tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post8400069196581429565..comments2023-10-25T02:18:43.690-07:00Comments on Contend Earnestly: What is Contextualization?Seth McBeehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-69579280239601637462010-12-16T13:41:13.473-08:002010-12-16T13:41:13.473-08:00Spencer.
Really? Are you trying to say that Jesus ...Spencer.<br />Really? Are you trying to say that Jesus wasn't pulling from a cultural norm of an occupation of shepherding to show who he was? He actually goes into the job descriptions of a shepherd in John 10 vs a hired hand. <br /><br />John 10 was very much contextualization for the people of Israel. They knew shepherds. They knew what made good shepherds vs hired hands and the imagery completely shows this off. <br /><br />Psalm 23 uses imagery of the Shepherd to bring forth the understanding of David's true shepherd. <br /><br />Even if I gave into you and said, "okay, okay Jesus wasn't contextualizing there..." The other examples stand on their own. <br /><br />Logos by itself puts contextualization to the forefront. <br /><br />I will also say, that if you've ever tried to explain the gospel to someone, you've probably contextualized..and if you haven't, you haven't been a good teacher as the example found in Nehemiah 8:8 would exhort us to be.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-21653625726005313992010-12-16T13:15:32.901-08:002010-12-16T13:15:32.901-08:00Jesus used the imagery of the Shepherd, vine, seed...Jesus used the imagery of the Shepherd, vine, seed, et al, because they were rooted in the Old Testament Scriptures. They are all over the place. Especially read Ezekiel 34. John 10 wasn't contextualization. It was Biblical exposition and fulfilled prophecy.Spencernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-44023422519710212022009-10-09T11:29:57.543-07:002009-10-09T11:29:57.543-07:00Emmanuel.
It's never too late to comment...tha...Emmanuel.<br />It's never too late to comment...thanks for stopping by.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-21299190530378058852009-10-06T07:37:28.802-07:002009-10-06T07:37:28.802-07:00maybe a little bit late but I found the post very ...maybe a little bit late but I found the post very interesting. <br />I think that the fear of contextualization is sometimes fear of letting go of our own cultural securities, which we confound with the Gospel. E.g. thinking that an organ is more christian than african percussion. <br /><br />My favorite quote on contextualization from Paul:<br /><br />I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel,that I may share with them in its blessings. 1 Cor. 9Emmanuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02587788089155388336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-12002000969601366352009-07-29T10:27:21.388-07:002009-07-29T10:27:21.388-07:00It's strange to me that contextualization woul...It's strange to me that contextualization would be so controversial. What's wrong with speaking in a language that people understand? You wouldn't speak techno babble to someone who has never seen a computer, but explain using vocabulary and analogies that make sense to that person. So, why would it be different when preaching the gospel?Beckyhttp://rstewart.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-78068183304017214352008-03-21T19:59:00.000-07:002008-03-21T19:59:00.000-07:00Just a thought, because contexualization covers so...Just a thought, because contexualization covers so many arenas. As a late entrant to this discussion, my guess is folks are not really so different in this. <BR/><BR/>All will agree the Gospel is key, and that transcends all as John stated.<BR/><BR/>All will agree God's word is presented in a multitude of ways through out scripture. Some may see this as contextualization, some may not. <BR/><BR/>I think all will agree that there are times and places for differing ones delivery. Ie, using a stick and sand on a beach when dealing with Bible campers is a vastly different context than multimedia powerpoint at a mega church. Yet both are valuable at the right time and place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-87572204516370051672008-03-17T22:25:00.000-07:002008-03-17T22:25:00.000-07:00Seth: I am preaching Acts right now. and you hit t...Seth: I am preaching Acts right now. and you hit the nail on the head...it is a study in contextualization! Not only in chapter 2 but all through out. <BR/><BR/>DPoop is Emergent Toohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415753642256577052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-52310323478223150772008-03-10T13:07:00.000-07:002008-03-10T13:07:00.000-07:00Jake. I haven't read it..but I will...Yeah...I did...Jake. <BR/>I haven't read it..but I will...<BR/><BR/>Yeah...I didn't bring up some of the other stuff that I have heard from the conference because I would like to hear it firsthand before I go on the "attack." But, you bring up one of the points (suits) that I was going to bring up because I believe that Mac even uses it as an illustration on why NOT to contextualize...which really made no sense to me...Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-82731520105018012412008-03-09T22:28:00.000-07:002008-03-09T22:28:00.000-07:00Seth - Have you read Michael Spencer (iMonk)'s pos...Seth - Have you read Michael Spencer (iMonk)'s post about this? It's excellent. I think the basic issue here is actually pretty simple - MacArthur seems to think that there's some sort of acultural way to go about presenting the Christian message. But his decision to wear a suit is just as much a product of culture as Driscoll's decision to wear a tee-shirt and jeans. In other words - we're all products of culture and to act as if we're not is naive. Obviously those cultures need to be judged by Scripture, but to somehow act as if one can step outside of culture to proclaim the gospel is silly.Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14287193776037405708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-5753924280224427072008-03-07T13:19:00.000-08:002008-03-07T13:19:00.000-08:00Stefan: I definitely was not trying to convey that...Stefan: I definitely was not trying to convey that the <I>point</I> of those passages that I brought up was the contextualization of the gospel. That is why I put in the post that if you notice all three actually share the exact same gospel, but do it in different contextualized ways. <B> <BR/><BR/>John uses "logos"<BR/><BR/>Christ uses "shepherd and sheep" <BR/><BR/>Paul uses "the unknown god" <BR/><BR/>Peter uses "OT and partriarchs" </B><BR/><BR/>To say that they weren't doing this to make it understandable to the people they were preaching to would, in my opinion, going too far. I believe that the <I>reason</I> that they bring these illustrations is for the reason to make it more understandable and relatable. <BR/><BR/>To say that Jesus spoke in parables doesn't have credence in these passages because none of these are parables. They are explanations of the truths of the gospel. Parables were used for different reasons, as far as I can see. <BR/><BR/>Brett: I would need some clarification on your comment to comment further<BR/><BR/>Yogi: were you meaning Stefan or myself (Seth)? Either way...<BR/><BR/>Thoughts?Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-9895629620011041862008-03-07T13:09:00.000-08:002008-03-07T13:09:00.000-08:00Stefan, I have to tell you that I read your post y...Stefan, I have to tell you that I read your post yesterday and have not been albe to stop thinking about it. I have mentioned it (contextualization) to serval of my friends, my wife, dog (ok not really but you get the point)...<BR/><BR/>I say, this was a very thought provoking post... God Bless!<BR/><BR/>YogiYogi Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10716253123790881081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-57719211564520135922008-03-07T13:06:00.000-08:002008-03-07T13:06:00.000-08:00I think (I hope) that a lot of the comments go fur...I think (I hope) that a lot of the comments go further than what you intended. If you go that far, then I can't say that I agree. I can see a legitimate and limited use for it, but I can also see it leading to widespread abuse.<BR/>I would not go as far as <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb9DF16Fx8k" REL="nofollow">this</A> seeker sensitive mega church pastor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-76330900225813335452008-03-07T12:43:00.000-08:002008-03-07T12:43:00.000-08:00Uh, just noticed something in my post.I'm not deny...Uh, just noticed something in my post.<BR/><BR/>I'm not denying the perspecuity, or clarity, of revelation, just so everyone knows.<BR/><BR/>I said: "Jesus wasn't preaching so that people would undertand him."<BR/><BR/>Clarification: "Jesus wasn't using a bit of Jewish culture so that by those means they would understand what he was really saying about himself."<BR/><BR/>Jesus wasn't accomodating to the culture in order to help them understand; he was simply preaching the truth as it was revealed in him.<BR/><BR/>I hope that helps, because if Jesus didn't preach so that we could understand, we'd all be in big trouble!<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>StefanStefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678256944843625087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-91752260984126683882008-03-07T12:38:00.000-08:002008-03-07T12:38:00.000-08:00Seth,At one level your argument is true, if in fac...Seth,<BR/><BR/>At one level your argument is true, if in fact what you are saying is this: Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter knew their "audience." No doubt that was true. <BR/><BR/>At another level, I think we need to be careful and cautious about how we label this. <BR/><BR/>Contextualization is a less than helpful designation. Why? Because it was not the cultural context, but the redemptive-historical context that determined both the message and the method (which, by the way, was preaching).<BR/><BR/>For instance, Jesus wasn't accomodating to a culture by speaking of himself as the Shepherd. He was disclosing himself to be the promised Messiah, the long-awaited Shepherd-King of the true Israel of God. Jesus' teaching was borne out of the reality of the new covenant, and the fact that the new covenant had dawned in him. He didn't preach so that the people would understand him; in fact, the parables tell us just the opposite. Jesus wasn't contextualizing, he was simply preaching, i.e., opening up the Scriptures clearly and plainly. <BR/><BR/>Same with the apostles. Paul's announcement of the resurrection in Acts 17 was one of the first such announcments of the resurrected Christ to the Gentiles, those to whom the gospel had now come because of Christ's person and work. Paul's teaching, like Christ's in John 10, is shaped by redemptive-history, specifically the inclusion of the Gentiles into God's covenant people. Did he want the Gentiles to undertand this message? Yes. But I don't think we can say he contextualized it so that they would understand. I think that misses the point of the passage entirely.<BR/><BR/>The only sense in which it is proper to speak of accomodation is God's accomodation to us as sinners, not as cultures. Calvin spoke of divine revelation as divine baby talk. That is, God's self-disclosure in Christ (i.e., the Bible) is of such a nature and kind that sinners are able to comprehend it (if, in fact, the Spirit grants us a saving understanding of that truth).<BR/><BR/>All that is to say this: I think we miss the point of these passages when we focus on a supposed method (e.g., contextualization) rather than the message. Jesus teaching in John 10 is not given as an example of contextualization -- and the same is true of Acts 2, Acts 17, and the rest of the passages you mention. To argue that is the case, is to argue a point not intended by those passages. It was the message of the crucified and resurrected Christ that Jesus, Peter, and Paul proclaimed. And that message was shaped by divine revelation, not by cultural contextualization.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Christ and the apostles knew something of the philosophies, world-views, etc. of their respective listeners, but they also knew that what they had to preach was not the wisdom of man, but the foolishness of the gospel. And their preaching was shaped, first and last, by the revelation of Jesus Christ, not by the cultural winds.<BR/><BR/>Should we preach the gospel so that sinners might hear and believe? Yes. I'm not denying that. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. If we think it is our duty to take the word of Christ and make it fully intelligible to the world, then I think we've missed the point. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Preach him as he is!<BR/><BR/>I realize that I have gone beyond Seth's definition of contextualization. So, Seth, not all my comments are aimed at you. <BR/><BR/>But, that's my two cents. Have at it.<BR/><BR/>StefanStefanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678256944843625087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-81797634480933747182008-03-07T10:50:00.000-08:002008-03-07T10:50:00.000-08:00oops, I was referring to John Mac in the last para...oops, I was referring to John Mac in the last paragragh, didn't mean to switch gears so abruptly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-86593776074435832732008-03-07T10:47:00.000-08:002008-03-07T10:47:00.000-08:00We definitely don't need to "make the gospel relev...We definitely don't need to "make the gospel relevant", obviously because it already is relevant. But given John Mac's hostility, you would think that is the attitude he is lashing out at..... which shows how out of touch he is with what the actual issue is.<BR/><BR/>What Mars Hill Seattle is doing is awesome. I really don't see what John Mac can fault them for. They have elder leadership, iare Reformed in soteriology and Mark has been a herald for penal substitution, preaches expositorally, and he willingly confronts aspects of culture that need to be addressed like homosexuality, egalitarianism, etc.<BR/><BR/>Even my own pastor (I'm in the PCA)does not like Driscoll and seems to lump him in the same category as other emerging guys that are actually liberal, which just shows how easily people can judge others by their non-traditional methods and be a bit prejudiced against people because of it.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I've only read people quoting him from conferences, but his comments about eschatology are divisive and troubling. The Westminster divines never saw fit to articulate a specific millenial position because the church has never been in agreement and its a non-essential, but apparently Mac wants to hold a position that puts him at odds with most Reformed scholars and is arrogant enough to think everyone should just line up to be in his camp on the issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-25571952854973135782008-03-07T09:06:00.000-08:002008-03-07T09:06:00.000-08:00Hey Kevin.If that was truly all that MacArthur sai...Hey Kevin.<BR/><BR/>If that was truly all that MacArthur said I would agree with him, but that doesn't seem to be it. There were things I didn't put in this post because I have not yet actually heard the sermon, but just was going off a myriad of quotes from people attending the conference. <BR/><BR/>As you can see in my post, when Dr. MacArthur says that <I>Peter did not identify with the generation </I> I find that to be overlooking some things in the passage. <BR/><BR/>I also saw that Dr. MacArthur said in his opening sermon, but wanted to make sure before I said much on it, that he has never changed anything no matter where he has gone, he just gets up and preaches...I think just as some worry too much on the culture, MacArthur seems to care less about it. At least with the words that I have heard being conveyed. <BR/><BR/>But, notice I said, <I>seems</I> cause I am not being dogmatic about it and would also agree with Dr. MacArthur an awful lot on most of what he is getting at. <BR/><BR/>In the end...I wish that MacArthur would have defined what he meant of contextualization and admitted that if done correctly is completely biblical...<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by...and if you have anything else to add please don't hesitate.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-90412979178784073612008-03-07T07:27:00.000-08:002008-03-07T07:27:00.000-08:00Seth, please give the whole quote brother. What yo...Seth, please give the whole quote brother. What you've done there is like someone claiming the Bible supports Atheism because it says "there is no God" :<BR/><BR/>"the modern cry for contextualization is a curse, its a curse, because people are spending all their time fussing around with tryin to figure out whether they should have holes in their Levi's and a skull and crossbones on their t-shirt, as if thats a means to drawing in the elect"Kevin Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12080303653129780062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-2803528297577992192008-03-07T06:53:00.000-08:002008-03-07T06:53:00.000-08:00Seth,Sorry, I thought I read at one time that you ...Seth,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I thought I read at one time that you were attending MHC. I respect Steve Camp also. I just find it sad that they are making Mark Driscoll out to be some kind of antichrist cult leader, where as pastors like Piper and Mahaney are pulling him to the side and admonishing and dicipling him (as Scripture commands us to do) and then leaving the rest to God. <BR/><BR/>I love Mahaney's quote, "Only the humble can notice the presence of Grace in others." I've concluded that as I do with Driscoll (regarding some of his speech), I must do with Camp.<BR/><BR/>God bless you Seth. I enjoy your blog.<BR/><BR/>Soli Deo Gloria!<BR/>chrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-47722102286819304962008-03-06T11:18:00.000-08:002008-03-06T11:18:00.000-08:00Chris.Thanks for stopping by. Yeah...I am really ...Chris.<BR/>Thanks for stopping by. <BR/><BR/>Yeah...I am really not a big fan of Steve Camp...but respect him and his theology. <BR/><BR/>As far as <I>my</I> pastor, Driscoll isn't my pastor, but I respect him a ton for what he is doing. <BR/><BR/>And I was thinking the same thing. It seems as though Mac isn't a big fan, and wants everyone to know. I wonder if this is why Piper and Mahaney aren't preaching at Shepherd's this year? Who knows...I just know that Piper and Mahaney have aligned with Driscoll and have gotten a lot of grief for it.<BR/><BR/>Oh well...can't please everyone.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-15292496136759989692008-03-06T10:39:00.000-08:002008-03-06T10:39:00.000-08:00Seth,I bet Steve Camp and Co. are eating that mess...Seth,<BR/><BR/>I bet Steve Camp and Co. are eating that message up. What's sad is the way they are making your pastor to be some kind of false teacher because he contextualizes. Don't know if Johnny Mac comes right out and says it, but we know who Public Enemy #1 is.<BR/><BR/>Soli Deo Gloria<BR/>chrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-71379537047561399272008-03-06T08:49:00.000-08:002008-03-06T08:49:00.000-08:00Brett.Thanks for stopping by. I would agree...the...Brett.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by. I would agree...the term <I>relevant</I> usually means that something is no longer relevant therefore it was in need of change to be <I>made</I> relevant. That is definitely not what is being done with good gospel contextualization. <BR/><BR/>What I <I>am</I> saying, is that the preacher <I>does</I> need to know the audience he is preaching to. This makes the speaker take the same old school, unchanging message to a new school, everchanging culture. <BR/><BR/>The message doesn't change, but the way that it is illustrated and related is. <BR/><BR/>I would make sure that if someone said, <I>"we need to make the gospel relevant," </I> that I asked them what they meant by this. <BR/><BR/>What MacArthur has done has just drawn a line in the sand and thrown it out completely...I think he is mistaken by doing this. <BR/><BR/>I hope I have shown biblically why MacArthur is wrong to throw it out altogether.Seth McBeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08765679934165890595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-53544964359372008252008-03-06T08:03:00.000-08:002008-03-06T08:03:00.000-08:00Nice post. I cringe when I hear that we have to m...Nice post. I cringe when I hear that we have to make the gospel relevant to our culture, because that usually implies watering it down and changing it's meaning in order to fit in.<BR/>We don't have to make the gospel <I>relevant</I> to our culture, but it should <I>relate</I> to our culture, and stand in contrast to our culture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27391906.post-57729301111747649482008-03-06T07:58:00.000-08:002008-03-06T07:58:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brett Royalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15378779419194700703noreply@blogger.com