You probably should not post about a tweet (a relatively new discovery for a Twitter novice like me), but it does encapsulate a sentiment that’s been brewing in my brain for some time. Here’s the retweet I received from Rick Warren, “If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” I heard several variants of the refrain at the SBC convention and wanted to raise my hand, interrupt politely, and yell in French “Au Contraire”! Decorum and civility got the better of my impulse, so here’s my attempt at a response. From the get-go let me acknowledge the post is filled with land-mines that will probably set a host of folks off – and my motive is neither to caricature other viewpoints nor denigrate any attempts at Christ-following that differ from my initial contribution.
That said – I think the Stuart Smalley (apologies for the Al Franken, the former SNL now Senator reference) attempts of the church at large to formulate an image that communicates “doggone I want people to like me” fall somewhat short of a biblical mandate. I understand the need to be personally winsome in the way SBC president Johnny Hunt aptly exhibits the attributes of Colossians 4:5-6 in his wisdom toward outsiders and his speech being seasoned with grace. If this suggestion is the essence of what others mean by unbelievers liking what they see – all aboard that gospel train. I also understand the necessity of the Great Commandment in loving loud – the church too long has been unfairly caricatured as irrelevant and reactionary. A hallmark of a disciple is love for the Savior and love for humanity. It’s what leads believers to a gospel attempt to eradicate AIDS in Africa and send huge compassion teams in the form of disaster relief every time a crisis emerges.
My personal dissonance erupts when I contemplate the unintended consequences that spring forth when our modus operandi is for “unbelievers to like what they see.” 2 Timothy 3:12 says in ancient-future commentary, “And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” Men and women like William Tyndale, Balthasar and Elizabeth Hubmaier, Dietrich Bonheoffer, and a host of unnamed saints “slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” demonstrate Tertullian’s claim that the “blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.” Much of the common refrain I hear today is that unbelievers like Jesus but they don’t like the church. The list of books that sound this trumpet are legion. It seems that the placebo offered up ad infinitum by those who shack up with this kind of theology is the inauthentic witness of the church of today. The prescription that is usually offered for what ails the church is to take a dose of cultural relevance and call me when you are finally hip and with it. We can be so relevant to culture we are irrelevant to God.
This is probably a greater divide in the Baptist continuum than any Calvinist-Arminian split – how and why we relate to culture with the gospel. Recent tomes have critiqued and dissected H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, Christ and Culture, (See D.A. Carson’s Christ and Culture Revisited and Craig Carter’s Rethinking Christ and Culture). Carson’s full-orbed Reformed response to Niebuhr’s classic take deserves a long look. He structures his thoughts along the key stages of biblical theology and serves notice that in certain situations each of Niebuhr’s models (perhaps dismissing the Christ of culture scheme) may hold some value if rooted in Scriptural authority. Carson argues against a false reductionism that boils any scheme down to only one model. Such is a needed corrective. It’s easy to paint a picture that separates evangelism and biblical theology, something Thom Rainer recently warned against.
Here’s why my heart does flip-flops when I hear the phrase, “if unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” Unbelievers according to Romans 1 suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They are futile in their speculations and darkened in their foolish hearts. Men love darkness rather than the light because of their evil deeds. The light that illuminates the darkness is the Light of the World. Any attempt to transform culture needs to understand that to emulate and imitate the Light of the World necessitates a call and vocation to bear the image of God. Such an image as modeled by Jesus Christ is lived in the form of a cross. James Smith aptly says,
And Christ, as the Second Adam, has shown us what it looks like to do this: in a fallen and broken world, the shape of such a vocation is cruciform; being cultural agents of the crucified God is not a project of triumphal transformation, but suffering witness.
Does this not suggest that even I, as an unbeliever, did not like what I saw? No matter how winsome the witness without the convicting power of God’s gospel and the Holy Spirit there is no transformation. I understand the passionate motive that calls for people to like what they see – the desire is to see lost souls come to know Jesus Christ. I’m not advocating a “bury your head in the sand” approach that does not even attempt to understand the environment in which you operate. Where I think Scripture draws the line is when we cross over and participate in the agenda of the world to win the world. Somehow the church must walk the tightrope between the libertine concept that we must somehow domesticate the radical and biblical message of Jesus while pretending to be just like everyone else and the legalistic concept that suggests we cannot be in the world at all.
The unintended and often unexamined consequence of the end justifies the means approach to attracting unbelievers is that we are way too willing to hide biblical (and I contend Baptist) distinctives and the sharp edges of the whole counsel of God so that we do not alienate outsiders. What some offer instead is an entertainment and show business salesmanship instead of a group of radical Christ-followers. Will unbelievers like what they see when we challenge rather than coddle the culture in which we live? Will unbelievers like what they see when the church embodies a biblical ethic that is countercultural and unpopular to the masses? Will unbelievers like what they see when the church lifts its prophetic voice to uphold biblical righteousness?
This short offering does not begin to cover the nuances of how to implement or even inculcate such a model. The charges will run the gamut that this encourages Amish separatism or a recalcitrant fundamentalism that is incapable of any interaction to society. Others may suggest that incipient legalism is the real culprit behind any desire for a church that is a countercultural agent. It always amuses me that charges of legalism are often lofted toward those things I adapt and adopt that I want to defend. Yet such reductionistic arguments really beg the question. The big question remaining is how will the church take the gospel to an increasingly secular culture. This is a task we all agree is worth our eternal efforts. I’m just suggesting (not so subtly) that perhaps what we need is not for the unbeliever to like what they see but to value the fact that we believe what they see. Perhaps the day will soon come when people might say I’m not so sure about the message of Jesus Christ (it seems offensive) but I really love the church. They not only believe the message – they live and love out loud.
In this as in so many areas of practice there is indeed a biblical tension. On the one hand, Jesus said, Let your light so shine that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven and on the other hand, He said “if they persecuted me, they will persecute you.” Perhaps the truth is that some will see and glorify the Father and some will see and throw stones. Maybe the bigger problem for the church is that there is an inconsistency between what what we say we believe and what they see. Thus, we say we worship the living God but our worship is without passion and dead. We say we believe in family values but the practice in families who profess faith in Christ is not much different than the world’s. We say we love but we don’t act very much so.
Ten days ago my wife and I had the privilege of leading a young mother of three to faith in Jesus. She had attended our church with her husband (who was a hispanic catholic)and children for a couple of Sundays. When we visited with her she told us that they had visited another baptist church in the area for six or eight weeks a few months prior. They told the story of how they apparently walked into the middle of a church fight during their time visiting and witnessed open confrontation between the preacher and members during church services. Finally the preacher resigned and this family stopped attending. God’s providence led them to our church a few weeks ago and my wife and I led the young lady to Christ ten days ago. Last Sunday she was in attendance in my church with her daughters when someone sitting behind her made a critical remark of what one of her young daughters was wearing. She left in tears. Most church’s behavior is so bad that they are running off the saved. Even when one believer’s individual light attracts an unbeliever the corporate unrighteousness within in the church acts as a repellent. God help us.
Joe, have you asked Rick Warren what he means when he says “If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.”? I think that if you were to ask him what is behind his statement that you would probably find common ground. I do not think that Warren has sold out the gospel or is willing to bring whatever is out there culturally in order to get a crowd. My suggestion to you would be to investigate what is really being said before launching into a diatribe that suggests some gospel compromise on the part of Rick Warren. It seems that you have got your feathers ruffled for some other reason.
So, to practice what I am preaching I would like to know what you mean by your statement “We can be so relevant to culture we are irrelevant to God.” My understanding of cultural relevance is finding ways to connect with people with the purpose of presenting the gospel. In other words, we need to discover common ground on which to build a relationship so that they can build a relationship with Jesus. I believe that this is what Paul was doing when he spoke to the men in Athens about their statue to the “Unknown God” (Acts 17:22-31). Paul used what was culturally relevant and understanding in order to get a hearing so he could point them to Jesus. This past weekend I attended a funeral for a friend of mine who attended Freedom Biker Church (www.freedombikerchurch.com). Their goal is to reach bikers with the gospel. Their “sanctuary” is a metal garage looking building with four overhead garage doors. The congregation wears leather vests, t-shirts, biker boots, and almost everyone has tattoos. As the pony trailed pastor preached the funeral it was very clear that what he was saying was all about Jesus and had little to do with Harley’s or being a biker. Matter of fact, when if you were to close your eyes and just listen to the message you probably would have thought you were in a traditional SBC church. To me this church is practicing “If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” The people who would be attracted to the members of this church are not going to like to like to see me in a coat and tie which means they will never listen to me. So, how do you understand cultural relevance? Do we share the same understanding was to what cultural relevance is?
Tim B – I don’t think I disagree with you at all. The cultural captivity of the church is what has led to behavior that you mention. These folks are not displaying a biblical ethic – and perhaps because of a lack of emphasis on a regenerate church membership – we have discovered the impact of our own practices. I’m not saying the church isn’t at times inauthentic, sinful, and compromised. My question is what is the prescription for the problem. My stance is more along the lines of Haurewas’ concept of resident aliens. Others use a prescription or methodology that is more akin to Driscoll’s methodology. Not casting stones just making observations – thanks for your insight
I hope that what I constructed isn’t a diatribe and prefaced my remarks of the riskiness of posting on a tweet. I know the concept that Warren espouses is more than a sound bite – hence my warnings. I never said that Warren compromised the gospel or attempted to imply that he did. It was just the tweet that encapsulated much of what I’d been praying through personally. None of us wants to go off half-cocked and question the motives of others. I think I was careful to practice that personally. Let me quote “From the get-go let me acknowledge the post is filled with land-mines that will probably set a host of folks off – and my motive is neither to caricature other viewpoints nor denigrate any attempts at Christ-following that differ from my initial contribution.”
The difference is that I think the church’s stance should be more countercultural than some. I think you’ve hit the heart of where the contention lies – just what is cultural relevance and do we need to practice it. You are right to point to Mars Hill as the classic text on contextualization. I’m not against contextualization but am concerned that we do not water down confrontation. As you know some in that text sneered and walked away. My point is they did not like what they heard or saw.
You might also be surprised that I’m somewhat troubled by your example as well. I know this is way off mainstream thought for most, but I’m not the type that wants to plant cowboy churches, biker churches, or on and on ad infinitum. I’m not condemning those that do, I commend their effort. Somehow and someway we have to demonstrate to a watching world that the dividing wall has been broken down and that the ground is level at the foot of the cross. Thanks for stopping by.
Counter cultural.
Amen.
David
Joe, I would be interested in your practical description of what a counter cultural church looks like and acts like. My feeling is that your understanding of a church that is culturally relevant is one that waters down the gospel. I would also be interested in your practical description of what a contextualized church looks like and acts like. It sounds like you see a difference between the terms cultural relevance and contextualization. I would be interested to know how you define both of these terms and how you see them as being different.
Concerning the Acts 17 passage, you are correct in that there were some that sneered and walked away. But what did they sneer and walk away from? They sneered and walked away from the message not the method. The culturally relevant method that Paul used got their attention. If it had not then they would have walked away before Paul was able to share the gospel. So the method they liked but the message they did not like.
Concerning your preference for what type of church is attractive to you supports the statement “If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” You in essence are saying, “I don’t like (attracted to) cowboy churches, biker churches, etc so I will not listen to what they say.” I want to say that I don’t believe that you are condemning these approaches/methods of planting churches you are just not attracted to these methods of sharing the gospel.
Let me challenge your thought position. Would you be opposed to churches that are planted along worship styles, generational positions, etc? Would you welcome and help, if asked, a cowboy church, a biker church, or any other like church if their theological position was not in conflict with your belief position? If there is a dividing wall in the church it is more along relational lines than what method a church may culturally deploy. What I mean by that is there are people in the church who are not willing to step outside their people preference zone to share the gospel. I have worshiped in all types of churches with all kinds of methods for reaching people. What I discovered is that the reason the church did not reach them is over whelming due to people not reaching out to them. In other words they felt they were not liked therefore they did not like the church.
We demonstrate to a watching world that the dividing wall has been broken down when we accept people for whom they are and use theologically sound methods to reach out to them. The ground is level at the cross but some people unfortunately don’t like the person standing next to them.
Randy – it’ so hard to get your point across in such sound bites and there is a lot to unpack. I just don’t find anywhere in the New Testament that church growth methods used homogeneous units to unpack the gospel. Instead the church considered itself as resident aliens, a Christian colony, a sign and a foretaste of the Kingdom to come. The problem with our churches is well-identified and noted. I’m not advocating a holy huddle or circle the wagons mentality, but I do believe the countercultural church offers an ethic and message that is absolutely against the prevailing winds of the culture. Rather than accommodate or take the scandalous edge off the gospel and the New Testament we should inculcate and reproduce a church that takes the words and deeds of Jesus seriously.
It really isn’t a matter of what I like or dislike but a serious reading of the New Testament offers no modus operandi that segments the church into affinity groups. How can we really learn to love one another if we automatically exclude a certain segment and suggest they go to the cowboy church down the street? Where in the New Testament does such an ecclesiology exist?
A recent work suggests that we have 20/20 vision for the church’s failings, but are nearsighted to their own pride, self-importance, and even celebrate churchless Christianity. Not everyone of my experiences in church has been commendable, but it was where my faith was incubated and grown. I want the church to be the church of the New Testament – not accommodating or syncretizing but practicing an AnaBaptist ethic that lives and loves out loud. Look at the resources I’ve recommended and you will see very clearly where I land. The introspective view would be to examine where you land on this issue as well and to think through the positive aspects and unintended consequences of where you go. Bill Hybels approach was widely copied and emulated only for him to recently suggest – we were wrong. Have a good evening!
Joe,
I want to affirm the basic service that you have performed by this post: Reminding us all that the statement (“If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say”) is simply an aspiration foreign to the New Testament.
Given what the New Testament says about the spiritual deadness of unbelievers, about men loving darkness rather than light, about the certainty of persecution for Christ’s disciples, about the consistent employ of the phrase “pleasing men” as an INSULT and critique in the New Testament—in light of those things one could make a pretty strong biblical case for the alternative sentiment: “If unbelievers like what they see, we’re in trouble.”
Thanks for the kudos Bart!
DAVID
ON TARGET -
Joe, I believe that you are missing my point about “If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” I am not talking about them liking the message I am talking about what will attract them (methods) to the message. As believers we are to deploy theologically sound methods for attracting people. This means that we need to discover what they “like” and find a way to contextualize it to the gospel. We are not to water down the gospel or be less confronting. But we are to execute the delivery of the gospel in the way Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 9:22.
In this passage Paul recognized the frailty of lost men and refers to them as “weak”. When Paul uses the phrase “become all things” he is saying that he is seeking to understand the individual in order to know how to draw him to the gospel. One of the basic building blocks for developing relationships is to seek to discover the likes and dislikes of a person. Another way of looking at it is looking for what each person shares in common. This provides the basis for starting conversation for which one can springboard into the sharing of the gospel. So I would have to conclude that before someone, whom I do not know, will listen to me tell them about Jesus there has to be something about me that is attractive to them. Remember the “weaker/lost person” initially only has their eye sight available to them to see the gospel.
I believe that you have also misinterpreted my position to include exclusion of people through a method of attraction. It is my conclusion that the reason that cowboy/biker churches exist is because churches have not done their job of finding out what will reach/attract a particular segment of people. We need to discover what will attract all people in the area where God has planted us. Our unity and love for each other is not to be founded upon the attraction but is to be founded upon our common love of Jesus.
From this position I would like to challenge you on your statement “I just don’t find anywhere in the New Testament that church growth methods used homogeneous units to unpack the gospel.” The New Testament does make use of homogeneous units and this is reflected in the first four gospels. The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are commonly accepted as the gospel written to the four major “homogeneous groups” at that time. The Book of Mathew is the gospel written to attract Jews. The Book of Mark is the gospel written to attract Romans. The Book of Luke is the gospel written to attract the Greeks. The Book of John is the gospel written to attract the Gentiles. Each one of those books has a different literary form that uses language and terms that are culturally relevant to the homogeneous group it is trying to attract. The beauty of this is that even though the method of attraction is different the gospel never changes.
Concerning Hybels, if you read closely what he apologized for was not for his method of attracting people. He was lamenting the fact that once they attracted the people they failed to disciple them into mature believers.
Joe, I would still be interested in your practical description of what a counter cultural/contextualized/New Testament church looks like and acts like. It sounds like you see a difference between the terms cultural relevance and contextualization. I would be interested to know how you define both of these terms and how you see them as being different.
Thanks for this post, Joe! Good thoughts on total depravity and evangelism.
Randy
We can agree to disagree – I\’m all with you on evangelism methods but ecclesiology is different. I\’m not going to base my ecclesiology on target audiences for the gospel. Ephesians 2 and other passage are much more thorough. Keep sharing your faith and winning people to Jesus.
Adam – thanks Bro
Joe, I appreciate your response and I do not want to belabor the issue but I really am interested in your view of the church. For years I have listened to people bat around the term “New Testament Church” with no explanation of what they mean. I really would still be interested in your practical description of what a counter cultural/contextualized/New Testament church looks like and acts like. I do not want to debate this, I just want to know your view as well as what the other guys (Bart, Robin, Scott, Wes, John, and Tim)view and description what a New Testament Church looks and acts like from a practical perspective.
Randy,
I think where you raise an interesting point is about the nature of offense. In 2 Peter 3:14 there is a conditional clause that “if you suffer for the sake of righteousness” indicating it is possible to suffer for many other reasons :). So if I get what your saying, the questions we must ask ourselves, to be fair, is am I suffering for the sake of righteoussness of something else. To illustrate, if I go witness downtown and yell at people walking down the street and they start cussing at me, I cannot very well say, “Oh, they just hate Jesus and the Gospel”. In fact, they hate me because I am being rude. So I take Peter to be saying, among other things, that we ought not confuse our own sinful offenses with the offense of the Gospel.
If I am reading you right, I do agree with that point, but I imagine Joe would as well.
Adam
Of course I agree – Adam. That’s just foolishness – not the foolishness of the cross. I’ll flesh this out in my next post and give Randy an answer. Too much to do here.
Adam,
You have clearly articulated part of my position on the statement ““If unbelievers like what they see, they’ll listen to what we say.” Your illustration of the folks hollering at people on the street with a bull horn is a perfect example. People like people who are kind and gracious and will stop and listen to those who approach them with this demeanor. At the same time I believe that the method that we use to evangelize must be a method that will be attractive or like by the people. This does not mean we throw a beer party to attract the weekend lake folks. But we may sponsor a boat show or a fishing tournament (Fishers of Men: http://www.fomntt.com) with the intent purpose of have the church meet people and share the gospel.
Adam, I think that your statement “that we ought not confuse our own sinful offenses with the offense of the Gospel” is a very insightful and astute thought. I believe that it supports what Jesus was saying in Matthew 7:4 about getting the plank out of our eye before we get the speck out of someone else’s eye.
Joe,
I look forward to reading your and the rest of the guys who blog on SBC Today positions of what a New Testament church looks and acts like practically.
Serving Christ Together,
Randy Willis
Brother Randy,
Let me get this straight. You want to know my understanding of a New Testament Church? Have you not known me long enough? Do I need to hunt you down like a dog and shoot you? :)
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I did not want you to feel left out. Also, you are so quiet and seldom share your opinion on issues that I wanted to give you a chance to let people know where you stand. LOL
Randy
Brother Randy,
You asked for my view and description what a New Testament Church looks and acts like from a practical perspective.
The following is my reasoned response. Of course you can find Scriptural references and much more about what I believe from this link.
A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous local congregation of baptized believers, associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel; observing the two ordinances of Christ, governed by His laws, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by His Word, and seeking to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth. Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes. In such a congregation each member is responsible and accountable to Christ as Lord. Its scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.
The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.
Hope this helps. I am not able to speak for the rest of the guys here, but since we are referred to in the blogosphere as Baptist Identity they probably would have pretty much the same response.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
You have done a great job of defining the church and I agree with everything you have said. What I desire though is not a definition but how does the New Testament church carry out its definition. I would like to hear, from the perspective of methods, how you carry out your understanding of the New Testament church. What are the practical things that a church does that distinguishes it as a New Testament church as it relates to the people it is called to minister to and evangelize? What I mean is things like worship style, outreach methods, leadership development, teaching curriculum, ministry staffing, the time worship starts, what Sunday\’s events look like (i. e.evening worship, discipleship, etc), types of discipleship offerings, involvement in the community, and support of local ministries (pregnancy centers, food banks, soup kitchens, help centers, etc).
Thanks,
Randy