Contextualization without compromise

by Tullian Tchividjian

This is the challenge: If you don’t contextualize enough, no one’s life will be transformed because they won’t understand you. But if you contextualize too much, no one’s life will be transformed because you won’t be challenging their deepest assumptions and calling them to change.

Becoming “all things to all people”, therefore, does not mean fitting in with the fallen patterns of this world so that there is no distinguishable difference between Christians and non-Christians. While rightly living “in the world,” we must avoid the extreme of accommodation—being “of the world.” It happens when Christians, in their attempt to make proper contact with the world, go out of their way to adopt worldly styles, standards, and strategies.

When Christians try to eliminate the counter-cultural, unfashionable features of the biblical message because those features are unpopular in the wider culture—for example, when we reduce sin to a lack of self-esteem, deny the exclusivity of Christ, or downplay the reality of knowable absolute truth—we’ve moved from contextualization to compromise. When we accommodate our culture by jettisoning key themes of the gospel, such as suffering, humility, persecution, service, and self-sacrifice, we actually do our world more harm than good. For love’s sake, compromise is to be avoided at all costs.

As the Bible teaches, the Lordship of Christ has a sense of totality: Christ’s truth covers everything, not just “spiritual” or “religious” things. But it also has a sense of tension. As Lord, Jesus not only calls us to himself, he also calls us to break with everything which conflicts with his Lordship.

Contextualization without compromise is the goal!

read the rest

Shellfish Logic and the Defense of Homosexual Marriage

By Gary DeMar | Published: July 6, 2010

I was asked the following question by a Facebook friend: “How do you argue against gay marriage when pro-gay marriage activists say that gay [sic] marriage is forbidden in the Old Testament, but so is [eating] shellfish. They try to say that along with gay marriage that other stuff like shellfish is also forbidden. How do we as Christians respond?

Arguments like the “shellfish game” fill the internet, and many people are duped by them. Even Christians. In an interview published in Christianity Today magazine, Christian music artist and self-avowed lesbian Jennifer Knapp used the shellfish argument. (The interviewer did not challenge her on it.) There are several ways to argue against this false analogy. First, sexual relationships are defined in the earliest chapters of Genesis. Adam’s solitude was remedied with the creation of Eve, a female, someone designed specifically for him (Gen. 2:18–25). God didn’t create another man and also a woman so Adam could choose. He created a woman, a human complement designed sexually literally to fit with Adam. This is why Paul described homosexuality as “unnatural” (Rom. 1:26–27). The physical side of homosexuality is unnatural, like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. The shellfish argument has no validity since sexual identity (male and female) and the definition of marriage (man and woman) are creation ordinances. There is no prohibition in Genesis regarding shellfish (Gen. 1:28–31).

Second, the New Testament follows the Old Testament creation ordinance of marriage defining it as between a man and a woman. Jesus confirms this in Matthew 19:4–6: “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ‘So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate’” (also see Eph. 5:25–33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2–3, 10–16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). There is no homosexual option. Jesus does not go to Leviticus to make His case; He goes back to Genesis.

Third, Leviticus, in addition to prohibiting homosexual relationships (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), also prohibits eating certain foods (Lev. 11:2–31). Unlike homosexuality, there are no civil penalties attached to eating from the prohibited food list. It’s obvious, in terms of the sanctions, that eating shellfish is not the same as engaging in homosexual relationships. With the coming of Jesus, the Second Adam, we are back to the creation ordinances where all foods are once again “clean” because the gospel is for the world (John 4:42; Acts 1:8):

And He said to them, “Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.) Then He said, “What comes out of a person—that defiles him. For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, promiscuity, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” (Mark 7:18–23)

We learn from Peter’s encounter with the “unclean foods” that he was told by God to eat that they represented the nations (Acts 10:9–48; 11:5–9): “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (10:15; 11:9). To eat foods that were set aside as unclean is an acknowledgment that the gospel is not just for Jews: “‘Therefore if God gave to them [Gentiles] the same gift as He gave to us [Jews] also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?’ When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life’” (11:17–18).

Fourth, from Jesus’ comments in Mark 7 and God’s instructions to Peter in Acts 10, there is direct special revelation given that changes a number of laws from the Old Testament. In addition to unclean foods, there is no longer any use for the temple, animal sacrifices, and circumcision. How do we know this? Because we are told that these ordinances and laws no longer apply or are fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. We’re even told that there needed to be a change in the law, but in this case only as regarding who can be a priest (Heb. 7). Anyone familiar with the Bible knows these things.

Fifth, like the laws prohibiting homosexuality found in Leviticus, the New Testament prohibits homosexuality (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:8–11), and if it prohibits homosexuality, then it prohibits homosexual marriage. Notice what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9: “And such were some of you.” Some might claim that the Bible does not use the word “homosexual.” The definition is inherent in the Leviticus passages (18:22; 20:13): “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.” That is, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with someone of the same (Latin: homo) sex. Paul uses similar language: “woman . . . burned in their desire toward one another, men with men [same sex with same sex]. . .” (Rom. 1:26–27).

Sixth, the same “Holiness Code” that condemns homosexuality also prohibits adultery (Lev. 18:20), child sacrifice (v. 21), and sex with animals (v. 23) and promotes loving your neighbor as yourself (19:18), a law repeated numerous times in the New Testament (Matt 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Are the “shellfishers” telling us that adultery, child sacrifice, and sex with animals are now acceptable alternative lifestyle choices that should be protected by law? If his answer is yes, then let them say so. The New Testament promotes the Holiness Code law regarding loving one’s neighbor as well as laws prohibiting homosexual activity (Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:8–11). It seems that the New Testament writers do not have problems applying the Holiness Code legislation in the New Covenant.

Leviticus 19 (still part of the Holiness Code)—between the anti-homosexual passages of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—prohibits stealing and lying (v. 11), oppressing neighbors and robbing them (v. 13), withholding wages from a laborer (v. 13), cursing the deaf and tripping the blind (v. 14), showing partiality in judicial matters (v. 15), slandering (v. 16), and taking vengeance (v. 18). Leviticus 20 repeats prohibitions against child sacrifice (vv. 2–5), adultery (v. 10), homosexuality (v. 13), and bestiality (vv. 15–16). Are we to conclude, using shellfish logic, that these laws no longer apply today because they are found in the Holiness Code?

Some Christians will argue against the “shellfishers” on the basis that under the New Covenant we are not “signatories to the Sinaitic Covenant.” On the surface, this might seem like a good approach to take, but in practice it breaks down since the New Testament writers appeal to laws found in the covenant given at Sinai. Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 (Matt. 19:19; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) and 20:9 (Mark 7:10). Paul also quotes Leviticus 19:18 (Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14), as does James (James 2:8). Paul took the Old Testament law seriously enough to apply a law that seemingly was only applicable to animals (Deut. 25:4) and applied its principles twice to humans (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). If Paul could find contemporary application of a law that applied to oxen, then certainly the rest of the legal corpus has similar applicational force, even if we might not always know how to apply it.

Independence

Click on this: Independence

More on individual destiny

"...most of us are nobodies from the world’s point of view. We live and die in a long chain of humanity but there is not much that anyone will remember of us as individuals. At the same time, without us, future generations will not be born and the legacy of the past will not be preserved. We are part of a great cloud of witnesses, a long chain of faithful people who have lived for God in the place where he put them. Even if we know little about them we owe them a great debt of gratitude for their loyalty and perseverance when they had little or nothing to gain from it or to show for it...there is a purpose in our calling that goes beyond ourselves. Even if we are not 'glorified' and leave little for posterity to remember us by, we shall nevertheless have made an indispensable contribution to the purposes of God in human history." -- Gerald Bray

A Member but not Messianic. Favor not Fame. Grace not Glamor.

Re: the cult of celebrity in evangelical churches

What is celebrity but the elevation of gifts over character? How many times have we seen this? "You can't question So-and-so's character (or ministry\calling) because he is so gifted and successful!" Gifts are wonderful when they are used to the glory of God, but it is character which determines the effectiveness of any church or of any school. We will stop exalting talented ministers without regard for truth or character when we demand that preachers give us Christ and the Scriptures rather than anecdotes and jokes, when we recover a sense of the glory of God in worship and put away our crass desire for entertainment, and when we trust God to give growth to the church rather than put our faith in men and programs. -- Tom Chantry

An unmessianic sense of non-destiny

The belief that we are each special is, by and large, complete tosh. Most of us are mediocre, make unique contributions only in the peculiar ways we screw things up, and could easily be replaced as husband, father or employee, by somebody better suited to the task. The mythology nevertheless helps to sell things and allows us feel good about ourselves; indeed, the older you get, the more things it sells, from gym memberships, to cosmetic surgery, to hair pieces, to botox injections; but it is just mythology - the whole of human history so far strongly suggests that, as you get old, you cease to be as cool, and that you inevitably find that life just isn't as sweet as it was when you were eighteen.

As I look round the church, it strikes me that far too many Christians have senses of destiny which verge on the messianic. The confidence that the Lord has a special plan and purpose just for them shapes the way they act and move. Now, just for the record I certainly believe each individual has a destiny; what concerns me is the way in which our tendency to think of ourselves as special and unique (which we all are in some ways - D.N.A. etc.) bleeds over into a sense of special destiny whereby the future, or at least the future of myself, comes to be the priority and to trump all else.

Put bluntly, when I read the Bible it seems to me that the church is the meaning of human history; but it is the church, a corporate body, not the distinct individuals who go to make up her membership. Of course, all of us individuals have our gifts and our roles to play: the Lord calls us each by name and numbers the very hairs of our heads; but, to borrow Paul's analogy of the body, we have no special destiny in ourselves taken as isolated units, any more than bits of our own bodies do in isolation from each other. When I act, I act as a whole person; my hand has no special role of its own; it acts only in the context of being part of my overall body. With the church, the destiny of the whole is greater than the sum of the destinies of individual Christians.

This is an important insight which should profoundly shape our thinking and, indeed, our praying. My special destiny as a believer is to be part of the church; and it is the church that is the big player in God's wider plan, not me. That puts me, my uniqueness, my importance, my role, in definite perspective. The problem today is that too many have the idea that God's primary plan is for them, and the church is secondary, the instrument to the realization of their individual significance.

The West worships the individual; from the cradle to the grave it tells us all how special and unique each of us is, how vital we are to everything, how there is a prize out there just for us. Well, the world turned for thousands of years before any of us showed up; it will continue turning long after we've gone; and even if you, me, or the Christian next door are tonight hit by an asteroid, kidnapped by aliens, or sucked down the bathroom drain, very little will actually change; even our loved ones will somehow find a way to carry on without us. We really are not that important. So let's drop the pious prayers which translate roughly as `Lord, how can a special guy/gal like myself help you out some?' and pray rather that the Lord will grow his kingdom despite our continual screw ups, that he will keep us from knocking over the furniture, and that, when all is said and done, somehow, by God's grace, we will "finish well" despite our best efforts to the contrary.

So then please realize early that you are not actually the messiah and you have no special destiny which sets you apart from everybody else. The former is Christ alone; the latter is primarily reserved for his church. We all need to cultivate a certain unmessianic sense of non-destiny which will make us better citizens of the kingdom.

adapted from an article by Carl Trueman

"Risk" & "Intimacy"

I saw this little tidbit expressed on the web today:

"High risk equals high intimacy. Low risk equals low intimacy. Which would you rather have?"

Sounds like stuff from "Wild At Heart."

Now whether it refers to intimacy with God or others, (knowing the person and their church background, it is likely the former, but could include the latter as well,) what is the Biblical basis for this catch phrase? Where is "risk" in Scripture? And where is this emphasis on "intimacy" found in the Bible? And doesn't this idea presume "earning" or conversely "not obtaining" closeness with God? "Gotta work hard and strain to be tight with God!" Also in terms of God or Jesus taking a risk for intimacy...well the idea is ridiculously absurd. God doesn't take chances.

Risk = exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance.

Which would I rather have? I guess I'd rather have perfected love.

the answer:
(1 John 4:18) "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

and:
(Heb 12:2) "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

and:
(Rom 5:3-5) "Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; {4} perseverance, character; and character, hope. {5} And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."

Of course, with the Gospel, we are freed from the fear of being ridiculed or hurt by others, since we already have the favor of God by Grace.