I have visited all three, and I am familiar with differing levels of each congregation.  I will highlight some major differing points between the three, but most of the differences are primarily ecclessiastical and not soteriological.  They will also range from the most "traditional" to more "contemporary" in how they hold their services.

Kemp Road Baptist Church

Kemp is the church I am a member of and frequent.  It comes out of an association called the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America or ARBCA.  They are creedalistic, in particular the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith.  They are fairly strict cessationists and sabbatarians, and the congregation numbers between 100-150 each Sunday morning.

www.kemproadbaptist.com

Grace Covenant

Grace Covenant is right down the road from Kemp, and there are very similar in their theological adherence to a confession although they choose the Westminster Confession of Faith although they are baptistic.  You will find more theological liberty amongst their leadership with some being Presbyterian, Dispensationalists, etc.  They also employ a slightly more contemporary form of music then Kemp would.  The teaching pastor also is a member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals or FIRE.  They also share a similar congregation size to Kemp.

www.gracecovenant.info

Clearcreek Chapel

Clearcreek Chapel is unfortunately the one I know the least about, but I have visited as well as conversed with some congregants.  Their services would be more contemporary then the previous two, and the congregation size is also larger then both Grace and Kemp.  Of the three, they probably wear the RB title the least on their sleeve making it more inviting to those who don't understand the Doctrines of Grace.

www.clearcreekchapel.org

If I Forgot Something

If I forgot a congregation and/or someone more familiar with the congregations above would like me to alter the descriptions then please let me know in the comments.  This should be a good resource, however, for individuals looking for reformed and baptistic churches in the Dayton, Ohio (OH) area.

I once flipped through a book that caught my eye entitled Irresistible Evangelism by the former pastor of the Cincinnati Vineyard. I was flipping through and found a horrific graphic that summarized their philosophy of evangelism.1 Basically, the analogy is between golf hole and evangelism. When you golf you don't just shoot it straight into the hole (unless you're insanely good), but instead you take one shot into the fairway, then up to the green, then finally in the hole. And each of these steps correlates to the relational process you move through in their method of evangelism. You don't start off with the Gospel, because you need to first "get it up to the green." This methodology clearly shows their Arminian/decisional regeneration theology.

This analogy, I think, most clearly shows what relational evangelism can go to taken to an extreme. We must first ask: Did anyone in the whole Bible present the truth of God only after the tee and fairway shots? Jesus calls his disciples from the very beginning to repentance, and Peter and Paul both giving stirring Gospel presentations to the masses. I would imagine that if there was a model to clone it would be these gentlemen, but each of these men also contextualized the Gospel to their audience.

I of course don't want to misuse something, and if I have done so I want to be corrected; so I asked Doug to write a short rejoinder.

I would share your concerns about too much friendship and not enough evangelism as well. The bigger idea of the golf course analogy was simply to help Christians see that God's word clearly presents the idea of evangelism from a holistic perspective. Way to many Christ followers find a club (a method) that they feel comfortable with and then take it to their golf course everyday. Effective evangelism starts where people are in relationship to God not where we would like them to be. My admonition to Christ followers is to go to their golf course everyday with a full bag of clubs. You will never see Jesus do the exact same thing with the different people He encounters along the way. Sometimes He did a good deed, sometimes He raised questions, sometimes He shared Good news. Apparently He understood that different folks need different strokes. The golf course analogy is just a metaphor intended to encourage people to bring the whole gospel to the whole person. Some days that means we will sow, some days water, and some days we will harvest. If you would like to better understand my take on the whole thing go to my website at GodsGPS.com. There is one article I wrote for Outreach Magazine that might best articulate what in particular the way we should be intentional in our efforts to move the ball ahead on the golf course.

I am curious as to the thoughts my readers have.  Did I take it out of context?  Does Doug's explanation ease your mind on this?

I will be taking a temporary hiatus from writing full articles, but I will continue to feature content from my sideblog and the forums.  While I will write the occasional article it will be an aberration for a short time. But fear not friends as I will return in full force soon enough!  You can still access all the archives.

I always wanted this to be a place where we can think through the social, political, and theological topics of the day as informed and intelligent Christians, but I want to make sure that I do it out of love for it and the glory of God.  I just need some time to re-focus to return the posting regularity to what it once was.

-Chris

In some of the circles I run in (i.e. Reformed yet intensely missiological) we stand hard-fast by a more biblical definition of contextualization. We believe strongly that the Gospel is relevant without needing to alter it in any way yet we recognize the pattern of the Lord's witnesses to his truth and holiness expressed most completely in Christ. From Paul on Mars Hill preaching to the Stoics and Epicureans with their paganism (Acts 17) to Jesus' method to share the same truth in one chapter to Nicodemus (John 3)—a Jewish Pharisee—and the next chapter with a Samaritan woman (John 4). Paul's declaration that he has "become all things to all men" in 1 Corinthians 9 doesn't mean that he shared a different Gospel but that he recognized differing presupposition and starting points in sharing the same Gospel to different individuals.

John MacArthur's Stance Made Clear

One individual, John MacArthur, has taken some strong stances against what he defines as contextualization. Often he is mis-quoted on this, so I thought it would be helpful to look at some of what he's said on the topic.

I hear a lot today about the necessity to contextualize the message. If I had any sense, I would be wearing a black t-shirt with a skull and crossbones on it and I would have holes in my jeans and there would be no pulpit here. And I would be wandering from pillar to post up here, we would turn the lights down and change this environment because people need contextualization if they’re going to respond. I haven’t found that necessary, nor am I at all convinced that contextualization means anything or has any value in the church. (Source)

The apostles went out with an absolute disdain for contextualization. The modern drive for cultural contextualization is a curse, because people are wasting their time trying to figure out clever ways to draw in the elect. Contextualization is “zip-code ministry.” The message of Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is transcendent. It goes beyond its immediate culture or sub-culture. It crosses the world, and ignores the nuances of culture. It never descends to clothing or musical style, as if that had anything to do with the message of the Gospel. (Source - a transcription)

It would seem as though John has a grave misunderstanding on what careful, thoughtful missionaries are doing in their ministries. It puzzles me that as John reads and preaches from an English bible—which is the very nature of contextualization—he outright disdains contextualization. But to be fair he comments on 1 Corinthians 9 in a way reminiscent of what we would hope for.

How do people think religiously, how do they perceive truth?—those are the starting points that Paul was establishing. That’s a far cry from saying that to reach this generation we must do their music, we must dress the way they dress, we must live the way they live, we must be familiar with the baser components of their culture. That’s a million miles from what the Apostle Paul had in mind. He was talking about those things that controlled their thought process and their worldview. (Source)

John does correctly recognize that presuppositions is the main concern in contextualization, and for this I want to rejoice. However, John apparently marries the idea of contextualization with becoming like the culture around us. That is the very nature of a misunderstanding that some have indeed applied to sharing the Gospel, but it is not what we should strive for in our ministries.

The Test of Biblical Contextualization

This stance of John's was brought up in this year's Together for the Gospel. John mentioned it by name, and Mark Dever spoke next. It was interesting to see them balance one another throughout the conference. Mark spoke on "Improving the Gospel: Exercises in Unbiblical Theology". It was a fabulous look at the fundamental nature of the Gospel, and he speaks of those who un-biblically exercise what they perceive as "contextualization" to the Gospel. He then outlines very clearly what true, biblical contextualization looks like (in his point #3 around 40 minutes in).

Contextualization should never make the Gospel more palatable to the sinner--more acceptable. In fact, one test you can use very practical my preacher friend of whether not a particular attempt at contextualization has been successful is to ask if it has made the offense of the Gospel clearer. There's a test for appropriately reaching your audience. The Gospel is relevant to every sinner on earth.

Up until that point I had not heard such a God-honoring, biblical, and full definition of contextualization. Mark's point is the very litmus by which we must gauge not just our contextualization efforts but our evangelistic efforts on the whole.

The Need for Balance

We must recognize that fallen humans can take such as an idea as contextualization and pervert it to the point where we must then look and act like the world in order to be "relevant." However, a careful study of the Scriptures reveals the tool exercised by the biblical characters to bring glory to God through the tireless, and accurate preaching of the Gospel of God through Christ Jesus.

You'll notice his snide remarks such as that "civilised" people don't believe in sin and that he wishes he could pick and choose Christianity to his liking. Never-the-less, it is a provocative example of an honest atheist. It brings home Jesus' saying: "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations—the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil. [...]

Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin. Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and—probably most difficult of all—argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists. The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. [...]

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. . .Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

My interest was peaked by following the Web Urbanist blog, and I decided I wanted to try and see/capture some of it here in Dayton. I called Mr. Martin who is "in the know" on these things, and he showed me some amazing spots. An abandoned train center, paper factory, and some other closed factories in Dayton. In the paper factory a homeless man living in there even gave us a tour around! It was a humbling experience. I thought sharing the pictures would peak someone's interest as mine was.

I confess that I am a sinner.  A person so full of sin that I am deserving of nothing more than your just and swift wrath.  I have disobeyed, slandered, and ignored you.  I'm sorry that I live my life as though you don't exist.  I instead presume upon my own abilities, talents, and ambitions and fail to acknowledge that you have given me those things and desire me to use them for your purposes and glory.

I confess that I am not the man of God I want to be or that you want me to be. I fall prey to sin that grieves your spirit and makes the work your son did on the cross something peripheral in my daily life.  I continue to fall prey to gossip, pride, and I'm continually "puffed up" and not full of the humility and love shown so aptly in your son.  Help me to understand what it means to serve and not to be served.

I confess that I prioritize other things in my life over communing with you and spending time in your holy word.  I love your word, and it continues to speak truth into me while convicting me of my need to continue to pull close to you.  Thank you that your word tells me that you will continue to pursue me despite my obstinate heart.  Help me to realize to not take that for granted but continue to pursue after you as well with all of my heart and being.

I confess that I don't understand what it meant for your son to become sin on my behalf.  The one who knew no sin took on the fullness of my iniquity and removed it so that I might enter into your presence.  Father help to impress this truth upon me in my everyday life so that I will desire to share the great news of your son sent by you into the world to save sinners like me.  Help that to become a reality that so engrosses me so much that I can't think of anything else and instead hold every thought captive to your son.

Amen.

I thought that I should only marry someone who was called to the mission field as I was. Anything less than that would be frustrating and unfulfilling. Well, I realized that that is not what I should be looking for. I should instead be looking for someone that loves and trusts me enough to follow me wherever God is calling me. That seems to be the true measure of a biblical, God-ordained marriage.

The Greatest Love Story

Well, I should caveat that the "greatest" love story is that that God has for us in sending his son (John 3:16), but in terms of a model relationship I want to examine that of Jacob and Rachel.

Isaac sent Jacob to find a wife (Gen 28:1), and it was this endeavor that shows the depths of love a man should have for a woman. It is obvious in the next chapter that Jacob falls in love with Rachel instantly: "Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted his voice and wept" (Gen 29:11). In fact, he loved her so he promised her father Laban that he would serve him for seven years for his daughter, but this didn't phase Jacob because the years "seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her" (Gen 29:20).

After the seven years he asked for Rachel, but instead Laban tricked him to having sex with Leah after a feast (Gen 29: 23). Laban then tells Jacob that traditionally you marry the firstborn and therefore he needed to take the hand of Leah first (Gen 29:24). So Jacob took Leah and Leah even bore six children to Jacob before God gave a son to Rachel named Joseph. It is no coincidence that Jacob had a greater love for Joseph then the others. This jealousy led to the great story through the rest of Genesis.

Jacob didn't ask Rachel if she shared the same calling. The unconditional and deep love they had for each other received the blessing of God and did fulfill the calling on both of their lives. Rachel loved Jacob enough to follow him wherever she needed to, and God blessed that commitment. It is a great picture of how Christ pursues his church!

A Careful Caveat

I understand that sharing a similar passion is important and fruitful, but I fear that to many Christians put that above the greater concern that God has for his institution of marriage. We can learn much from the example set forth by Jacob and Rachel.

Matt Martin, my dear friend and brother, once told me to find a woman that was running after Jesus as hard as you and that was the most important thing. Sure enough, he met his beautiful wife Ashley shortly after that, and they exemplify this lesson. It is a great thing to pursue Christ together and somehow God manages to work out the details!

"Condemnation appears in innumerable forms. It's the weight on the heart of the businessman who was rarely home when his kids were growing up. It's the undercurrent of grief and metal self-torture in the woman who had an abortion years ago. It's the nagging conscience of the Christian man who just muttered a crude insult at a reckless driver. It's the lingering sense of regret over a lack of prayer; it's kind words unsaid and promises broken.

"Some of us have been carrying around so much for so long that we think it's normal to go through life weighed down. And the truth is that, apart from the cross, condemnation is normal. Without Jesus, we all deserve to be condemned and punished for sin. But here's the good news: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

"We don't have to go through life under condemnation."
C.J. Mahaney, Living the Cross Centered Life (pgs. 124-5)

Ligon Duncan On Sound Doctrine

Ligon gave the introductory talk to the conference, and it was a fitting way to start. His talk focused on those in the pastoral ministry who downgrade or even eliminate the importance of systematic theology in their messages. It was definitely good to be encouraged in reminding us that systematic theology has a very important role in preaching especially in a postmodern world. What was interesting is how he almost seemed to juxtapose the role of biblical and systematic theology. I had a conversation recently on the importance of biblical theology in preaching and teaching over systematic theology, and it was good to hear his thoughts on the issue. Mohler did a good job in the panel discussion about balancing the importance of both to run alongside one another even though there seems to be many who impose a tension between the two.

Thabiti Anyabwile On Our Unity

Thabiti is a "newcomer" if you will on the scene, and it was a most encouraging talk. Thabiti spoke on the un-biblical nature of race and racism from a historical and theological perspective. He spoke of our unity as sinners "in Adam," he spoke of our unity "in Christ," and finally our unity in the church. He spoke about the fact that God "hath man of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26 KJV). The truth is that we shouldn't be discriminatory against anyone else, because we all have the same father inheriting the same curse. This goes even farther as Christians are one "in Christ" in the same church, and we have even less of an excuse to find ourselves engaged in racism.

John MacArthur On Total Inability

John MacArthur started the second day of reminding us of the importance of understanding total depravity. It is this doctrine that the world hates so much, and it is imperative that it be an understanding we have to engage the world with the gospel. Even though you had the feeling that he was "preaching to the choir" it was a good reminder of the necessity of a biblical understanding of sin and anthropology in partaking in the gospel ministry.

Mark Dever On Gospel Fundamentals

I thoroughly enjoyed Dever's talk, and for the reason that it focused on the gospel essentials. He talked about efforts to "improve" the gospel through un-biblical emphasis. I especially appreciated how he pointed out the tendency of Christians to mix the implications of the gospel with the gospel itself. One such instance is how we can confuse the worldview implications of the gospel with the gospel. Is being pro-life part of the gospel? No, and it was this very point that Mark was trying to make to be sure that when the gospel is proclaimed we don't attempt to confuse on gospel fundamentals.

R.C. Sproul On the Curse Endured By Jesus

By far the best talk was done by R.C. Sproul. He spoke of the often left out truth that Jesus was cursed by God while enduring the cross from Galatians 3. How often we forget that Jesus was cursed of and by his father for the sake of his people. R.C. lead us through the historical and theological meaning and importance of what it meant for Christ to become a curse so that we might become sons of God. In typical redemptive-historical fashion by R.C. he illuminated and clarified this glorious truth. You could sense how much everyone in the room was effected, and the panel afterwards showed how other great men of the faith were left speechless after such a talk.

Al Mohler On Christian Hatred of Penal Substitution

It's amazing how glorious truths are so hated by so many that profess to be evangelicals. Only Al could've delivered the talk the way he did weaving historical, practical, and cultural theology into an expose of modern hatred of penal substitution. He surveys modern writings that openly deny that Jesus died a substitutionary death and was punished (penal) by God on our behalf. It was amazing to hear what some so called "evangelicals" were saying about the glorious truth of penal substitution. It is quite obvious that a gospel without penal substitution is in fact no gospel at all.

John Piper On Christian Sacrifice

Only John Piper can talk about Christian sacrifice in a way that convicts you in such a deep and profound way. He talked primarily from various texts in Hebrews that speak of the promise of Christian suffering. It is amazing to hear the gifting that God has given that man to convict believers through his preaching. In dramatic fashion he talked about how we as Americans live comfortably without much suffering. It's so encouraging to be called to faithful Christian witness, not just in spite of, but because of suffering. John convicts in a way that very few can.

C.J. Mahaney On the Pastor's Soul

It is very apparent how much C.J. cares about other pastors, and it was reiterated in his final talk on caring for the pastor's soul. What was especially encouraging was how he challenged the pastors in the audience to check whether they are joyful doing what they do. He challenged them specifically to ask our family and fellow laborers if they give off a sense of joy and anticipation in their work of ministering the gospel. The thing that struck me was how practical the words were that came from C.J. He consistently felt it necessary to describe himself as the "average pastor" compared to the other men speaking, but he surely spoke in a way that was more personal than the others. His demeanor and attitude were well received and appreciated in such a diverse group.

In Review

It was an encouraging time to be there with my brother, father, and many friends. To be encouraged to faithfully witness and teach the gospel is always a welcome admonition, and it is reassuring that God is pulling me in the direction of pastoral work.

The men that spoke had different personal and theological backgrounds. All had differing opinions on issues of ecclessiology, eschatology, and so on; but what was so encouraging was their shared devotion to the Gospel of Christ Jesus our Lord. They truly came together for the sake of the gospel.