With the rise of the emergent church as a reaction (in part) to a cold, deadish, theologically correct but soulishly austere kind of evangelicalism, there is a definite diminution of the priority of Biblical theology. Not surprisingly but tragically, the reaction of many evangelical’s to this development is pendulum-like. Without question, Biblically orthodox theology IS the foundation for the church. And for the record, I embrace and teach an exegetical theology that is systematically expressed.
=
Moreover, my ambition is to preach expositorily recognizing that my responsibility is to be both faithful to the text and to edify my hearers. If I do not communicate the authoritative, transcendent, and profound nature of God’s truth, I have failed. If my hearers do not understand what I’m saying, if I am esoteric, arrogant, harsh, confusing, overly technical, or simply boring, and if my content comes across in any way as unrelated to their everyday lives, I have failed.
=
But a critical distinction must be made. Theological acuity is not an acceptable substitute for genuine, mature, Christ-likeness and the fruit of the Spirit in one’s life—especially the preacher/teacher/leader. Should not theological depth lead first to humility and then to a more profound worship experience? THEN to ministry and the proclamation and defense of the faith once delivered to the saints? Some preaching seems to suggest that the preacher is the author of truth and not God—some fail to recognize that authority in the pulpit is derived, not innate. Some preaching, rather than being borne of humility and worship appears be self-righteous. Spurgeon once observed that some preachers “preach about hell as though they are glad people are going there.” Truth is like nitro-glycerin. When properly handled, truth accomplishes its intended purpose. When mishandled, all manner of confusion and destruction result.
=
I am aware —in my own experience and by observation—that knowledge of the truth alone engenders pride and condescension (that means looking down on people :-). But knowledge of the Holy One cultivates humility. And when expressed in love, such knowledge builds up and draws people toward Christ, or at least the truth is presented clearly enough for the non-elect to reject it. This is critically important—for it should be the truth that is rejected and not a sad and misleading caricature of Christ, the Scriptures, or the Church. (For those to whom it may matter, I am a Schaefferian pre-suppositionalist and a Calvinist who recognizes that God uses means to accomplish His sovereign will).
=
Are there churches that are theologically faithful, spiritually vibrant, and culturally attuned so that they speak the Truth in a language that contemporary people understand? Are there churches that do not require jumping through cultural hoops in order to worship and hear Biblical truth that is preached in a clear and compelling manner? (Or is there a numbing solace in the notions that bring a superficial balm to what is really a deep wound? Hearts are hard; Times are Difficult; We’re in the Last Days; People do not want the Truth—(when was that Truth wanting era again?). Maybe, we’re the problem. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
=
Generally, traditional church music, almost formal attire, vocabulary and nomenclature, and whole of a churchy ambiance are uncomfortably foreign to most people unfamiliar with the typical evangelical church and increasingly unpopular amongst the evangelical population in general. I affirm that the church is for Believers and not bound to appeal to the unsaved, but my point is this: Many evangelical’s are culturally obtuse and thus disconnected from those they are commanded to reach. So whether in or outside of the church, how are we doing at actually reaching people with the gospel?
=
However, there is another matter requiring thoughtful consideration. I fear that we will—or perhaps better—are losing the next generation of the church—those who are looking forward and not backward. These who as a result of our ministry and emphasises may be confusing Evangelical Church Culture with Biblical Christianity. Those who want to know God and yes—experience—Him, as spoken of so often by the likes of David, Paul, and Jesus, Himself. Form and function are necessary considerations, but they are poor substitutes for spiritual vitality borne of walking in the Spirit.
=
Is it possible that many American Christians endure or tolerate their church services, rather than find them compelling and meaningful to their souls? What kind of a church loses people to places like Mars Hill—be it Michigan or Seattle? And yes, I know there is a difference between those two churches and am glad for it. But know this about me. As I write this piece, I have not read or heard anything by Driscoll or anyone from his circles. The only Emergent piece I have read is Velvet Elvis and that for a critique on a Sunday evening for our church.
=
My frustrations are borne of my own experience of being a Christian and in Evangelical/Fundamental circles since 1975, not because I read some trendy book or have embraced some trendy movement. (My one caveat is that the years I spent at Grace Community Church were a wonderful exception to this experience. I chuckle when I hear folks describe Grace as legalistic. Grace is a great example of how a traditionally oriented church provides excellence in worship and ministry. But, when I hear someone say Grace is legalistic, I know immediately that this person has never been exposed to real legalism in a church).
=
Nevertheless, I perceive that we are on the cusp of an era and opportunity to proclaim and teach the timeless truths of Scripture to this and coming generations—and we should be mindful that some cultural trappings may actually retard our ability to evangelize and edify.
=
People are coming FROM somewhere to attend churches that are very different from the church’s they left. It is unfortunate that people leave one church for another—but there must be reasons why people are motivated—and in some cases eager—to do so. On the other end of the spectrum, I recently read of a church being recommended as “good” because it was conservative—i.e., they use the KJV and its “skirts only.” Puullllleeeeaaaaasssssssse.
=
We train missionaries to be culturally astute but then blithely ignore our own culture in American churches and pulpits—deriding such attention to culture as capitulation to the world. What’s up with that? But really, we do not ignore culture at all. We seek to preserve our own—regardless of how archaic it may be. We sanctify "our" way—as opposed to "their" way.
=
I understand and affirm that there are reasonable preferences that can be maintained to the blessing of those who prefer them. And, I recognize that what is contemporary today—will become passé at some point. Fine. Then the onus will be on us/or that generation to embrace change when it is required and not preserve their fading culture. (Culture changes mind you—not the foundations of Biblical theology).
=
Culture changes, but Biblically the old adage is true. “If it’s new, it ain’t true.” But culture is something different altogether. There is nothing wrong with a church being traditional, but perhaps we should be mindful that what is now traditional was once contemporary. Let's just be careful that it is the Truth that we seek to proclaim and not the perpetuation of a preferred cultural era with all its attendant features. (It is curiously humorous that today “Emergent and Emerging Church” folks refer to the “Church Growth” folks as the older generation that is out of touch with the culture). [And often clothed in polyester, I might add].
=
Professing Christians are a funny bunch, aren’t we?
=
As the world observes us, what must they think?
=
There are reasons why many evangelical churches are NOT reaching people with the gospel. There are reasons why people are leaving traditional churches for more contemporary churches. I do not advocate a diminution of the priority of theology in any way—but being contemporary in preference and/or practice does NOT necessitate a slide down the slippery slope to theological liberalism and apostasy.
=
Our position must be one of both/and—theologically faithful and ministerially effective in a contemporary context. I mean for example, all music was contemporary at one point, wasn’t it? HOWEVER, there is so much more to this issue than music. We do not do well building real relationships with lost people—and perhaps with one another as well. We are virtually isolated or at least well insulated from the culture and as a result, we are almost unable to converse with people. We are uncomfortable and tense because we fear that we cannot relate to them in any way—this is certainly a fallacy and may perhaps be attributed to a somewhat charitable perspective regarding our own fallen humanness.
=
Or perhaps it is an unrecognized cultural elitism, or ignorance, or simply fear. But certainly, we can improve on this, can’t we?
=
I am SO past traditional church culture.
=
I SO desire to be faithful to the authority and perspicuity of Scripture.
=
I SO desire that the world sees more of Christ in the church and less politics, less hostility, less indifference and less disconnection from the world in which we live.
It is possible to be a growing, mature, stable, Christian in the world and not be of the world. But isolation is not the answer. Preservation of a decades old culture is not the answer. HOWEVER, neither is cultural integration at the expense of Biblical truth and genuine sanctification.
=
Surely, we can do better, can’t we?
Pat Howell
No comments:
Post a Comment