If it were laid upon me….

I sat on this post for awhile due to the issues described  here,  internally debating whether or not I should post it. After all, how could I authentically speak to issues of ecclesiology if I struggled with doubts of even belonging to the church militant?  Without regards to such issues, I decided to unveil my thoughts, anyway.

If I ever were to pastor a church, which would only happen if God has a great sense of irony and loves to use the weak, the foolish, those prone to sin and despises it, and those with no leadership or interpersonal skills, these are some things I would insist upon:

• Sundays would not be a polished affair with state-of-the-art audio and visual accouterments. Musical instruments would probably be in the back of the church. Focus is to be on the Word unfolded so as to feed the sheep, not on a musical performance.  I would refuse to play any music that was programmed to draw in people who would not otherwise go to church.

• I would never, never, never, ever lay the burden of the  tithe, an unbiblical practice as taught by the contemporary church,  upon the sheep. I will not pastor over the church of Galatia. There would be relatively few sermons or speeches on financial stewardship. Though important, you don’t need Jesus to teach you to balance your checkbook and save for a rainy day. Plus…I am not so good with money, myself. It just does not mean that much to me as it does others.

• I would probably be bi-vocational.

• There would be no sermons with seven steps to this or five keys to that. Legalism lite leads to Jesus lite. Legalism is a path that leads to Hell

• I would do my best to talk a lot about Christ using few if any personal anecdotes. I want you to learn about the Messiah, not about me. If I cannot teach redemptive Biblical history, the historical and true story of Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone, by the authority of the Bible alone, to the glory of God alone without telling stories about me and my life experience (boring thought it would be), I do not need to claim to be a pastor. If I ever become a pastor, which is highly unlikely,  I will not be there to entertain you. When I die, I would just as soon be forgotten then be remembered as having been a charismatic leader.

• I would not ask for your personal testimonies, though you are certainly free to share – but, foremost, tell me Christ’s story in church, not yours. Your changed life, though I am happy for you, is not necessarily the Gospel. Paxil changes lives, AA changes lives, art changes lives, Mormonism has changed lives for the better. The Gospel story is what breaths life into rotten corpses. The apostle Peter probably had many interesting stories, but he told Christ’s story every time, all the time.

• There would never, never, ever be any altar call nor any other crass emotional manipulation of the flock. If Jesus and the apostles did not need them, then neither do I need that extra-biblical and rather recent and often detrimental appendage to the Gospel call. No. Sappy. Music. In. Church. Ever. Too, why do I need to close my eyes and bow my head during altar calls? Seriously….

• I would seek to heal you with the Gospel rather the Law. Too many preachers wield the Law like an anvil against the sheep when a salve of grace is called for.

• Preaching would be mostly expostional. Exceptions to expostional preaching might entail, for example, teaching about the lives and doctrines of the early church fathers and martyrs. I would also like to learn and teach on church history. Doing a class on systematic theology in the evenings would be cool, too. Theology is a fundamental part of the church. If I ever pastored a church, it would be lovingly doctrinal. Doctrine is the spine and immune system of the church.

• I would strongly discourage the turning of hobbies into ministries. You like to golf, hunt, and ride motorcycles. Such is fine with me; just don’t baptize them. Let me know when you want to go for a ride though. It would be fun to join with you.

• The crippled, the poor, the mentally ill and emotionally scarred, those not so articulate would welcomed and embraced.   Along the same lines, introverts are welcome and loved. I understand because I am an introvert, too. If you are uncomfortable in certain social circumstances, we can fellowship, you and me, over a cup of coffee or can of beer where ever you are most comfortable. I personally like sweet tea. Occasionally, a shot or two of Evan Williams is fine. Church is not easy, sometimes, for introverts.

• I would insist that the elders and teachers hold the the Doctrines of Grace. If not, you can be a part of the church, cherished and loved deeply, but never teach.

• No. Skits. Ever. No drama teams, either. You want drama, entertainment, go to a theater. The Word, being potent in and of itself, does not need our help. Drama merely adds extraneous layers. As an aside, it amazes me that people can feel comfortable playing the role of Christ in musical dramas and plays. I recall Peter requesting his body to be crucified upside down because he deemed himself to be unworthy to be crucified in the fashion of the Messiah.

• I would not make too big a deal about secondary issues such as eschatology, though they would not be ignored.

• Communion would be a real meal, I think, not a piece of bread or a plastic shot glass of grape juice. Wine would be available if desired. I also am not wed to the amount of water used in baptisms. Sprinkle or dunk, I can accommodate either. No major problems with either paedo and credo-baptism. I see valid Biblical arguments for either, though I lean towards credo-baptism.

• I would never say, as many do from the stage and pulpit, that I would not sacrifice my family for of the church, though I would hope I would never face such circumstances. Such statements, though common, seem strange and present a hopefully false dichotomy. I would die a thousand times for the church of the Christ. If my wife or children are not with me on this, then they turn their backs on the bride and body of Christ. I would not.

• I will not be a Christian culture warrior, ever. I will not try to dress unregenerate corpses up with the Law when they need the Gospel. You want a moral nation above all, have Utah succeed and move there. They are nice, family-friendly, moral people even without the Gospel delivered by the apostles. I would never preach pure moralism. It is the anti-thesis of grace.

• Children will not have to go to kids church when big people church starts if the family wants their children to be with them. Distractions are OK, to a degree, and a part of life, and a part of the body, a part of families. You hear me on this one Furtick and Noble​? I will not force families to split up when the preaching starts. Shame on you, Furtick, for removing Christ from your service for being a distraction to your show…..as you do the the least of these……

• I would probably not let my church grow much beyond 200 people if I had such control. Should it do so, and this would be a great thing, we split into two sister churches, each with trained and approved elders and pastors. If a pastor cannot at least recognize his sheep, he needs to have others step up to help feed, lead and shelter the flock. Move half of them to another pasture.  Keep growing the flock, and then splitting off to new pastures.

• Naive on my part, perhaps, but I would hope the hypothetical church I fed would not be success oriented with tangible metrics. Leave that for businesses. I would not count salivations. That is no ones job but the Holy Spirits; no one else is qualified to separate wheat from chaff. I would hope we would have an orientation of humility. If the seats are filled, fine. If not, fine. It will be Christ who grows His church, not me.

• I would literally die to protect my sheep from wolves, from bad theology. You will not see Wild At Heart or The Shack as recommended reading the churches library. I would never endorse heretics like TD Jakes as have many nominally orthodox pastors.

• I would never, ever have a fund raiser. If someone is in deep financial need, I would sell my possessions, give up vacations, and work overtime to help you. I hope the flock would do the same. Saddest thing I have seen in a long time is a large, evidently wealthy church holding a bake sale fund raiser for a child needing surgery.

• If you want to volunteer to help in the church, that is great. If not, that is fine with me, too. I know your probably work hard to support your family and need no extra burdens. Quite frankly, when you get rid of all the extraneous parking teams, media teams, creative teams, hospitality teams, volunteer coordination team volunteers, you find you do not need volunteers so much.

• Small groups, meh. I have seen them too often be pools of ignorance to which, not so long ago, I helped make even more deeply ignorant. If we do small groups, it will be elder led and Word focused. They are what you make of them.

• If you want a God of second chances, go to where the Gospel is light and cheap. I will give you a Gospel for dead men and women who float hopeless in the dark waters. They don’t need second chances. I, and they, would mess up the second chance, and the third, and the forth. I will point you to a Savior, to paraphrase Paul Capon, if memory serves, who dives into deep water to breath life into sin infused, rotten corpses, dies in the process, and later appears on the shore alive and waits for you having defeated death and sin.

Enough of my orthopraxic utopianism…

The Death Knell of the American Church?

I ran across this quote, from JonathanHerron.com,  taken from a leadership conference hosted at a local church:

Your church needs your LEADERSHIP more than your PREACHERSHIP.

I became aware of this trend, this hyper-focus on leadership skills, this desire of  CEO/lead pastors to run their churches like a secular business, a few years ago.  My question is this: Do you think the title of this post is ‘prophetic’ or exaggerated?

Understand, too, that this post is not a personal dig at Jonathon Herron, nor do I infer that leadership skills are not important within the church.  What I am concerned about is the seeming demise of the Biblical under-shepherd/pastor model of servant leader and the concurrent rise of the sheltered entrepreneurial CEO/leader model so commonly found in so many contemporary evangelical churches.

What I find a bit disturbing, too, in  this hyper-focus on inculcating secular leadership skills  into the church is, in reading their blogs,  a hyper-focus on the ‘care and feeding’ of the leaders themselves in seeming opposition to the care and feeding of their respective flocks.  I have heard so many of these leaders state their disdain for members of their church, be they on paid staff or not, when they fail to fall lockstep into some vision cast by the unassailable leader, when they ask to be actually spiritually fed by the pastor. I pity the bruised reeds and smoldering wicks in the Sunday audience.

Addendum on 12-4: Further elaboration on these thoughts can be found here.

Finished with Christless Christianity

Almost immediately after writing it, I am struck by the irony of the title of this post.  Usually, I compose the content of a post, then come up with a supposedly catchy, provocative title

Today, I started with the title. The initial purpose of the title of this post was to declare that I have finished reading Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church by Michael Horton thereby setting the stage for the content of the post, my thoughts on said book.  The secondary purpose, though at first unintended, informs that I have seen, experienced much of what Horton describes.

I ran through this book rather quickly and will probably read it again sooner rather than later.  From this first quick read, here are a few things I take away: Horton diagnoses certain  ills that infect the body of the American church, and two main themes seem to dominate. First, there is a strong element of Pelagianism that permeates much of the church.  Secondly, there is a strain of Gnosticism that parallels the Pelagianism.  This Pelagianism often takes on the form of a ‘legalism lite’ while the Gnosticism arrives in the form of the subtle primacy of subjective religious, emotional,self-focused experience over the objective authority of Scripture.   His diagnosis is not unique to either of the broad, polar extremes of ecclesiology, the liberal and conservative branches; there is an overarching  human-centricity that permeates both.  He also points out the ironic commonality of the ‘deeds, not creeds’ mindset that has been so firmly ensconced in liberal Christianity and now boldly infects much of the church growth movement as well as the neo-liberal Emergents. Before continuing, Horton does not argue that the church, as a whole, has necessarily arrived at a Christless Christianity, but that signs are evident that the church is well on its way to that state.  He argues that what is being engaged is not so much heresy, but more silliness, lightness, and self-focus.  Almost gone are the days where the flock comes to church to be ministered to and taught, fed,  truths of Scripture and have the sacraments administered.  Some pastors no longer see their role as being one who feeds the flock and regularly administers the sacraments, but rather view church as the place where they cast vision and give marching orders to the flock.  These marching orders can range from calls to engage those Joel Osteenesque steps to having a better life now to an exhortation to the flock to get out there and ‘be the Gospel’ without ever really and carefully explaining what the Gospel is, the proclamation of Good News given and offered to us more than something we ‘do’ or ‘are’.  Think again on that ‘deeds, not creeds’ mentality previously mentioned.

Horton, with much clarity, traces the pragmatic methods of Charles Finney, quite frankly Pelagian in his theology, to the formulas used by contemporary church growth experts today.  The fallout from this pragmaticism is often an unintended devaluing of the supremacy of Christ in both corporate worship and evangelism.  Rather, church is to be an entertaining event to draw crowds wherein the Gospel (hopefully)  may be found on a table filled with personal anecdotes and calls to moralism by self-effort without a clear expounding of the absolutely astounding nature of grace through faith found in Christ, God incarnate, in light of our sin nature, our total depravity. We end up, sadly, with a de-clawed  Gospel,  that  ‘therapeutic, moralistic deism’ mentioned in a quote in the book.  Even more sad, so many are content with just that.  What is often engaged in that often  ill-defined call to a personal relationship with Jesus, is a narcissism, a salvation solely focused on self rather than one lived out in covenant community.  I have been guilty…

All in all, a sobering read, clear and concise. Another good book in the same vein is The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World by David Wells. Next on the list to read, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, also by Horton.

Hey! It dawns on me…this is my first book review ever.  It dawns on me, too, how hard it is to be objective when you are close to the subject matter of the book being reviewed.

More than a pet peeve

I return briefly to the predominate theme that I often pursued on this blog, and I will allow to go dormant again.

I listen, when time allows, to sermons from different churches, different pastors.  Many are quite edifying and Christ exalting.  Others, I sadly find less so.  I come away with some overarching  observations, some quite disturbing, based not so much on any one individual sermon, but more on an overarching methodology that gives birth to some common themes.

I recently listened to a substantial portion of a sermon by Perry Noble wherein he stated repeatedly that “God is trying…” and that “God tries….”  In the context of this particular sermon, this rhetoric was used to describe God’s ‘attempts’ to get peoples attention, specifically Herod’s in the case of the aforementioned sermon, so as to draw them to Himself.  I appreciate and applaud the evangelical zeal found in the sermon (even though the pastor did not correctly interpret the text and read his own ideas into it), but I have extreme reservations over a pastor, or anyone for that matter, saying ‘God tries’ .

My reservations are not a case of putting too fine a point on peripheral or merely illustrative rhetoric.  When we talk about our Redeemer, about God almighty, we need to be careful and accurate about the words we use out of reverence to a Holy God.  We need to thoughtfully weigh our words and thoughts about God in light of Biblical revelation, especially when one is an under-shepherd charged, along with the elders in the church, with guarding and feeding the flock, the body of Christ.

What then is the problem with saying “God tries?” To try infers potential of failure.  To say that God tries is to infer potential of failure in God almighty, that His will may be thwarted.   If such were true, then His will could be stunted and I can have no absolute confidence in that God.  That truncated God, a God who tries, (and apparently failed in Herod’s case in the context of the sermon) is not the sovereign God of Biblical revelation.

Again, I make specific reference to a particular sermon, but I have heard this same rhetoric, this – I hope unintended – reference to a limited God, on other occasions and by various individuals.   Where does this conceit come from, this idea that God is somehow limited by our choices?  It goes back to a humanistic theology, a strain of Christianity that permeates much of the landscape of American ecclesiology.  Beyond the errant inferred limitations placed on God, I find sometimes a subtle redefinition of the Gospel.  Before I continue, I want to make something perfectly clear.  I am not calling into question motivations or authenticity of faith of any particular personality.  I am not going to bash any particular individual.  However, I will not shy away from bringing the hammer down on what I strongly believe is theologically dangerous methodology.

What of this subtle distortion of the Gospel I mentioned? It is a distortion that comes on the heels of a confusion between felt needs and true spiritual need. It is a blurring of two aspects, the simple proclamation of the faith delivered by the apostles, repent and believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sin and the perceived benefits of salvation which is the meeting of the felt need for significance, the felt need for purpose, the felt need for happiness. I could go on, but I think the point is clear that there are many felt needs we all would want to write in on the sign-up sheet for salvation. The danger in pandering to felt needs is this: our felt needs are not necessarily reflective of our true need before a holy and righteous God. We may, based upon certain evangelical exhortations, approach God and request transformation so that our felt needs for self-esteem, security, and significance are met, for example, but quite miss the real need for forgiveness of sin. So many evangelical calls offer forgiveness along with the thinly veiled and inferred promise that God will fix all your problems and meet all the felt needs of an unregenerate heart, but often what is missing is a clearly defined call to repentance.

What also I find at times offered is a devalued grace, a devalued Gospel.  A friend  told me of an evangelical outreach to which he was invited to participate.  This outreach was aimed at sharing the Gospel with disadvantaged kids.  It involved taking these kids hunting and then sharing the Gospel with them afterwords.  I appreciate and applaud the hearts desire to share the Gospel.  However, one of the things  these kids were told was that Christianity was the easiest club in the world to join.  Further, I have heard on numerous occasions that I need to try Jesus because He is the best deal going .  I have heard Christ offered as a sixty day challenge.   The lost, the unregenerate, are apparently invited to try this Gospel thing out, kick the tires and take it around the block a few times.  If it doesn’t work for you, you can drop it off where you found it.  The Gospel has been reduced to a product that is marketed to consumers.  I have read time and time again people in ministry, church planters and pastors,  affirm that the church has the best product in the world, but we just are not marketing it as effectively as Disney markets their product.  Quite frankly and without regard to the good intent of those who engage it, that methodology, that reduction of the Gospel to a product to be marketed, to a pill freely dispensed, makes me want to vomit.   What is missing from these bold, creative evangelical marketing ploys and vision casting is a robust theology of the Cross.  The cost of the Cross is rarely given it’s due.  Showing clips from The Passion of the Christ or Braveheart from huge screens suspended over an enthralled audience is not a replacement for faithfully proclaiming the Gospel of repent and believe.  What kind of Gospel are people being drawn to when the church feels it needs to compete with Hollywood to make the Cross attractive?  The Cross is not, nor has ever been, a pill easy to swallow.  But you know what, God in His mercy and grace, and in spite of well-intentioned, but often confused methodologies, will draw the lost, the unregenerate to Himself and redeem them by His blood that all glory, all honor, and all praise be to Him.  Christ will build His church.

Evidence of an exercise in marketing a tepid “Gospel”

I saw a sign in someones yard today that declared: “Elect Jesus As Your Lord!” Now, I do not in any way shape or form infer anything ill about the character of the person who displayed this sign in their yard. I know nothing about the family that lives in the house that sits behind this sign, nor do I infer that nothing ‘good’ ever comes from such faddish displays of faith.

However, does not this sign, albeit without intention, portray a Jesus that seems a bit weak and needy? Is He awaiting a majority vote before He acts? Is the mighty Lion of Judah, is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords restrained by some political process? Is He not the absolute Lord of salvation, of the created order; is He not a mighty Redeemer? He elected me that all glory should go to Him; I do not elect Him that any glory should go to me.

I think of a sermon I listened to a number of months ago at a moderately sized community church wherein the well-intentioned pastor, after having two members of the church ride their large, loud motorcycles through the poorly ventilated church to park them in front of the stage to make some point, perfumed by carbon monoxide, about God’s timing, declared that Jesus is a ‘gentleman’ who would never force His will on anyone. Is that a biblical understanding of the sovereignty and power of Jesus?

I saw a tee shirt for sale at a large book retailer a few weeks ago. The front of the shirt was a ripoff of the Staples Easy Button. “Jesus” replaced the “Easy” on the button. Wasn’t easy for Jesus.

On the sometimes ill-defined evangelical metaphor of a relationship and the subtle error of decisional regeneration

Yesterday, I listened to a sermon from a preacher of a church in Georgia, a church that could be defined as ‘seeker-sensitive,’ and the central theme of the message was stated as thus: Jesus Christ came to earth to do away with religion and to talk about and engage us in a relationship. I have heard this man, Gary Lamb,  speak at a church I once attended.

In keeping with the anti-religion theme of the sermon, a major portion of the sermon concerned itself with expounding against the error of legalism and our inability to please God by our adherence to ‘religious’ rules. In general principle, I could not agree more. The call against legalism was contrasted with the call to have a relationship with Jesus. The pastor stated that Jesus wants us to be His friend rather than a slave. I agree, but as an aside, I think of the apostle Paul describing himself as a bond servant to the Messiah. Semantics and definitions…..

Given the pastor’s admirable distaste of legalistic religion, it is interesting that he constantly reinforced the idea that this relationship with Jesus requires an initiating action on our part. The pastor’s flock was told that all we have to decide to enter in to a relationship with Him; it’s a free invitation. Jesus is just standing there waiting patiently for us to do something. He misquoted John 3:16 as “For God so loved the world that who ever believes, who ever decides, who ever makes the action, makes the decision for Him will have eternal life.” This is a verbatim quote from the sermon.

Romans 10:13 was misquoted as “Who ever calls, whoever makes a decision, on the Lord will be saved.”

Revelation 3:20 was misquoted as, and I paraphrase fairly closely, “that Jesus stands at the door of our heart and we must make a decision to open the door. Jesus is not going to kick in the door.” One, this is a verse that is so often and with good intention taken out of context and used evangelically. However, Christ is talking to the tepid church of Laodicea, not to the unregenerate as an invitation to a saving ‘relationship.’ Two, he intentionally misquoted scripture again.

However, in all the talk about entering into some rather ill-defined ‘relationship’ with Jesus, I do not recall hearing a word about despair over sin, about repentance. That is an absolutely breath-taking omission in presenting the Gospel. Perhaps such was inferred, was understood on the part of the pastor, but the biblical call to repent and believe was not verbally presented as the invitation to a relationship with Christ. To give credit where credit is perhaps due, he did mention towards the beginning of his sermon, thought, that he was quite a hellion before he became a Christian. I am not sure if I am to infer a call to repentance from that.

Among the pastor’s numerous personal anecdotes the he used to punctuate the sermon’s main points, there was a long rant about a legalistic ‘King James Only’ type church the pastor once attended. There was another church he spoke against in the course of the sermon, one that he planted and pastored (if I recall correctly), and after calling it by name, inferred it would be welcomed in hell. Following a bit later was a diatribe against sprinkling verses dunking.

While listening to the sermon, I had to remind myself that the pastor is a human being who apparently feels he has been hurt by individuals in the church. Sometimes, and sadly, such happens. There was some real, though veiled, bitterness exhibited in his descriptions of previous churches he had be involved with, and I have to temper my thoughts and words in regards to this man and his church. I have some empathy for him.

Towards the end of the sermon, he presented the ever so ubiquitous and unbiblical refrain of the seeker-sensitive church, the all too common proclamation of how it is not his job as pastor to feed the flock, that it is the flocks fault when they complain about not getting fed at church. His spin on those who want to ‘go deeper’ was that they want the pastor to ‘confuse them’. He stated such cannot handle practical teaching because they would have to do something. These seeker-sensitive preachers and entertainment-driven churches seem to all be reading from the same script. At the risk of sounding judgmental while perhaps speaking from the burden of my personal baggage, arrogance and disdain for the real ‘seekers’ seems to have stepped in to fill the gaping void left by the absence of overt legalism.

In the last few minutes of the sermon, Jesus was presented as a marriage fixer, a relationship healer, but overall, I actually heard very little about Christ the Redeemer.

In all the pastors admirable concern about legalism, what I picked up from the sermon, with all its calls to decide, with all the calls to perform an action both in initiating this relationship with Christ and the call to self-feed, was an ironic invitation to a works-driven legalism-lite. What I picked up, too, was a not-so-subtle ‘thank God I am/we are not like those Pharisees attitude. For brevities sake, I will refrain from further exploring this theme of minor league legalism. I think it could be stated with a high degree of confidence that all who are in Christ are, to some degree, recovering Pharisees.

What I was left with after listening to this sermon was an odd mix of muted anger at and profound sadness for the pastor. I felt only deep sadness for the flock as they clapped in approval. In all honesty, two or three years ago, if I were in that audience, I would have probably nodded my head in agreement and put my hands together along with the rest of the flock. In closure, what grieves me so very, very deeply is that this is probably not an uncommon sermon in many churches. With good intentions from well-meaning pastors, the evangel is reduced to an invitation to an ill-defined relationship with buddy Jesus, a relationship that carries some vague promises to fix our marriages, to fix our money, to fix our psychology. He just wants you to get out there and do something to fill the church seats so other people can meet Him just as you did. And you know what, despite the error being expounded from the stage, I believe some may actually have a saving encounter with Christ in such services, but I also fear many others will be filled with false assurance.

There are some preachers who will tell you salvation is free, that it’s easy, but it’s ultimately up to you to decide, to act, to initiate. I do not think it was without cost for Jesus. I do not think it will be without cost to me, but I have counted them as best I can. I did not initiate this relationship, my Messiah did. I do not think it will be easy, but I will follow Him knowing that I will stumble along the way. Jesus does look after and love His flock with tender care, but He never promised a ‘wonderful plan for your life’ as many would define wonderful. I know, too, that no one can snatch me from His grip.

• Matt. 22:14 (ESV)
  For many are called, but few are chosen.

• John 15:16 (ESV)
  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

• John 6:44 (ESV)
  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

• John 6:37 (ESV)
  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

• Romans 9:15-16 (ESV)
  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

• Ephesians 1:4-5 (ESV)
  ..even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

• Acts 13:48 (ESV)
  And when the Gentiles heard this, the began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed

Some thoughts, I hope not too pedantic, on evangelism

A number of posts ago, I indicated that I would, at some point in the future, post some thoughts on altar calls in specific, on contemporary evangelical methodology in general. Now is a good time as any to begin.

I find it interesting how relatively late in church history that it became, for the most part, the de facto contemporary evangelical methodology. Here, a little knowledge of church history illuminates. As far as I have been able to determine, and I am not a scholar, seminarian, or student of church history, the altar call methodology was not widely instituted until the early and mid eighteen-hundreds. Charles Finney, with his ‘new measures’ is most directly responsible for contemporary evangelical methodology. It is somehow ironic that his legacy and influence reverberates ever so strongly and much of the laity has never heard of him.

I think an abbreviated history of Finney and his new measures is perhaps in order. Finney, a lawyer who came to faith on October 10^th in the 1821 after years of unbelief, became a Presbyterian minister. Part of the process of becoming ordained involved professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54]

Finney also rejects Calvinism, perhaps as a response to what may be called an errant strain of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism that he had been exposed to and perhaps by which, ironically, he was led to a profession of faith in Christ. It, too, must be understood that the great revivals, the Great Awakening, had been through preachers and theologians such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, staunchly Calvinists in their understanding of grace. Finney also entertained ideas errant and dangerous. Essentially, from what I gather, he denied the scope of the Fall and taught what seems to be a justification by works. He appears to constantly downplay God’s sovereign role in salvation. His theology turns the eyes of the heart from God to a focus on a seemingly ‘not-so-fallen’ humanity. Finney essentially denied the atoning work of Christ on the cross.  Therein we find egregious harm and error, the seeds of which seem to be in full bloom in this age and time. While evangelicals would reject Finney’s errant theology if they were aware of it, they heartily embrace his evangelical methodology.

What Finney popularized in his aforementioned ‘new measures’ was the precursor and close cousin to the altar call, the ‘anxious bench’ and ‘mourner’s bench’. What Finney taught was that revival could be ‘worked up’ through psychological and emotional inducements. Revival did not need to be altogether prayed down as much as worked up.

Going back to altar calls, which are just one expression of an overarching methodology of psychological and emotional manipulation, those who have been in conservative evangelical churches, be they mega or small, be they Baptist or charismatic, be they traditional or contemporary, have often been exposed to calls to come forward to the altar. Many have responded to altar calls, sometimes more than once. Some have come to a redeeming faith in Christ through altar calls. Often, those who give altar calls present the Gospel message completely and without compromise.

What many altar calls and variants thereof do, however, is often introduce non-biblical language, non-biblical conditions, and non-biblical calls to salvation. What some altar calls do, also, is offer an easy grace, a salvation seemingly without cost, without an inferred need for repentance. What altar calls may sometimes do is give those who respond a false sense of security because they were actually never presented with the Gospel and therefor never actually came into a redeeming relationship with Christ. Also, many studies and statistics have shown that only a very small percentage, mostly in the single digits, of those who respond to altar calls during crusades and revivals actually remain actively involved in the faith for more than a year. They simply seem to drop out of sight and fall back into their ‘pre-decision’ lifestyles. We must remember that the biblical call to evangelize, the Great Commission, is to make disciples, not just converts, real or otherwise.

Following are a few examples of misleading evangelical methods. Many calls to the altar proclaim that Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life if one would just respond to the call, raise your hand, or say a prayer. Well, Jesus may not have a wonderful plan for your life as many would count wonderful. Such is never promised in the canon of Scripture. His plan for you may be quite difficult and not without cost. The Messiah’s calls to discipleship were not easy calls. What would the martyr Steven say about Christ offering you ‘your best life now?’ Would such an inducement work in the Sudan? Would such and inducement work in China? We are not called to press an ‘easy button’ for redemption. Sadly, I have actually seen, on more than one occasion and at more than one location Jesus being referred to as the ‘easy button’ to salvation.

I have heard other calls to salvation go thusly: “If you cannot remember the moment you were saved, now is the time to ‘nail it down.’” Such is not a biblical call to salvation. The only times that I recall the New Testament calling one’s salvation into question is the lack of observable growth, of spiritual fruit, over the long term in ones life. What is introduced in the context of the call to ‘nail it down’ is a false, unbiblical condition for salvation. To emotionally manipulate someone into making a decision based on doubts about the veracity of or inability to recall an earlier decision bought about by emotional manipulation is both ironic and unbiblical. If you have repented of sin and trust in the grace and redeeming work of Christ alone for salvation, you have it ‘nailed down’ and will persist in His grip whether or not you remember the point in time you first came to trust in Christ.

I have heard other calls to salvation infer that if one does not respond to this particular call, you may never get another chance to ‘decide’ for Christ, that this particular ‘move of God’ must be acted upon now for you may never get another opportunity. What is inferred in this manipulative scheme is that there is a time stamp on the grace of God. If you do not come forward now or raise your hand or say a prayer, you may never be wooed by the Holy Spirit again. At best, this is unbiblical. The call to grace and redemption through Christ only expires when one departs this tent of flesh.

I could go on with more examples of unbiblical and emotionally manipulative methods that I have personally witnessed, but my point is clear. Too, I am absolutely not inferring any ill will is intended by those who use such methods. I am not intending to cast doubt on their love and commitment to Christ. The use of such methods is more born out of perhaps ignorance and perhaps out of a denominational tradition. Without regard to intent, what is happening, though, is that the Gospel is all too often presented in an often unbiblical way, much like the hard pitch of a used car salesman. Do people sometimes come to redemption, to a saving knowledge of Christ through such methods? Sometimes, perhaps more than one would expect, this methodology produces fruit. God can and does sometimes use the one drop of truth in an ocean of error. Sometimes one may run around holding a metal rod during a thunder storm and not get struck by lightening. Does this mean that doing such is a good idea?

More recently, perhaps in the last couple of decades, we have seen the nature of the church being inverted and redefined in some quarters of western Christendom. Rather than going out into the world to make disciples, Christ’s call to the Great Commission and the nature and constituency of the church had been turned upside down. Now, congregates are now often being instructed to bring the world into a recalibrated church so that a charismatic (not using the word in the theological and Pentecostal sense, but referring to a commanding personality) pastor can present what is hopefully a faithful call to the Gospel. Bring in your ‘unchurched’ friends and family and we’ll get them saved is the inferred contract. (Note with absolute confidence that I am definitely not saying that is wrong to invite the unsaved to church.) Inducements are introduced to the church to make it more attractive to the ‘unchurched.’ Topical and often entertaining sermons that cater to one’s felt needs replaces sound expository preaching. Give away everything from IPods to motorcycles during the service to draw people through the doors. There is actually a church that gave away an Orange County Choppers custom motorcycle to induce people to come to church. The question is this: Is the clarion call of the word of God, faithfully proclaimed, not enough? Did the apostle Paul deem it necessary to give away camels and tents to bait people to the Gospel? The apostles fished with nets.

Why is it that many advisers to church planters (and sometimes the pastors, themselves) appear, as evidenced by their websites, to be more instructors on marketing and product placement than proclaimers of the Gospel? What has happened with the best of intentions is that more and more churches, modeled more on secular business and leadership practices than on biblical mandates are becoming more and more consumer driven. If a service conflicts with the Super Bowl, then the church will reschedule so that attendance does not decline. Increasing numbers of churches are opening up coffee shops in the church to draw in the crowds. Churches put up fountains that dispense chocolate and give massages to moms on Mothers Day to draw people into church. What ends up being engaged, again with the best of intentions, is a ‘bait and switch’ evangelical methodology that plays to our self-indulgence. Can such a church survive without creative and witty video introductions to topical sermons that constantly draw on popular culture references? Can it survive with a less than professional band? Can it present a message of hope and reconciliation with God through Christ without framing everything between a pastor’s personal and often humorous anecdotes? Does such a church depend too much on human creativity and effort and perhaps not enough on the power of His word? When all that is peripheral is stripped away, what is such a church left with? I remember running across this quote from another blog: “What you draw people with is what you draw them to.” How do I reconcile Christ’s call to die to self in the face of chocolate fountains and easy buttons in church?

Perhaps I am way off base, but much of contemporary evangelical and ecclesiastical methodology, in all its applaudable zeal, seems at times, unintentionally, to treat Jesus as a means to an end rather than an altogether and absolutely wonderful end in and of Himself. It as if Jesus is a prescription being dispensed a sick world. It is as if I have a fatal, systemic infection and am given a wonder drug, an antibiotic, and I am being told that all I have to do is take this drug and I will be healed. I may not develop an all encompassing love for this drug; I may love not being sick more than I love the drug. I may become more enamored with and focused on the one who gave me this drug than the drug itself.

I have stated, perhaps ad nausea, what I believe to be wrong with much of American evangelical methodology. What then do I propose is correct? I believe it is this: In the times the Gospel is preached in the New Testament where we have details of what is said, there is not one single example where anyone is told that the circumstances of their life will necessarily improve when they become disciples of Christ. What is recorded, though, is an absolute focus on and exaltation of Christ. We see the apostles going out into the world proving Christ from scripture. We see the condemnation of sin, the call to repentance, and proclamation of the absolute falleness of humanity. Solely proclaimed is faith in the atoning work of grace through Christ to restore rebellious humanity to the Savior. Such leads to a selfless life focused on Christ.

Again, as stated in a previous post, we must remember that Christ, incomprehensibly loved by the Father and Holy Spirit and sharing an incomprehensible unity within their Trinitarian relationship, condescended to take on human flesh and then looked down both barrels of Father God’s holy and incomprehensible and righteous fury over our sin; He faced Father God’s white-hot anger that should have been directed at His redeemed ones. He, the all mighty Creator of all, was beaten and scourged by the created. He was nailed to that horrific Roman torture and death machine, the cross, naked and shamed. He then gloriously defeated death by physically rising from the tomb. Why did He do this? He did it that we, His flock, may be, through His grace alone, clothed in His righteousness, that He may be glorified forever.

Interesting post on American evangelicalism

Stumbled on this post titled Burger King Christianity:

First, while I’m sure many people reading this understand what I mean when I say “attractional” church, but many might not, so briefly…
Attractional church is that model where we see the work of church and of evangelism as getting people to come. If we tink enough with the seats, if the music is rocking enough, if the kids program high energy enough, if the parking is plentiful and the coffee sweet, non-Christians will magically develop a desire to come to church. And when they come, Pastor can take a whack at ‘em.
For better or for worse… no, scratch that… for worse, this has become the dominant model in American evangelicalism.

Second- what’s wrong with it? If it gets people to church, why should we not do anything possible, short of something immoral or illegal to get people there?

Because the goal is not to pack a room, and it’s not the Pastor’s job to get your friends saved. And shame on any pastor whose model allows people to think it is.

This is the phrase that has been going through my head recently: What you win them with, you win them to. The problem with the attractional model is this: We bring people in on the basis of consumeristic impulses and when they fail to make the transition from church consumer to servant of all, we scratch our heads and wonder what’s wrong with them.

On the Repeated, Simple Instructions Given to Peter by the Messiah

First, part of me feels as if I should apologize for this post; I recently seem to be beating this subject, the errant attitudes of the seeker-sensitive church, to death. Also, perhaps it would appear that I go in search for quotes like the one that will soon follow so that I may rant against them, but I honestly do not. They seem, at times, to fall in my lap.

That being said, and as mentioned in an earlier post, I have no desire to place myself in the position of being a ‘watch-blogger,’ but when I do stumble across something I honestly believe to be egregiously wrong, I react; I operate under a certain compulsion. The following quote – from the blog of the pastor of a small seeker-sensitive church near where I live – honestly makes me angry; it evokes fury within me. Let me say, too, that at the beginning of my quest to find a church home, I visited this church from which the forthcoming quote originates. It is a stereotypical seeker-sensitive church. In fact, it is a 1/24th scale version of the large mega-church that I left for reasons mentioned in an earlier post. The church operates under the best of intentions. Following is the quote from the pastor’s blog:

• “The mission is not to feed – but to train. There’s a difference. Too many spiritual couch potatoes have been sitting around churches complaining they’re hungry. Folks it’s a pretty sad day when the pastor has to part the mustache to bottle feed Christians that have been going to church most of their life!”

Where does this idea come from? Why does it seem to be gaining such momentum? Is there a memo being passed around at all these ubiquitous church growth leadership conferences? How can a pastor, the one charged to feed and nourish, hold his flock in such utter contempt? Even more interesting and disturbing is the fact that much of the flock sit and nod their heads in agreement. Is there no longer any discernment in the church?

Too, true couch potatoes, spiritual or otherwise, have no problem feeding themselves. They perhaps feed themselves on junk food, more often than not. I speak from personal experience. One part of the role of pastor is to provide food that strengthens, food that nourishes, among other things, the ability of a Christ-follower to discern truth from error.

One last, perhaps peripheral, word, then the rant mode is turned off. The quest for creativity in ‘doing church’ has become an idol worshiped at the alter of the ‘seeker-sensitive/church growth movement. I could hold forth on this issue, ad nausea, for hours, but not today.

Troubling thoughts ………

What follows is a selection of troubling thoughts I’ve come across from ‘blogs’ of church leaders/planters, a couple of whom are becoming quite influential. As for the first quote, while I respect, encourage, and applaud those who have a heart for the Great Commission, we must not loose sight of the nature and constituency of the Church as defined by the New Testament.

Too, I would propose that the common theme running through the following statements – perhaps unintended, and even denied, by those being quoted – is one of human-centricity, of a reliance on the passion and sufficiency of human efforts in growing the Kingdom. The unintentional fall-out is, unfortunately, often an arrogance regarding methods and results.

As an aside, I must admit I am somewhat uncomfortable with this post and do not have any intention of consciously turning my blog into a ‘watchblog’ or a ‘discernment’ blog. Such posts will probably be quite rare. That being said, here are the aforementioned quotes:

• ‘If I have to chose to make a decision that will cause a non-christian to leave or a christian to leave, I will always chose in favor of the non-christian (short of sinning). If a christian leave[sic], I know they will find another church for their family. If the non-christian leaves, I don’t know that they will give church and God another chance.’

• “I’ve heard it…you have too…”Christians” saying, “I just want to be fed!” It blows my mind! This would be equal to you and I going to an all you can eat restaurant and crying because no one would bring us any food. Food is all around in this environment…but if the person is lazy and self centered, wanting to be waited on hand and foot, then they could possibly starve to death when food is merely a few feet away. ” (Emphasis mine. Why the quote around “Christians?” Also, this issue of feeding is not always that the pastor’s sheep are “lazy and self-centered.” Unfortunately, some restaurants seem to have a menu rich with dairy products and desserts, but seem to be adverse to serving meals that sustain.”)

• “What people say: “I just want some deeper teaching.” Alternate version: “I want the meat.” Alternate version #2: “I need to be fed.” What that usually means (is) Don’t preach practical stuff to me. I would actually have to do something about it.”

• “It’s important to learn from churches bigger and smaller then you. Churches that are smaller have to be even more creative, because their success depends on it ” (emphasis mine)

• “Do WHATEVER It Takes To Grow…and SHUT UP About How Much It Cost! If I hear/see one more pastor/church planter complain about how much a conference cost and/or say they can’t afford something I am going to punch them…in the throat! The Bible says in Proverbs 4:6-8 that we need to get wisdom-NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS US!”

John 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Romans 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Mark 4:26-29

And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”