It's so hard for believers to continually remind ourselves that life is not about destinations or even really about the journey but rather the One with whom we are walking. How often we must insult our Lord when this or that accomplishment or activity is out in front of us and we give that thing prominence in our lives. All of a sudden we make God (who should be the end/goal/aim) into our means and the thing (which is, in the eternal perspective, most irrelevant) into the goal or the end. I struggle with this daily.
Undoubtedly, this is the reason for so much discontentment in our lives. It is the reason for such a lack of peace, joy, and contentment. When the only Source of peace, joy, and contentment is degraded to become used as a tool, we will only find disappointment.
May we seek to keep our relationship with Christ at the center of our purpose. May we stop allowing ourselves to simply use Him as a means to our own ends. May we deny all else for the sake of knowing Him and the power of His resurrection and sharing in the fellowship of His sufferings (see Philippians 3:10).
In Christ,
Andy
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
A Glimpse of the Invisible Church: Missions
Ever been on a mission trip? Ever been on one where you didn't know anyone else there? Those may just be the best kind. All comforts have been removed, even social ones. It's on trips like these that I think I've gotten a glimpse of the true, what Augustine called "invisible," church. On a couple of trips I've been with people from all over the country. Different cultures, different perspectives, and different experiences that they brought to the table. I find it enlightening to think about how much unity there was in such a diverse group. Kindness and grace was abundant. It seems as if everyone was just looking for ways to encourage and find the good in their teammates.
But on one particularly long trip I found that within 5 weeks or so we began to get comfortable with each other. Then small irritations started happening, followed by conflicts. Now, I'm not so idealistic as to think that we can rid the human race (or even the church) of selfish conflict, but I think there is an important lesson to be had in this story.
Whatever our individual motivations, when the trip began, we were thinking of our other teammates. How can we encourage? How can we learn about them? What do they like/dislike? Who is this person? And, in affect, almost subconsciously we were NOT thinking about ourselves by being genuinely interested in others.
What if we could capture this same grace and encouragement in the local church? What if our inclinations were toward considering others before ourselves when we met together as the body of Christ?
My experience has been that some truly do exhibit such a Christlike attitude while others find the frailty of other believers too disappointing and either (in most cases) disconnect from true, meaningful relationships, or they become cold and contentious. It is a sad reality that much of the church today is missing out on one of the most fulfilling activities God has ever created. It's Acts 2 fellowship. It's selfless and truly loving.
Brothers and sisters, let us take on this attitude of Christ and speak to one another with love that comes out of a pure heart. If you've never experienced such relationships, I would challenge you (no matter your age) to go on a mission trip that takes you away from all your comforts, especially your social ones. Then come home and live it out in your local body of believers.
In Christ,
Andy
But on one particularly long trip I found that within 5 weeks or so we began to get comfortable with each other. Then small irritations started happening, followed by conflicts. Now, I'm not so idealistic as to think that we can rid the human race (or even the church) of selfish conflict, but I think there is an important lesson to be had in this story.
Whatever our individual motivations, when the trip began, we were thinking of our other teammates. How can we encourage? How can we learn about them? What do they like/dislike? Who is this person? And, in affect, almost subconsciously we were NOT thinking about ourselves by being genuinely interested in others.
What if we could capture this same grace and encouragement in the local church? What if our inclinations were toward considering others before ourselves when we met together as the body of Christ?
My experience has been that some truly do exhibit such a Christlike attitude while others find the frailty of other believers too disappointing and either (in most cases) disconnect from true, meaningful relationships, or they become cold and contentious. It is a sad reality that much of the church today is missing out on one of the most fulfilling activities God has ever created. It's Acts 2 fellowship. It's selfless and truly loving.
Brothers and sisters, let us take on this attitude of Christ and speak to one another with love that comes out of a pure heart. If you've never experienced such relationships, I would challenge you (no matter your age) to go on a mission trip that takes you away from all your comforts, especially your social ones. Then come home and live it out in your local body of believers.
In Christ,
Andy
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Serve One Another in Love
My mother always says, "If you're ever down and discouraged, go do something for someone else." I think she got this quote from her mother, and I hope my children get it from me.
Serving someone else truly is the best medicine, and not just for the other person, but especially for ourselves. When we choose to give of our time or resources for the good of another person, something otherworldly happens, another is cared for, and our spirits are lifted. This doesn't completely make sense to me. My tendency, when struggling with a question or fear, is to turn inward. I like to lock myself in my studio or go back to sleep. But, more often than not, this only compounds the problem.
The mind is limited in its understanding. The reality is that not all of our doubts and fears will receive sufficient answers, particularly in the moment we desire them most. Our emotions also are very limited. They can be a great friend in times of joy or an incredible hindrance during a struggle. But serving another person, loving as Christ loved, seems to supersede the limitations of both the mind and the emotions. Love brings clarity to the mind and balance to the emotions.
I think this is what Paul was hinting at when he said in Galatians 5:13:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Serving someone else truly is the best medicine, and not just for the other person, but especially for ourselves. When we choose to give of our time or resources for the good of another person, something otherworldly happens, another is cared for, and our spirits are lifted. This doesn't completely make sense to me. My tendency, when struggling with a question or fear, is to turn inward. I like to lock myself in my studio or go back to sleep. But, more often than not, this only compounds the problem.
The mind is limited in its understanding. The reality is that not all of our doubts and fears will receive sufficient answers, particularly in the moment we desire them most. Our emotions also are very limited. They can be a great friend in times of joy or an incredible hindrance during a struggle. But serving another person, loving as Christ loved, seems to supersede the limitations of both the mind and the emotions. Love brings clarity to the mind and balance to the emotions.
I think this is what Paul was hinting at when he said in Galatians 5:13:
"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Friday, April 9, 2010
His Commandments Are Not Burdensome
"For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." -John 5:3
I've always had a difficult time with this verse... mostly because my personal experience has often not matched the truth that it protrays. More times than not I've found the commandments of God very heavy and difficult to obey. Perhaps my experience is unique, but I doubt that to be the case. I know this because I regularly talk with brothers and sisters in Christ who are either joyfully and flippantly neglecting of God's commandments or some who are genuinely trying with all their might to obey only to find frustration at every corner. I readily admit that I fall into that latter camp on occasion.
So...What are we missing? What have I been missing?
The answers to our questions are usually found in the context. John says, "For this is the LOVE of God, that we keep His commandments." There are so many descriptors that John could have used to describe our connection with obedience to the commands of God, but, in true-to-John form, He used the word "love." Why love? Why not "this is the right thing to do" or "this is righteousness"?
Perhaps John is trying to hint at the TYPE of obligation we have to God's commandments. It's not enough to merely obey God's commandment. That obedience must somehow be connected to love. And no matter how you define the word, you can't get away with the biblical reality that love is the greatest virtue, emotion, commitment, expression that a beiever can have. Love, in this case, defines our MOTIVES for obedience. Love also helps us understand why the commands are not burdensome.
Today in chapel Darrin Patrick spoke about the reality that the gospel (the love of God for us) should be the centerpoint of all our preaching, teaching, and living. It is not that we preach good sermons about hot topics and then give a gospel presentation at the end (totally disconnected from the messages themselves), but that each message we give should have as its main piont the good news of Jesus. Why is this so important? Because, according to Darrin, the gospel motivates people more than any clever points or how to?s ever could. When we are called to reflect on the reality that God (Christ) died on a cross to save us, it motivates us beyond what any self-help principles ever could.
So... back to the passage. I'm not sure that I fully understand this (or have fully grasped its application in my life), but it seems to me that true obedience is one that is motivated first and foremost by LOVE for God for His sacrifice for us. We respond in obedience not because we fear condemnation from God but rather because He went to the ultimate lengths to save us from our sin and ourselves.
I've always had a difficult time with this verse... mostly because my personal experience has often not matched the truth that it protrays. More times than not I've found the commandments of God very heavy and difficult to obey. Perhaps my experience is unique, but I doubt that to be the case. I know this because I regularly talk with brothers and sisters in Christ who are either joyfully and flippantly neglecting of God's commandments or some who are genuinely trying with all their might to obey only to find frustration at every corner. I readily admit that I fall into that latter camp on occasion.
So...What are we missing? What have I been missing?
The answers to our questions are usually found in the context. John says, "For this is the LOVE of God, that we keep His commandments." There are so many descriptors that John could have used to describe our connection with obedience to the commands of God, but, in true-to-John form, He used the word "love." Why love? Why not "this is the right thing to do" or "this is righteousness"?
Perhaps John is trying to hint at the TYPE of obligation we have to God's commandments. It's not enough to merely obey God's commandment. That obedience must somehow be connected to love. And no matter how you define the word, you can't get away with the biblical reality that love is the greatest virtue, emotion, commitment, expression that a beiever can have. Love, in this case, defines our MOTIVES for obedience. Love also helps us understand why the commands are not burdensome.
Today in chapel Darrin Patrick spoke about the reality that the gospel (the love of God for us) should be the centerpoint of all our preaching, teaching, and living. It is not that we preach good sermons about hot topics and then give a gospel presentation at the end (totally disconnected from the messages themselves), but that each message we give should have as its main piont the good news of Jesus. Why is this so important? Because, according to Darrin, the gospel motivates people more than any clever points or how to?s ever could. When we are called to reflect on the reality that God (Christ) died on a cross to save us, it motivates us beyond what any self-help principles ever could.
So... back to the passage. I'm not sure that I fully understand this (or have fully grasped its application in my life), but it seems to me that true obedience is one that is motivated first and foremost by LOVE for God for His sacrifice for us. We respond in obedience not because we fear condemnation from God but rather because He went to the ultimate lengths to save us from our sin and ourselves.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Ezekiel 33:31-32
"And they come to you as people come, and they sit before you as my people, and they hear what you say but they will not do it; for with lustful talk in their mouths they act; their hearts is set on their gain... for they hear what you say, but they will not do it." -Ezekiel 33:31-32
I stumbled upon this verse this morning while reading one of my books in school. I believe that it has profound impact in our church culture today. I know that the lessons are, for the most part, self-evident, but I'd like to briefly share some thoughts.
In the first part of the verse you get the picture of a people who beg to be spoken to from God's Word but have little interest in allowing it to change their hearts and lives. This reminds me of several passages:
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander of into myths." -2 Tim. 4:3-4
"...having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power..." -2 Tim. 3:5
"...always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." -2 Tim. 3:7
Citing Isaiah 6, Jesus says, "You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." -Mt. 13:14-15
All of these verses are describing a people who look EXACTLY as they should on the outside but TOTALLY MISS the point of God's Word. God did not give His Word to simply help us expand our pool of knowledge. He desires that it would cut deep into our hearts (see and SAVE US from our sin and ourselves. We think of salvation only in terms of heaven and hell, but the Word of God is given for our salvation TODAY.
And before you or I begin to point a finger to identify those we think fit this catagory, let us not miss the point ourselves. Every time we hear God's Word preached, read it, or recite it from memory it should challenge us and/or encourage us. It should AFFECT US. It should make us MOVE not just feel moved.
I see this all the time in the television preacher circuit. People who hoop and hollar and enjoy all kinds of antics in the name of preaching and worship. But they live lives of lust and hatred as soon as the service ends.
Let us not be found guilty of hearing the Word and not allowing it change us.
In Christ,
Andy
I stumbled upon this verse this morning while reading one of my books in school. I believe that it has profound impact in our church culture today. I know that the lessons are, for the most part, self-evident, but I'd like to briefly share some thoughts.
In the first part of the verse you get the picture of a people who beg to be spoken to from God's Word but have little interest in allowing it to change their hearts and lives. This reminds me of several passages:
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander of into myths." -2 Tim. 4:3-4
"...having an appearance of godliness, but denying its power..." -2 Tim. 3:5
"...always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." -2 Tim. 3:7
Citing Isaiah 6, Jesus says, "You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them." -Mt. 13:14-15
All of these verses are describing a people who look EXACTLY as they should on the outside but TOTALLY MISS the point of God's Word. God did not give His Word to simply help us expand our pool of knowledge. He desires that it would cut deep into our hearts (see and SAVE US from our sin and ourselves. We think of salvation only in terms of heaven and hell, but the Word of God is given for our salvation TODAY.
And before you or I begin to point a finger to identify those we think fit this catagory, let us not miss the point ourselves. Every time we hear God's Word preached, read it, or recite it from memory it should challenge us and/or encourage us. It should AFFECT US. It should make us MOVE not just feel moved.
I see this all the time in the television preacher circuit. People who hoop and hollar and enjoy all kinds of antics in the name of preaching and worship. But they live lives of lust and hatred as soon as the service ends.
Let us not be found guilty of hearing the Word and not allowing it change us.
In Christ,
Andy
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Challenge to Focus Our Aim: An Optimistic View of the Events of the Past Few Days
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
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
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)