As many churches focus their efforts towards becoming more
missional, the same issue seems to keep rising to the top of the kettle
on the stove - namely: How do we, as a church body, reach a culture that
is decidedly counter establishment and, potentially, post-modern? How
do we minister to the needs of those who have decided that the way we
currently do church is unsatisfactory for meeting their needs?
The answers to those questions tend to cause a fair amount of strife
within the evangelical community, sometimes driving a wedge between
various groups, thereby hindering honest fellowship. Conflict arises, in
short, when old paradigms are questioned and new
creative methodologies are posited.
Not surprisingly, the methods addressed, as well as the reasons for
conflict, increasingly point towards generational differences. If I
were attempting to be snarky, then I'd say that the conflict within
evangelical circles boils down to disagreements between the
Jim Wallis Emergent Church Liberals and the
Pat Robertson Religious Right
Republicans
(but... I'll forgo the snarkiness). Yet, this attribution to mere
generational differences is unsatisfactory, in my opinion. To be sure,
there are certainly individuals, on both sides of the issue, who are
guilty of being inflexible with regards to the debate, but I believe
that the generational issue is but a symptom of what is truly ailing all
of us.
At the heart of the issue, I believe, is our inherent greed for the
self. We are, in fact, selfish to the core. The extent of our
affluence, health, and order is virtually unmatched in history. Yet,
with all we have, we strive for more - even when couched in terms of
how
we want to worship God. We want things on our terms
(whether we're Christian or non-Christian, by the way), and our entire
economy is grounded on our ability to deliver what the customer wants
(provided we make a profit, of course).
While the inflexible older generation of evangelicals seems to be
unwilling to change what they perceive to be the best way to do church,
the younger generation seems to be, conversely, willing to change. One
group perceives the tried and true methodology as effective, with the
sub-culture
being at fault, while the other group perceives the current methodology
as hopelessly ineffective, with the culture being at fault. Both
groups, though, while sincere in their desire to evangelize the lost,
seem to put their hopes in the approach.
However, I can't help but think that, all things being equal, the
test of time should tip the scales in this regard. Tradition. Tradition
and doctrine. What was it that
Chesterton said?
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our
ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit
to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be
walking about.
And
C.S. Lewis?
Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But
the map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really
were in touch with God--experiences compared with which any thrills or
pious feelings you or I are likely to get on our own way are very
elementary and very confused.
This is not the answer that many
younger generation pastors
want to hear. It is the answer, though, that they need to hear. It is
indeed unfortunate that many Christians who would wish to reach a
certain
sub-culture within our culture run the risk of ignoring the wisdom of the
elderly while catering to the wants of the young.
Greg Koukl, from
Stand to Reason, likes to say that we, as Christians, are to be about
adapting the Gospel (free registration req'd.) message to the culture rather than adopting the mores of the culture. In a
recent interview (free registration req'd.), with Stand to Reason,
J. P. Moreland reminded us that we, as Christians, are to be counter-cultural. Indeed, in Rodney Stark's book,
The Rise of Christianity,
we read of the manner in which the early Christians, based on living
out their Christianity, countered the cultural dispositions of the time
regarding women, the unborn, the sick, and the poor. The point to note
is that the early Christians weren't catering to the wants of the
culture (no
sub-cultural element here), but were ministering to the needs of the culture -
wherever those needs happened to be.
Needs vs. wants; hurts vs. annoyances; selflessness vs. selfishness; responsibility vs. rights.
A post at
Mere Comments tells us about the angst many parents go through when
deciding what to name
their little darling children. Individuality, it would seem, is
paramount. It used to be you would select a name congruent with your
family line, or demonstrative of your beliefs, or related in some way
to the manner in which your child came into the world. Not so in our
self adulating society in which personal distinction is heralded above
all else. Hence, it is not surprising that consultants are hired to
advise on the best possible monikers for your offspring.
Some would argue, though, that we are a much more
relationally connected culture than that of even our recent past. As such, wouldn't we want to, as Christians, engage the
sub-culture in methods that capitalize on this honest approach? From
David Wells,
I think there is a lot of truth in that phrase ["the medium is the
message"]. This argument that the message is preserved while the means
of delivery is changed is a misleading proposition, because the message
being delivered almost invariably is stripped of its theological
content. ...The pulpit is replaced by a Plexiglas stand. And then the Plexiglas
stand disappears and you have people on barstools.
...But subtle messages are being sent
by all of this. In an earlier generation, the pulpit was at the center
of the church. It was visually central. You saw it. Oftentimes it was
elevated. And this was a way of saying to the congregation, "The Word
of God that we are about to hear is above normal human discussions.
We’ve got to pay attention to it, because it is authoritative."
Now we have replaced the pulpit not even by a barstool, but by a cup
of Starbucks coffee, which speaks of "human connecting." And human
connecting has become more important to us than our hearing from God.
Now when we make these kinds of changes to our method, we are really
making changes in the message that is delivered.
One wonders how Christians can adapt a Gospel of selflessness and
responsibility with a culture of relational narcissism? Is it so much
to ask that the younger generation actually listen to the older
generation? Is it so much to ask that the older generation be open to
the possibility of actually living out their Christianity?
The Gospel, at times, may seem irrelevant to believers and
non-believers alike. Our typically Western approach, pragmatically
speaking, is to alter our delivery - fine tune
the pitch so as
to meet the wants of the recipient, thereby making them happy (for the
moment). Yet, too often, we attempt to make the Gospel pragmatic before
attempting to understand the text of the Gospel. The Gospel is - the
good news; it is not a cure-all self-help program. It is the narrative
of our Lord's time on Earth. Our first questions, upon reading it,
should be with regards to how it demonstrates Jesus' identity and what
our responsibilities are in being His disciple. Only by understanding
this context can we begin to see our responsibility in accessing the
deliverance it can and will provide.
Of what ultimate concern is it to us, as Christians, that both
Christians
and non-Christians may consider the way we do church to be boring,
unnecessary,
and hypocritical? Is there a point, in our delivery of the Gospel,
where we draw a line in the sand and state, "No, we will not cater to
your wants!"? Is there a point, in our delivery of the Gospel, where we
will not move away from the message that God is
commanding everyone to repent of their sins?
It seems to me that, if we are to be Christians in the world, then
we are to be about ministering to the needs - of the world - the entire
world. If there are any
sub-cultures to be addressed, then they will be addressed
within the body of Christ - where they should be.
John MacArthur tells us, in recounting what
John Piper has said, regarding Augustine, Luther, and Calvin,
The thing that I'm drawing out of this... is that at all
points, where these people began to turn the history of the church, it
was based upon a breakthrough in their understanding of scripture. It
came about through exegesis. It came about through a commitment to
exposition. This is greatly encouraging to me, because there is so
little of it going on today. The idea today is if you really want to
affect society, put the Bible aside - people can't connect with it -
speak to them in cultural terms - tell them stories that they're going
to be interested in - speak in relevant language and relevant paradigms
and relevant experiences, etc., etc., etc.
...going back to these men [Augustine, et. al.] ...we find that they
were largely expositors. If you are a pastor you are a preacher - you
are not an entrepreneur - you are not a CEO - you are not quiz show
host - you are not a barker in a carnival - you are not a salesman. You
are a preacher of the Word of God.
Certainly, adopting the values of a narcissistic culture, in the hopes of being relevant, is inappropriate. Yet, how does one
adapt
to the values of such a culture without insulting such a culture? The
dreaded phrase "you're wrong" would seem to be the only true approach.
In a self-righteous culture, however, personal autonomy denied amounts
to blasphemy of the highest degree.
(Article published on http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/08/marketing-the-g.html)
