Like a missionary.
Do you live like a missionary in your “Jerusalem”?
I know many conservatives balk at any talk of contextualizing the gospel. But let me ask you: do you preach out of an English translation of the Bible, does your church have a men’s ministry, does your church take your kids to summer camp? These are all ways that we contextualize the gospel. When I have traveled to various foreign mission fields I have often been given a list of terms and slogans that do not translate well in those countries. I have also sought to find things about those cultures that I could use to illustrate the gospel. That is contextualizing. If you have been in a coma under a rock you may not have noticed that in the last few decades America has become a mission field, filled with people who have no understanding of the gospel. May God bless our church with dedicated missionaries who are committed to reaching our “Jerusalem” – the good ol’ USA.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
There are aspects of Mark’s ministry that I like, but this is not one of them. He couldn’t be more off the biblical page if tried on this issue.
There is absolutely no Scriptural backing for contextualizing the gospel message–none. The gospel doesn’t need to be nor its effectiveness require it. It IS the power of God unto salvation (Roms. 1:16) and all our methods and going into the culture add nothing to its efficacious eternal work.
IN 1 Cor. 9 Paul gives the quintessential passage on contexualization. But his emphasis is not on the gospel or the message, but on himself. He was willing to become all things to all people… but the message of the gospel always was consistent regardless of the culture he found himself in. That is way he may adapt and change depending on whether he was in a synagogue reasoning with the Jews or invited to speak on Mars Hill (the real one) in Acts 17 and ministers to them out of creation. BUT, the message did not vary–it was consistent.
Mark’s view of ministry is simply the seeker friendly movement with an attitude. It is nothing new. Target your audience, build your church around that audience, appeal to your audience, draw them in by any pragmatic necessary, give them the gospel and if you have to swear or use scatological speech in the process who cares… Relate to them; identify with them; make the worship service a performance and they will keep coming back.
I’ve been to Mars Hill in Seattle. I’ve experienced the emerging emphasis; and whatever it is, it is not reformed; and it is pragmatic.
-no biblical instruction before people took communion–none.
- no corporate worship
- no public reading of Scripture except when Mark preached.
- no expositional preaching. Mark does a running commentary, not real exposition.
- no sense of community; people were disconnected as if they were at a concert.
- no reverence; it was cavalier and casual even at the Lord’s expense.
I think Mark has forgotten that it’s the message and the Master, not the audience, that is sovereign in ministry.
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
DELHI, India (Baptist Press)–Within the large halls of the gurdwara, the congregation stands or sits together with heads covered and feet bare. Their hands are folded in prayer. They face the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh scriptures, and listen as one member recites the congregational prayers. Every so often, they murmur together in Punjabi “Waheguru,” or “Wonderful lord.”
“The Guru Granth Sahib is kept in the center on a raised area,” explained Irene Wayne*, the Southern Baptist strategy coordinator for the Jatt Sikh people group in India. “There is a canopy over it, and someone waves a feathered fan over it to keep flies from falling on it and ‘contaminating’ it.”
At the end of the prayers, each member of the congregation bows with his head touching the floor in reverence to the Guru Granth Sahib. The service ends with the words of the common Sikh greeting, “Sat Sri Akal,” which means, “god is truth.”
To the followers of Sikhism, religion is all about the search for truth. Sikhs believe in one god and that he is the supreme creator and embodiment of truth. To reach god, Sikhs believe a person must live a life of intense devotion and self-discipline.
Guru Nanak Dev founded Sikhism in the 15th century. Sikhs revere Guru Nanak, as well as the nine gurus who followed him. They treat the gurus’ writings, compiled in a book that Sikhs consider the final and “living guru,” as their sacred scripture. They call these texts the Guru Granth Sahib.
Devout Sikhs will devote part of each day to reciting portions from the Guru Granth Sahib.
“There are set portions of the Sikh scriptures that can be read, and each has to be read in full at one time,” Wayne said. “They are kind of like chapters. Some are longer than others.”
Sikhs also have special scripture readings on the eve of a significant event in hopes that the Guru Granth Sahib will bless the occasion.
For a Sikh, Christianity is a foreign religion and Christ is a foreign guru (teacher). Indian Christians working among the Sikhs, especially the Jatt Sikhs, are beginning to see how much of a barrier this is to reaching them with the Gospel.
Historically, Sikhs who have accepted the Gospel have relinquished much of their culture to join the “Christian” culture.
“Many are completely ‘Christianized’ and don’t look any different from most Christians,” Wayne said. “Unfortunately, this is a barrier to the Jatts.”
In an effort to reach the Sikh culture for Christ, some Indian Christians have begun conducting church services in the style of a Sikh worship service. These services meet in believer’s homes and have all of the characteristics of a church but also have a culturally contextualized style. The congregation sits with a leader and discusses portions of Scripture.
“Some people are now using the satsang style of worship and trying to contextualize more so that they can maintain their culture while forsaking the false beliefs,” Wayne said. “Satsang style uses music similar to the Sikh singing. The leader would likely sit rather than stand, and some people are using contextualized terms like ‘Sat Guru’ (True Teacher) for Jesus.”
Satsang, which literally means “true company,” is a congregationally led worship. Often one teacher will sit and read a passage from the Bible, and the congregation will meditate on it and discuss it.
In this way, Sikh-background Christians can match their style of worship to the culture to which they are accustomed, while remaining devoted to following and sharing Christ.
________________
Steve, are you against the idea of communicating the Gospel in the context of a culture or do you just have a problem with Driscoll’s way of doing it?
Jason:
It’s not about not liking how Mark does it; it’s about representing something in methodology that he says is biblical when clearly it is not.
There is no Scripture I can find that ever places an emphasis or gives us a model for the contextualization of the gospel. Piper has given Mark a huge platform; Mark is using that to communicate a philosophy of ministry that he asserts is Scriptural. But yet he rarely develops his methods from the Word of God (this goes to the nature of Timmy Brister’s question to him at Ask Anything concerning the RPW).
It’s important distinction and discussion to be having.
Again, Mark’s methodology is a pragmatic one designed to appeal to the culture. Now he would deny that, but that is exactly what it is. THe gathering of God’s people in the local church is not primarily about audience identification; relating or being relevant, being seeker sensitive or seeker sensible. It is however about the worship and glory of the One Triune God, the fellowship of the saints, prayer, the preaching of God’s Word, the sacraments, etc. Sad to say, it is the lack of reverence and honor to the Lord that usually is the first to be amputated when it comes to ministry philosophy.
I think Mark is spearheading the new down-grade of our day (and maybe is doing so unwittingly). Spurgeon’s primary concern was seeing the church of his day embrace a worldly methodology for the sake of cultural considerations. He knew and has been proven as such, that a theology would be invented to support the methodological sea change he saw coming. History proves him correct. Every major denomination that has slipped into liberalism is reaping the fruit of that time. We are seeing before our eyes as well…
My brother, I will be quick to recant and repent of anything I have said about this area of ministry if anyone can biblically demonstrate to me where Paul or the Lord Himself contextualizes the gospel message and affirms it as a biblical form of ministry.
As I read the epistles and the gospels, we see different audiences and cultures represented; but what is utterly consistent is the message of the gospel remains absolutely without variation. I think this is worthy of our discussion.
One last thought: because the nature of man is constant; the nature and lure of sin is constant; the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ is constant; the law of God is constant; and the gospel of sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus is constant, then why do people feel the need in this day and age to try and contextualize it rather than just proclaim it?
I have preached to AIDS gatherings of up to 8,000 people where I was the only Christian invited to speak, but it was the same gospel I have presented in Reformed churches as well. Different audiences to be sure. But they were not looking for me to relate or repackage the gospel so they could get it in “their world.” In fact, they respected the fact that I didn’t do that–even though I was beat up by 12 men from the group ACT-UP afterwards. It was all good and the Lord worked it out for His glory. One of those men came to Christ about 3 months later by God’s providential saving grace and electing love! SDG.
Mark says he’s reformed (though he’s not really). IF he believes in a reformed view of the gospel and evangelism, then we know what is key is not contextualization but content. Amen? God is building His church; and our gimmicks don’t add one eternal brick to the living stones He is saving from the four corners of the world. This is what I don’t understand–such a huge emphasis on methods and not on message.
2 Cor. 4:1-7 is my model for this belief. I have written on it here as well.
I respect you highly Jason and your thoughts I take very seriously. I am interested in what you have to say on this issue and that is why I posted here. I appreciate FIDEO greatly and thank you for the ministry you have had in my own life – this past year especially.
Let me know what you think… Sorry this is so long.
Grace and peace to you brother,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Jason,
the concept of contextualizing the gospel is a fascinating one to me. I wonder how you might respond to the post Phil put up today at TeamPyro, as it pertains to this?
As it pertains to Driscoll specifically: I’m orignally from the greater Seattle area. It’s not another planet where sinful men and women are so incredibly different than sinful men and women anywhere else in the US, that they need to be addressed in the style Driscoll employs.
People will argue ‘but it works’. I wonder why those who will argue with that type of response, aren’t taking serious the concerns of so many about the fruit that this “working method” is producing. The irreverance, the cavalier attitude toward Godly conduct and speech, just to name a few things many brothers and sisters have voice concern over.
There is one message, and it’s the message that converts the soul, and the message that should be the focus. It seems to me that Driscoll’s style of ‘contextualizing’ the message is causing more division and concern among the household of faith, than a growing, Godly ministry should be.
Just my 2 cents, for what they’re worth.
SDG,
Carla
Steve, when I read your comments above I find myself searching hard for anything I really disagree with when it comes to the fact that the gospel is always relevant in all generations, all cultures, all places on earth. And I have not been to Mars Hill so I can’t defend or criticize Driscoll. I have read a few of his books and agree with a lot of what he says and disagree with some of his “methodologies”.
My only point, which I am using Driscoll’s comments to help make, is that even though we must preach expositionally, we should bring the gospel to bear upon the context of your audience. Such is illustrated in the Prophets, the Gospels, and Acts.
For example, did you preach the exact same message to the AIDS gathering as you would to a a group of senior adult Christians in a retirement home? Even though the two sermons would complement each other, and even though the two sermons would be accurate portrayals of the Gospel — I am pretty confident that you would communicate the Gospel differently (using different illustrations, emphasizing different parts of the Gospel, etc.).
So I agree we should not “dumb-down” the gospel. And I agree that we should not substitute substance for methods. But I do think we ALL contextualize and I just think we should think about how we are doing it — and are we doing it well, appropriately, and effectively.
I think we both agree on this. Let me know.
Jason:
We had an area wide power blackout that lasted several hours last night. So I was without internet until late. My apologies for not responding more quickly.
You said: “we should bring the gospel to bear upon the context of your audience. Such is illustrated in the Prophets, the Gospels, and Acts.”
I fully agree.
That to me is not contextualizing the gospel, it is just personally understanding who you are ministering to.
Contextualization of the gospel has classically stood for an alteration of the gospel itself in order to make it “fit” the culture. That is what i am reacting to.
I hope this clarifies a bit more and I do thank you for taking the time to dialogue on this important issue.
Steve
Col.. 1:9-14
I probably should have written this yesterday, but Steve I have read several of your post on this subject over the last few months. I was pretty sure I knew that you believed about the term “contextualize the gospel”.
I also knew Jason meant something different. You wrote.
Contextualization of the gospel has classically stood for an alteration of the gospel itself in order to make it “fit” the culture. That is what i am reacting to.
I am still attempting to understand what certain people mean when they use this type of terminology.(Jason excluded). I am making a slightly informed assumptions on this, but I think there might be an effort by some, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller to name a few, that aren’t referring to changing the message of the Gospel when they use this language.
I know from my reading that certain emergent groups mean exactly what you stated, and I am personally trying to be fair to individuals who may need to thrash some terminology that has baggage.
There may be disagreement on about what it means to change the message, but if you have any information that you believe reveals these guys are altering the actual message of the Gospel to fit the culture I would love to read it.
Scott
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments to me.
Those that feel that the gospel needs aid or assistance to penetrate a certain given culture and its inherent surroundings, will always place methodology above theology. Their paradigm demands it so.
Mark is no exception. Mars Hill is a prime example of being a “seeker-friendly movement with an attitude” that they feel is necessary to impact that culture. Mark has advertised Seattle as being the darkest place on the planet to reach people for the Lord to boost his own numbers and effectiveness to others. Ergo, what is the message? Do ministry like he does and this kind of growth will also occur.
Thus his methods, as Carla pointed out here, continue to portray a pastor in the pulpit who is crass, irreverent, demeaning, guttural, scatological, etc. why? Because his inflated worldview on the how of ministry determines the way he presents the message of ministry.
Now, to your excellent point: does this effect content? Yes. In Mark’s book promotion of his irreverent “Vintage Jesus” he portrays the Lord as a cartoon figure promoting his book. He says as part of that book promotion the following: “Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was often mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted the crazy story to cover the fact she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom.”
A part from his reckless tone, there is only one problem with his version of the events surrounding the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ: it’s not true. He made it up; he tampered with the message.
It’s a small departure, but this is pattern in ministry. I can’t figure out for the life of me why so many solid reformed men are supporting this renegade?
The spill over effect of Mark’s approach in ministry is going to be devastating. McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, Jones, Burke, Ward, etc. are theological liberals and aberrant on several points of essential doctrine. But again, what Spurgeon was combating at the time of the down-grade was not so much a theological departure, but a methodological one that bred a skewed theology to support its practice.
That is what I fear here. I truly hope I am wrong–but I don’t think so.
Thank you for the time to interact with you. I just posted something from Piper on my blog that answers some of the questions on contextualization I think you would find helpful.
I watched the Piper video and heard him say nothing that I disagree with. I doubt very seriously Driscoll disagrees either. In fact, the Driscoll video is recorded and promoted by Desiring God Ministries. So to try to pit the two against each other just doesn’t work.
Steve, I really think that you are rejecting the concept of contextualization just because many abuse it. That is neither helpful nor effective.
You said in a comment above the following: That to me is not contextualizing the gospel, it is just personally understanding who you are ministering to. But Steve you can’t have it both ways. Contextualization simply means to place (a word or idea, for example) in a particular context. Therefore, understanding who you are ministering to is to define your context therefore you are contextualizing.
You may deny it — but that only causes you to become ineffective in actually correcting those who are compromising the essence of the gospel.
May I suggest that you will become more effective in this effort to say, “We applaud those who properly contextualize the gospel but let me show you how you are doing it wrong.”
The great missionaries of our history have given us wonderful models of effective contextualization. And preaches in America need to realize that we are not preaching to the same “context” that our grandfathers were. We need to “understand who we are ministering to” — as you say, Steve.
You and I both know that many have defined the context correctly but have chosen corrupt methods and heretical theologies to speak to their given context. If we are going to help our generation in this effort we must not deny contextualization but be like the Spurgeons, Luthers, Calvins, Brainards, etc.
John Knox was quiet bold in contextualizing the gospel against the Queen and her Catholicism. Edwards contextualized the gospel to youth like no one I have ever read before. Spurgeon utilized the printing press and spoke to the context of his generation with great creativity, humor, and wisdom. C.S.Lewis knew how to speak to the intellectuals.
Piper has defined the context of America as filled with materialistic, greedy, self-centered consumers — and thus his ministry is very heavily defined with books and sermons that focus on these sinful issues. Mohler has target the context of politics and cultural movements. MacArthur has targeted liberalism. Phil Johnson has targeted the Emergents. And Driscoll has targeted young Seattle perverts. I say, “May God bless him.”
By the way, Steve, you entitled your post: Piper says it too: The Gospel Doesn’t Need Contextualization!
But he didn’t say that. In fact, he said the Gospel is universally and absolutely relevant for every human being on the planet no exceptions with barely any contextualization.
Steve, shouldn’t your post be entitled: Piper says it too: The Gospel Does Need Contextualization — just not as much as some think!
In fact, Piper explains in that very clip that missions is impossible without contextualization. His ultimate point though is that the Gospel is always relevant to all people, everywhere.
I think that you, Steve, are just in disagreement with the methods of those you have called out. On this, I stand in agreement with you. But that does not mean that we should not contextualize.
In fact, I have proven to you that your standard is not even possible. In other words, to use no form of contextualization is impossible. So I ask you to JOIN the effort to defend the gospel by TEACHING preachers HOW TO contextualize PROPERLY.
Does that make sense, bro.?
Jason and Scott
Here is quote from Professor John Murray spoke out against, found in his “Collected Writings of John Murray, v1″ that was put on my blog. I know you both will agree with it, but it says it much better than I could pertaining to this issue.
I appreciate you my brothers…
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
:
———————————
“A great deal is being said nowadays about the necessity of relevance, and in certain circles it is being asserted that the scripture as it was understood by Christians in the first century is not relevant to modern man; that, conditioned as he is to the scientific worldview, it is impossible to accept the framework in which the New Testament is cast. It is not to be denied that the gospel proclaimed must be relevant, that it must be presented to men where they are, and meet their needs in the situations in which they find themselves. But one thing must be said. It is only by the proclamation of the whole counsel of God, particularly regarding sin, misery, and the judgment of God, that men will discover where they are and begin to assess their need.
Much of the plea for relevance proceeds on the premise that what men assess as their need, and demand for the satisfaction of this need, is that to which the gospel must be adjusted. The result is that the solution proposed and the message proclaimed are accommodations to humanly conceived and framed demands.
There is the basic fallacy that men apart from the conviction created and conditioned by law and gospel are able to know what their real situation and needs are. It is God’s judgment respecting sin and misery that must be brought to bear upon men where they are and where they find themselves. When this priority is not observed, then all presumed relevance is a distortion of the gospel. …
We must unashamedly and uncompromisingly declare the whole counsel of God, so that men, in conviction, will be made relevant to the gospel. This is the relevance Reformation requires and it is the relevance that Reformation will bring.”
I do not think it is prudent to bring up the Reformation when arguing against contextualizing.
I find this small post to be very interesting, especially considering how much Fide-O has typically been against “contextualizing” tendencies such as those found in the “emergent” movement.
I think to pull off what you want to pull off in your argument for contextualization, you need to “defend” two fronts at once.
On one side, you must “defend” yourself from being identified as emergent (or other types of “progressive” which you think compromise the faith).
On the other side, when you do assert un-changing “essentials”, you need to “defend” your view against traditions that claim to be both more ancient and more Biblical than your own (such as Catholic or Orthodox).
So, how do you choose what can change and what must stay the same? What theological or historical rationale do you use? How do you keep from falling off on one side (change) or the other side (stay the same)?
It would be fun to read an essay in which you deal more in depth with your theology of contexualization.
My pastor taught me the great wisdom of being balanced in theology and methodology. Such is Scripture itself — full of healthy tension that requires constant humility, faith, and repentance.