The Reformation Project: Thesis 7

7. Christianity at its root narrates the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation.  That narrative constitutes the message of the church. A church that speaks often of other subjects and speaks only occasionally of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation is guilty of hiding the central message of Christ behind a shroud of peripheral subjects.

In both politics and business, experts will talk about the importance of staying on message. One may recall that in the 1990's presidential candidate Bill Clinton operated with a constant reminder from campaign staff: "It's the economy, stupid." As a general rule, candidates or businesses that lose sight of their central message do so at the risk of their viability. This is not to say that they don't care about anything else, but it is to say, as an old mentor of mine used to claim, that they need to keep the main thing the main thing.

Of course, churches and ministries don't always share the same values as businesses, not to mention politicians, but in this instance the parallels would seem to be instructive. Many ministers will quote Paul's statement about preaching "the whole counsel of God," as well as the need to instruct Christians in all things needed for life and godliness. True enough, but the church that loses site of its central message sets out on a course that will lead to faithlessness.

In truth, the Bible does not relate our story, but God's story, telling how he is operating in human history to accomplish his purposes, and at the heart of those purposes is his determination to redeem a people out of fallen humanity for himself. Every other subject that is a legitimate matter for the church's interest arises out of those themes.

Do non-Christians understand the church's message in this way? Probably not, as I am not sure that even many active church members can articulate this. The church will teach about many things, but all of the spokes flow out of the hub of creation, fall, redemption and consummation.

See here for a Table of Contents for this study.

The Reformation Project: Thesis 6

6. Christian proclamation must take proper notice of the distinction between Law and Gospel in the Scripture, and must proclaim both in their proper relationship to one another.

This is a fundamental distinction in Scripture, but one that I fear is completely passed over in many churches and not understood even by many life long church members and attenders.

Generally, the distinction is this: Law is what is found in Scripture when God requires something of us. Gospel is what we find when God makes promises with no condition other than that we take him at his word.

To get more specific, as many readers have no doubt heard, the word gospel means simply "good news." The good news in question is the announcement, as we find in I Corinthians 15, that Christ has died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, all in accordance with the promises of scripture.

Notice the character of the gospel as an announcement. It is news that we receive, not something that we do. I often hear people say that they want to "live the gospel," but this confuses categories. Certainly, a Christian will want to live his life in the light of gospel promises, understanding life as an expression of gratitude for what we have received by grace. However, we do not live the gospel. The gospel is not something we do. It is the announcement of what God has done for us in Christ.

In drawing these distinctions, I am not suggesting that the church should proclaim the gospel instead of the law. Rather, the church must proclaim both. The law points us to our need for Christ. To preach the gospel without the law results in people seeing no need for Christ. To preach law without gospel leaves people with a knowledge of their guilt and without hope. The church must proclaim them together.

When these are properly distinguished and declared together, those who hear can realize the grand truth that the terrifying chasm between a holy God and sinful men has been addressed in the Gospel, through which sinners have been reconciled to God in the death of Christ.

A Table of Contents for this "Reformation Project" can be found here.

The Reformation Project: Thesis 5

5. Christianity is about what God does about our sins. If there is no teaching regarding sin – its origins, its reality, its universality, its guilt, its results, and its punishment – there is no reason for Christianity. 

When discussing the widespread disappearance of the subject of sin from American pulpits, it is easy to turn to the example of Joel Osteen, who has openly declared his refusal to address the subject in his messages, as he doesn't want to drag people down. However, beyond Osteen it is not difficult to recognize the change that has taken place in American pulpits, both evangelical and liberal, in recent decades. Among some, the subject of sin is removed in favor of psychological categories. The notion of sin is often soft-pedaled, and a variety of euphemisms have been adopted. Whereas Scripture declares people to be "dead in their trespasses and sins," ungodly," and even "wicked," modern pulpiteers that bother to address the subject at all are more likely to say that we are "messy" or "broken."

In many ways this is a reaction against another inappropriate way of preaching about sin in present and past generations. Ministers may have ranted against various public sins, generating shame among the guilty while offering no gospel hope. Certainly, that is not the alternative one would look for.

But, it needs to be recognized that soft pedaling sin does the disservice of diminishing one's sense of the love and grace of God. To say that we are messy or broken calls for certain kinds of solutions that may emphasize self-improvement; to recognize that we are dead in trespasses and sins calls for a more radical answer that only can be brought about by one who brings the dead to life.

Perhaps the most amazing verses in the Bible inform us that God justifies the wicked and that God demonstrated his love for us by dying for us while we were yet sinners. Indeed, that is remarkable love and amazing grace. If we don't know enough to recognize our status as sinners and our condition as wicked, we will never understand the greatness of God's love in our behalf. 

Does not the church need to rediscover a robust doctrine of sin?

The Reformation Project: Thesis Four

4. Biblical doctrine teaches that Jesus, both God and man, was the Word of God who dwelt among us, was perfectly sinless, and by His sinless life and substitutionary death He both perfectly fulfilled the requirements of the Law and paid the penalty for the Curse upon all who are His, and His bodily resurrection validated the truth of His claims.  There is no sufficient reason to follow and worship Jesus apart from these doctrinal claims. 

This is one of several theses that ask the reader to interact with assertions as to the central core of Christianity. Identifying the central elements of Christianity should in turn serve to direct the church toward its core functions.

Modern church movements, in both evangelical and progressive expressions, center evangelistic efforts and their raison d'etre around a variety of themes: the creation of meaningful community, a mechanism for psychological wholeness, a basis for social justice, and so forth. These often are good things worth pursuing, and in some instances they may be proper emphases for the regenerate, but do these things really form the core of Christian teaching?

Scripture as a whole -- and Jesus in particular -- made claims regarding the person and work of Jesus, claims that are subject to historical examination and theological reasoning. Whether these claims are true is a matter of eternal significance. That being the case, they should form the center -- and much of the periphery -- of any properly constituted church.

See here for a Table of Contents for The Reformation Project.

The Reformation Project: Thesis 3

Thesis 3:  Rather than focusing on the circumstantial question of “what would Jesus do” in a given situation, it is more important to understand what Jesus has done for the eternal salvation of His people.

 For the last couple of decades pastors and youth ministers have advised teens and others to make decisions about what to do, where to go, and who to spend time with by asking themselves a simple question:  what would Jesus do?  The intent was to say to 16 year olds:  if Jesus would not have gone to that party or done that with a girl, then you shouldn’t do that either.  At some point that simple pastoral approach to addressing teen behavior became the subject of a major marketing campaign including the initials WWJD on an array of bracelets, t-shirts, and other products.  While that approach to pastoral care is not totally without merit, it is in many ways overly simplistic and runs the risk of reducing the life of Jesus into a kind of Aesop’s fable.  Additional problems have become clear as the marketing buzz elevated WWJD as a central tenet of how some viewed Christianity and the Christian life, in high school and beyond.

Most fundamentally, one can easily see how easily WWJD becomes a pretext for idolatry and self-worship.  For one thing, thinking about the life of Jesus and of us in this way instead of grounding our Christian lives in Gospel truths reduces Christianity to a mere moralism.  Sadly, surveys have shown clearly that many of the same teens and young adults (and older ones, too) that have proudly worn WWJD memorabilia have also remained woefully uninformed of the facts of the gospel and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It is interesting, but on some level not surprising, that the same churches that have assured us that they have protected their people from the legalistic excesses of past generations have nonetheless managed to address the nature of Christianity primarily in terms of what we do.  To talk about what Jesus might theoretically do without laying a foundation as to what he has done for our eternal salvation results in churches failing to teach what God has done in Christ for our redemption while also undercutting much of the biblical motivations and empowerment for Christian living.  When one loses the necessity of the regeneration, the power of the Gospel, the presence of the Holy Spirit, and the motivation of gratitude in response to divine grace, all one is left with to motivate Christians to faithfulness is some sort of legalism. That today’s legalism is kinder and gentler than that thrust upon past generations offers neither comfort nor power to believers today.

In addition, frequently the question of what Jesus would have done in a given situation is not even answerable, because Jesus never confronted that particular issue in any of the gospel records.  Without a clear biblical example, many will frame the issue in a manner that lends itself to the desirable answer, and then essentially assume that the choice I want to make is identical to what Jesus would have done.  Self-interest is not in every instance wrong, but shrouding it in a cloak of divine sanction is both wrong and delusional.  One sees this clearly when this is applied to politics.  In published articles in recent years, people on the religious left have asked what Jesus would do and have expressed confidence that he would not drive an environmental menace such as an SUV, while those on the right have taken a similar approach to ascertaining with certainty that he would advocate a preferred approach to tax rates.  Of course, Jesus never addressed either of these issues, and while various principles might be found from his teachings that would provide clues as to his views, to say that the answer is not clear cut would be an understatement.  These attempts to co-opt Jesus as a supporter of political programs are delusional and manipulative, if not idolatrous.  The same results can occur when applying this approach to personal decisions and ethics.

           

The Reformation Project: Thesis 2

2.  A church does not honor the Word of God if its priorities are not set by that Word. 

While the leaders of the fastest growing churches in America tend not to define themselves with the doctrinal clarity that was common in past generations, most would be defined as on the conservative side of the divide over the “battle for the Bible” that has marked the last 150 years of American Christian history.  That is to say, most of the leaders of these churches, along with their informed members, would claim to have faith in an infallible or inerrant Bible which stands as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice.  While many of these churches would shun any labels that identify themselves with past sectarian battles (many even eschew denominational identification in their church names and only accept accomodationist labels such as “contemporary” and “seeker sensitive”), culturally and theologically they should be generally regarded as conservative.  Statements of faith found on their websites – with diligent searching – commonly affirm Scripture as “the supreme source of truth,” “truth without any mixture of error,” “without error,” and with similar phrases. None of the pastors of these churches, if asked, would deny belief in miracles, and all would affirm faith in the historicity of the resurrection and other biblical events and claim the Bible as the authority for what they teach.  All would believe in some form of creationism or intelligent design, and many would hold to a young earth version of that teaching.

But, do claims to hold the Bible in high regard carry any weight when the Bible’s priorities do not drive the priorities of those making the claims? 

Several years ago, I visited a church on a Sunday while traveling.  Bulletin inserts provided to the members and attendees outlined the beginning of a process that the church was undertaking in order to define its “core beliefs.”  In order to facilitate that process, the inserts asked members to respond to a survey, which included questions along the lines of why the respondent decided to attend that church and why they thought that unbelievers in the area might become interested in visiting the church.

These questions might have had relevance if the church had set out to understand whether it was welcoming of visitors or doing an effective job at integrating newcomers into the life of the congregation.  That these types of questions were being used to develop “core beliefs” is more than a bit disturbing.  A church’s core beliefs cannot be derived from a poll of members, much less than from the suggestions of unbelievers.  Core beliefs for a church come from the Word of God, and they are ideally expressed in confessions of faith adhered to by the congregation.  In addition, while a church’s vision and mission might be localized to a specific missional context, the beginning point for understanding these things is not found in demographics, geography, or the gifts of the minister or church members. The beginning point for understanding these things is in Christ’s Great Commission and other relevant passages in the Word.

The misunderstanding of the church being described may be extreme, but this particular malady is not.  Churches developing their self-understanding around the notion that the customer – that is, the seeker – is king should recall that early Christians met their death for refusing to say that anyone other than Jesus is Lord.  The priorities of the biblical preacher must not arise out of the felt needs of his listeners, nor out of personal hobby horses, but they must reflect the priorities of Scripture applied to the congregation.  If the Bible is authoritative, it must be the authority for what is preached, and its primary message must be the focus of the church’s message.

The Reformation Project: Thesis 1

1. The Church’s message is not dictated by those outside the Church, but by the risen Lord, to whom all authority in Heaven and on earth has been given. 


Before launching into these theses, I should note that this part of my project was a joint effort engaged in along with my wife, Lanette.

Regarding the above thesis, most evangelical church leaders would contend nowadays that they are not changing the church's message; rather, they are merely changing the packaging in order to communicate it better to a modern audience. 

However, this hardly seems correct or even possible. That is not to say that these evangelical leaders are being dishonest, though one might suggest that they are too frequently more than a little naive on this issue. The truth of the matter is that taking a marketing approach that places audience interests at the forefront inevitably alters the questions that the church will be required to answer. Changing the questions of necessity alters the nature of the answers that will be given.

This is not to say that the church may comfortably practice irrelevancy, for that is also not consistent with the message of the Bible. To the extent that modern churches are reacting to irrelevant worship and preaching in their church experience, they have rendered a correct diagnosis of error on the part of those churches.

However, the trend has been for churches to focus almost entirely on temporal matters addressed in ways that make scripture's priorities and approach to be of tangential importance, while the redemptive history that functions as the priority of Scripture is mostly ignored. This thesis asks the church to consider that the risen Lord, not the tastes of audiences inside or outside the visible church, is the One who dictates the message that his ambassadors are instructed to proclaim.

The table of contents for this project can be found here.

The Reformation Project: Introduction to the Resolutions

In late October of last year, I began this series of posts pretentiously entitled "The Reformation Project." The study began with 20 posts summarizing and analyzing my experiences in visiting the 10 largest churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. I wrote with a view toward the thesis that these churches present important clues as to the future direction of American Christianity. Following that section, I penned a series of posts regarding what my research suggested about the current state of evangelical worship, music, and preaching.

In many ways I found this research and the conclusions I reached to be distressing, but the point of this project has not been to depress Christians committed to historic Christian faith and practice. Just as Martin Luther 500 years ago looked at the church of his day with a sense of personal and ecclessial distress and set a fire that started a historic recovery of biblical Christianity, even so it is hoped now that Christians worldwide recognizing the needs of Christ's church might turn in a way that would be used of him to launch a new Reformation.

With that in mind, and in a feeble imitation of Luther, I will proceed to propose a series of questions for discussion that would seem to me to be worthy of the consideration of church leaders, whether they would share or reject my own perspective on the state of things. Unlike Luther, I will follow my theses with some brief comments for consideration.

What we do know is that current floundering does not mean that the church is in danger. We understand that Christ has promised that he will build his church and the gates of hell will not stand against it. Ultimately, the success of Christ's church does not rest on the efforts of his followers; rather it has been guaranteed by his resurrection and ascension into heaven, where he is seated at the right hand of the Father, in the place of authority. Whereas Adam failed to fulfill Christ's commission, and Israel followed in Adam's steps, Christ has succeeded, and we know that one day his temple will fill the earth.

To God alone be glory.