I admit that I am not been a big fan of most Christmas carols. It started with an analytical bent that wondered if Jesus really didn’t cry in the manger. Seminary pretty much sealed the deal when it was confirmed, for example, that we don’t know how many magi there were, they certainly were not kings, and if we use them in a nativity set, they should be put in the other room. But there is one that I really, really like: Hark, the Herald Angels Sing! And as far a I am concerned it speaks directly against the ODM notion that we are not to contextualize the Gospel, not to make it relevant, that we should not seek to translate Christianity across cultures and times.
First let me dispense with the annoyingly obvious responses such as: “We don’t make the Gospel relevant, it is relevant.†and the many permutations. I agree, all things God are ontologically relevant, but just like our own salvation stories – it never became relevant until someone explained it.
Now, back to our carol. I particularly like this phrase: Â
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Veiled in flesh… – if this is not contextualizing; nothing is! That which is spirit took on flesh… ‘tis a mystery for sure, but what was once not flesh, became fleshy.
The second member of the Godhead condescended to incarnate himself. “Incarnate†– kinda sounds like carnal doesn’t it?Â
Pleased as man with men to dwell. – as man… with men. That’s contextualizing, that’s making himself relevant. It pleased him to leave his heavenly estate and become like us.
…our Emmanuel – God literally pitching his tent next to ours…
Of course, he did all this without taking on all the theological baggage of sinfulness and the lot. In his advent, in his incarnation, Jesus gave us the model on how we are to take the Gospel to others. And the first thing he did was to contextualize – keeping the core of truth but allowing it to be communicated in the likeness of the recipient.
So, the next time some ODM, or anyone else for that matter, starts snarking about not contextualizing the Bible, about how atrocious an offense it is to try and be relevant – direct them to Luke 2.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
21 Comments(+Add)
At my daughters school yesterday they read a book about the Carol, “Silent Night” absolutely fascinating story about how it came to existence.
None of us do anything within the church without contextualizing. Whether its using an English translation, or meeting in buildings dedicaetd to worship there isn’t a single act we do that isn’t contextualized.
I find it funny as that is what living by faith is all about… we live in the world but view it in the context of the New Creation…
Paul states it this way in 2 Cor 5: 15.
As we live out the incarnation and the resurrection that is within us as Christ Jesus now dwells in us, we are always looking at the world from that “context”… IOW, we always contextualize and that is what we are called to do.
How does one live in faith when they are persecuted… in that context how do we live?
How do we live in times of prosperity and what do we do with our wealth? In those contexts, how do we live?
If we are not looking at ourselves and finding how to bring Christ into our context, then we are not doing the great commission… and we are living as disobedient children.
iggy
Maybe the post was too obvious for us here… but I get tired of the anti-relevancy, anti-contextualizing rhetoric of some ODM’s and some who visit us here. And since we’re singing this in our worship tomorrow, I thought I would expound a bit.
Veiled in flesh, in order that “that veil” would be torn and become the new and living way to the Father.
Since Christ is the incarnate God entered into humanity, preach that. This is the only contextualizing that matters.
Your minimalist, praxis driven doctrines have no regard for proper exegesis, which is why this site promotes preterism and “Hillelian” interpretation. Things are easy when you can confine everything to the 1st century and keep it there.
Christ came into the world to die, and rise, and ascend, and send the Spirit. He wasn’t bringing social change, or governmental transformation. That will come fully at His return, when He is the only king left standing. He did not come to fix what men had done to the old creation.
He came as the last Adam to create anew, and to embrace the tree of life, i.e. the cross. Like I said when you relegate the Book of Revelation to Nero and Domitian well then all the dominoes fall where we want them to. Don’t ever criticize other’s systematic theologies again.
Nothing about the Gospel is “relevant” to fallen man/creation, nor do we make it to be. We preach the gospel and faith generated by that preaching through the unction of the Spirit brings people to belief. Then work out your salvation in whatever “context” you find yourself in, as that is also ordained by God.
thanks Chris P for giving you Christ came and did it all and now we know you do not believe in creationism and that what God created was “good”…
Also, that you deny that Christ was a man and dwelt amongst us and still does in us… (BTW that is called sanctification as Christ in us lives out His life in and through us…)
Merry Christmas in your own minimalistic Platonist/Abstract Truthism of the contextualized god you serve and preach.
Gnosticism was also a heresy…
iggy
“Things are easy when you can confine everything to the 1st century and keep it there.” – if we could maybe, but since we can’t… anyone know what he menas by this anyway?
“Since Christ is the incarnate God entered into humanity, preach that. This is the only contextualizing that matters.”
And if we do that in English we are further contextualizing…
“He wasn’t bringing social change, or governmental transformation. That will come fully at His return, when He is the only king left standing. He did not come to fix what men had done to the old creation.”
I suppose that whole “love your neighbor” thing and teachings such as the “Good Samaratan” parable were just fillers then?
“Like I said when you relegate the Book of Revelation to Nero and Domitian well then all the dominoes fall where we want them to. Don’t ever criticize other’s systematic theologies again.”
?
“Nothing about the Gospel is “relevant†to fallen man/creation, nor do we make it to be”
The Gospel is not relevant? That I’ll ignore since you cannot possible mean it. As far as “nor so we make it be” – yes, yes we do.
Every time we preach the Bible in a context we make it relevant.
Every time a missionary uses a cultural analogy we make it relevant.
“Your minimalist, praxis driven doctrines have no regard for proper exegesis, which is why this site promotes preterism and “Hillelian†interpretation.”
minimalist – not sure what you mean, or what I am guilty of. But the rest of you comment pretty much minimizes the incarnation significantly.
praxis driven doctrine – you know not what what drives my doctrine…and application follow interpretation
preterism – irrelevant to the discussion, but since you bring it up, I am not a preterist and it has no bearing on this topic
hillelian – not sure the point here
Our whole mission is to preach the gospel in a way that sinners understand. Paul goes to Mars Hill (sorry) and speaks relevantly before presenting Christ. It isn’t relevancy that is the problem, it is the abuse of relevancy. (health and wealth, etc.)
I’m just not sure what Chris P. meant.
See Rick, we agree here. I think maybe there are people who take the idea of total depravity to mean that an unsaved person cannot understand the gospel message unless God explains it to them so we don’t have to worry about making sense. I guess.
Rick,
I agree – abuse is alway the issue… whether it’s alcohol, sex, or attempts to be relevant.
The 19th Century liberal who denied the virgin birth in an attempt to be relevant to a modernist mind is as guilty as the 20th Century Emergent who denies the uniqueness of Christ in attempt to be relevant to a postmodernist.
ODM’s and Chris P. just seem to be unable to discern the difference between the “thing” and the “thing abused.”
It is here that I usually apply the C word because that is what you alluded to. Man can understand the facts of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit is the power that brings salvation to a sinner.
Let’s face it, that chronology and all the mystery surrounding when a sinner believes et. al. will never fully be know this side of eternity. Relevancy is explaining the gospel in understandable terms enhanced by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit does the rest. Otherwise we should just print verses and hand them out, period.
Neil,
Chris P is affronted by the hermeneutic we often use here (and even Johnny Mac uses) which says that we must first ascertain what scripture meant to the people it was first written to so that we can understand the underlying intent for exegesis. Since this sometimes includes reviewing Josephus and other sources outside of scripture (for context), Hillel and other Jewish sources sometimes get mentioned.
The “preterism” piece is a shot at my general acceptance of a partial-preterist view of eschatology which says that much of what premillennial dispensationalism interprets as unfulfilled prophecy was actually fulfilled in the first century. (For example, the archaeological proof that Caesar worship during Domitian required that you burn incense to Caesar and accept his mark on your goods and on your body to buy and sell in the marketplace per Rev 13:17). I suppose it could loosely be called a “system”, but PP doesn’t insist that once-fulfilled prophecy cannot be fulfilled a second time, while at the same time avoiding expectant “date setting”…
As to what it has to do with this article? Pretty much nothing. Just a rant…
Chris P seems to have lost it a while back.. he come here rambles on about stuff that sounds like he might be saying something and then casts out some strange accusations that seems to be at some of us…
I guess that is the difference between approaching some with love and humility and just hating others because they are different than you.
iggy
Chris L.,
Now that you mention it, I remember his saying things along those lines… I understand the draw of it though, if you say all we need to do is read the Scriptures and do what they say, without the burden of context or authorial intent – you a freer to make it say what you want it to say.
We all read into things from time to time, but abandoning the context makes it a lot easier.
“Relevancy is explaining the gospel in understandable terms enhanced by the Spirit, the Holy Spirit does the rest. Otherwise we should just print verses and hand them out, period. ”
AMEN!
F Whittenburg
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law of Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by ALL MEANS save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you (1 Corinthians 9:19-23 KJV).
Relevance?
F Whittenburg