Archive for Contextualization
Funny Stuff, If It Were Not So Sad
Posted by: | Comments
Relevant? Fitting in with their culture? This is how silly and crazy some Churches can get as they seek to identify with their culture, and supposedly do things to reach people. Notice that the name of the Church is the Wine Barrel Church. Maybe that should tell us all someting. This would really be funny, if it were not so sad. Thanks to Robin Foster for sharing such a wonderful video with all of us.
How Lost People See Us?
Posted by: | CommentsI was reading the On Mission magazine from NAMB when I saw a study done by the Barna Research Group. The research was done to show how lost people between the ages of 16 to 29 see evangelical Christians. I’m not sure why this is so important, nor what you and I can do with this research. I mean, lost people are not gonna like Christians. The Lord told us this. Did He not? Matthew 10:22 (English Standard Version) says that ”you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” In the book of Luke 6:22 (English Standard Version), the Bible says that “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” And, in 2 Timothy 3:12 (English Standard Version) we’re promised that “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.”
So, when the research tells us that 91% of non-Christians see evangelicals as anti-homosexual, what are we supposed to do? Quit saying that homosexuality is a sin? Because, I’ll guarantee you that no matter how nice you try to say it, and no matter how many times you say that you love the homosexual person; whenever you say that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, people are gonna accuse us of being anti-homosexual. I’ve seen this first hand on more than one occasion. The lost crowd just does not want to hear that it’s sin against God; plain and simple.
And, when 87% of the lost crowd sees evangelical Christians as judgmental, are we supposed to stop calling sin what it is…”sin?” Because, listen, the lost, rebellious crowd will say this just because we call sin by it’s ugly name. That’s just how a lost person is, when they’re living in those sins. They don’t like for their sin to be brought to light. And, once again, no matter how nice and loving you try to be, once you name a sin as a sin, especially one that a person is living in; then you’re labeled as judgmental. Go on a talk show, and as nice and as lovingly kind as you can possibly say it; say that any sex outside of the marriage boundary is a sin against God. See how the crowd responds. It wont be pretty.
Okay, the next thing on the research list is that famous old, worn out line that a lot of lost people like to use about evangelical Chrisitans. 85% of the lost crowd sees us as hypocritical. So, what’s new here? I’ll bet this has been said ever since Noah first lifted a hammer and told people to get right with God, because it was gonna rain. Christians have faults and shortcomings. Every Christian sins; every last one of us. We all fail to be all that God wants us to be. So, everytime a Christian fails God, the lost crowd is waiting to pounce on it like a coyote after a fat, plump bunny rabbit. I think it makes them feel better about their own sins, when they can call Christians “hypocrites.” I think it eases their consciences just a little bit to point out the failures of a Believer. It gives them a good excuse to stay lost. And, you know what, lost people just dont understand grace. Again, what do we do with this info? I mean, we cant stop sinning. We’re gonna sin. We’re gonna fail God. So, what good is it to know this info? How does this help us? What in the world can we do with it?
Now, I’m not gonna go over every single research item that was listed in the Spring 2010 On Mission magazine by NAMB. But, here are the other topics: Non-Christians see evangelicals as Old Fashioned 78%; Too involved in Politics 75%; Out of Touch with Reality 72%; Insensitive to Others 70%; Boring 68%; Not Accepting of Others Faiths 64%; Confusing 61%. Well, some of these things we can work on. The old fashioned thing can be remedied, and it is being remedied by many, many Churches with contemporary music, technology, and dressing more cool and hip at Church. The “Too involved in Politics” thing is something that we’ll always be accused of, if we ever take a political stand for moral reasons. I do agree that some Pastors are too involved in politics. But, I’m glad that some Christians feel led to get into politics, in order to do good. And, any political stand that we take will be seen as too much for a lot of the lost crowd out there
Now, I’d imagine that evangelical Christians will always be looked upon as being out of touch with reality by the lost crowd. After all, we look thru the lens of faith at the world, and the lost crowd doesn’t. We can work on being more sensitive to others, but I doubt that us being more sensitive to others will ever be good enough for the lost crowd. The boring thing….well, I was bored with worship and Bible study and prayer, too, back when I was lost and living in sin. It didn’t do anything for me, as a lost person. I doubt that there was anything that could’ve been done to make it less boring for me, as long as I was lost and living in sin. Then, the “Not Accepting of Other’s Faiths” thing…well, this is just how it’s always gonna be. How could it ever be seen as any different? I mean, as Christians, who believe the Bible, Muslims are lost and wrong, and they worship a false god. Buddhists are lost, and they will not go to Heaven. Jews are not going to Heaven when they die, unless they put their faith in Jesus as their Messiah. Mormons are involved in a cult, and they definitely worship a false god. So, how in the world could we ever change this perspective, and still be true to God and to His Word? The Bible is exclusive. God is exclusive. All dogs don’t go to Heaven.
You know what I think? I think that the lost, rebellious crowd is always gonna view us, Christ Followers, as a strange and peculiar people, no matter what we do. I think that the lost crowd is gonna look upon us in a bad light, no matter what. I think that the lost crowd is not gonna be accepting of our beliefs, nor change their view of us, unless we’re willing to compromise our faith. They will look upon us in a bad way, unless we’re willing stop living for the Lord. I knew this before this study was ever done, and we all knew this before NAMB chose to put it in their magazine. I mean, I didn’t expect to win any popularity contest in the arena of the world, as a Believer. Who does? Anyone? The simple fact is that the lost crowd does not like us due to our walk with God; due to our being a follower of Jesus; due to us calling sin what it is; due to us preaching the Gospel….exhorting them to repent and put their faith in Jesus.
I’m not really sure why NAMB put this in their magazine, nor what we’re supposed to do with this study; but I’m sure that there’ll be some wimpy Christians out there that this will really disturb. There will be some namby, pamby Christians out there, who’ll be really upset that the lost crowd doesn’t like us. And, they’ll want to make every change possible to “get the lost crowd to like us.” Why? Why are there some Believers out there, who think like this? Who think that we have to please the worldly crowd? Who think that we have to be acceptable to the lost bunch? Who honestly think that somehow we can “make the lost people out there like us and accept us?” Who think this study is even important to know?
Are we gonna stop preaching against the sins of adultery and fornication and lying? Are we gonna start preaching that “all dogs go to Heaven?” Do we need to start telling homosexuals that “you’re ok, and I’m ok?” Are we gonna start having scantily clothed dancing girls in our church, so that the men will not be bored? And, sign up men from the church to be in our newly formed, worship leaders group the “Holy Chippendales,” so that the ladies will be more excited about coming to church? Do we need to start advertising that pre-worship cocktails will be available in the lobby? Maybe that’ll make the lost crowd feel better about us? or, at least, less bored with our worship?
I dont think so. I think that what we really need is for Christians to be more like the Believers in the book of Acts, and turn our world upside down. I really think that we need to trust the power of the Holy Spirit to call people to salvation. I really think that we need to preach the Gospel, stand on the truth of God’s Word, and leave the results to God. I really think that we should tweak how we do worship without violating Scripture; be creative in our outreach without getting stupid or crazy; and be open to making sensible changes that might open doors for us to able to reach lost people, without compromising our faith. Now, please know that I was not saying that NAMB, nor Barna, was saying anything about compromising, nor even hinting at compromising. I’m really not sure why they felt that this study was important. Maybe they just did it, and printed it merely for information’s sake, or out of curiousity, or to tell us what we all should already be aware of? I don’t know. But, I can just see the wheels turning in some “Evangelical Christians” minds about this info. They might start thinking of all the things that we need to do to be more acceptable to the lost crowd. I can just hear their thoughts about the shame it is that the lost crowd would think this of us, and how we need to change this perception.
Again, I ask how? And, will anything really change their perception of us? Do we honestly think that the lost crowd will ever view us in a truly positive light? I mean, if we really live for God, and preach the Gospel?
UPDATE: Franklin Graham was cancelled from speaking at the Pentagon for some remarks he made about Islam. Franklin Graham spoke the truth about Islam, and he was censored. Anyone surprised? Some of the people, who think that lost people will love us are probably a little shocked.
The Bible and Big Crowds
Posted by: | CommentsI heard a Pastor say that we should not teach and preach the Bible verse by verse, because the people will just not get it. That expository preaching is just for preachers; that only preachers would understand it. Thus, we should not preach and teach the Bible. But, instead, we should preach what we think the people would want to hear. And, this fella also seemed to be justifying his remarks by the fact that he has a big crowd at his Church on Sunday.
Another Pastor told me, one time, that a certain fella went crazy on the Bible. He said that the man started studying his Bible, too much, and it caused him to lose his mind!
I’d like to know what your thoughts are on these two statements. And, is a “big crowd” what’s the measure of success in a church? Is Bible preaching, or expository preaching, or text driven preaching not the way to go, if you really want to be a successful Pastor?
Maybe we should have the Holy Ghost Hokie Pokie at our Churches, in order to get the crowd coming?!!? Peter Lumpkins had this video at his blog, and it reminded me of what some Pastors and Churches do in their attempt to be “relevant” and gain a big crowd. I mean, if a big crowd is our measure of success, and we’re willing to just preach shallow, fluffy, psychological, self help messages to gain the crowd, then shouldn’t we look to things like the Hokie Pokie, or Christian Country line dancing, maybe, depending on your culture, to “reach” people; to get the crowds? Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTPowYQ-jVU
I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this.
A Movement Toward the Social Gospel?
Posted by: | Comments
Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch is the primary theologian of the Social Gospel. Dr. Rauschenbusch was a Baptist theologian writing around the turn of the 20th Century. He was castigated because of his opposition to World War I and after the war, he became more popular as a writing theologian. The Social Gospel began as a result of Dr. Rauschenbusch’s experience in “Hell’s Kitchen”. It was during that time that Rauschenbusch observed, the stench of violence and hardship that plagued the poor. The Social Gospel did not gain much traction because of its opposition to capitalism. The Social Gospel positioned itself in direct opposition to the evangelistic aspect of the Gospel. It taught that if the church’s focus would shift to meeting the needs of the poor then the poor would come to Jesus. Many of the mainstream churches of the time concluded that while man’s greatest need was salvation but meals and clothes were needed in order hear the Gospel. It was through the Social Gospel that Rauschenbusch would argue the mission of the church was to bring in “The Kingdom of God”. The church did this through her main mission of meeting the needs of the poor–politically, spiritually, and physically. Rauschenbusch’s theology did not gain traction in conservative congregations, but in liberal congregations is picked up momentum. Sidney Ahlstrom, author of the 1967 book, Theology in America: The Major Protestant Voices from Puritanism to Neo-Orthodoxy, argued that ‘all liberal movements were searching for some form of new relevancy in the midst of increasing change, the Social Gospel alone stood out as a religious movement that single-mindedly emphasized the “problems [of] industrialism and unregulated urban growth.”’
Quixote, Peyote, and Coyotes
Posted by: | CommentsThe current debate over the perceived generational divide in the SBC brings forth a variety of conclusions. The emerging church has its roots in Leadership Network Symposiums to reach Generation X. Much morphing has transformed this movement into a polyglot of expressions. Yet one of the unexamined assumptions of the generational emphasis is the pragmatic idea that serves as the underpinning of its practice: the church growth movement outlined by Donald McGavran in his book, The Bridges of God. This movement evolved into various expressions, but many that embrace its philosophy believe it is the only valid way to fulfill the Great Commission. Scores of books and studies analyze the effectiveness of this movement and the risk of this short article is oversimplification. Three basic principles underscore the church growth mantra. The first is God wants unevangelized people evangelized. Lost people matter to God. The second essential rationale of the church growth movement theorizes that valid scientific research can reveal the obstacles to growth and the causes of growth and research can be conducted to enhance effective ministry. Much of ministry in SBC Life has this basic premise at heart. The third idea is to formulate strategies based on the conduction of this research. Church plants and plans result from such strategies. In fact, some may think this article is a Quixotic attempt at tilting at windmills. Such a pragmatic argument is anticipated.
Without splitting hairs and engendering debate on the dichotomy that often emerges in what Eugene Peterson calls the Great Omission of the Great Commission: making disciples, I want to challenge a couple of assumptions that form the foundation of the philosophy known as the church growth movement. One is the incessant need by some to somehow study cultures or even generations to target that age group with a worship style or church expression that results in the development of a congregation that is mainly composed of a particular age group. One point of such emphases is at times to disparage the existing form of the church at large and send out flyers insisting this isn’t your Grandma’s church. The unintended consequence (or perhaps anticipated) is a church that is ‘targeted’ at youngsters while devaluing the contributions of older adults (and perhaps a direct contradiction of the imperative of Titus 2). Proponents of this approach suggest: it works so don’t curse what God is blessing. Success in numbers is trumpeted to suggest the validity of the practice as culturally relevant. Critics are charged with not wanting church growth or a parochial mindset. The unanticipated consequence, if not clearly articulated and examined, is the downplaying of biblical distinctives such as the admonition that the dividing walls have fallen as in Galatians 3:28 (no Jew or Greek, male or female, in Christ Jesus). The temptation with such a strategy is to fit the gospel into the culture by adopting and adapting methodology in a capitulation to the extant culture. Today it may be alcohol. Tomorrow it could be peyote.
The danger in such a dynamic is the reduction of the church to a pragmatic tool. Van Gelder has suggested we use “church” as a noun rather than as an adjective. Perhaps the obstacle that needs to be removed for us to ‘be’ the church rather than just ‘do’ church is to realize that God will build His church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. Reformulating biblical language to make it user-friendly often dumbs down our worship and leads to biblical illiteracy. If you can learn to order at Starbucks you can sure learn the biblical meaning of propitiation. Downplaying biblical distinctives as not to offend the crowd is at best a misunderstanding of the imperative to preach the whole counsel of God. Embracing research without the understanding that real church growth is necessarily ‘supernatural’ engenders man-centered and pragmatic tendencies. Trumpeting God’s grace while dismissing God’s wrath creates an unbalanced gospel. It’s like killing all the coyotes to save the cute rabbits. There are new plants and churches that are faithfully strategizing and supernaturally multiplying. May God add to their number! Above all may the church be the church to the glory of God.
Paradox Lost – Part One
Posted by: | CommentsPerhaps the best metaphor to describe the contemporary church, with apologies to John Milton, is Paradox Lost. Somewhere along the line many church leaders have forgotten what Randy Alcorn calls the grace and truth paradox.[i] We must be full of grace and truth (John 1:14). When Jesus walked this earth, he gave us an invariable paradigm to follow often expressed by the prepositions in but not of:
I have given them Your Word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of this world, even as I am not of this world. I do not ask you to take them out of this world, but keep them from the evil one. They are not of this world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As you have sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world. (John 17:14-18).
