Everyday life is where the real normative preaching of the gospel should be and where people will be changed to become full functional disciples.

I see this most fully in the life of Jesus and Paul, Sunday is huge, I love it and hope everything we do on Sunday there stirs us up to love and treasure Jesus but I do believe the most effective and consistent preaching needs to happen in the everyday in community.

Hopefully you see I love and agree in the supremacy of preaching the gospel but Sunday as primary is an overstatement that can’t be defended by the bible. At least from what I see :)

Peace and grace

What gets lost in the contextualization discussion is a proper processing of the cultural presupposition that assumes what Church “should” look like; and we feel it necessary, through contextualization, to show the world that we really are normal (dare I say, “cool”) people just like them and not so strictly orthodox as they might expect.

I would argue that this concern is unecessary for the unchurched and over-churched alike. When we use the term “over-churched” today, we are not referring to the pretense of a Roman Catholic liturgy but mostly to legalistic theology in very contextualized Churches within American Evangelicalism.

When we attempt to reach the over-churched we are essentially saying that we are bringing them the “long lost” Doctrines of Grace. Cultural context is not an issue for them as much as being spiritually fed and to reach out to the over-churched through contextualization is to merely pander to assumed subjective preferences … preferences that are usually those of the ministers.

Contextualization is almost a moot point when it comes to reaching the unchurched. Firstly, the unchurched usually have an expectation of what Church will look like, either from growing up in the Catholic Church or from Hollywood (if the latter instance is the informer of their expectation then it could be argued that a more orthodox context is more beneficial [See: 'Leap of Faith'])l their view of the Church is usually very orthodox. This expectation should not be viewed as a barrier if they attend a service. For the un-churched, the more contextualized services could actually be interpreted on their part as unnatural, instead of relatable. I think the argument could be made that, though neither are wrong, orthodox services might be more contextual for the post-modern American culture.

If the gospel (the Word of God) is taught from the pulpit and we, the congregation, are faithful to show true brotherly corporate love and are faithful to Biblical, ecclesiastical ordinances then I would argue that context matters very little and contextualization that seeks to contextualize a post-modern culture can actually achieve diminishing returns. What the American over-churched need to learn is how to lay down personal preference that have become non-negotiable, this is achieved through the gospel. What the unchurched need is the gospel preached in knowledge and love to a congregation acting out this knowledge and love corporately. Context is nothing more than preference and preferences are always negotiable.

I still would say, “preaching the gospel plainly” on a Sunday service is not sufficient to build up the church and attract people.

It does appear clear to me when he says preach he is specifically talking about a gospel centered sermon in a church service.

I am convinced Sunday morning preaching is not sufficient to attract people and build up the church to make disciples. I definitely believe in the power of the gospel through us proclaiming it but Sunday services are not sufficient to making disciples. In fact a Sunday service is probably the least effective method in trying to make a full fuctional disciples of Jesus among not yet believers and believers in Christ

But hopefully I misunderstood what he was saying. I assumed it because he speaks of music, art, flowers, architecture etc All that to me speaks of a service.