What Paul did was subvert the pagan notions, but he never compromised the Gospel whereas with the modern contextualization I am speaking more directly to a subversion of the Gospel in order to be relevant.

We agree here entirely, I think. In response to the emergent movement he emerged from (and subsequently distanced himself from), Mark Driscoll has stated that our doctrine ought to be timeless, but our method of spreading that doctrine ought to be timely, that is it should evolve with our circumstances. The problem with emergent liberals is that their doctrine is evolving, and the problem with fundamentalists is that their method is not evolving.

I think I would disagree with you on the need for application, though. I see it through all the scriptures. Every imperative is an application of the doctrinal indicative.

. And so the recidivism of the verbal to the pictorial is of inevitable necessity in the new paradigm in order to advance the kingdom of God. Spiritual utilitarianism, the new iconoclasm, the new industry of indulgences fueling the false expectation that a parochial culture will produce a life of sanctity, mortification of the flesh, and ultimately the notion that we can express and present the life and work of Jesus Christ with nary a word from our mouths; personal piety over corporate, covenantal participation, one finds that the objectivity of the covenant to be too rankling to man who would pull God down to him.

I guess I left that statement a bit openended. But I am referring more to the evangelical movements like calvary chapel, the emergent movement and liberal theology. What Paul did was subvert the pagan notions, but he never compromised the Gospel whereas with the modern contextualization I am speaking more directly to a subversion of the Gospel in order to be relevant. The narcissistic need for application which drives the allegorical and moralistic interpretation of the scriptures; what the people want, the people get. The hippie movement is a great example of shifting titles without a lot of shifting allegiances. Relevance drives the “jesus junk” industry; go into a pop christian “bookstore” and tell me that the felt needs and aesthetic tastes of the consumer have not tainted and subverted the Gospel. The new media represents the medium, language, and content that is palatable to the autonomous desires/felt needs of mankind. The new media is all about spin, not truth and certainly not the cross.

On another note, I haven’t forgot our last discussion and am going to respond in a post in the next couple of days. And I don’t know, they say that those theonomic guys can be mean and rude, but you seem alright.

It is thought that we must now resort to the contextualization of the Church and the Gospel into the new media, maintaining relevance in the new world.

What did Paul mean when he said he was all things to all people? When he quoted Greek poets in Acts 17, who were initially speaking of Zeus, but Paul said it is really Jesus in whom we live and move and have our being, was “resort[ing] to the contextualization of the Church and the Gospel into the [then] new media?”