Please understand I am NOT against the church in anyway. How could I be against the bride of Christ? That would be foolish. The following are thoughts I am processing and dealing with, and I want to make them available for criticism, reflection, questions, or any other responses.
Why is there another church planting movement happening today? Is it because there is a spiritual hunger that we believe church can fix? We believe programs can fix it, so we tweak an old machine. We add a GenX worship service, or we add a cool new VBS theme. But what if God wanted to give us a whole new system altogether? What if He doesn’t want us to tweak an old car, but wants to give us a brand new one. And what if He wants you and I to drive? Are we preparing ourselves for such a shift, or are we trying to plan? Planning limits God…it binds Him. Preparation invites him. How much preparation are we doing?
Update: KB, I replied to your comments on April 7. Thanks for your thoughts.
6 comments:
Jon,
These are good questions. I often wonder if our church is too universal or too disconnected. There is a book called "From Dawn to Decadence" by Jacques Barzum (I am sure I spelled that wrong) who comments on the western world since 1500. His book preface is interesting in which he notes that we have accepted so many ideologies and worldviews that we have lost the authority to reject anything. This has diluted absolutes and led to a "decadent" age (This guy is not a Christian from what I understand). I cannot help but think that our church has fallen into the same global sales pattern of Christianity. If we accept too many doctrines and truth systems and accommodate too many worldviews then it eventually dilutes the gospel message and offers a church bereft of truth. However, I couldn't even begin to imagine how many churches there are in my area alone that are under the same denomination but church plants and expansion are taking place in the name of offering "something different" than the "norm." I often wonder, "What does an unchurched world think of a divided church?" It paints an incoherent picture of Christianity (I believe Christianity to be the most coherent world view there is). I could see Satan prevail in either arena. Jon, what do you suggest is the answer to offer a coherent Christian message? I know that your answer holds extra truth and experience considering you grew up in the church.
-KB
Good questions. Here are some of my thoughs in response and also in response to KB's quip. I am not one to jump on the cart that thinks things are so different today than they have bene in the past. For instance, are idealogies really that much more prevelant today than any time else. Throughout the history of mankind there have been wide ranges of idealogies, thoughts, philsophies, religious frameworks, whatever you want to call it. In fact, much of the Torah is a polemic against all of those idealogies. Maybe it is more fair to say that we live in a much more connected world so those idealogies are more widely known or something like that but I am not sure we have a "worse off world" than say the first century Greco/Roman culture in which there were competing worldviews everywhere you turned.
KB you mentioned diluting the Gospel message and we must remember what the gospel message is. It is not the steps to knowing Jesus, and it is not sinners prayer and it is certianly not the Romans road and beleiving affirming a right set of doctrines. If we are held accountable for having all the right doctrines nailed down then in the words of Cummings, "Damn everything but the circus." The gospel message is and always has been the proclimation that Jesus is Lord. Therefore, not diluting the gospel message in a "decadent" age doesn't necessarily mean anything other than continuing to proclaim that Jesus is Lord when so many other things compete for that spot.
Lastly for Jon, I will just throw out a couple of thoughts and questions.
Why is there another church planting movement happening today? Maybe because some people sense the same things you do and are acting on it.
Is it because there is a spiritual hunger that we believe church can fix? I hope so. "You are the light of the world..."
We believe programs can fix it, so we tweak an old machine. We add a GenX worship service, or we add a cool new VBS theme. But what if God wanted to give us a whole new system altogether? What if He doesn’t want us to tweak an old car, but wants to give us a brand new one. And what if He wants you and I to drive?
Who are you talking about here? You are painting broad strokes and including the entire evangelical community in your statements. There are many who feel the same way you do and are driving towards something different. Something way different. In fact, more conservative evangelicals are nervous at the things that are happening in regards to shifting parardigms.
Alright - geez - there is my essay response. Sorry so long. It was good thinking through that with you guys.
Jason,
Good stuff--but let me elaborate. You remarked:
"If we are held accountable for having all the right doctrines nailed down then in the words of Cummings, "Damn everything but the circus." The gospel message is and always has been the proclamation that Jesus is Lord. Therefore, not diluting the gospel message in a "decadent" age doesn't necessarily mean anything other than continuing to proclaim that Jesus is Lord when so many other things compete for that spot. "
I don't believe that we are held accountable for holding all of the right doctrines, if that were the case, we would all be in trouble. Besides, that lends itself to the ethnocentric arrogance that American has too often been associated with. However, don't throw the baby out with the bath water---I am not throwing mud at a doctrinal system, but as Chesterton said, "An open mind is like an open mouth, it has to close down on something." Truth is truth. The gospel message is proclaiming that Jesus is Lord, but I have always believed that. McDowell says that our actions are a reflection of our beliefs. But I am not so sure that I agree with that or that it is that simple. For example, I have always been able to say "uh huh" to:
1) Bible as authoritative word of God
2) Jesus' birth, life, resurrection, and ascension
3) Jesus as Lord
...unfortunately, my actions spoke a different language--a much louder, more lucid, language. When I say diluting the gospel, it is presenting an incoherent picture of Jesus because we are attempting to accommodate too many ideologies. Does Jesus love me so much that he is indifferent to my actions? Does Jesus mind if I approach him through other religions and other Gods? Was Jesus just a moral teacher? Was there a Jesus? Was Jesus simply historical? Was Jesus simply a mythmaker?
If Jesus is Lord, what am I going to do with it? That is quite a question. My question to Jon dealt with the dangers of our church being too universal or too divided/separated. Again, I think that both can be fertile grounds for the devil to sow his seed.
Jas you mentioned that the world "isn't worse off" and I am not disagreeing with that. But we have seen so many different philosophies emerge throughout time (often times it is the same philosophy, different spin). One prevailing philosophy is humanism, the idea that man is the measure of all things. One scholar/preacher describes it well saying that humanism infiltrated our minds after the enlightenment. You had some say that the end all of man was power (Hitler). Others said the end all of man was pleasure (Wilde) Others said that the end all of man was relative to that man (Dewey) This insidious thinking even crept into the church. On the liberal side, they didn't necessarily believe in heaven or hell or God or Jesus, but they believed that following the altruistic teaching of the Bible would lead to a better life while here on earth (Do you see the humanism emerge: "Read these poetic axioms and live a virtuous, peaceful life by reading the Bible"--the end all is the happiness of man). Then on the conservative or "fundamentalist" side--"come to God so that you won't go to hell--hell is a rotten place and heaven is so nice and peaceful." In other words, the end all is still the happiness of man at the end of the road, i.e. eternal life or heaven. This would be an example of a competing ideology that may say that Jesus is Lord but dilute any spiritual implication from there. You could go through the Roman road, the 4 spiritual laws, the sinner’s prayer, or whatever, but that doesn't mean anything. I am saying that accepting too much, being too universal, tends to crowd out the message that "Jesus is Lord" and what that means. Remember that Simon the Sorcerer, the founder of Gnosticism, did everything and said all of the right things to be "saved", but while he may have said that Jesus is Lord he didn't understand that Jesus is Lord! Does that make sense?
I am simply remarking to beware of a church system that is too universal. I am quite familiar with a church that was trying to define a mission statement and could not because any language they used was exclusive. Pretty soon, they gave up because refused to have any language that may leave out. On the other hand, I would beware of a church that says "This is how it should be done." This is an audacious statement for the bride of Christ. Everyone asks about whether homosexuals should be in our churches--I would say "absolutely", because we want sinners to come to church. The question isn't whether sinners come to church, it is how they leave the church.
In a world of brokenness--would a church that is too universal in its message make a difference? Would a church that is too divided because of "illuminated" members that claim it has to be a certain way and in turn alienating broken spirits who need to hear that "Jesus is Lord" make a difference?
I should have been cleare that proclaiming the gospel, that Jesus is Lord is never through words but rather through life. I would say that no one in this world needs to HEAR that Jesus is Lord but rather needs to see lives that proclaim Jesus is Lord. I could not put it better than my good friend Steve in a recent blog. So here is his post from:alreadynotyet.blogspot.com
So, I was in a discussion with high school students a few weeks ago and I asked this question: “If you were to go to a country and delivered food to starving people, would you say that this action is proclaiming the gospel?” They answered, “No.” In all fairness, I told them I could have worded the question a little better and asked them if this deed is an expression of the gospel, to which they agreed yet still held that this expression is not the complete gospel.
So then I asked them, “If you were to go to a country and proclaim the gospel simply with words, is this the gospel?” They answered… yes.
I hope they didn’t see it, but it felt like my jaw dropped to the ground. These are smart students who really want to make a difference in our world. So, how is it possible that one could hold a double standard for communicating the gospel? How is it possible for one to come to the conclusion that expressing gospel deeds is only part of the gospel, but expressing gospel words is the whole gospel?
I’m still trying to unpack these comments, but I’m believing that these teenage conclusions are hardly their own– they unveil the fruit of the teaching of youth pastors and ministry leaders. Is it possible that youth ministries and western churches have pitted “proclaiming the gospel” against “living the gospel”? Is it possible that we are more interested in “identifying with Christ” through our words and Christian gear, rather than “identifying with Christ” in suffering, serving and simplicity. I think so.
It freaks me out to think that young people are getting the message that actions are a “warm up” to the “true gospel” of verbal proclamation. Maybe others are freaked out my comments and consider this “going soft on the gospel.”
If “going soft on the gospel” means that people like me are afraid to get in people’s faces about the message of Jesus, then I would disagree. Actually, I think proclamation-alone gospel tactics are about as far away from “in your face” as possible. I would even consider it cowardly.
Anyone can hurl words at someone else. It’s no different than hurling food at someone demanding that they eat. “Getting in one’s face,” means so much more. It means allowing people to see the gospel up close by entering into another person’s world… and letting them enter mine. It means expressing the love of Jesus through extending ourselves in conversation (words) and community (life).
But we’re afraid to do that. It seems like the church works hard at staying only as close as necessary to hurl a message at poor sinners, rather than allowing peoples’ space to be entered and the gospel shared with a personal touch and an appropriate word.
The gospel at a distance is no gospel at all. And so, as I reflect on these amazing students, I hope I pass along an “up close gospel.”
__
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ – Mt 25.37-40
I should have been cleare that proclaiming the gospel, that Jesus is Lord is never through words but rather through life. I would say that no one in this world needs to HEAR that Jesus is Lord but rather needs to see lives that proclaim Jesus is Lord. I could not put it better than my good friend Steve in a recent blog. So here is his post from:alreadynotyet.blogspot.com
So, I was in a discussion with high school students a few weeks ago and I asked this question: “If you were to go to a country and delivered food to starving people, would you say that this action is proclaiming the gospel?” They answered, “No.” In all fairness, I told them I could have worded the question a little better and asked them if this deed is an expression of the gospel, to which they agreed yet still held that this expression is not the complete gospel.
So then I asked them, “If you were to go to a country and proclaim the gospel simply with words, is this the gospel?” They answered… yes.
I hope they didn’t see it, but it felt like my jaw dropped to the ground. These are smart students who really want to make a difference in our world. So, how is it possible that one could hold a double standard for communicating the gospel? How is it possible for one to come to the conclusion that expressing gospel deeds is only part of the gospel, but expressing gospel words is the whole gospel?
I’m still trying to unpack these comments, but I’m believing that these teenage conclusions are hardly their own– they unveil the fruit of the teaching of youth pastors and ministry leaders. Is it possible that youth ministries and western churches have pitted “proclaiming the gospel” against “living the gospel”? Is it possible that we are more interested in “identifying with Christ” through our words and Christian gear, rather than “identifying with Christ” in suffering, serving and simplicity. I think so.
It freaks me out to think that young people are getting the message that actions are a “warm up” to the “true gospel” of verbal proclamation. Maybe others are freaked out my comments and consider this “going soft on the gospel.”
If “going soft on the gospel” means that people like me are afraid to get in people’s faces about the message of Jesus, then I would disagree. Actually, I think proclamation-alone gospel tactics are about as far away from “in your face” as possible. I would even consider it cowardly.
Anyone can hurl words at someone else. It’s no different than hurling food at someone demanding that they eat. “Getting in one’s face,” means so much more. It means allowing people to see the gospel up close by entering into another person’s world… and letting them enter mine. It means expressing the love of Jesus through extending ourselves in conversation (words) and community (life).
But we’re afraid to do that. It seems like the church works hard at staying only as close as necessary to hurl a message at poor sinners, rather than allowing peoples’ space to be entered and the gospel shared with a personal touch and an appropriate word.
The gospel at a distance is no gospel at all. And so, as I reflect on these amazing students, I hope I pass along an “up close gospel.”
__
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ – Mt 25.37-40
This is great insight, but some of your words are to big for me. Kevin, I like your point in the first comment you made: "If we accept too many doctrines and truth systems and accommodate too many worldviews then it eventually dilutes the gospel message and offers a church bereft of truth." Maybe it is better to have questions than answers, to pursue truth rather than believe we have found it (even though we have found The Truth). I'm not sure I am communicating this point clearly...but I'll move on. The only way we can offer a coherent Christian message is to communicate who the person of Jesus Christ is instead of communicating our doctrines. The church (if it is really the church) will agree that Jesus is the Son of God and is who He says He is.
Jason, I thought you made an interesting point in relation to what the High Schoolers told you about proclaiming vs. living the gospel. Have we pitted the two against one another? In a short answer...probably so. In a ministry I was involved in, I was told we were not to do anything in the community without proclaiming (with words) the gospel ("the plan of salvation"). I have heard people scoff at the servant evangelism movement and call it watered down Christianity (the people who scoffed rarely left their pews to get involved in the community).
Did not Jesus Himself meet the needs of the adulterous woman BEFORE He called her out of her sin?
Post a Comment