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.

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 wherein the pastor 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, 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 errantly 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 from work, a brother in Christ, 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 afterwards.  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 apparrently 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 entralled 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.

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.

]]> http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/marketing-the-gospel/feed/ 4 ronclick http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/decisional-regeneration/ http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/decisional-regeneration/#comments Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:54:46 +0000 Ron http://ronclick.wordpress.com/?p=144 ]]>

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

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.”

Chapter One: Into the Seeker Sensitive Wilderness

I have experienced, over the years, almost the whole gamut of American ecclesiology, of American church culture. I have attended liberal, main-line Protestant churches and have visited churches steeped in the Pentecostal experience; I have worshiped with Southern Baptists and  Presbyterians.  I have also spent much time in a seeker-sensitive mega-church. Within all these churches, I find disciples of Christ being progressively conformed to the image of our Savior, Christ Jesus.

Also, within our unity as disciples of Christians, I find doctrinal disagreements, most of which are quite peripheral and hardly worthy of note. I sometimes find profound variation in doctrine, especially within the liberal currents of ecclesiology.

However, of all the aforementioned experiences, I have come to see that the seeker-sensitive church of the 21st century, while outwardly proclaiming orthodoxy and acting within the best of intentions, is a potentially dangerous and subtly heterodox perversion of biblical ecclesiology. While liberal churches often deny the basic doctrines of Christianity, they are, for the most part, forthright in their proclamations, and they are consistent with, and able to clearly articulate, their theology. Those who align themselves with liberal theology also comprise a very small percentage of overall church attendance, and, with no insult intended, have increasingly little influence over the affairs of culture. I also find an ironic commonality between the liberal branch of contemporary Christianity and the seeker-sensitive movement. Both are quite human-centric. Therein one finds egregious error.

To validate the prior assertion, I must share observations from my four year long experience with a local mega-church that I believe is quite reflective of seeker-sensitive churches as a whole. I had been a member of a liberal Protestant church for quite some time. Before I continue, I must proclaim without any ambiguity whatsoever, that those in attendance are warm, friendly people. My issues with liberal theology are not with the adherents, but with the system of belief that denies the divinity and physical resurrection of Christ and the atoning work of grace of the Cross. That being said, I went on a search, armed with little in the way of knowledge and insight for a church that was orthodox, and found myself at a seeker sensitive church.

What exactly did I find? I found, for a church in a box, a level of professionalism and marketing that would leave many small (and not so small) businesses in envy. By a ‘church in a box’, I refer to the fact that the church had no building of its own, but rented an auditorium at the local university. It unboxed and set up all the AV equipment prior to the multiple services and took it apart to be stored elsewhere at the end of the day. The church handled the logistics with aplomb, thanks in no small part to teams of highly motivated volunteers. I was greeted by friendly volunteers in the parking lot, at the entrance to the auditorium, and within the auditorium. They helped me find a place to park, greeted me warmly, and helped me find a place to sit. Those with children found vibrant, age specific, programs that allowed parents to sit through the service without dealing with restless little ones. As to the service, the multimedia experience was par excellence. Professional quality video presentations projected on large screens provided a segueway to the topical series of the month. Worship was lead by a talented band playing both contemporary Christian music and topically relevant secular music. Sermons were provided with wit and humor and heavily illustrated with the pastor’s personal anecdotes. I was provided with what seemed to be clever and creative exegesis. The topical sermons were often entertaining and provided the audience with helpful advice on finances, marriage, and dating.

Through the four years of attendance, I had become quite immersed in the church experience. I gave generously, I volunteered my time, I became involved with a home group. The church eventually bought property and had a building constructed. I was quite excited about what I believed the church was accomplishing in the community. I took advantage of every opportunity to invite friends and colleagues to visit my church, whether or not they already were involved in a local church. I was also quite defensive of my church.

I do not wish to name the church; I believe it would, at this time, be inappropriate. Let me use a pseudonym of SSC for ‘Seeker Sensitive Church’ when I refer to the name of this church. I had found myself, and this is a self-indictment, drifting to a point where I was more verbal about SSC than I was about Christ. My conversations were about how exciting SSC was, how great the band was, how wonderful, witty, and transparent the pastor was, about how relevant the sermons were. I was so defensive of SSC. It was so easy to become increasingly, but subtly, focused on SSC rather than Christ.  (addendum on July 24,  2009: Due to questions posed regarding the identity of this church, I will now call SSC by it’s name: it is NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC)

Over time, however, I began to develop a rather vague sense of unease about this church. Before I continue, let me reiterate a previous statement. Those whom I know that attend this church are warm, friendly people. I am not indicting, in any way, shape, or form, those who attend, nor do I infer that the leadership acts with conscious ill intent. That being said, I had begun to notice currents, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, of growing arrogance running through the leadership of this church. I would listen to the pastor’s sermons and read his web journal and find blatantly unbiblical statements and attitudes that made me grieve and cringe. I would find passages from the Bible being ripped from context and intent and used to prop up unbiblical concepts of, for example, discipleship. Therein we find the aforementioned creative and clever exegesis.

There was a time when this church offered Bible studies and content that went beyond the life skills coaching commonly served on Sundays. They are no longer offered, and are now, in fact, seemingly discouraged by the leadership. The things that drew me to the church no longer satisfied. I longed to hear more of Jesus. What I wanted to hear about was the Jesus for whom the 1st century Palestinian Jews and Gentles were willing to die rather than recant their faith.

More discouraging is the growing disdain that the leadership of this church seems to hold towards those who wish to go ‘deeper.’ Those who desire to go ‘deeper’ are mocked. The errant implication and straw man argument, gathered both from the pastor’s web journal and sermons, is that such people would rather sit around gazing at their belly button and debate arcane and meaningless points of theology than actually do something substantive for the Kingdom. Those also who wish to be fed at church are decried as being lazy. I find it interesting that the Greek word for pastor, poiman, is translated as one who feeds, leads, and guides with tender care and nurturing. There is so much that can be said and many verses from the New Testament canon that could be brought to bear to counter this errant and arrogant attitude towards discipling, but let us, for now, remember the Messiah’s command to Peter: “Feed My sheep.” Christ did not tell the ‘lazy’ sheep to feed themselves.

As to the growing hubris of SSC, allow me to illustrate with a few examples. I remember a video introduction to a series in which happy people held up signs with the following message: I was__________ (fill in the blank with lost, depressed, etc), but I was saved at SSC. Think on that for a moment. Where is the focus of those signs? I saw, soon after I left the church, on the churches website, a request for people to give examples, to be used on an upcoming video presentation, of how SSC has helped them in their walk with Jesus. I remember a video introduction wherein new members gave their testimonies; one example involved a lady, an acquaintance, who recently joined SSC. She had children with special needs that some other churches could apparently not meet. Much ado was made in the video of how she was turned away from other churches, but only SSC would take her in and minister to her. She was used in the video presentation as a shill for SSC. There was a video presentation of a baptism where one of those baptized confessed that what he was looking for, he found at SSC. Those that did not conform to or agree with SSC’s methodology were often criticized and lampooned from both the stage and on the pastor’s web journal. I could go much further in offering examples, but I believe the point is clear.

I eventually reached a point to where I was compelled to voice my concerns with someone within the leadership of SSC. I wanted to know if I was in error in my concerns, if my perceptions were skewed. If they were, I would repent of them. I called the church to set up an appointment to speak to someone in the leadership about my concerns. While I hoped to speak face to face with someone, they allowed me an appointment over the phone.

During the phone conversation with one of the associate pastors, someone who I like and respect, I voiced my concerns, giving examples, over what I perceived to be an increasingly SSC-centric focus in the church. I mentioned my concerns about the abundance of human-centric life coaching, but too little in the way of Christ-centric content in sermons. I mentioned my concerns about what seemed to be a cult of personality that was building around the pastor. Also, this call occurred immediately before a month-long evangelical series wherein the pastor was calling for one thousand people to be saved. I was politely told, towards the end of our phone conversation, that I was perhaps self-centered, just wanting to go ‘deeper’, and that if I left SSC, I was turning my back on a “move of God” and would probably end up joining some small church of no more than 200 people where only two people a year got saved.

The response to my concerns validated my decision to leave SSC. While SSC is not overtly intending to dishonor Christ, until they become humbled, I could no longer be a part of the SSC church culture that the pastor and church leadership had, with the best of intentions, cultivated. I respect the pastor’s passion for evangelism, but a church must not let rapid growth stunt it’s humility in the carrying out of the great commission, the going out into the world to make disciples. They must learn that arrogant pride, either in self or in one’s church, is the antithesis of being Christ-like. It is so exceptionally easy, as individuals and as a congregation, to fall into the morass of self-absorption.

I also wish to state that this same associate pastor called me a couple of months later, and we had a short, but pleasant, conversation. I was left with the impression that while we may not be in agreement, my concerns from our initial conversation resonated with him, at least to a small degree. In conclusion to this chapter, I want to be clear that I carry absolutely no personal anger or vendetta towards this church; in fact, I hold out hope and prayer for this church, for its leadership. I sincerely want SSC to be an instrument of grace for Christ. Also, I do not wish to leave the impression that SSC is in complete error all the time in all that it does and all other churches are without error. Such is not the case. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, with all the faults of this church, that many in the community have benefited to some, and often great, degree by the activities and ministries of this church. Much of what is preached from the stage is often grace-filled, edifying truth, and I have no doubt than some have come to know Christ through the ministry of SSC.

While I do not wish to arrogantly place myself in the position of being a theological and ecclesiological Barney Fife, a self-appointed keeper of orthodoxy, it is my concern, as it should be for all Christians, that the church universal hold strong to what is true, and reject, gracefully when possible, what is false, semper reformanda. In the words from Titus 1:9, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

A Few Biblical References:

John 21:15

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Luke 10:38-42

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Hebrews 6:1

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,

Acts 2:42

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Colossians 1:28

We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.

Acts 15:35

But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord.

Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Chapter 2: Good intentions, often errant results
What, then, is the nature and purpose of the church? Who belongs to the church? All are good, pertinent, questions, and while church history is rich with illustrations of divisions over doctrine, over modes of church government, and over issues of ecclesiastical authority, there has been, from my admittedly limited grasp of church history, agreement, in general, over who belongs to the church, of how ‘church’ is to be defined.

With few exceptions, most notably within the Eastern Orthodox Church, the actual building where congregations gather is of no great import. Rather, the church is referred to in the New Testament canon metaphorically as, for example, the bride of Christ, as the body of Christ, with Christ being the head of the church. We in the church are referred to as His sheep and He is our Sheppard. We are the elect, the chosen ones. We are the branches, He is the Vine.

The church is called out from the world. Indeed, the Greek word for church is ekclesia. Ek is translated as “out” and clesia, from caleo, is “called;” the “called-out ones.” The church, without regard to the more liberal strains of Christendom, has historically been exclusive in nature; it is quite biblical to insist that the church not lend the hand of fellowship to those who do not enter into the covenant of faith in Christ. Biblically, we are not instructed to bring the unregenerate into the church as an overarching evangelical methodology, but we called are to carry the Gospel to the world and make disciples, not just converts. We are called to be salt and light, a city on a hill, the primary vector by which the Great Commission of going out into the world and making disciples is accomplished. We are not called to be conformed to the world and be entertaining in order to make the church attractive to the world. The New Testament canon speaks much to the need to be Christ-centric in our approach ‘being’ the church and to ‘doing’ church and discipleship.

There is great potential for unintentional compromise in making church attractive and entertaining, with the best of evangelical intentions, to those outside the church. Please note with absolute certainty that I am not inferring that it is incorrect to bring unregenerate friends and acquaintances to church. What I am stating is that it is wrong, that it is absolutely not biblical, to calibrate church to accommodate the ‘unchurched’.

In contrast to the proceeding statement, the contemporary seeker-sensitive church/movement, by definition, is concerned with meeting felt needs of the ‘unchurched’. It inverts, with the best of intentions, clear biblical mandates of being set apart from the world. Also, when pragmatism and marketing trumps sound doctrine, we find ourselves redefining the nature of the church and often times inadvertently redefining and diminishing the Person of Christ. From the prevalence of life coaching sermons, we find a Christ who exists to repair our relationships, He repairs our finances. We develop a tepid Christology where, much like the old soft drink commercial, things just seem to go better with Christ. The seeker sensitive church becomes seeker centered.

Referring again to the aforementioned creative ‘exegesis’, I have heard, time and time again, seeker sensitive churches justify their manipulative methodology by pointing to ever increasing attendance and the number of decisions for Christ that occur within their services. Much is made by the seeker sensitive church of the numbers that turn to Christ in, for example, the book of Acts. Numbers of decisions becomes the erroneous metric by which a church or evangelical method is judged.

However, 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 exaltation of Christ. We see the apostles proving Christ from scripture. We see the condemnation of sin, the call to repentance, and the absolute falleness of humanity. Solely proclaimed is faith in the atoning work of grace through Christ to restore rebellious humanity to the Savior. Nowhere in New Testament canon does Paul or any other New Testament writer commend or condemn a church on the number of decisions that do or do not occur. Is not boasting of conversions and attendance a form of pride in self and methods?

It can be quite uncomfortable to listen to Christ in His calls to discipleship, to repentance. He states that unless your love for Him eclipses your love for family to the point that love of family seems like hate, you are not worthy to be His disciple. When, at a large gathering, He was informed that His mother, brothers and sisters wanted to speak to Him, how did He respond? He states that those who do His will are His family. He proclaims, in the Gospels, that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword that divides families. The young would-be disciple, one who has striven to uphold the Law, asks what is required to be His follower, Jesus, responding in love, tells the young man to sell all that he has and to follow Him. He walks away from the call because his wealth was a stumbling block. When another seeks to follow the Messiah, but only after he buries his father, Christ tells him to let the dead bury the dead; “Follow Me.” He calls for His disciples to pick up their cross, an instrument of death, and follow after Him. Do any of Christ’s calls to discipleship appear to be seeker sensitive? Remember that the cross is foolishness to the world. I fear that many who follow the Jesus of seeker sensitive Christianity will find themselves, at best, floundering and frustrated in their walk with Christ or, at worst, finding Christ, on the day of judgment, saying to them, as stated in Mathew 7:23, after they boast in their works in His name, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” That is why I write these words.

While am absolutely not implying that that our Abba, Father, does not take interest and intervene in our problems and concerns, I am concerned about the response of an immature Christian who finds his circumstances not improving as often implied by seeker sensitive presentations of the Gospel. How does a faith in a Mr. Fix-it Jesus survive when personal circumstances do not evolve according to erroneous expectations? When a church shuns the deeper things of Christ and discourages going ‘deeper’, the spiritual growth of a believer is stunted. That being said, Christ does care about our trials and tribulations and intervenes therein; He loves us and uses such to bring us to maturity. Indeed, He causes all things to work out for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

What is expected of the church is found in Ephesians 4:11-16: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

A Few Biblical References:

John 15:5

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Romans 12:5

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Revelation 21:9

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Ephesians 1:22-2

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

1Timothy 3:15

…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Matthew 5:13-15

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Acts 13:47

For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Colossians 4:5-6

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Romans 9:16

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

John 6:44

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Chapter 3: The sufficiency of Christ

Below is an essay written soon after leaving SSC. My initial intention, in my search for a new church, was to ask the pastor of the prospective church to talk to me about Christ, and Christ alone, for ten minutes. I also posed the same challenge to myself. After a bit of reflection, I came to understand that my attitude and litmus test was perhaps a bit arrogant, but I continued the challenge to myself. The results, authored on August, 2007, follow.

Let me talk to you about my Messiah, Jesus Christ. Let me open quite controversially. If Christ is just a great moral teacher, He failed, and failed miserably. For all His altruism, His selflessness in serving others, for all His concern for the disenfranchised, for His formidable moral standards, His end is not one that I would consider a glowing endorsement for emulating His life. He was crucified; He died a death quite gruesome and, in death, was associated with criminals. If such is the potential end for emulating Christ the Teacher, then I want nothing of it. If we consider Christ only a moral example, then I cannot endorse Him above the Buddha. I cannot endorse Him above Gandhi. I cannot endorse Him above an Old Testament patriarch. They differ not in kind, but only in degree. His death carries no greater meaning and import than that of Martin Luther King’s. However, if Christ is more than a teacher, if He is who He and His followers claim Him to be, the Son of God whose death on the cross precedes something greater, His physical resurrection, I then must consider Him in an altogether different light.

I read, in the New Testament canon and in early church history, stories of martyrdom. I read, too, of multitudes abandoning the very foundations of their life to turn and follow, often at great personal, and sometimes ultimate, cost, the One whom they believed to be something greater than a teacher. These 1st century Palestinian Jews, the first followers of Christ, had no great need of a Messiah as a life coach, a minister to their finances and marriages. Their lives were, I believe, even if in a time of political tension, quite predictable for the most part. They were tied to the rhythms of the land, of harvest. They were, for the most part, farmers, fishermen, and craftsmen. They were embedded in the life of the synagogue. Too, the individualism, the obsessive focus on self, of contemporary western culture would be, I believe, quite alien to them.

The Messiah that many were expecting and the Messiah that they received were quite different from one another. Again, there was political tension in that time and place. Judea was under Roman rule and before the first century closed, the 2nd Temple would be, as predicted by the Messiah, in ruins. The expected Messiah would be a King, a strong Man who would break the shackles of Roman oppression and return to the Jews self-rule, and Jerusalem, the city of God, would take her place as the beacon of light to all the nations. This did not happen, though. They instead received a Child who would grow up to divide rather than conquer, to turn child against parent, neighbor against neighbor. He would upset the status quo. He would be, for a time, a pauper King, having, as He said to would-be disciples, no place to lay his head. The Messiah was homeless. His family, for the most part, before witnessing the resurrected Christ, did not, I believe, consider Jesus to be anything but perhaps a bit mad. Even his inner circle of disciples could not wrap their minds around Christ’s proclamations about Himself. Rather, they still anticipated a political King who would establish a theocracy. The pre-Easter Jesus, on the cross, left his followers discouraged and defeated. The post-Easter Jesus revolutionized his adopted ones. Easter changed everything.

How can I talk coherently about Easter and find words worthy to address our risen King, words not compromised by cliché? I am humbled by the task. First, Easter is not a metaphysical event having no concrete reality. The resurrection was not just merely a spiritual event; it is more than metaphor. The resurrection actually occurred in time and space. The Creator, the One through whom all things hold together, was willingly brutalized and murdered by His creation. He willingly became our Scapegoat, our blood sacrifice once for all. He is the new Covenant. Everything changed on Easter.

I can give coherent reasons and evidence to help illuminate the reality of the Easter event. It does not, contrary to what most would imagine, require a giant leap of blind faith. I can affirm with as much clarity the physical resurrection of Christ as I can most any event in ancient (and not so ancient) history. Where does this leave me, though? What do I do with this formidable knowledge? What does it mean and to where does it lead? Before we can even begin to address these questions, we must inquire as to the why of the Easter event.

Why did the Word that created cosmos, created humanity, deem it necessary to take on, from the Christmas event to eternity forward, a sinless human nature, and after taking on flesh, have it brutalized and nailed to that tree? Only in the context of that question can we begin to understand the Easter event. Here we find truths both simple and daunting, both compelling and repulsive.

We, as disciples of Christ, are beholden to our Messiah to apprehend these difficult truths to the best of our ability. Because of complacency that often permeates American Christianity, I believe that, as a church, we often worship more a pre-Easter Jesus rather than the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter crowds gathered to the Messiah to receive from Him. The post-Easter Messiah drew to Him those who were willing to die for Him. The followers of the pre-Easter Jesus fell away from Him at the cross. The post-Easter disciples of Christ followed Him to the ends of the earth; they looked to give themselves away, to serve the Messiah, to die to self. I ask myself, which Christ am I following?