I don’t know if you’ve been over there recently (or if you go at all!), but Mark Dever just did an article on the gospel and relevancy at the Together for the Gospel blog.

From my perspective and through my experience expository preaching (EP) is a help for both the educated and uneducated, but even that must be done in a way that works. Despite the efforts of mny well-intentioned Seminary grads, EP is not a pseudo Greek class, and should not merely be the transmission of information. EP is taking a text, explaining that text (author’s intent) in a way that men know God and themselves better. I have found that the byproduct of biblical preaching and discipleship is increased and improved learning.

I don’t use Lifeway stuff at all, so I couldn’t speak t it.

“And we haven’t mentioned US adult attention spans yet either.” Again this is something that changes over time, but must be addressed when “doing” ministry. Obviously preaching 2 hours will be much for almost all Americans. Preaching 1 hour will be too much for many. Bu consider a church like Mars Hill in Seattle where Mark Driscoll planted a church among the unchurched, and in an environment hostile to Christianity. From the early days he has filled his church with both Christians and seekers who did not grow up in church, but sit and listen to his preaching for over an hour. His church is primarilly filled with the younger generations.

“Another question is, does contextualization of the Gospel also include location of where it is presented?”
I am not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?

“when did Sunday morning become the “evangelistic” time for the church and how do you contextualize worship for lost people? This seems to be an oxymoronic position.”

I have never given an altar call in any of my preaching, but believe every one of my sermons is inherently evangelistic since the Gospel is always present, and men and women are always exhorted to respond in faith and repentance. So, I do not think Sunday morning should be “the evangelistic time for the church.” From my perspective (search my blog for “worship” to read more on this) worship should not be aimed at the lost or the found, but at God, it must be governed by Scripture, but expressed culturally. So I don;t think we contextualize worship for the lost, but for the people to whom we have been sent. At Grace worship must be contextualized for the far west suburbs of Chicago.

To see where I am coming from you may want to check out my thoughts here and here.

It’s the weekend, so my blog gets very quiet. Hopefully someone else will post some of their thoughts as well.

Great post and extremely interesting dialogue in the comments section. This is my first visit and comment at your site, so if you have addressed something earlier, I apologize up front.

I agree with David that contextualization is a natural part of international mission strategies and I agree with you and others that contextualization needs to focus on helping the listener understand. I do have some questions that I would be interested in how you and others that follow your blog might resspond.

With around 44% of American adults at a basic or below basic literacy level does expository preaching enhance or hinder contextualization of Bible truth? I’m not against expository preaching by the way, but it is a highly literate form of communication. Having been outside the US context for 14 years now, I do not know the current reading level standards at LIfeway for their church publications. When we left for the field adult SS material was written at an 8th grade level. I find information like this is significant when speaking of contextualization. And we haven’t mentioned US adult attention spans yet either.

Another question is, does contextualization of the Gospel also include location of where it is presented? One of the more difficult cultural changes we had to make when we began working among the K’ekchi’ of Guatemala was the fact that for the most part, they never gave invitations or alter calls at the end of services. When questioned about this they simply stated that evangelization took place outside of the church. Worship and Bible study is what they did in church. My point here is, when did Sunday morning become the “evangelistic” time for the church and how do you contextualize worship for lost people? This seems to be an oxymoronic position.

I’m starting to soapbox so I’ll stop. Thanks again for the post and the critical thinking that is taking place here. We are still struggling in our part of the world with what it means to have Gospel clarity with the cultures we are trying to reach.

After I re-read my comment, I realize that I didn’t express myself so well. I didn’t mean to convey that I had taken offense or that you meant me personally, even though it reads like I did. I meant that I didn’t understand what you meant by a sort of forced diversity, but your last comment cleared that up.

Also, I probably should have said that I do not know if the race issue relates to what you mean by contextualization, not how it relates. I think it does, but I may be drifting off of your purpose to interject it.

This has been on my mind for quite some time. My home town is now about 30% hispanic, and the mission work to this group seems to be to plant hispanic churches. This troubles me because I think that we should do evangelism in a way that encourages intergration, not our division. It’s harder work, but I firmly believe that it is more rewarding.