Paul refuses to circumcise Titus, even when it was demanded by many in the Jerusalem crowd, not because it didn’t matter to them, but because it mattered so much that if he acquiesced, he would have been giving the impression that faith in Jesus is not enough for salvation: one has to become a Jew first, before one can become a Christian. That would jeopardize the exclusive sufficiency of Jesus.
To create a contemporary analogy: If I’m called to preach the gospel among a lot of people who are cultural teetotallers, I’ll give up alcohol for the sake of the gospel. But if they start saying, “You cannot be a Christian and drink alcohol,” I’ll reply, “Pass the port” or “I’ll think I’ll have a glass of Beaujolais with my meal.” Paul is flexible and therefore prepared to circumcise Timothy when the exclusive sufficiency of Christ is not at stake and when a little cultural accommodation will advance the gospel; he is rigidly inflexible and therefore refuses to circumcise Titus when people are saying that Gentiles must be circumcised and become Jews to accept the Jewish Messiah.
No truth which human beings may articulate can ever be articulated in a culture-transcending way—but that does not mean that the truth thus articulated does not transcend culture.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
when to contextualize
Justin Taylor posted a great quote of DA Carson by Mark Driscoll on compromise contextualization.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The most blatant misuse of contextualization is not the emergents. It is the redefining of "all" and "every" and "world" by some claiming some invisible context due in large part because the clear meaning becomes a square peg in the round hole of their theology.
And some of these same people cry "foul" when some emergents use "context" to change the meaning of some Scriptures. One man's "context" is another man's "twisting". It depends on where your seats happen to be in the doctrinal stadium!
Rick - blatant misuse of contextualization? Hmmm ... I was thinking more like there is only proper contextualization otherwise it is misinterpretation.
I think you are addressing misinterpretation and I think you are focusing on some specific doctrine and how some holding to that view have been critical of emergents.
My post is about neither. I like contextualization as described by Carson.
I understand, but the change of certain words is attributed to "context" which is as you say "misinterpretation". They do not say that the word is misinterpreted, they claim tyhe meaning changes due to the context.
Isn't that a form of contexualization?
Rick - to your point, it is contextualization leading to misinterpretation. But Carson (I think) is talking about talking truth and contextualizing into our culture, not as I think you are thinking, which is contextualizing as a method for interpretation.
I think Carson is touching on the paradox of Scripture. Can I drink alcohol? Yes and no. Scripture is clear. The proper answer is driven by the circumstance of the drinking or not drinking.
Now of course that may not be a good example since many disagree on what Scripture has to say on alcohol but I think it makes the point regarding contextualization.
Post a Comment