedding.)
Phil Johnson--in his presentation at the SC--defined contextualization as the "practice of altering either the terminology or the content of our message in order to employ the language, the cultural tokens, the styles, the values, the preoccupations of the culture or sub-culture we're trying to reach." He goes on to state the obvious, paraphrased, we understand the necessity of translating the Scriptures in such a way as to make them understandable to the audience, i.e. verses referring to "sheep" won't make much sense to Eskimoes that have never been around or seen sheep! (The same idea goes for phrases such as "whiter than snow." Pretty hard to press the point for someone that's never seen snow!) What we are speaking against is utilizing crude language--for instance--to present the Gospel to people, simply because "that's the way they talk."
Contextualization today, according to Johnson—and I agree—involves “flout[ing] as many taboos as possible, unlike Paul who wanted to avoid anything that was considered impolite or uncouth so that the Gospel could be heard without unnecessary distractions. The contextualizers of today actually want to maximize the ‘shock and awe’ effect, thinking that’s going gain them a better hearing with the ‘Southpark Generation.’"
What we have here folks is a gang of potty-mouthed pastors/bloggers (and I use the term "pastor" loosely) that believe it's their duty and right to assimilate into society in order to be a more effective witness, when the Bible clearly teaches the opposite.
I may have more to say on this topic later. In the meantime, here's a couple of links that I DO endorse:
Big Oil
Well, it seems that Congress is upset with the "Big Oil Companies" for posting some hefty profits in recent months, so they've sat them down and told them "what for." Idiots! The government, in large part, has caused the mess we're in re: our dependence on foreign oil. The oil companies/refineries have been hamstrung from building any new refineries in the past 20 years or from drilling in "protected areaa" where we KNOW there are massive amounts of oil just laying there for the taking!
We can drill without disturbing the environment; we have the technology. There are other processes aside from refining crude oil that we could use, if we were allowed to expand and build new/newer facilities. Coal-to-fuel technology (look up "Fischer-Tropsch") is just one of those processes that could wean us off our dependence on foreign oil. Hitler used this same process to keep his air force going during WWII.
Frankly, I'm trying to figure out where multi-millionairs get off telling oil comany CEOs how much profit is TOO MUCH! Hillary Clinton received a multi-MILLION dollar advance for her memoirs, and yet she says things like:
The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence.
I'm all for "alternative smart energy," but were in the world does she get off talking about TAKING profits from companies?! Tell you what--take the profits, take away the tax breaks, etc. and you are in for one BIG shock at the pump my friends.Believe it or not, like it or not,
the price of gasoline is STILL a good deal. Gasoline really begins to look like a bargin when we compare it to other liquids we buy on a regular basis. Consider the "per gallon price" of the following:
- 2% Milk = $3.99
- Minute Maid Orange Juice = $6.99
- Propel Fitness Water = 7.68
- Dawn Dish Detergent = $11.43
- Starbucks Frappuccino Iced Coffee = $20.48
- Ragu Pizza Sauce = $30.17
- Krazy Glue = $2322.29
Friday Photos
1Tim Reed is a pastor and blogger that seems to take exception to pretty much ANYTHING MacArthur says. He did not attend the Shepherds' Conference, so he relies on the blogs and statements of others to support his diatribe against MacArthur. He also appears to have no problem with himself or others using crass, filthy language to express themselves under the guise of "relating" to his audience--exactly the thing that MacArthur, Phil Johnson and other speakers at the conference were addressing.
Spencer, aka the "Internet Monk" (from what little I've read) seems be of the same ilk as Reed. The Monk, responding to MacArthur's statments (the Monk wasn't at the conference either) stated: "That suit keeps all kinds of men from ever entering a church. Probably less than 3 [percent] of the men in my county have ever had on a tie, much less a suit. Where do I stop them and say it’s Biblical and 'serious' to wear a suit? It would be completely OUTSIDE of the Gospel for me to do so." He missed the point and would rather focus on the "suit" than the actually point: you don't dumb-down Scripture to make people feel more comfortable about church.
I'm not providing links to either of their blogs. I'm not in the habit of making up quotes, etc. so you can believe me or not. I just can't bring myself to send any more traffic their way.