What do we make of this? This seems to run in the opposite direction of what we're being told we must do to be relevant and draw folks to our church. If they want the word, give it to them. If they want entertainment, emotionalism, or a cool, rockstar pastor, be very careful not to do/be those things. What do you think?
He has a good eye for locating the particular weakness of a culture and then adopting practices that directly run against those weakness. For instance,
- We live in an entertainment-driven culture, and so he works hard to make sure our corporate gatherings don't cater to that desire among Christians and non-Christians.
- We live in a highly emotivisitc culture, and so he's careful not to use overly dramatic sermon illustrations that play to that desire for an emotional rush.
- We live in a style-conscious and celebrity-driven culture, and so he dresses plainly/unremarkably, puts someone else in the pulpit around 35% of the year, and generally promoted the leadership of others.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Anti-Contextualization
Not exactly what Jonathan Leeman is espousing in this post (Yin-Yang Contextualization), but it is interesting and counter to the "contextualization" rage these days. Here's what he says he has learned from Mark Dever:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I certainly don't think we should disagree with Dever's approach. Christians should be counter-cultural, not those who cater to the culture. In particular, Christians should be counter-cultural by being wise in the areas where our culture is foolish. That seems to be what this post describes. I like it.
So, someone like Mark Driscoll intentionally dresses and speaks in a way that flows with the culture, yet Mark Dever intentionally dresses and speaks in a way that flows counter-culture. Yet they both heavily influence a lot of young(er) pastors!
No wonder we ministers often seem so confused!
Post a Comment