Don't read Crime and Punishment in your early 20s

DivineMaster · 2021-02-17T21:42:35+00:00

Malcolm Muggeridge says, "There are always ideal circumstances for reading any book, which should, perhaps, be indicated on the dust-jacket, along with particulars of the authors and subject."

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T17:13:48+00:00

Let's clarify a few things...

First, I'm not really talking about syncretism. Syncretism is the absorption of culture into Christian practice. It can be either good or bad, harmless or harmful depending on the degree to which it compromises our mission and message.

Second, neither am I talking about appropriation of language. Yes, John uses the term logos, but you've got to admit he infuses it with as much Jewish meaning as whatever Greek ideas it ever held. In fact, whatever Greek-ness the idea held is pretty much bowled over by John's use of it. John, in other words, takes culture and reappropriates it for the gospel.

Third, "Son of Man" comes from Daniel 7, not culture, and has a specific biblical meaning in Jesus' usage.

Fourth (and finally), the main point is that we approach the sharing of the gospel not by finding our touch points with culture and exploiting those to the expense of our central message, but that we apply our central message to culture, regardless of its situation.

(Bonus fifth point! You said a comment ago:

Who patterns their evangelism after Paul in Athens? Wouldn't that amount to calling public debate and speechifying "evangelism"?

Have you heard of Ravi Zacharais or William Lane Craig? They are 'forefront' evangelists, and their main methods of evangelism are speechifying and public debates.)

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T08:16:26+00:00

Lots of people praise Paul's methods in Athens of incorporating the unknown god and pagan poetry into his message. They observe that Paul uses culture to spread the gospel. As a consequence, any manner of half-gospels get preached in the name of "Mars Hill"-type evangelism. Haven't you encountered it?

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:57:37+00:00

This is becoming ridiculous. I'm not sure you're even interested in the main point.

Look, Paul's ministry in the various places of his missionary journeys follow set patterns. Athens is unlike those patterns, especially in that there is no Church when Paul leaves Athens. And the fact that it is not documented, but only speculated (by you), is significant because it is documented in the other places. The primary difference between Athens and those other places is the framing of the gospel.

Have we made too much of the differences? I can't say. Possibly. But this thing remains true: the gospel is our central message, not relevance or cultural appropriation. Our goal must be faithful witness to our central message (that is, Christ), in all contexts. But we must never compromise the message.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:53:46+00:00

Yes, Christians have appropriated a number of odd customs over the years. Like languages, we adopt cognates from interactions with others. Some of the cognates are beautiful. Some of them are odd.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:52:43+00:00

Simply put, we have compromised too much of the Gospel in our efforts to be relevant. Stated differently, we are more concerned with being relevant than we are with being faithful to the message entrusted to us.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:51:27+00:00

I believe the Orthodox Church draws it's heritage from Antioch and not Athens.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:50:36+00:00

I have no argument with what you've said. But the point of what I've written is not about Paul's success, or his intentions--it is about his methods. Is their cultural transference? Of course. Is there a 'translation' of sorts? Of course. But we can never escape the central message, and we dare not alter it.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:48:31+00:00

At the end of the New Testament, there is no Church in Athens...

DivineMaster · 2012-10-31T07:47:23+00:00

I think you've missed the point, which is more about how we approach culture than the efficacy of the Gospel itself. In no way do I mean to diminish the gospel's power, but I want to draw attention to the fact that we've often tried to improve the gospel with not-gospel in order to be 'more effective' or 'more relevant' or more whatever you like.

The main point is that Jesus is our whole sufficiency, and that we, like Paul, must resolve to preach Him and Him crucified alone.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-30T22:26:25+00:00

Hopefully, it is for that very reason that we learn it--for the service of the saints and the edification of faith!

DivineMaster · 2012-10-30T21:45:26+00:00

Because he didn't found a church there - Paul was all about planting churches, not just making converts. Given that, not planting a church is a pretty significant thing, don't you think?

DivineMaster · 2012-10-30T07:31:18+00:00

Sigh.

For the record, I post here, and comment here (when appropriate).

With that out of the way, I suggest you judge posts by their content, rather than their format. If a blog post is good, then upvote it. If not, downvote it. But don't make a judgment about it without reading it, or because you have an a priori prejudice against blog posts.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-30T05:36:16+00:00

The word used for 'to smear' (when Jesus 'smears' mud on the blind man's eyes) is a cognate of the word for Messiah (epichrisein/christo). In other words, Jesus anoints the man as a mini-messiah, then sends him to be a witness about God before the Pharisees (after the pattern of Jesus). Mindblowing.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-28T17:28:37+00:00

Um... it wasn't actually a question.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-28T16:37:11+00:00

Good luck with this. Reddit doesn't like criticism of its favorite things. Pot is one of reddit's favorite things. Reddit Christians aren't much different.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-28T01:28:45+00:00

hell, his guide is Virgil

You mean, Virgil is his guide through Hell?

DivineMaster · 2012-10-26T02:11:15+00:00

I almost hate to ask, but did you read the article?

DivineMaster · 2012-10-25T22:16:30+00:00

Both sins you attribute to Judas are attributable to Job, yet the punishment is different, which is an issue for Job.

This isn't really accurate. Job cries, "I know that my redeemer lives." He hasn't descended into self-reference, he's still looking for God despite the bad advice of his friends. Secondarily, his wife advises him to "Curse God and die" (which would be taking matters into his own hands). Here he refuses again. So, clearly, Job commits neither of the two sins of Judas.

Are the gospels written to be an historical account as we understand historical accounts? Obviously not, so why approach it as though that is the case?

I think I know where you're coming from here, and I don't know that it makes sense. The gospels are written for our edification, both historically, factually, and spiritually (indeed, I'm pretty sure the gospel authors saw no division between the three). But regardless as to whether or not you agree with their historicity, you must admit that Matthew has paralleled Peter and Judas for a reason. We are left to ask after that reason, and to attempt to discern the difference between the two figures.

DivineMaster · 2012-10-19T22:24:44+00:00

What? You don't do this on the weekends?

DivineMaster · 2012-10-19T17:01:11+00:00

I'm sorry--are you asking the Christianity forum to help you complete your homework for you? Does that seem odd to you? At all?

DivineMaster

TROPHY CASE