As I sat in Church History class tonight listening to the events that led to the downfall of the Holy Roman Empire, it had SERIOUS implications for those who call themselves Christians today... especially in regards to the all the cries of "Socialism!" I've seen on Facebook.
INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS:
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THIS NOTE AND SAY, "NOT FOR ME," please at least scroll down to the "IMPLICATIONS" portion of the note and read that part.
I do love the freedom that America has offered its people for the past 234 years, and I do believe that Socialism among frail human beings is absolutely a failed experiment. But I also believe that the pure capitalism we've had has truly allowed for the worst kind of selfishness and hording. I would, as a Christian, disagree with Rush Limbaugh that hording is our right (which is essentially what he says). Either model affords humanity the ability show off its broken and fallen state but from different perspectives. Please don't hear me saying that the government has the right to steal from the wealthy to give to the poor. My point is altogether different. In a nutshell, we, as believers should not be placing our hope in any government or its method of rule.
THE HISTORY:
The events that led up to the Reformation (16th Century) and the eventual fall of the Holy Roman Empire were surrounded by the concept of "Christendom." This term simply means that people saw themselves as Christian simply because they were part of the HRE. It did not mean that they were born again/regenerate or that they even personally believed what the Catholic Church was teaching. But in that era, Politics and Religion were almost indistinguishable from one another (in terms of power and policy).
The age of the Enlightenment (advances in science, more money was being made, and there was the creation of a middle class) brought a spirit of independence. People were more educated and therefore began to think for themselves. They thought, "I don't like being told what to believe (or how to govern in many cases)," and began breaking away from Rome. Over the period of 200+ years we see the creation of many Protestant denominations and eventually more and more freedom of religion (and political thought).
I could go on, but the main thing we need to get from this is that from 300 AD to 1600 AD the church ruled both religious and political life, AND people saw themselves as a Christian mostly because of their culture, not because of any particular conviction.
TODAY:
We find ourselves in a painfully similar situation (particularly in the southern states of our country) where preachers spend as much of their time trying to convince people that they are NOT Christians as they do evangelizing the lost (I am not condemning this practice. It is a common approach that I often take in my messages). This is the result of a context that has produced a type of "Christian" that is as much a cultural statement as it is a religious one. Prominent businessmen and politicians go to church, because "that's the thing to do." I wouldn't for a second point individuals out and play the part of a judge, but many understand the truth I'm trying to convey.
We live in a culture where it is perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) to post compromising pictures and comments on one's profile while at the same time having "Christian" on one's "info" tab. It's ok to post, "I really felt God this morning in church," at 12:15 PM on Sunday and, "I really hate _______ because they're such a ________" at 12:30 PM.
IMPLICATIONS: (This is the part I really want you to read)
My challenge for the true people of God is to "Focus Your Aim" on THE GOSPEL and its implications. I/We have spent many recent days complaining about the state of our country, but how many of us have truly prayed for our leaders? The Bible says in Romans 13:1 that there is no authority except from God, and except in matters that cause us to directly disobey the Bible, we are to submit to them. Does this mean that we should not protest almost a trillion dollars in more debt for our country? Of course not, but we have to ask ourselves WHY we are protesting (if we choose to do so).
Is the point of protest to WIN and beat the bad guys? Because the last time I checked WE were ALL the bad guys... some of us had simply been rescued from ourselves. And now our job is to go back into this broken world and rescue more with the power of the gospel.
My simple challenge to us all is to Focus on the Gospel. Before abortion. Before poverty. Before health care. Before employment. Before socialism or capitalism. And when we make statements of truth (because we MUST make statements of truth), let them not be as one who is hacking away at an enemy; but with wisdom and discernment, as one cuts straight to the heart of an issue with the powerful gospel of Jesus Christ.
APPLICATION:
A few more things, and I'm done. What EXACTLY do I think this looks like? Obviously it will be different for each individual; but instead of connecting the fight against universal health care to Christianity and the Republican party, connect it to the concept of financial wisdom. Instead of condemning the President, affirm things that you can find common ground with him on (or just find something positive to say) while at the same time reminding folks that Socialism IS a failed experiment. Remind them (in an apologetic manner) of where the church has failed. "Me vs. Them" is about winning with issues. "The Gospel" is about winning over hearts and souls. Issues are fleshly (temporary); souls are eternal.
Also... to my brothers and sisters of the evangelical middle class (which is my culture): Could you please at least take 10 minutes and think for a second what it might be like to exist in a culture of poverty. If you don't understand the cycle of poverty, google it. IT IS REAL folks, and all of our excuses are not going to ignore it away. The tithes of the OT were given to the Levite, the traveler (almost like a refugee), the fatherless, and the widow (see Deut. 14:29). Is that where your tithe is going? Or is it simply going to build bigger buildings for us to hide in? (note the word "simply"... I digress)
If anything, Socialism is a secular response to the church not doing its job (found in Acts 2:42-47). If we gave like that, while preaching the life-changing message of the gospel, real change could happen.
Finally, I just challenge you my brothers and sisters to spend 90% of your time reflecting on (for yourself) and preaching (for others) the Gospel and 10% opposing political problems. I never cease to be amazed at what happens when people hear that they were lost without hope, apart from God. But the same God they scorned became a man and lived a perfect life and died a perfect death to save them. He arose from the grave to give them eternal life; and God the Holy Spirit now dwells in the hearts of believers to empower them to live and please God.
Be encouraged. What's the worst that could happen? All of those who used to call themselves Christians stop pretending, the church is refined as with fire, and the true, holy, spotless bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27) emerges ready for her bridegroom? =)
Be encouraged!
Andy
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The (post)Modern Protestant
This semester in school has been it seems almost providentially arranged, in terms of the three classes that I happen to be taking. Church History 2, Christian Ethics, and Evangelism. At this point in the semester, all three are dealing with the phenomenon of postmodernism and the church's reaction to it. Granted, in Church History 2, we're still in the Reformation period, but there are so many similarities that tie into today's church movement(s) that I can't help draw the lines of connection.
In highly simplistic terms, the Reformation is remembered primarily as a time of PROTEST against the theology and methodology (practice) of the day.
Today, we find ourselves surrounded by "The Emerging Church" and "Emergent Theology," in which the same sort of critiques of the church are taking place. Because both desire to remain definition-less, it is hard to get a handle on what either stands for exactly, but in general the Emerging Church is a movement primarily focused on methods. They critique formalized Christianity (both traditional and contemporary) with all of its impersonal and (sometimes) hypocritical practices. Emergent Theology on the other hand is about reshaping the way we think about our system of beliefs. Really, it's about removing systematizing entirely. Depending on who you talk to, this could flesh itself out as a simple rejection of formal doctrinal statements (with no real ACTUAL rejection of orthodoxy) OR it could involve the reorganization, redefinition, or complete rejection of long-held "truths."
For the sake of time and space, I just want to make two observations related to parallels in these modern movements and the Reformation. One positive and one negative. I'm sure there will be plenty of time in the future to discuss more.
1. Positive - from a positive stand-point, I can completely relate to BOTH trains of thought (at least in part). I remember sitting in the office with Joe Steele (my youth pastor in High School) on many occasions and saying things like, "This PROGRAM just isn't working... we need to scrap it and do something that will reach people." Upon which Joe always replied, "Are you just going to close down the church and forget all that we ARE doing right?" I see the wisdom in his statement, but that still doesn't change the fact that we have good reason for questioning the institutional church and many of it's archaic methods.
I'm not talking about music here. These modern thinkers would place organ-led hymns and rock-and-roll praise music in the same category... it's program... they want relationship and "real-life" change.
The archaic methods I'm referring to are the "come-see" approach to evangelism (as if people had to be in a church building to be reborn in Christ) and the institutionalized form of education. For me, this does not mean a scrapping of formality entirely, but simply a recognition that people learn by interaction and by "taking ownership" of what they believe. The lecture format (including the sermon) can not be the ONLY method we use. If it is, we will lose people in a post-modern culture.
The way this relates to the Protestant Reformation is in how so much of what started this movement was directly related to methods. Things like indulgences (or the selling of grace) and the manipulation of the priesthood's role were outward grievances that drove the Reformers to search the Scriptures for Biblical discrepancies.
---
2. Negative - Following the train of thought in that last statement, my critique of these two movements is that while the Reformation, for most, was a return to the Scriptures as the authority for faith and practice, the ECM and Emergent theology seem to want to place culture as the authority for making critical decisions. For example: When Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin wanted to critique a practice of the current Roman Catholic church, they stated their grievance followed by a Scriptural foundation for that grievance. The Reformation was a refining process with the Bible as the FIRE.
On the other hand, the ECM and Emergent theology both seem to allow culture to be the refining fire, which we all know changes with the latest top-40 song or reality TV show.
Please don't hear me wrong. I believe strongly in the contextualization of the gospel in a given culture (we are ALL missionaries in our town). It's ridiculous to act as if the south is still in the 1950s in our services... not just because the world laughs at us (they're going to do this from time to time anyway) but because we're not speaking their language. It's as if I went to China and expected everyone to learn English, my hymnbook, and my church's operating procedure before I could share the gospel with them.
But the critique is found in the fact that while the postmodern culture holds to no absolute truth, we must part ways in standing on the truth of God's Word. I'm not saying that we have to formulate our statements of faith in the same ways (or to the same degrees) that we have in the past, but, make no mistake, there MUST be statements of faith. And while our methods ABSOLUTELY MUST change (and fast), the gospel (and the core beliefs surrounding it) can not.
As a final note: One of my biggest problems with both the Emerging Church and Emergent theology is that it's mostly about NEGATIVE statements. God has really been convicting me lately about how all of our negative statements about the current condition of the church must be followed up with helpful and constructive positive statements that drive change.
I hope that this growing conviction begins to find its way into my writing. We, who are desiring change in Christ's church, must stop whining about what we DON'T LIKE in the traditional church, and start producing options for those who genuinely want to change. It is to this end that I hope to write in the future.
In Christ,
Andy Duke
In highly simplistic terms, the Reformation is remembered primarily as a time of PROTEST against the theology and methodology (practice) of the day.
Today, we find ourselves surrounded by "The Emerging Church" and "Emergent Theology," in which the same sort of critiques of the church are taking place. Because both desire to remain definition-less, it is hard to get a handle on what either stands for exactly, but in general the Emerging Church is a movement primarily focused on methods. They critique formalized Christianity (both traditional and contemporary) with all of its impersonal and (sometimes) hypocritical practices. Emergent Theology on the other hand is about reshaping the way we think about our system of beliefs. Really, it's about removing systematizing entirely. Depending on who you talk to, this could flesh itself out as a simple rejection of formal doctrinal statements (with no real ACTUAL rejection of orthodoxy) OR it could involve the reorganization, redefinition, or complete rejection of long-held "truths."
For the sake of time and space, I just want to make two observations related to parallels in these modern movements and the Reformation. One positive and one negative. I'm sure there will be plenty of time in the future to discuss more.
1. Positive - from a positive stand-point, I can completely relate to BOTH trains of thought (at least in part). I remember sitting in the office with Joe Steele (my youth pastor in High School) on many occasions and saying things like, "This PROGRAM just isn't working... we need to scrap it and do something that will reach people." Upon which Joe always replied, "Are you just going to close down the church and forget all that we ARE doing right?" I see the wisdom in his statement, but that still doesn't change the fact that we have good reason for questioning the institutional church and many of it's archaic methods.
I'm not talking about music here. These modern thinkers would place organ-led hymns and rock-and-roll praise music in the same category... it's program... they want relationship and "real-life" change.
The archaic methods I'm referring to are the "come-see" approach to evangelism (as if people had to be in a church building to be reborn in Christ) and the institutionalized form of education. For me, this does not mean a scrapping of formality entirely, but simply a recognition that people learn by interaction and by "taking ownership" of what they believe. The lecture format (including the sermon) can not be the ONLY method we use. If it is, we will lose people in a post-modern culture.
The way this relates to the Protestant Reformation is in how so much of what started this movement was directly related to methods. Things like indulgences (or the selling of grace) and the manipulation of the priesthood's role were outward grievances that drove the Reformers to search the Scriptures for Biblical discrepancies.
---
2. Negative - Following the train of thought in that last statement, my critique of these two movements is that while the Reformation, for most, was a return to the Scriptures as the authority for faith and practice, the ECM and Emergent theology seem to want to place culture as the authority for making critical decisions. For example: When Luther, Zwingli, or Calvin wanted to critique a practice of the current Roman Catholic church, they stated their grievance followed by a Scriptural foundation for that grievance. The Reformation was a refining process with the Bible as the FIRE.
On the other hand, the ECM and Emergent theology both seem to allow culture to be the refining fire, which we all know changes with the latest top-40 song or reality TV show.
Please don't hear me wrong. I believe strongly in the contextualization of the gospel in a given culture (we are ALL missionaries in our town). It's ridiculous to act as if the south is still in the 1950s in our services... not just because the world laughs at us (they're going to do this from time to time anyway) but because we're not speaking their language. It's as if I went to China and expected everyone to learn English, my hymnbook, and my church's operating procedure before I could share the gospel with them.
But the critique is found in the fact that while the postmodern culture holds to no absolute truth, we must part ways in standing on the truth of God's Word. I'm not saying that we have to formulate our statements of faith in the same ways (or to the same degrees) that we have in the past, but, make no mistake, there MUST be statements of faith. And while our methods ABSOLUTELY MUST change (and fast), the gospel (and the core beliefs surrounding it) can not.
As a final note: One of my biggest problems with both the Emerging Church and Emergent theology is that it's mostly about NEGATIVE statements. God has really been convicting me lately about how all of our negative statements about the current condition of the church must be followed up with helpful and constructive positive statements that drive change.
I hope that this growing conviction begins to find its way into my writing. We, who are desiring change in Christ's church, must stop whining about what we DON'T LIKE in the traditional church, and start producing options for those who genuinely want to change. It is to this end that I hope to write in the future.
In Christ,
Andy Duke
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)