'Perhaps the simplest way to say this is that evangelicalism has become worldly. This can be demonstrated by comparing it with yesterday's liberalism. What was once said of liberal churches must now be said of evangelical churches: they seek the world's wisdom, believe the world's theology, follow the world's agenda, and adopt the world's methods.'
'According to the standards of worldly wisdom, the Bible is unable to meet the demands of life in these postmodern times. By itself, God's Word is insufficient to win people to Christ, promote spiritual growth, provide practical guidance, or transform society. So churches supplement the plain teaching of Scripture with entertainment, group therapy, political activism, signs and wonders - anything that promises to appeal to religious consumers. According to the world's theology, sin is merely a dysfunction and salvation means having better self-esteem. When this theology comes to church, it replaces difficult but essential doctrines like the propitiation of God's wrath with practical techniques for self-improvement. The world's agenda is personal happiness, so the gospel is presented as a plan for individual fulfilment rather than as a pathway of costly discipleship. The world's methods for accomplishing this self-centred agenda are necessarily pragmatic, so evangelical churches are willing to try whatever seems like it might work.'
So, 'what happened to the Gospel of grace?'
'It was lost in the church study, when the minister decided to give people what they wanted rather than what they needed.'Excerpts above were taken from the fantastic book by Boice & Ryken, Doctrines of Grace. Submitted by Liam Garvie
'It was lost in the Christian bookstore, somewhere between the self-help section and the aisle full of Jesus merchandise.'
'And it was lost in our minds and hearts when we decided to accept the world's theology of human achievement, saving room for our own personal contribution to salvation.'
Posts
2 comments:
After reading through this post many times I get the feeling that you would prefer we go back to the old style of preaching but at the same time you fail to see that we have moved into the 21st century. Now just because we are in the 21st century it does not mean the Gospel becomes second place or evangelicalism becomes worldly. Modern times mean we use modern methods to attract people into our churches and to bring them under the word of God. I admit that I have been to churches were it has been more like a circus than a meeting of God's people coming to praise and worship God but there are also many things we can take from those churches.
Can it be possible to have a marriage of both and still deliver the Gospel truths?
You speak about the Gospel not meeting the needs of the people but I would say the church is not meeting the needs of the people. They fail to see the elephant in the room, which is poverty, depression, homelessness, lonelyness etc! Christ himself went out to meet with the people and met their needs, in all ways.
Yes we want to be under great preaching
Yes we want to hear a Gospel that shows sin for what it is
But we are failing not because we are becoming more worldly, we failing because we are not getting along side the people in their needs.
Thanks for your comments 'Anonymous' and for engaging with this post. Let me say one or two things humbly in response.
1) The overall message of the post was to highlight the way in which the Gospel (summarised in 1 Cor 15:3-4) appears to be presented in a very diluted form in recent years, and to spark some interest in readers to consider what church should look like and, most importantly in this discussion, what the local church's interaction with culture says about its message.
Essentially, this excerpt from Ryken & Boice highlights that many are pursuing, to use your phrase, '21st century methods' in organising and conducting church life and ministry, but at the expense of the Gospel. So you see, the major issue in this discussion is not the FORM in which the Gospel is presented, it's the CONTENT of that Gospel.
The Gospel is what gives the church its uniqueness, so says Mark Dever. But CHURCH + CULTURE - GOSPEL = LIBERALISM. Setting aside the truth (and offense) of the Gospel leads to a local church seeking to bless people as they are and entertain them rather than call them to a repenant and transformed life. A church that establishes its ministry in the former shape, I believe, will run the risk of loving their neighbour at the expense of loving their Lord by failing to carry HIS message, His Gospel to the people. I hope that clarifies the intent of the post.
2)I totally agree with you when you say that we need to see the physical needs of the people in our communities. There is no question that Jesus set that example and that is what we're called to. But we should always question what motivates our involvement and what fruit we want to see as a result of our involvement.
Do we want to see the naked clothed and the homeless housed? Sure we do! But do we want to let them know that one day they could be clothed in the righteousness of Jesus rather than the rags we offer? Absolutely! Therefore the Gospel should always be on the tip of our tongue, ready and willing to proclaim the ultimate deliverance from the spiritual poverty we have before God, rectified through faith in Christ.
Yes, Jesus reached out to the poor and the sick and the filthy and flung his arms around them, but he also preached the Kingdom to them and its entry requirements. We simply need to realise (and put into practice - myself included) that a combination of the power-full-truth of the Gospel, wrapped in self-sacrificing love (in-action) is what God uses to transform people.
Post a Comment