The Gospel is Transcultural

The Gospel is transcultural and in a sense, hyper-cultural, or above all cultural interpretations, judging them all. The Gospel is identical in every culture into which it comes and has no cultus as a referent which is not subordinate. As such there is no “Chinese Gospel” and a “European Gospel” an American Gospel and an African Gospel. There is exactly one Bible, one Gospel, one Christ and one Church, and these have no shift nor can they be, contextualized. These rather, are the context for every other thing that claims to be, Christianity.

In this, the ordained practice of the Church, prayer and praise, sacraments and worship, preaching and teaching, singing and believing, are identical in every true church. For them to differ does not mean that a church has a different cultural context, it implies that some church has a misunderstanding. Difference in the carpet color and the style of the architecture are the effects of applied human reason; it is hard for them to be “wrong” in the significant sense.

But differences in theology raise the necessity of someone being wrong. In the laws of God, the Gospel and the signs of a true church (the right preaching, right administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline) these are either in accord with the divine mandate, or not. It matters not upon which continent they occur.

Taken from Christopher Neiswonger’s Facebook post, which can be found here.

On the Meaning of the Passage

In other words, on interpreting Scripture:

Is it proper/appropriate to interpret according to our own wishes or standards? No, arbitrary interpretation does not generally extract the meaning of a passage, it merely reflects the reader’s biases, not the author’s intentions. The notion that we are free to interpret a text by our arbitrary wishes is self-contradictory; anyone espousing such a view would have to assume that his statement would itself not be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The “correct interpretation” is defined to be the one that matches the meaning of a passage — the author’s intentions. The one-meaning principle is the fact that a given proposition generally has exactly one primary meaning, and thus exactly one correct interpretation.

Dr. Jason Lisle Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret and Defend Scripture

Gender Apartheid?

On the face of it, the claim that there is “gender apartheid” in NAPARC is not only implausible but even offensive. First, those who make the claim did so on their own, public podcast. Under apartheid black South Africans were not freely, without government interference, doing the equivalent of podcasts. Our podcasters were in no danger of authorities breaking down the door of their studio. Indeed, our podcasters have the ability to control with whom they will talk—they block on social media even the mildest critics and potential dialogue partners. Further, our female podcasters were theologically educated or had other advanced academic degrees. Again, for prosperous females in North America, who have earned masters and doctoral degrees, to complain of apartheid is just silly. It is offensive because it demeans the very real oppression that black South Africans suffered under apartheid. It is the equivalent of comparing standing in line at Starbucks to standing in a chow line in prison. It is not a thoughtful way to argue.

R. Scott Clark, “Gender Apartheid” And “Toxic Masculinity” In NAPARC?

Self-Righteous Alert

It was pointed out to me that one of my posts, Ten Commandments Destroyed in Arkansas, was a bit on the self-righteous side. It is. Therefore, I have marked it private, along with the latest one.

I really don’t wish to ever come across as self-righteous, but do from time-to-time. Given that, a dear brother let me know, and I’m repenting of that attitude and hiding the posts. I think I tend to be a bit more self-righteous when I’m not at peace about things, and clearly, I’m not right now. So dear readers, please forgive me.

Sincerely,

Timothy

An Open Letter to Sting, of the Police

Dear Sting,

It has been some time since you released your song, O My God, on your album, Synchronicity. In fact, as I write this, it’s been 34 years. You are probably as shocked as I am at how time flies. But it does fly and I wanted to write to you a response to that particular song.

Please note that when you first released the album, I bought it on cassette tape and listened to it over and over on my Walkman, and eventually by Teac Cassette player, with Kenwood amp and Klipsch speakers. Synchronicity was one of my favorite albums and I believe, your Magnum Opus with the Police. So know that the words are burned into my conscious, which is frustrating on one level.

Continue reading “An Open Letter to Sting, of the Police”