Between The Times

Biblical Foundations and Guidelines for Contextualization (Pt 1)

Editor’s Note: This guest blog is written by the IMB’s Regional Leader for Central Asia. It is a six part series, giving the biblical foundations and guidelines for contextualization, and making application to Christian ministry in the Muslim world. This series will appear as a chapter in the forthcoming book “Look What God is Doing in the Muslim World.”

Every Christian Contextualizes

Contextualization is one of the hottest topics in Missions today.  Simply put, contextualization is the word we use for the process of making the Gospel and the church as much at home as possible in a given cultural context.  American Christians have a tendency to think of contextualization as something missionaries and overseas Christians do “over there,” and many serious Christians in the Western world worry about how far non-Western churches go in their contextualization efforts.  However, in reality, every Christian alive today is actively involved in contextualization.  Every American Christian worships in a contextualized church.  As much as we like to think of our churches as “New Testament churches,” there actually are no New Testament churches in existence today. 

Contextualization in a Western Context

Our cultural context is dramatically different from the world of the New Testament, and as a result, any modern church would look bizarre and alien to a first-century Christian.  This is true at every level.  The first century church met on the Temple porch in Jerusalem, or in places like the school of Tyrannus in Ephesus, or most often in private homes.  There were no specific church buildings during the New Testament period. 

Our buildings, with their modern construction materials, their style and appearance, and their electronic gadgetry, would look like they had come down from outer space if they were plopped into a first century setting.  Our seating arrangements, with people sitting on pews or chairs rather than on the floor, and with unrelated men and women sitting side by side, would seem strange (and perhaps a bit scandalous) to a first century Palestinian believer.  The programs that make up so much of modern church life – Sunday School, Youth Group, RAs and GAs, Awanas – all came into being in recent centuries, and were unknown to the early church. 

The music we sing is based on a totally different tonality from that of the ancient Mediterranean world, and it uses very different instruments.  (The piano was not invented until the modern era, and the organ was originally a Roman circus instrument, considered unfit for Christian worship.)  Our music would have sounded strange and unpleasant to them, and vice versa.  (It should be noted that all Christian music, at some point, has been “contemporary Christian music,” and that even the most traditional songs today were probably regarded as risqué by somebody when they first came out!) 

The language we speak did not even exist in Biblical times.  English as we know it developed during the Middle Ages, centuries after the New Testament was completed.  First century Christians worshiped in Aramaic, Koine Greek, or Latin.  And the social customs and cultural practices of the first century church were much closer to the modern culture of the Middle East or Central Asia than to contemporary North America. Our culture is radically different from the culture of the New Testament, and as a result, our churches are radically different from New Testament churches. 

In countless ways, every believer alive today, whether in North America or South Asia, contextualizes the Gospel and the church.  The question is not whether or not we are going to do it.  The question facing every believer and every church is whether or not they will contextualize well.  Anyone who fails to realize that they are doing it, and who fails to think it through carefully and Biblically, simply guarantees that they will probably contextualize poorly.  Syncretism can happen as easily in Indiana or Iowa as it can in Indonesia!

Contextualization in a Muslim Context

Those working in the Muslim world have taken a variety of approaches to contextualization.  These approaches are typically classified along a spectrum designated C1 to C5 (or sometimes C6).  C1 is the label given to those who simply reproduce their own (foreign) culture on the mission field.  If a foreign worker were to reproduce First Baptist Church of Anywhere, USA somewhere overseas, complete with architecture, hymnal, order of service, style of worship and teaching, and church programs, this would be an example of C1 contextualization. 

At the other end of the spectrum, C5 contextualization aims at a phenomenon sometimes referred to as an “insider movement.”  In this approach, new believers in Jesus are encouraged to maintain a Muslim community identity and to continue Islamic practices.  Often, such movements affirm that Islam, its prophet and its book are of divine origin, but simply need to be completed in Jesus.  C2, C3 and C4 represent intermediate stages between these two extremes.

This classification system is widely used, and it provides a useful common language for the conversation about contextualization.  However, there is a problem inherent in this approach.  This system implies that we are the standard.  It measures the distance from us, as though our cultural expression of Christianity is what God actually intended, and others are to be evaluated by how much they are like us or different from us. 

We have to admit that every Christian everywhere instinctively tends to think this way.  What we have always done feels to us like the “right” way to do things, and we have a hard time not reading our own experience into the Bible.  However, given the fact that all of us practice contextualization, we need to remind ourselves constantly that Scripture, not our experience, is the standard by which all things are to be evaluated.  Scripture is inerrant, authoritative and sufficient.  Where Scripture gives a command, or a prohibition, or a binding model, the issue is settled.  When Scripture sets a boundary, we may not cross it. 

However, within those boundaries, there is nothing particularly sacred about our cultural ways of doing things.  Throughout the ages and across the globe, there have been other cultural expressions of Christianity that are just as faithful to Scripture as our own.  Indeed, in the case of the Muslim world, their culture is actually closer to the culture of the New Testament than is ours, so their churches may actually look more like New Testament churches than ours do.  At the same time, every culture, including our own, has its besetting sins.  In every setting, there are points where cultural orthodoxy contradicts the Word of God, resulting in cultural pressure toward compromise and syncretism.  The key is to let the Bible be our judge, and for all of us to allow the global Body of Christ to speak the Word of God into our particular blind spots.

Tags: C1-C6, church, contextualization, Culture, Gospel, music, muslims

At the heart of the Great Commission Resurgence is a burning desire to see God draw countless worshipers unto Himself, both in North America and abroad, through the ministry of Southern Baptists. Few people embody a passion for the Great Commission like our colleague Alvin Reid. Alvin occupies the Bailey Smith Chair of Evangelism at Southeastern, where he has taught since 1995. He is the author of numerous books, including a widely-used evangelism textbook and a forthcoming book (co-authored with SEBTS ethicist Mark Liederbach) devoted to living missionally in an emerging culture. Alvin is a devoted churchman and a popular evangelist and Bible teacher, with a particular passion for teenagers and collegians. He is a gift to Southern Baptists.

One of the things that I appreciate about Alvin is that he is a man who loves the Southern Baptist Convention. He does not love our Convention out of a blind sense of institutional loyalty, but out of a deep-seated conviction that God has done, is doing, and will continue to do much for the sake of the gospel through the people called Southern Baptists. Alvin is not uncritical when it comes to the SBC, but he is always constructive. He is a role model to all of us who love Jesus, love the lost, and love the people, churches, and ministries of the SBC. He recently posted an article on his personal blog titled “Why I Am A Southern Baptist.” We commend it to you as we continue to pray together and labor for the sake of a Great Commission Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Tags: Alvin Reid, Evangelism, Great Commission Resurgence, SBC

Ethical and moral decision-making presents a great challenge for devoted followers of Jesus in the 21st century context. In 1 Corinthians Paul provides helpful guidelines for navigating what could be called “the gray areas” of the Christian life.

These biblical principles are true anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances. They are extremely helpful in leading us to be wise decision-makers as we live out a gospel-centered ethic.

7). Will this action follow the pattern of the life of Jesus?
Be imitators of me, as I also am of Christ. – 1 Cor. 11:1

To be like Jesus should be the goal of every Christian’s life.  By God’s grace someday we will be (Rom. 8: 28-30; 1 John 3:1-3).  However, until that day arrives, we should strive to imitate Him in all things with a holy passion and blazing zeal.

A while back I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright. As he raised the issue of Christian ethics he noted that a number of his British friends had poked fun at and dismissed the silly, shallow American phenomena of the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelet. However, he then went on to note that several of his children were now making their pilgrimage through the teenage years. Suddenly, he did not find WWJD concept to be a silly and shallow consideration at all. In fact, he rather hoped his children might adopt such an ethic in this post-modern, anything and everything goes culture of the West. Of course, it is essential to KWJD (Know What Jesus Did) if asking WWJD is going to be of any benefit. In other words, this gospel-centered, Christ-centered ethic requires an immersion in the Scriptures. To live like Jesus you must know Jesus! To live like Jesus you must love Jesus.

Now, let me ask a question that should convict us all, myself being at the front of the line. If others imitate me, will they in some real and genuine sense be imitating Christ? To say it another way, can your children put on their wrist a WWDD bracelet (What Would Daddy Do?) or a WWMD bracelet (What Would Mother Do?)? They should be able to, shouldn’t they?!

8). Will this action show love to others?
If I speak the languages of men and of angels, but do not have love, I am a sounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I donate all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but do not have love, I gain nothing. – 1 Cor. 13:1-3

Love is a magnet that draws others to Christ. It is also the fulcrum that balances freedom and responsibility, theology and moral behavior in the Christian life. If our actions are not grounded in love, it does not matter what we say, how much we know or even what we do. Love cannot be prostituted! D. A. Carson is helpful in assessing this balancing act:

Strong Christians may be right on a theological issue, but unless they voluntarily abandon what is in fact their right they will do damage to the church and thus “sin against Christ” (8:12). To stand on your rights may thus involve you in sin after all-not the sin connected with your rights (there, after all, you are right!), but the sin of lovelessness, the sin of being unwilling to forgo your rights for the spiritual and eternal good of others (Carson, The Cross and the Christian Ministry, 125).

I also like what John MacArthur says this crucial point:

Now a Christian who is truly well-rounded, positive, and effective, thinks and acts in two ways: conceptually and relationally. He has the ability to understand concepts and communicate to people. He has knowledge plus love and this is the way it should be in the church.  Our knowledge needs to be balanced with love. The great fear is that with all our knowledge we would not have love and would therefore wind up being nothing. We have to be conceptual and relational. I think that in the name of liberty some of modern-day Christianity has violated the conscience of weaker brothers and created division in the body. Variations in behavior are the major cause of division in the body, not variations in doctrine. These variations in behavior are not even necessary since we could restrict our liberty for the sake of the weaker brother and create unity. We must make sure that love is the response to knowledge (MacArthur, Giving Up to Gain, 13).

Liberty regulated and guided by love for God and others in many ways summarized the 10 principles we are examining. Placing others ahead of myself, even at personal sacrifice and loss, is the way of Christ, the way of the cross, the way of love. It may involve short-term loss, but long-term gain. It may cause us to suffer now, but be blessed forever. This is not really a difficult call to make, is it?

Tags: D. A. Carson, Decision-making, Ethics, John MacArthur, Morality, N. T. Wright, Will of God, WWJD

Yesterday, InternetMonk.com interviewed our colleague Nathan Finn on “The Church Membership Question.” The interview is worth reading, covering such topics as the gospel, meaningful church membership, child baptism, and church discipline. To read the post, click here.

Tags: Charles Spurgeon, child baptism, church discipline, church membership, Gospel

The idea of a Great Commission Resurgence should call to mind at least two concepts with which many Southern Baptists will readily identify: mission and the Conservative Resurgence. My colleague Bruce Ashford has already done a fine job of explaining what we mean when we use the term Great Commission (see his articles here and here). My task is to define the word resurgence and shed some light on why we have chosen this particular word to help cast a vision for the future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a resurgence could be defined as “a continuing after interruption; a renewal.” Think about this definition in the context of the past thirty or so years of SBC history. The theological-political movement that began in the late 1970s has been called at least three things: a takeover, a controversy, and a resurgence. There is some truth to each of these descriptions, though we need to be clear just what we mean.

The movement was surely a takeover because conservative dissenters successfully replaced the denomination’s leadership by mastering the Convention’s polity, winning democratic elections, and selecting trustees who were sympathetic to the movement’s conservative theological aims. The movement was also undoubtedly a controversy—just ask anyone who was there. But neither of these phrases do the movement full justice; surely it was more than a mere political movement or just another denominational melee.

Despite the political means employed and the controversy generated by all parties involved, the movement that gained control of the SBC during the last quarter of the 20th century is best defined as a resurgence. Since at least the 1940s, SBC denominational leaders downplayed and sometimes rejected conservative theology. Our traditional Baptist distinctives were redefined so that they would be consistent with a hyper-individualistic understanding of the Christian life. This new understanding of Baptist identity fit neatly with a neo-orthodox view of Scripture and a pietistic de-emphasis on doctrinal commitments. Furthermore, it was shielded by a bureaucracy that was intent on defining cooperation as mere financial stewardship, with doctrinal commonality taking a back seat. The basic theological consensus that had existed in the SBC of 1850 had been gradually replaced with a commitment to theological diversity by 1950. Our commitment to conservative theology had been interrupted by pragmatic cooperation and a fascination with progressive theological trends.

Conservatives felt mostly shut out of SBC life and they feared for the future of the Convention, so they formed alternative schools, publications, and networks that functioned as alternatives to the denomination’s ministries. But by the mid-1970s, conservatives were galvanized by the discovery that the Convention’s polity was such that the face of the denomination could be changed through a strategic use of the appointive powers of the denomination’s presidency. Under the leadership of Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler, a grassroots movement was launched in 1979 that consistently elected movement conservatives to the Convention presidency. During the next two decades, moderates increasingly disengaged from denominational life, conservatives restructured the bureaucracy, and in 2000 a thoroughly conservative revision of the Baptist Faith and Message was adopted by the Convention.

This movement was a Conservative Resurgence because the conservative theology that had been eclipsed (or at least downplayed) by many denominational leaders during the mid-20th century was restored to a place of prominence in the Convention’s seminaries, commissions, and boards. There was continuation after interruption, and after years of focusing on other things—primarily financial stewardship, bureaucratic efficiency, denominational growth, and a more progressive approach to theology—the Convention’s elected and appointed leaders were again committed to a biblically and theologically conservative faith and practice. There was a renewal of historic Baptist theology in the halls of leadership within the Southern Baptist Convention.

The contemporary SBC is the product of the Conservative Resurgence. This is a very good thing. Every Southern Baptist agency head, missionary, professor, and other denominational employee who has been hired in recent years is a theological conservative. Our mission boards are appointing sound missionaries, our seminaries are educating sound students, and our publishing house is producing sound curricula, books, and other resources. Our Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission is contending for traditional family values. Southern Baptists should be thankful for the Conservative Resurgence because these things were not always the case two decades ago.

But there is at least a potential a downside to the Conservative Resurgence, albeit an unintentional one. A generation and a half of Southern Baptists was involved in a pitched battle for the future of the SBC. Many are still involved in such battles in their state conventions and associations. These battles are important because truth  matters. Nevertheless, we must recognize it is possible to become so accustomed to fighting during times of war that one does not know how to live peaceably with like minded brothers and sisters once the battles are over.

The above scenario is not mythical. It actually happened to many of the separatist fundamentalists in the 20th century. After they lost the battles for their denominations and withdrew from those groups, they turned on each other. Within a generation, fundamentalists were shooting each other and often fracturing over matters such as cultural engagement, degrees of cooperation with and separation from other believers (even other conservatives), Calvinism, Landmarkism, the timing of the rapture, charismatic gifts, the age of the earth, and Bible translations. To this day, there are Independent Baptists who have as difficult a time getting along with some of their fellow fundamentalists as they do the liberal Episcopal priest down the street.

Though I hate to admit this, I sense a tendency toward this very type of infighting among some contemporary Southern Baptists. We are even fighting about some of the same issues over which our fundamentalist friends divided. Southern Baptists must be careful that we do not become too preoccupied with secondary and tertiary matters, lest these issues distract us from the task at hand. According to the original constitution of the SBC our Convention exists for the purpose of “eliciting, combining and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort, for the propagation of the Gospel.” Mission is in our denominational DNA. It always has been.

Conservatives frequently criticize the pre-1979 SBC for emphasizing mission work—and the financing thereof—to the exclusion of sound doctrine. This type of pragmatism created an atmosphere wherein aberrant theology was tolerated and at times even encouraged so long as missionary enlistment increased and the Cooperative Program kept growing. Conservatives rightly rejected this paradigm, arguing that one cannot do authentic mission without being committed to biblical theology and practice. This is a conviction that we must never surrender.

At our present moment in SBC history, it is important to remind ourselves not to confuse the ends with the means. If we are content with simply having theological conservatives leading our various ministries, then the Conservative Resurgence was only a half-victory. Our Conservative Resurgence must give birth to a Great Commission Resurgence. Our use of the word resurgence is deliberate. Just as our commitment to conservative theology was interrupted during the generation prior to the Conservative Resurgence, our commitment to the primacy of mission was interrupted during the Conservative Resurgence, at least in practice. There were important battles being fought within our denomination, battles that conservatives honestly believed would ultimately lead to theological renewal.

With the success of the Conservative Resurgence, that theological renewal is underway (though its completion is surely reserved for the eschaton!). The time has come for a missional renewal that flows from our doctrinal convictions. Zeal for the Great Commission needs to be restored to its place of prominence in Southern Baptist life, not just in theory and rhetoric, but in practice. No matter how much work still needs to be done to bring about further theological renewal in the Convention, we cannot lose sight of the “one sacred effort” that has united us since our earliest days. The interruption is over. The distractions must be set aside. God is at work reconciling the world unto himself, and Southern Baptists need to get serious again about making ourselves available to the Lord to use in his great work of bringing salvation to people from every corner of the earth. Theology and mission go hand in hand. One without the other is an incomplete agenda. One without the other is destined to fall short of what our Lord intends.

Tags: Conservative Resurgence, Fundamentalists, Paige Patterson, Paul Pressler

Ethical and moral decision-making presents a great challenge for devoted followers of Jesus in the 21st century context. In 1 Corinthians Paul provides helpful guidelines for navigating what could be called “the gray areas” of the Christian life.

These biblical principles are true anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances. They are extremely helpful in leading us to be wise decision-makers as we live out a gospel-centered ethic.

5). Is this action consistent with my new life in Christ?
Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – 1 Cor. 6:9-11

Do you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own… – 1 Cor. 6:19

Followers of Jesus are brand new creatures. We are now temples of the Holy Spirit corporately (1 Cor. 3:16) and individually (1 Cor. 6:19). One aspect of this “newness” is that we honor God and bring Him glory in our bodies (1Cor. 6:20). This is a Pauline way of saying glorify God all the time in every way with all that you are. Body, mind, will, and emotions are all to be brought under His Lordship and control. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget this and tragic consequences follow. Christ is hidden rather than displayed in our lives. Let me illustrate. Sometimes in our desire to communicate the gospel clearly and without unnecessary baggage, we go too far and actually miscommunicate the message and send an uncertain sound. To gain a hearing from our “cultural despisers” we adjust our vocabulary, compromise purity and holiness, and we are reckless with what we do with our bodies and thereby cloud or even hide the glorious gospel that transforms and changes life. German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg in a First Things article entitled, “How to Think About Secularism” provides needed words of wisdom in this context:

The absolutely worst way to respond to the challenge of secularism is to adapt to secular standards in language, thought, and way of life.  If members of a secularist society turn to religion at all, they do so because they are looking for something other than what that culture already provides. It is counter productive to offer them religion in a secular mode that is carefully trimmed in order not to offend their secular sensibilities.

Christians should not shy away from the fact that our lives are centered on the divine things. We offer a different way of making sense of reality and a different way of living, which go against the grain of what modern society offers as the norm. We also should not shy away from referring to the wrath of God against human sin even though most moderns ignore, disbelieve, or sweeten the pill with deceptions about God’s complaisance over sin (Wolfhart Pannenberg, “How to Think About Secularism,” First Things 64 (June/July 1996), 31).

Tim Keller wisely informs us, “All of our personal problems and church problems come because we don’t come continually back to the gospel to work it out and live it out….Christians are enormously bold to tell the truth, but without a shred of superiority [remember 6:9-11!], because you are sinners saved by grace. The balance of boldness and utter humility, truth and love-is not somewhere in the middle between legalistic fundamentalism and relativistic liberalism.  It is actually off the charts” (Tim Keller, “Being the Church in Our Culture”). When considering how to live for Christ in the 21st century, our new life demands that we proclaim and live the message with great boldness, holiness and humility.  We are to live a life that is in harmony with who we are as new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

6). Will this action violate my conscience?
Eat everything that is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience’ sake, for the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it. If one of the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you,” This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake. I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience? – 1 Cor. 10:25-29

It is risky, even dangerous, to ignore the inner voice of conscience. It is God-given and under redemptive-reconstruction thru the Spirit, Word and fellowship of the Christian community. A well-informed, Scripture-saturated, Spirit-sensitive conscience will be an asset in warning us of things that are sinful, evil, and unwise.

Now, I do not think Paul would say, “Let your conscience be your guide,” as if conscience by itself is a sufficient umpire or arbitrator when it comes to good decision-making.  Rather he would say, “Let your conscience guided by Scripture and controlled by love be your guide.” This will involve some tension in your lifestyle preferences, but it will also result in God conforming you more to the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5). We must get used to living with this tension. While most would love for every decision to be crystal clear (I certainly would!), that is naïve and simplistic. It would also stunt spiritual growth and maturity as we grow in Christ. Thus, Christians must know what is going on in their own cultural context. The internal voice of a believer’s conscience can be a great aid when guided by Scripture and controlled by the ethic of love. It can give you peace in what you are doing and joy in the doing. Romans 14:23 reminds us, “Whatever is not from faith is sin.” Living with a clear conscience before Christ and others is a worthy goal for all of us to pursue.

Tags: Decision-marking, God's Will, Tim Keller, Wolfhart Pannenberg

Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence (Part 7):
The United States in Great Commission Perspective

Note: This post is one in a series entitled, “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence,” wherein we hope to give some definition of what constitutes a GCR, why the SBC needs a GCR, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life.

In the first five installments of the “Contours” series, Danny Akin, David Nelson, and Ken Keathley have written about a Great Commission Resurgence (GCR). Parts Six and Seven clarify the “GC” of the “GCR.”  In the last post, we discussed “the nations” in Great Commission perspective, while in this post, we will discuss “this nation,” the United States of America, in Great Commission perspective.

A Painful Truth

It is our conviction that missions matters because God is a missionary God. Therefore, His people must be a missionary people. Indeed, He commands us in Matthew 28: 18-20 to make disciples of all nations. Baptists often have heeded this call, and yet the painful truth is that, in North America, and indeed in our own country, God’s glory often is not clearly or consistently displayed. His gospel often is preached in a way that is neither faithful nor meaningful. There are millions of lost who have little chance of hearing the gospel preached in their community in a clear, compelling, and biblical fashion. We have not made disciples of our own nation.

The task of the evangelical church in general, and of the Southern Baptist Convention, therefore, is to create and implement a missiology that will enable them to win the lost, make disciples, and plant churches in an increasingly larger array of American socio-cultural contexts. We must plant churches that are grounded in inspired Christian Scripture, sound in their doctrinal foundations, contextual in their cultural forms, aggressive in their evangelistic orientation, and intentional in crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries.

Our Mission Must Be Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic

The United States is increasingly multicultural, multiethnic, and multilinguistic, as immigrants from around the world now live in our own cities, suburbs, and even rural areas. Many of the nations, peoples, and languages of Revelation 5 are right here on our doorstep. Further, there is a dizzying variety of sub-cultures within the broader American culture, each with their own distinctive beliefs and ways of life. Many of them are non- or post-Christian, in that they do not have even a basic understanding of Christian worldview or vocabulary. Southern Baptists missionaries and pastors in North America must take their own cultural contexts as seriously as Southern Baptist missionaries take their international contexts. Ed Stetzer, among others, has made this point many times and in many ways.

We must seek to understand the cultures and sub-cultures around us so that we can preach the gospel faithfully and meaningfully within the framework of our neighbors’ cultural and social contexts, and plant churches in those same cultural contexts. The gospel must be preached faithfully, being defined and delimited by the Scriptures. It must also, however, be preached meaningfully, in such a manner that the hearer understands the gospel in the same way that the the biblical author, and the preacher, intends it. The concept of the gospel might be foreign to them, but it can be communicated in language and constructs that are not. By doing so, we seek to preach the gospel clearly within the framework of the audience’s cultural and existential context. In other words, we must talk in a way that allows them to see and hear and grasp the truth, goodness, and beauty of the gospel we proclaim.

There are many in our convention who embody the ability to “speak the language” of a particular socio-cultural context. I think of Danny Akin’s marriage conferences and college campus invitations, Paige Patterson’s Great Game banquets, and Al Mohler’s engagement in Western social and political circles. This is not just an issue of “style;” these men and others have worked hard to be able to proclaim the gospel in multiple contexts, adjusting the delivery where needed so as to proclaim the gospel faithfully and meaningfully in each unique context. In particular, I think of Junior Hill, who has the uncanny ability to disarm listeners across the spectrum of ages, races, and cultures. Through the hard work and experience of years of preaching, he can “get to the heart of a matter” with a broad spectrum of people, and do so while being faithful to the gospel and meaningful in his presentation.

Our Mission Must Be Multi-Faceted

In addition to proclaiming the gospel from inside of the four walls of a church building, and in addition to community outreach programs and door-to-door visitations, it would behoove our churches to teach her members that everything they do matters to God. Perhaps drawing upon Martin Luther’s conception of vocatio, we may teach that every believer has the privilege and responsibility of bringing glory to God in each of his callings, whether it is family life, workplace, or community life. The workplace is an almost unparalleled opportunity to bring God glory and to love one’s neighbor. This is one area where we need to give special attention in the years ahead. The possibilities and potential are enormous.

Further, we ought to take every opportunity to glorify our Lord in the various spheres of culture, including especially the arts (e.g. literature, music, movies, visual art), the sciences (e.g. biology, physics, chemistry, sociology, anthropology, psychology) and the public square (e.g. law, politics, economics, journalism, moral philosophy). In so doing, we recognize that we may not abdicate our responsibility to glorify God across every square inch of His good creation. After all, Abraham Kuyper reminds us, He stamps all of it with the exclamation, “Mine!”

Our Mission Must Be All-Encompassing

The sometimes cross-cultural and always multi-faceted nature of our task also demands that we take care not to neglect any geographic or demographic dimension of our great country. Of the many things we could mention, here are three: First, we must not neglect the great cities of the United States. While evangelicals and Baptists have been fairly successful in the Bible belt, we have been less successful in the great cities. We recognize the strategic nature of urban involvement and seek to heighten Southern Baptist involvement in the largest, least churched, and most influential American cities. Urban centers such as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles are the nerve center of North American socio-cultural activity, having massive influence on our continent and across the globe, and yet they are among the least churched cities in America.

Second, we may not neglect either the cultural elite, on the one hand, or the down and out, on the other hand. Southern Baptists have reached the upper and lower middle classes, but often we have not reached the cultural elite or the poor and disenfranchised. In reaching those who are “down and out,” we must be work hard to build churches who intentionally minister in the inner cities, who are willing to embrace those with HIV, who may never be able to contribute in a significant way to the church financially, but who are nonetheless God’s image-bearers and deserve our love and attention every bit as much as anyone else. Treasuring Christ Church (Raleigh, NC) under the leadership of pastors Sean Cordell and Travis Williams, is a church that is doing just this. In reaching those who are the cultural elite, we must build churches that intentionally reach out to artists, scientists, philosophers, moral and political movers, and others.

Third, we must build churches that do serious-minded student ministry, both for youth and college students. It will be a good day indeed when youth ministries become places that are known more for sound doctrine and genuine cultural savvy than they are for cutesy Bible studies and superficial cultural gimmickry. Moreover, we pray that the day comes that our churches seek, consciously and consistently, to minister on college campuses. On the campuses of our American universities walk the students who are the future of our nation and in many cases the future of our churches, as well as international students who are the future of their nations and of their nation’s churches. We must make college ministry a priority in our churches, even during those times when it seems not to bear spiritual fruit, and even during those times (most of the time) when it does not make financial sense. The Summit Church (Raleigh-Durham, NC), under the leadership of J. D. Greear, and Providence Baptist Church (Raleigh, NC) under the direction of David Horner and Dave Owen, are two of the churches leading the way in making major inroads on college campuses such as Duke University, UNC-Chapel Hill, and N. C. State University.

Our Mission Must Center on Church Renewal, Church Planting, and Cooperation

Our mission will not succeed without healthy churches. This requires, first and foremost, an emphasis on church renewal. We must work hard to build churches that are biblically faithful, sound in their doctrine, aggressive in their evangelism, intentional in crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries, and contextual in their cultural forms. It is only from such healthy churches that we will see a church planting movement that is capable of reaching our own country. Only healthy churches will faithfully and meaningfully proclaim the gospel of our Lord and build churches across cultures and sub-cultures, languages and races, vocations and dimensions of culture, cities and suburbs, rich and poor, young and old. Capitol Hill Baptist Church and IX Marks Ministries (Washington, DC), under the leadership of Mark Dever, is important in just this respect, as it seeks to foster church renewal through sound doctrine, biblical practice, and intentional evangelism and church planting.

Finally, our mission will not fare well if it is not cooperative. This includes local church cooperation with other churches, through local associations, state conventions, seminaries, and agencies. The daunting nature of our task demands that if any of the above associations is unwilling to fulfill their missional calling, then healthy churches will seek other ways to cooperate in order to fulfill the calling God has given them. It must be the hope and prayer of the churches of our convention that the associations, conventions, seminaries, and agencies that we now have will prove to be sufficiently willing and able to take on this God-given calling. If not, God will likely pass us by and we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Tags: Al Mohler, church health, church planting, Danny Akin, Dave Owen, J D Greear, Junior Hill, Mark Dever, Paige Patterson, Sean Cordell

Students of history know that there are two long-running debates among Baptist Christians that began in the mid-17th century and continue to the present day. The first debate has been common among many groups of Protestants: Calvinism versus Arminianism. The second debate is almost totally unique to Baptists: the relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is a topic that I have written on in the past. While I do not believe this debate is the most important issue facing contemporary Southern Baptists, it is nevertheless an important question that is worthy of our attention. We might consider this a necessary excursus that develops from my previous article on baptism.

Until the rise of the parachurch movement during the mid-20th century, most Christians have argued that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. All agree that this is the order portrayed in the New Testament and makes good logical sense because virtually everyone believes that baptism marks the public entrance into the church, though obviously there is considerable debate about the proper mode and subjects of baptism. Until the late 1800s, a majority of English Baptists argued that baptism is prerequisite to communion. In North America, with the exception of the Free Will Baptists, most Baptists argued for the chronological priority of baptism until the mid-20th century. In some places in the American South and Southwest, this view is still almost universal. The idea that baptism is prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper has been called a number of names, including closed communion, close communion, strict communion, and restricted communion.

But from at least the second generation of Baptists, there has been a minority report that has argued that regeneration alone is prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. Over time, this minority report has become majority practice among Baptists in both Britain and (probably) America. The view that all Christians can participate in the Lord’s Supper, regardless of their baptismal status, is most often called open communion, though it is a modified form of open communion because the ordinance is still restricted to believers. Only liberal Baptists (and other Christians) invite all people to the table, irrespective of their spiritual condition.

There are many noble reasons for holding to an open communion position. Proponents argue that the ordinance is intended to signify the unity of believers in Christ, so to forbid some Christians from participating in communion puts a breach in Christian unity. Others argue that allowing unbaptized (non-immersed) Christians to participate in communion is a sign of brotherly love that may help convince some of them to eventually submit themselves to New Testament baptism. Some concede that closed communion appears to be the New Testament practice, but argue that since we live in a world where more than one practice is called baptism, the charitable thing to do is allow Christians who we believe are unbaptized to participate in communion. Open communion advocates often point out that it is the Lord’s Supper, so who are we to tell those who belong to the Lord that they cannot participate in the ordinance?

Though I am sympathetic to the desires behind these arguments, I think closed communion is the more consistent position. The Lord’s Supper is surely a picture of our unity in Christ, but advocates of non-New Testament baptism are the ones who severed that unity with the advent of infant baptism and other practices foreign to the biblical record. Baptistic Christians are not the ones who are sectarian in the matter of baptism, though we are (at the moment) in the minority among professing Christians. To quote the Baptist Faith and Message (2000):

Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

The hope that inviting unbaptized Christians to the Lord’s Table may convince some to be biblically baptized is dangerous logic, in my opinion. This is the same logic used by colonial New England pastor Solomon Stoddard when he argued that communion could be a “converting ordinance,” so unbelievers should be invited to the Table. The result was not mass conversions, but a church filled with unregenerate members. I suspect that churches that practice open communion in hopes of changing the minds of pedobaptists will find that they make lots of pedobaptist friends, but few of them submit to believer’s baptism by immersion.

The argument that we should be charitable because we live in a world where a plurality of baptismal practices prevail seems particularly weak. The fact that there is one Lord, one faith, and many baptisms in our contemporary context does not change the biblical record. Obedience to Scripture seems more important than contrived unity, which would be the case with any unity that is based on a practice not commended in Scripture. I personally think open communion is such a practice. And concerning the idea that it is inappropriate to ban Christians from the Lord’s Table, I would respond by agreeing that it is the Lord’s Table, which is why it is of utmost importance that we practice the ordinance in the way the Lord has willed it to be exemplified for us in His Word, lest we find ourselves disobedient to the Lord.

This discussion is not exhaustive, and there are several other arguments that could be made (from both sides), but in keeping with the theme of this series, I think the most important reason to reject open communion is that it seems to make the ordinances inconsistent with the gospel. To be more specific, open communion severs the ordinance that marks our formal entry into the gospel community (baptism) from the ordinance that signifies our ongoing sanctification within the gospel community (communion).  The picture of the gospel painted by the ordinances is smudged whenever we treat baptism and the Lord’s Supper as practices that are virtually independent of each other. Baptism marks the public beginning of the Christian’s life in the community of the gospel, the church. Communion marks the Christian’s ongoing identification with that gospel community and the Lord who formed her. For this reason, I prefer to call the view that baptism is biblically prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper consistent communion, because it is only in this practice that the ordinances are truly consistent with the gospel they portray.

In closing, I am not convinced that one’s view of the relationship between baptism and communion should be a bar to cooperation among Baptist Christians. Though I affirm consistent communion and am a member of a church that requires baptism before communion, I believe that my church can cooperate with sister churches that have a different understanding of this matter. But the fact that this issue is (in my opinion) secondary in nature does not render it unimportant. Baptists desire to be obedient to all that Christ commands, so it is incumbent upon us to discuss this matter biblically and charitably, in the hopes of one day arriving at greater consensus on this issue, for the glory of God and the health of our churches.

[Note: I have previously addressed this topic in a more substantial manner on behalf of the Center for Theological Research at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can click here to read that White Paper, titled "Baptism as Prerequisite to the Lord's Supper."]

Tags: Baptism, Lord's Supper, The Ordinances

Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence, Pt. 6:
“The Nations” in Great Commission Perspective

Note: This post is one in a series entitled, “Contours of a Great Commission Resurgence,” wherein we hope to give some definition of what constitutes a GCR, why the SBC needs a GCR, and what such a movement might look like in SBC life.

In the first five installments of the “Contours” series, Danny Akin, David Nelson, and Ken Keathley have written about a Great Commission Resurgence (GCR). Parts Six and Seven clarify the “GC” of the “GCR.”  In this post, we will discuss “the nations” in Great Commission perspective, while in the next post, we will discuss “this nation” in Great Commission perspective.

A Mission Organized, Energized, and Directed by God

People often think of the terminology “Great Commission” with reference to Matthew 28:16-20, but we mean more than just a single selection of verses. Jesus’ commission at the end of Matthew’s Gospel is like the tip of an iceberg; when we say “Great Commission,” we refer not only to the tip, but to the whole iceberg, which includes God’s mission, the church’s mission, and the church’s mission to the nations. Before speaking of the church’s mission to the nations, we must speak of the church’s mission, and before speaking of the church’s mission we must speak of God’s mission (missio Dei). As David Nelson pointed out in Part Two, It is the God of life and love who created and shared that life and love with man. And it is the same God who responded to man’s sin by promising the Messiah, thereby setting in motion his mission to redeem a people for himself, to win the nations to himself, and indeed to reconcile all things unto himself. In God’s promise to send the Messiah, we see the beginnings of God’s mission.

Mission, therefore, is God-centered rather than man-centered, being rooted in God’s gracious will to glorify Himself. Mission is defined by God. It is organized, energized, and directed by God. Ultimately, it is accomplished by God.

A Mission Focused upon the Nations

In Matthew’s gospel, our Lord instructs us to make God’s mission our mission:  “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” In this passage, our Lord instructs us not only that we must win the nations, but how we must win the nations.

The first phrase, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth,” makes clear that followers of any other lord must repent and follow Jesus, and that this is on the basis of the supreme authority of the Lord of the universe. Based on this authority, our Lord gives the imperative, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” In this command, we are instructed to make disciples, and not merely professions of faith. Moreover, we are given directives for disciple-making. We are to do so through baptism (and therefore in the context of His church) and in the name of the Triune God (who alone can save). Finally, making disciples includes “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

In relation to this final element of Matthew’s text, we note two things. First, the “commands of Christ” are contained in the Christian Scriptures. There is no true evangelism or discipleship apart from the proclamation of the Word of God. Second, the “commands of Christ” are not limited to those statements in the New Testament in which Jesus speaks in the imperative. Indeed, the entirety of Scripture, including Old and New Testaments, teaches us what God has done through Christ. Anything that Scripture teaches, Christ teaches. All Scripture is inspired by God, and hence also bears the insignia of Christ. Our evangelism and discipleship, therefore, will include the clear teaching of the entire canon of Scripture.

In the final phrase of Mt 28:20, our Lord promises, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Herein lies our confidence, that we go under the authority of Christ and in the very presence of Christ. Missiology is at its heart Christological. There is perhaps no better picture of the Christological nature of missiology than Rev 5, where we see the Lamb-Like Lion receiving the worship of the nations, as the nations sing, “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.”

A Mission across Cultural and Linguistic Boundaries

If, therefore, we are to make the gospel readily accessible to every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, we must be willing and able to cross vast cultural divides, overcome daunting linguistic barriers, and bear witness in the face of opposition. In other words, we must be intentional—we must be missional. (Note: It is necessary to cross such divides whether in an international context or in the United States. Ed Stetzer, in Planting Missional Churches, puts it this way: “Don’t confuse the terms mission-minded and missional. The first refers more to an attitude of caring about missions, particularly overseas. Missional means actually doing mission right where you are. Missional means adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound.”) [1]
 
Whereas a missional Christian is first and foremost a theologian, he also is a student of other disciplines such as global studies, current affairs, world religions, anthropology, and sociology. In studying global studies and current affairs, he gains an understanding of the international and regional context within which he ministers. In studying world religions, he learns to understand the core religious beliefs and religious practices of those to whom he will minister. In sociology and anthropology, he learns to pay careful attention to the immediate social and cultural context. Although he may never be an expert in these disciplines, he uses them insomuch as they are helpful in order to understand the global, cultural, social, and personal contexts of those to whom he ministers.
 
Indeed, our goal is to send forth missionaries who are grounded in the scriptures, culturally sensitive, prepared to make disciples, and equipped to plant churches. These churches should be healthy, reproductive, and able to reach their own people group and nation. In doing so, we must meet several challenges.

One challenge is that of focus. With a limited number of missionaries, to which parts of the globe do we send missionaries? It is our conviction that the majority of international missionaries should be sent to unreached people groups, have little or no access to the gospel. There are vast stretches of the globe (Asia and Africa in particular) where a person could leave his house and search for days and weeks and months and never find a church, a Christian, or a Bible in his language. In these places there is no church that is capable of reaching its own culture. It is our conviction that we should take the gospel to these people groups.

Another challenge is that of strategy. What is the central focus of our missionaries? It is our conviction, along with that of the International Mission Board, that our focus should be church planting. We seek to plant churches whose immediate goal it is to plant other churches, until there is a cascading chain of churches planting churches. Indeed, it is our hope that there will be a church planted within walking distance of every house in the world.

A final challenge is contextualization. In order for the gospel to be preached contextually, it must be preached faithfully, meaningfully, and dialogically. It must be preached faithfully, being defined and delimited by the Scriptures. It must be preached meaningfully, in such a manner that the hearer understands the gospel in the same way that the preacher intends it. And it must be preached dialogically, in conversation with the host culture, as they prayerfully seek to allow the gospel to critique the very language and categories of their own culture.

Conclusion

What, then, is our task? Our task is to make the gospel readily accessible to every tribe, tongue, people and nation; it is to do so even in the face of formidable financial challenges and potential personal cost, to do so joyfully even when we might suffer for the sake of the gospel. This is no small task.

The magnitude of our task, however, is matched and exceeded by the magnitude of our biblical convictions: That God is a missionary God; that all people without Christ are lost; that a central theme in the Scriptures is God’s desire to win the nations unto Himself; that since the coming of His Son, God has chosen that all saving faith be consciously focused on Christ; that the church’s task in each generation is to proclaim the gospel to her generation; and that this progress of the gospel to the ends of the earth may be hindered temporarily, but we have no doubt about its final triumph.

Notes:

[1] Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches (Nashville: B&H, 2006), 19.
 

Tags: church planting, Great Commission, Missio Dei, Mission, missional

Ethical and moral decision-making presents a great challenge for devoted followers of Jesus in the 21st century context. In 1 Corinthians Paul provides helpful guidelines for navigating what could be called “the gray areas” of the Christian life.

These biblical principles are true anywhere, anytime and under any circumstances. They are extremely helpful in leading us to be wise decision-makers as we live out a gospel-centered ethic.

3). Will this action encourage my brother or sister in Christ?  
Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won’t cause my brother to fall. – 1 Cor. 8:13

No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person. – 1 Cor. 10:24

Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God… - 1 Cor. 10:32

Paul, for the sake of others, was willing to adjust his life that they might not be hurt or harmed. His brother or sister in Christ mattered more to him than his rights or liberties. This principle is grounded in the “mind of Christ” text of Phil. 2:3-5. For the sake of the body of Christ, your community of faith, “consider others as more important than yourselves.” Paul drives ethics to the gospel and to the cross. The gospel demands that the needs of others outweigh selfish desires. When it comes to wise decision making, a believer in Christ should always have an eye toward a potential weaker brother. John McArthur says, “Right or wrong is not the issue, but offending someone is” (Giving Up to Gain, 5). This principle was an important guide for me as a father. Being blessed by God with four sons, I did not want to do anything that could hurt them, harm them, mislead them or lead them astray. I wanted to live before them, as best I could, in a way that would encourage them to take the high road ethically and morally, and to avoid the “danger zones” that could lead to sorrow and even destruction.

4). Will this action help or hinder my gospel witness?  
If others share this authority over you, don’t we even more? However, we have not used this authority; instead we endure everything so that we will not hinder the gospel of Christ. – 1 Cor. 9:12

For although I am free from all people, I have made myself a slave to all, in order to win more people. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win those under the law. To those who are outside the law, like one outside the law–not being outside God’s law, but under the law of Christ–to win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, in order to win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I may by all means save some. Now I do all this because of the gospel, that I may become a partner in its benefits. – 1 Cor. 9:19-23

Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God, just as I also try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. – 1 Cor. 10:32-33

This principle is so crucial Paul repeats it at least three different times. He makes it very clear that his ethics are missiologically and evangelistically motivated. He did not allow anything to hinder the gospel from going forth and being heard in the most effective way possible. 

Some misunderstand Paul to mean that he is infinitely flexible. However, antinomianism has no place in Paul’s theology, missional strategy, ethics or personal life.  He would never say I am free to do anything that I want. He is “under Christ’s law!”  To say, “to the thief I became a thief to win the thief; to the drunkard, I became a drunkard to win the drunkard” is utter nonsense and a total misinterpretation of what Paul is saying. Paul is not infinitely flexible; he is not free from the law of Christ that places the souls of men and women at a premium. The insights of D. A. Carson are helpful:

All of God’s demand upon him [Paul] is mediated through Christ. Whatever God demands of him as a new-covenant believer, a Christian, binds him; he cannot step outside those constraints. There is a rigid limit to his flexibility as he seeks to win the lost from different cultural and religious groups: he must not do anything that is forbidden to the Christian, and he must do everything mandated of the Christian…Today that expression, “all things to all men,” is often used as a form of derision.  He (or she) has no backbone, we say; he is two-faced; he is “all things to all men.”  But Paul wears the label as a witness to his evangelistic commitment. Even so, he could not do this if he did not know who he was as a Christian. The person who lives by endless rules and who forms his or her self-identity by conforming to them simply cannot flex at all. By contrast, the person without roots, heritage, self-identity, and nonnegotiable values is not really flexing, but is simply being driven hither and yon by the vagaries of every whimsical opinion that passes by. Such people may “fit in,” but they cannot win anyone.  They hold to nothing stable or solid enough to win others to it! (The Cross and Christian Ministry, 120-21).

The bottom-line: nothing must hinder or obscure the gospel! Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

Tags: D. A. Carson, Decision-making, Gospel, John MacArthur, Will of God