While speaking at the Together for Adoption Conference, I visited a bit with my friend with Tony Merida. The Meridas have recently adopted four children from the Ukraine and have a passion for orphan care. I always appreciate his passion for the gospel and the mission of God.

Seeing him, reminded me that Tony's new book is out and I wanted to share a bit about it through the foreword I wrote for the book. It is a short foreword, but for some reason I manage to quote a Journey song, the Fireproof movie, and Lord of the Rings.

Not sure what got into me that day... but the book is worth your time, even if my foreword might not be!

For decades, the phrase, "If you were to die today, do you know for sure you would go to heaven?" was associated with evangelical attempts at sharing their faith. My guess is that millions of people have been asked that question over the last few decades-- and I would not be surprised if God used such a conversation and question and many many became followers of Christ.

But, the question itself always intrigued me. And, one of the great things about my job (as a researcher), is I get to say, "I wonder..."

And, in this case, I wondered how many people really ask that question. In other words, how often to people wonder if they were to die today would they go to heaven. My first assumption was that only a few people really would think about their eternal destiny and, thus, thought the question might be less helpful today if few asked that question.

So, to test my informal hypothesis, we commissioned a poll.

About three years ago, while I was serving at the North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research (now led by my friend Richie Stanley), Richie and I did a poll on that very subject.

Interestingly, "Will I go to heaven when I die?" is not a question most Americans ask themselves with much frequency. The North American Mission Board's Center for Missional Research conducted a survey that give some insight into what Americans are really thinking.

There are a good number of people who ask that question and do so frequently, but most do not.

Perhaps in previous generations people were asking questions about life after death, and so evangelistic approaches that focused on that issue were contextually appropriate. But the times - they are a-changing.

It appears that more people are thinking about meaning and purpose than life after death. (And it is important to note that the Bible provides the answers to all these questions.)

More people are thinking about is the purpose of life. People are looking for and thinking about purpose: perhaps one of the reasons that Purpose Driven Life has been such a best seller.

Why are we here? How can my life have meaning, value and significance? Explaining what the gospel says to these questions will more readily demonstrate just how relevant the gospel is to their lives. What happens after death is eternally important, but the world isn't always ready to see that. But they are somewhat prepared to consider that because we are made in God's image we have infinite value and dignity; that sin is what robs us of experiencing the reason for which we have been made - to glorify God and enjoy him forever; that Jesus alone is our only hope of redemption - that in him our sins are forgiven, the image of God is restored in us and by him we can glorify God and enjoy him now and forever.

This is the work of contextualization. Answering the questions the world is asking from God's word, pointing them back to the gospel. This is why I value research (asking questions, and really listening). Let's be about the business of making the gospel clear. To do that you will have to do more than speak. You'll need to do some listening as well.

Tullian Tchividjian's new book, Unfashionable boldly addresses the issue of what it means to be the church in the world, while refusing to be of it. This is a theologically driven book that calls the church to "contextualize without compromise." Tullian's is a voice of reasoned, biblical sanity when many who are having this discussion are talking past one another with unhelpful and exaggerated rhetoric. I spoke with Tullian recently and asked him to talk to us about this new book.

In case you missed it in Outreach Magazine, here's my article from the most recent issue and it's on that oh-so-popular subject of "culture." If you are not a subscriber, well, why not? Grin.

Here is the article. Feel free to comment below.

The January/February issue of Preaching Magazine is out bearing the theme of "Missional Preaching." This issue includes an article which is adapted from the book Breaking the Missional Code by David Putnam and myself. Throughout the history of the church the best preaching has been contextual, and the best preachers were experts at contextualizing. Of course we think of Jesus and the Apostles who not only preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, but utilized the language, common knowledge and metaphors of their culture to make the gospel as comprehensible as possible. And following that example are men like Chrysostom, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, the Puritans, Wesley and Whitefield, Spurgeon and everyone else who believes that solid preaching is guided by a missional conviction and missiological perspective.

Contextual Preaching

At the heart of effective preaching is a solid missiological perspective. Are you communicating in such a way that your words actually convey biblical truth to your audience? Or does your preaching float right past your hearers because it's not delivered "on a frequency" that they listen to? In this respect, we can probably learn as much about good preaching from Hudson Taylor as we can from Haddon Robinson.

Continue reading Contextual Preaching.

One of the fundamental challenges with cultural engagement is how far to go to engage culture. It is always easy for smug people to sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at people who seek to engage cultures. I see it every day. Come to think of it, I get calls about it pretty regularly.

It seems that everyone is an expert on how far to go with engaging culture-- and the fact that you have no real experiencing in a certain culture does not keep you from opining on the subject. Sigh.

But, the fact of the matter is this: in every missional cultural engagement, some go too far and some don't go far enough. It is the nature of contextualization. It is hard. It takes a commitment to biblical principles. It takes wisdom. It takes listening to each other. And, those outside the culture need to listen to those inside. And, those inside the culture need to learn from those that have gone before them.

At the Madras missionary conference, way back in 1938, they explained that churches had to be "indigenous," or be rooted and related to their own cultural context:

An indigenous church, young or old, in the East or in the West, is a church which, rooted in obedience to Christ, spontaneously uses forms of thought and modes of action natural and familiar in its own environment. Such a church arises in response to Christ's own call. The younger churches will not be unmindful of the experiences and teachings which the older churches have recorded in their confessions and liturgy. But every younger church will seek further to bear witness to the same Gospel with new tongues" (International Missionary Council, "The Growing Church: The Madras Series," Papers Based upon the Meeting of the International Missionary Council, at Tambaram, Madras, India, December 12-29, 1938. Vol. 2, (New York, International Missionary Council), 276.)

Such a value is not easy to uphold and there are dangers on both sides.

Dean Gilliland explains: