In Innovative Disruption, I’m exploring the ways in which the church must reorient itself toward a perichoretic mission—one that is deeply relational, participatory, and embedded in the movement of God in the world. When we look at Jesus’ ministry, it is clear that what was truly innovative and disruptive was His message, not necessarily His method. His teaching approach was not revolutionary in form; rather, it was deeply rooted in His first-century cognitive environment. What made Jesus so effective was not that He invented a new way of teaching but that He took familiar methods—rabbinic storytelling, parables, prophetic pronouncements, philosophical allegory—and adapted them to deliver a message that challenged both religious and social structures.
This distinction is crucial. The modern church often assumes that innovation requires novelty in both message and method, but Jesus demonstrates something different. He used the tools and structures available to Him, yet He infused them with kingdom realities that upended expectations. His adaptability ensured that the content of His teaching resonated with His audience while remaining radically transformative.
If Jesus’ teaching methodology was a product of His cultural and theological context, then we might ask: What has the modern church assumed about its own teaching methods, and how might we adapt them to better engage our world today?
The Modern Church’s Pulpit Problem
Picture a typical Sunday morning: the pastor steps onto a well-lit stage, stands behind a podium, and delivers a structured sermon to a silent (hopefully awake) audience. This approach, modeled after modern educational frameworks the pastor learned in seminary, assumes that knowledge is best transmitted from an expert to an audience. After all, this is how the pastor learned from countless hours of listenting to professors wax about the Bible. He or she listented, absorbed, and (hopefully) applied what they have heard and they expect their congregations to do the same.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this model—it is simply one way to communicate ideas. However, when this becomes the only way we engage theology, we run the risk of assuming that passive listening equates to discipleship. The result is a church culture where theological depth is measured by how much one hears rather than how deeply one wrestles with and applies biblical truth in life and engages their communities with the gospel.
Jesus, on the other hand, did not rely on a single method. He taught in synagogues, but He also taught on hillsides, in homes, and along the road. His methodology was shaped by the cognitive environment of first-century Judaism, where discussion, debate, and narrative played key roles in education. He did not disrupt teaching methods—He used them as vehicles to communicate a message that was itself disruptive.
Jesus’ Teaching in Context
Jesus’ teaching was deeply contextualized. He understood His audience and shaped His message to fit their expectations. He used familiar cultural frameworks to lead them toward unexpected kingdom truths.
Take the Sermon on the Mount for example (Matt 5-7). While modern audiences often envision Jesus delivering a carefully prepared oration on a stage in front of an audience—as depicted in The Chosen—the reality was likely more interactive. Jewish teaching in Jesus’ day was dialogical, meaning that listeners would have engaged, questioned, and responded. The beatitudes, far from being a detached speech, were a pointed reordering of social values, framed in a way that His audience would immediately recognize as both authoritative and subversive.
Or consider His conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42). Rather than simply stating theological facts, Jesus engaged her through relational dialogue, drawing her into the conversation and allowing her own questions to shape the discussion. This was a common rabbinic teaching method—starting with the concerns of the listener and using them as an entry point for deeper truths.
The key insight here is that Jesus was not trying to be innovative in how He taught; rather, He was masterfully effective in what He taught. He adapted to His context, using established methods in ways that maximized the impact of His message.
A Different Context, a Different Approach
If Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels reflects rabbinic methods of engagement, His words in Revelation show how He could shift His rhetorical approach to match a different audience.
The churches of Asia Minor were not primarily Jewish but existed in a Roman imperial context where dialectical reasoning, philosophical argumentation, and apocalyptic imagery shaped public discourse. Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition was deeply interactive, often involving back-and-forth exchanges of ideas—Socratic questioning for instance—with an emphasis on persuasion through reasoned debate, and use of allegory and anomaly. This was not a culture that simply absorbed teaching passively; it engaged in intellectual discourse, whether in the Stoic forums, the philosophical schools, or the political assemblies.
Jesus did not use parables or engage in conversational teaching in Revelation. Instead, He spoke in the style of an enthroned king, issuing proclamations, warnings, and promises. His words carried the force of imperial edicts, utilizing symbols and metaphors that would have been understood within an apocalyptic framework familiar to both Jewish and Greco-Roman audiences.
The shift was not in message but in mode of communication. Jesus adapted His rhetoric to match the expectations of His audience while maintaining the essential truth of His kingdom proclamation.
What the Church Can Learn from Jesus’ Contextual Teaching
So what does this mean for the church today? If Jesus adapted His teaching methods based on His audience’s cognitive environment, should we not do the same?
- Move from Passive Listening to Active Engagement – Jesus’ teachings invited response. The church should foster environments where theology is not just preached but discussed, questioned, and applied in real-world contexts.
- Teach in Ways That Fit the Cultural Context – Jesus used rabbinic dialogue with Jewish audiences and Stoic allegory and anomaly with Greco-Roman audiences. Today, we must consider how different cultural groups best receive and process truth—whether through storytelling, digital media, small group discussions, or public proclamation; something that my colleague, Larry Caldwell, calls ethnohermeneutics.
- Prioritize Transformation Over Information – Jesus was not interested in merely passing along knowledge; He aimed for heart and life transformation. Our teaching methods should focus on discipleship as a way of life (something I loved hearing from a church I recently attended), not just information. My colleague, Tom Steffen, provides a wonderful model of transformative discipleship in Character Theology.
- Embrace Multiple Methods and Places of Teaching – Jesus taught through parables, direct instruction, dialogue, and symbolic action. And He taught in multiple locations: while walking with His disciples, where people naturally gathered, and at the table. He was not constrained by what He learned from other teachers or nor was He confined to a building. The church should embrace a variety of teaching methods and locations rather than assuming a single building-centric model is sufficient.
Rethinking How We Teach, Not What We Teach
The message of Jesus remains as radical today as it was in the first century. But if we assume that the methods used to communicate that message must remain static, we risk creating barriers to understanding.
Jesus never sought to disrupt the practice of teaching itself—He used teaching to disrupt the assumptions of His audience. He leveraged the multifarious teaching structures of His day to communicate a message that redefined power, justice, and the kingdom of God.
For the modern church, the challenge is not to create new teaching methods simply for the sake of innovation, but to be contextually aware of how different audiences best engage with truth. A return to Jesus’ model does not mean abandoning preaching or structured sermons, but it does mean expanding our understanding of what effective discipleship looks like.
Jesus did not innovate pedagogy; He transformed lives through contextualized teaching. If the church is to follow His example, we must ask: How do we best communicate the disruptive message of the kingdom in the world today? The answer to this question is certainly more than the pastor preaching from a pulpit in a Sunday-centric attractional approach.
Join the Conversation
Innovative Disruption is a dynamic and thought-provoking learning experience that explores creative ways to meaningfully relate Christology, missiology, and ecclesiology to the complexities of contemporary cultures. Participants in the forum will delve into the intersection of theology and society, examining how the core beliefs and practices of Christianity can engage with and transform the world around us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.