The Reformation Project: Visiting Gateway Church

SOUTHLAKE, Texas, October 20, 2013 -- Around the time of this visit, Gateway Church was in the process of opening a large number of satellite locations throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Because one of the newer locations was only three blocks from my home in Fort Worth, the decision was made to visit it first before heading over to the main campus in Southlake.

Both locations were crowded -- meaning that several hundred people gathered at the satellite location; several thousand for the service at Southlake. The crowd at the large fan shaped facility in Southlake was so large that I felt fortunate when an usher helped us find seats that allowed my wife, son, and me to sit together.

Unlike other large churches with multiple locations, Gateway Church expects each of its sites to develop its own distinctive personality, with pastor Robert Morris’s sermons being the culmination of the service.  The vast majority of the service at the satellite campus was locally produced, with the sermon piped in by video feed. Thus, the 9:00 a.m. service held at its North Fort Worth location was substantively different from the 10:45 gathering at the main campus, though stylistic matters, as well as the sermon, were essentially the same.  Both churches featured music where the performance seemed to be the main thing, though it was more conducive to congregational singing than what has been experienced at other megachurches, and more people seemed to participate in the singing.  The music was loud enough to convey the idea that the performance was the main thing, but not so loud to cause congregants to stop singing; however, at the main campus, the addition of more sophisticated stage lighting and video gave the music a more performance oriented feel than the more simple stage setup at the satellite. Both services featured at least one song drawn heavily from Scripture.  In North Fort Worth, “Revelation Song” drew powerfully from the language and imagery of Revelation 4 and 5, proclaiming the worthiness of the slain lamb and the holiness of the one upon the throne.  The audience sang for the most part, at least until the amount of repetition began to quench participation. In Southlake, the lyrics of one song came from Romans 8, declaring that nothing can separate believers from the love of God in Christ Jesus.  Another song used lyrics from the Christian hymn, “The Solid Rock,” sung to a modern arrangement and a new refrain.  The refrain, notwithstanding, the arrangement of the song was good and, again, singable by the congregation. In these songs, at least, the Gospel could be heard; as will be noted in a bit, the same was not true of the sermon.

The service opened with a professionally produced video montage used to deliver announcements. Both meetings featured a band and team of gyrating singers clapping, raising their arms, and otherwise moving about in spontaneous ways.  While the satellite location, which is new, had a sparse stage area (other than the two large screens on which the service was projected), the main campus featured a backlit backdrop that was changed out during the transition from the musical portion of the service to the sermon.  The sanctuary appeared to be more than 90% full, and the musical performers played their roles with energy and skill. Their portion of the service had the feel of a pop music concert, with the audience singing along with the band. Shouting singers egging on the audience and rousing applause at the conclusion of songs add to this pop concert feel.  As mentioned before, some of the lyrics were actually quite strong, but I couldn’t help wonder if all of the gymnastics associated with the production succeeded in hiding the meaning and impact of what was being sung.  Singers mouthed prayers at the conclusions of some of the songs, but they were brief and devoid of content beyond generic promises to praise and love God.  Frequently, the prayers concluded with the beginning of another song about the time that a congregant realized that we were supposed to be praying.

A video at the conclusion of the 30 minutes of music at the Southlake service appeared to be primarily designed to distract the congregation while the stage was re-set.  Featuring a group of dancers that finally was reduced to one, it concluded with the message “Become Yourself,” and it was related to the church’s “Freedom Ministries.” 

For a megachurch pastor, Robert Morris was not much of a showman, and there was much about him that was easy to like. After casually strolling on stage wearing a shirt with open collar under a sports jacket, he was self-deprecating (he talked of being injured while engaged in a physically dangerous sport:  frisbee golf) and didn’t make himself the hero of stories he told.  He used humor effectively and to good effect in the sermon, particularly when remarking on a claim made by the audience of Jesus in John 8 that as children of Abraham they had never been in bondage.  “Have you read the Old Testament?” Morris asked.  “They were in bondage to everyone.”

Unlike the sermon discussed in my previous posts about Fellowship Church, this message was an attempt to explain and apply a text of Scripture -- I will have more to say about the pastor's explanations in my next post. The sermon was the latest in a series of messages under the theme of “Free Indeed,” with this one entitled “Believers in Bondage.” He had bondage associated with demonic possession in mind.  Rev. Morris began with John 8:32 (“you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”) and then worked back to verse 31 (“Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him….”) to argue that the ones who needed to be set free were already believers. The theological point that Morris was driving at was his claim that believers might be in bondage because they have left doors open to Satanic influence through continued illness, continued iniquity, or continued occultic influences. 

At the conclusion of the sermon, Morris gave an invitation for those who struggled with any kind of bondage to come forward and pray or talk with a staff counselor.  The idea, based on his own personal illustrations, was that doing so could settle the matter once and for all. One can hope that is the case; however, for many, this churning of recommitments may be something that reoccurs over and over again.

 

The Reformation Project: Analyzing my Visit to Fellowship Church, Grapevine

In my last post, I described my visit to Fellowship Church, Grapevine. While it would not be accurate to say that no analysis was included in the post, for the most part that piece was a play by play account of that day. With this post, I will provide more commentary. Based on this, I would urge any reader who did not see the earlier post to read it before proceeding with this one. The earlier post is foundational to what will be said here.

At the time of my visit, Fellowship Church was listed by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research as the largest church based in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Today, it is in second place, with an average attendance in excess of 24,000. Not all of those people come to the Grapevine location. Like most megachurches, Fellowship Church has satellite campuses, most of which are in north Texas, though they also conduct "worship experiences" in Miami, Florida. At the satellite locations, local musicians and other leaders take care of most of the responsibilities. The sermon portion is video of Ed Young.

The church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, though one has to look hard to find evidence of that. I could not locate any denominational information on the church's website.

Over the years, the church has courted controversy, some of it unwelcome, some of it sought after. Unwelcome local controversy emerged roughly a decade ago with media coverage alleging that Pastor Young enjoyed a profligately lavish lifestyle for a minister. On the other hand, the church has issued press releases inspiring stories about its campaign to get married church members to agree to have sex every day for a month. Along with that campaign, the pastor preached in his pajamas with a bed serving as a prop on the stage of the church. Later, the pastor and his wife conducted a 24 hour sleep in, broadcasting from a bed on the roof of the church. There was nothing terribly salacious about it, but those outside the church were known to wonder about the ministerial fixation on this subject. The sex campaigns have drawn attention nationally from the New York Times, and blogger Ann Althouse has called Pastor Young "creepy" for the way he has dealt with this.

But, the pastor found yet other ways to make his church a focal point for talking about sex. Young invited to the church on a weeknight the CEO of a website that promotes adulterous affairs and a local woman who had written a book about her positive experiences of polyamory to engage in a discussion of sexual ethics. I am sure that the two others enjoyed the relatively free publicity created by the event.

All megachurches are to one degree or another built around the personalities of the lead pastors, but with Fellowship Church that seems to be more true than most, to the point that it is difficult to imagine the church apart from the dominating personality of its pastor. The sermon, which, as will be discussed, was weak on both biblical and practical content, mostly was built around the peculiarity of the pastor playing the role of food infomercial host. The service ended with him playing a rapper in a video. All of the church's press releases appear to either use his name in the headline or at the beginning of the first sentence of the release. If it is about Fellowship Church, then it must be about Ed Young.

It should be noted that visitors to the church are greeted in a friendly way. From the parking lot to every point through the beginning of the service, greeters and others were friendly and helpful. Obviously, the church has put a lot of effort into emphasizing the importance of a good first impression. Those involved in this work do it well.

It is often expected in the modern church world that a discussion of worship will focus on musical style, but in fact I will have little to say about the music. More interesting to me -- and this was reinforced at other megachurches -- was the utter disappearance of almost all elements of worship other than music, the offering, and the sermon (though the word "sermon" appears to be frowned upon). There was no call to worship, no confession of sin, no absolution, no confession of the faith, no Bible reading, no sacraments, and no benediction. There was very little prayer -- most of the prayer that was pronounced was done by the musical leaders as their songs wound down, and it was easy to miss it. There was nothing done along the lines of praying over the needs of church members.

While the church would likely claim that its musical program is a strength, I noted that more people seemed to be observing the performance of the band than were actually singing. Following the service, I looked up information about the church's approach to music and learned that their creative arts team writes most of the music that the church uses during worship. I have mixed feelings about that. It is a good thing to utilize the creative abilities of church members, so the church can be applauded on that score. However, in a church with no formal liturgy and no acknowledgement of an identity with a denomination or with others outside its own walls, using only its own musical creations furthers the isolation of the church from its larger Christian context. This strikes me as unhealthy.

Finally, I should say something about the sermon. I don't want to be guilty of being uncharitable toward the pastor, but it is hard to describe the sermon as anything other than incompetent. I do not say that lightly. The pastor used no text for his sermon, but he did bring bring Scripture into play in order to make his various points. However, each time he used Scripture in a way that would be difficult to parody, as he gave no attention to either a passage's context nor to whether his application of it was at all reasonable. The fruit of the Spirit have nothing to do with identifying good characteristics in a mate. The Spirit's work of washing those who come to Christ has nothing to do with cleaning up the messiness of blended families. The power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8 has nothing to do with either electricity going to a blender or with power for blended families. It is just difficult not to call this laughable.

In addition, in talking about the sermon with a friend and a retired educator, I was urged to consider that the advice conveyed through the blender analogy is fundamentally unhelpful One of the fears of children coming into a blended family is the loss of their individuality. The smoothie metaphor actually promotes a notion of blended families that includes the loss of individual identity.

Unfortunately, the lack of ability to understand and apply Scripture, while perhaps exaggerated in Pastor Young's example, was hardly unique in the churches I visited. After I have worked through my discussion of all of the churches, I will write a few summary articles. One of those will ask "Why Megachurch Johnny Can't Preach.

The Reformation Project: Visiting Fellowship Church, Grapevine

GRAPEVINE, Texas, October 13, 2013 --Getting to the Fellowship Church this morning turned out to be a bit of an ordeal.  Construction is ongoing on Highway 121, which is a limited access road, and the exit normally used to get there was blocked.  The pastor joked about the confusion during his sermon, claiming that even he had considered skipping church and going home. He decided that might be a bad idea.

Once an alternate route was navigated, those making their approach could note clear signage placed at key locations pointing toward the church.  Upon approaching the property, friendly traffic attendants in neon green vests waved and smiled while directing cars in the proper direction.  A sign urged first time visitors to flash their blinkers so as to get “VIP parking.” Not really wanting to be singled out, I did not do so.  As I walked toward the building, I heard an attendant greeting another driver who had:  “Hi! You’re a first time visitor? It’s great to see you!”

Next to the main church entrance on that side was the church’s bookstore and café, called The Source. Entering through that store, I was again greeted enthusiastically by an attractive middle aged woman who welcomed me.  Near the entrance, shelves were filled with books dealing with family life and other practical issues. On into the middle of the store, the shelves were filled with the books and sermon series of the pastor, Ed Young.  Opposite those books, the café offered coffee and pastries of various sorts for a price. 

Leaving the store, one enters a lobby that is actually surprisingly drab.  The lobby is rectangular, with exits on either end.  Above those entryways, electronic signs scrolled colorful messages related to various ministries.  The theme for the creative arts ministry was jarring:  “Always Been about You.”  The signs also featured a digitized clock counting down the minutes and seconds remaining until the beginning of the service.

As more people gathered, I walked around looking for Bibles. I only saw one.

Facing away from the bookstore, one looks toward multiple entrances to the sanctuary, but signage placed in front of the doors prohibited entry until the sanctuary was prepared.  Preparation was promptly complete and the doors opened precisely as the countdown reached seven minutes.  Entering the sanctuary, one was forced through a narrow corridor, as some of the seating was curtained off in order to prevent people from spacing themselves into the back.  A band was already on stage featuring a saxophonist, guitars, and drums with an upbeat, jazzy sound.  Greeters continued to enthusiastically welcome and direct those coming in.

In addition to the band, the upper part of the large stage was enclosed by an eight sided chain link fence.  Though the fencing played no role in this service, it was there as part of the ongoing preaching series of Rev. Young, “Family Octagon.”  As the countdown clock marched toward zero, several singers moved hastily on to the stage, with the leader bounding and bouncing on the stage, clapping his hands above his head and urging everyone else to clap to the rapid beat of the music.  He was quickly joined on stage by numerous other background singers, who appeared to do more bouncing and clapping than singing.  The group reminded me of the Texas Rangers bouncing around a runner that just scored the winning run on a walk off hit.  Among the congregation, it was difficult to tell how many people were actually singing – the lighting was dark, and the band was too loud to hear anyone else.  At one point I turned to my son, who attended with me, and catching his attention, I asked in a normal volume if he could hear me. He could not.

After a couple of fast songs memorable more for their beat than their lyrics, the worship leader welcomed us, urging the crowd to “make some crazy noise for our first time guests,” a demand that resulted in clapping and cheering.  He went on to assure us that we were “surrounded by some of the most incredible people in DFW.  The next song was a bit slower.  After being assured that Fellowship is “where life change happens,” we watched a video in which a couple talked about their marriage being saved after they were invited to attend the church.  Shortly thereafter, the worship leader informed the congregation that God has “incredible things in store for your life.” This was followed by announcements, delivered rapidly, but interrupted repeatedly by applause.  Clearly, they didn’t want the announcements to disrupt the momentum of the “worship experience.”

Introducing the offering, the worship leader reminded members that there were multiple mechanisms in place for giving, but then informed visitors that they were not expected to participate.  The offerings were received in large buckets for those who did participate.  While the collection was taking place, the congregation was treated to another video, this one intended to be a humorous look at “when a child takes over the house.”  Parents, after overcoming a large black man wearing shades serving as a guard blocking entrance to their son, finally were able to sit down with the child and plead unsuccessfully for him to accept a bedtime.  As the video wound down with ever more ridiculous antics, the band sang something about “What’s Going On” in response to this family’s plight.

Twenty minutes into the meeting, Pastor Ed Young walked on stage – to applause.

Dressed in skinny jeans, a medium blue shirt buttoned to his neck, and a sports coat, Young began by explaining that one of his hobbies was making smoothies.  This was relevant to the subject of the day, which was blended families, because, he said, both smoothies and blended families can be “delicious and nutritious,” because “God wants the blended family to be successful.

A blender and various prepared fruits and vegetables were on stage as Young talked, and he would use the remainder of the sermon to go about making a smoothie while imparting various words of wisdom regarding blended families. Traditional evangelical preaching begins with a text and uses illustrations to explain it, but Young takes rather the opposite approach. Beginning with the illustration, he occasionally sprinkles in a Bible verse to explain the meaning of the illustration to the subject at hand.  Thus, just as a person making a smoothie should choose the best ingredients, a person looking for a mate should choose a person who displays the fruit of the Spirit found in Galatians 5.  While expressing pleasure at finding the reference to fruit in order to amplify on his smoothie point, Young also managed to hawk a book that he had previously written on dating, urging any single people in the congregation to buy it.  He also used I Corinthians 6:11 – “but you were washed” – to explain that blended families can be messy and need to be cleaned up. This quotation marked his first reference to Christ in the sermon, which he managed to follow by singing, “Splish, splash, I’m taking a biblical bath.”

Finally, he talked about the power of the blender.  Acts 1:8, in which Jesus was telling the apostles that they would receive power to spread the gospel to the ends of the earth, was somehow used as proof that the Holy Spirit is the power source for blended families.  Blended families, though, must be hooked up with the power source and plugged into the church.

After passing out a few sample cups of the smoothies he had made, which he urged recipients to hold and drink together – like communion, he said – Young imparted other advice to the members, which included making a virtue of the large, impersonal nature of the congregation.  Talking about the need for ex-spouses to be united on matters of discipline, he suggested that it was easy for exes to be members of Fellowship Church and get their instruction for child raising from the same source, because, he said, the church has so many people, locations, and services, that you will never see each other here.

After allowing the samplers to drink their smoothies, Young had all of us quote from the Psalms:  “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”  He followed this by reminding us of all of the blended families in the Bible, listing Abraham, Jacob, David, and even Jesus.  Next Sunday, he would close this series by talking about how adult children relate to their parents.

The service closed with Young urging congregants to follow him on Twitter.  As the congregation headed for the exits, onscreen played a music video of “Parent Map Rap 2.0.”  The rapper in the video:  Ed Young.

I also attended the 11:30 service at the Keller satellite location.  Onsite leaders provided for the service up until the time of the sermon, at which time video of the same sermon from the Saturday night service was played on the large screens.  Services at different times and locations are designed to be identical.

The Reformation Project: Outlining and Defending my Research Approach

As mentioned in my post from last week, this year long writing project will evaluate the state of the church before ultimately proposing theses designed to get us to think about meaningful church reform. The following outlines my research approach to evaluating the state of the church in the United States.

Over the course of the latter part of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014, I visited the ten largest churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area for the purpose of using them as case studies of the current status and likely future direction of American evangelical Christianity. I entered into the study with the theory that these churches provide clues as to where the church is headed and, having completed my research, I believe that to be the case more than before. Some may be heartened by this; others will despair.

 There is no doubt that the things I describe in the ten chapters devoted to those churches are prevalent in the American megachurch culture. However, I would anticipate criticism of the notion that these churches represent trends regarding the dominant direction of American Christianity. Would not the fact that they are extremely large churches – the 1%, one might say – suggest that they are outside the mainstream? It is a fair question, but one that is answerable in a compelling way.

First, it should be noted, for better or worse, that these are the churches that are numerically thriving during a period of decline in American church attendance. In fact, Thom Rainier of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Lifeway Christian Resources points out that 100,000 congregations will die out over the next quarter of a century. Most of those expected to die will be small or rural congregations that do not appeal to younger members because they either resist or are not capable of duplicating the methodologies and structures discussed in these chapters. In addition, churches in mainline denominations are dying out at an alarming, but unsurprising rate. Because the megachurches are thriving in a period of decline, they are regarded by many as the vibrant portion of American Christianity. These large churches claim to have answers to the question of how to appeal to the unchurched – and particularly to those who are young adults or youth. Thus, even laymen and pastors who have no wish themselves to attend a church with thousands of members will with increasing frequency look to those churches for solutions to what ails them. Pastors and church leaders who refuse to go along with the trends established by the visibly successful churches will be required to explain why, and many of their members will continue to abandon the churches where they grew up in favor of those on the cutting edge of change.

In addition, the pastors and staff of these churches are frequently held up as experts on how to build and grow churches. They speak at conferences and denominational meetings, write books about their accomplishments, and utilize social media tools to trumpet their methodologies and successes. Their stories of accomplishment and growth are presented to pastors and church leaders as the possible for their own situations. The pastors of these churches are seen as celebrities and role models in their mostly evangelical subcultures.

Social media amplifies the influence of these churches. While I was in the course of my research, I noticed that a friend of a friend, who I only know through Facebook, posted regarding his church’s upcoming series on the “family octagon.” Recognizing the title and accompanying art work as being the same as that used by Fellowship Church Grapevine during my visit there, and unsure whether the Grapevine church marketed its materials to other congregations, I emailed my acquaintance asking how they came to do the series.  His church, which is located in Missouri and is of a different denomination than the Grapevine megachurch, had come across the material online and decided to use it with some adaptations to meet their local situation.

My point is not to suggest that the Missouri church had done something improper – to the best of my knowledge there were no copyright issues at stake, and the church was quite open as to where they obtained the ideas.  My only point is to show the way that the programs and methodologies of these large churches are influencing the way that Christianity is proclaimed and practiced in other contexts.

To think about this another way, beginning in the 1970’s, the charismatic movement moved from the fringes of its Pentecostal origins into the mainstream of American evangelical Christianity. Along the way, the charismatics themselves were influenced by the wider evangelical culture and became more mainstream. However, they have had a remarkable influence on American Christianity, most notably in the areas of music and the way that people think about spirituality and the work of the Spirit. Of course, most American Christians are not part of churches that have healing services or speak in tongues, but the influence over the last 40 years of those who advance those practices cannot be denied. Similarly, the megachurch movement is having and will continue to have an influence that goes beyond those who actually participate in the movement.

One might similarly ask whether megachurches in the Dallas/Fort Worth area provide a reliable guide. Using these churches as my research platform was easy and inexpensive for me, as it kept my research local, but it is fair to ask if it provides anything of value from a research perspective. I believe that it does, and would suggest the following:

There are many cities across the southern United States that make a claim to be the buckle of the Bible belt – I have personally heard that phrase used with regard to Nashville and Atlanta, as well as Dallas. Certainly, the Dallas/Fort Worth area can make a significant argument for holding that designation.  Unlike other regions of the country, evangelical religion is a part of the social and cultural fabric of the region. While the area religious landscape includes both churches and institutions representing the mainline branches of Protestant Christianity, evangelical forms of belief and practice are dominant here, and those evangelical forms dominate the American religious landscape, including the megachurches, at a time when Protestant liberalism continues its steep decline. The area is home to an extraordinary number of megachurches, as well as to what has historically been the largest seminary in the world (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary). Historic First Baptist Church of Dallas, located downtown, though no longer one of the largest churches in the region, was at one time the largest Southern Baptist Church in the United States – at a time before the numbers of these huge churches became a subject of national interest.

Geographically, Texas is near the southern center of the country, providing an intersection of southeastern and southwestern culture, and the fact that the Dallas area is a cosmopolitan region to which people come to live from all over the country allows it to in some degree transcend a merely regional culture. The area is also ethnically diverse, with the result that there was a significant amount of ethnic diversity in the congregations studied:  six were predominately (though not exclusively) white, three were mostly African-American, and one appeared to be evenly mixed between blacks and whites. All of the congregations visited additionally included Hispanic and Asian members. Notably, while most Hispanic families entering the United States are of Catholic background, a significant percentage seems drawn to the type of spiritual experiences associated with America’s evangelical culture.

In terms of method, I selected the ten largest churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area based on the information at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research’s website.  Other than accessing their list of megachurches in the United States, I began my church visits in October 2013, interrupting the visits during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays as I knew that the churches would likely be having special services associated with those days, and I hoped to experience their ordinary ways of worship.  I re-commenced my visits in January and completed them in March. With one exception to accommodate a family priority, I visited the churches in the order they appeared on the list, from largest to smallest, at the time I began my study. Because my order of visits was preset, I did not in any way try to visit churches based on what I knew would be a theme or occurrence in the service. My only advance preparation in that regard was to check the church’s website during the week prior to my visit to try to ascertain whether the senior pastor would be preaching that day.

Because I only visited each church one time, these are snapshots of how these churches conduct worship. I tried to be aware of this when performing analysis on individual congregations. Obviously, a pastor cannot say everything in one sermon, so it is important to approach emphases or areas of neglect with care.  While it would no doubt be of interest to do more long term analysis of these congregations, I believe that this snapshot approach has validity, particularly because the impressions gained from the individual congregations add up to a credible composite picture. While these churches present varied theological and cultural traditions, they share much in common, as well, and these commonalities will form the most interesting part of this study. In many ways, the megachurch culture supercedes the Baptist culture, the charismatic culture, etc., in these churches.

Many who care about the future of American Christianity have written jeremiads on the current state of things, with most of those based on either books by prominent pastors or individual experiences of the teaching of a pastor or church. With this project, I seek to go beyond the general expressions of concern by systematically outlining the experience of worshiping along with these individual congregations while thinking in an organized way about what their practices say about their beliefs of God, the Bible, prayer, worship, the Christian life, and so forth. The portrait that emerges is not pretty, and I invite all interested pastors and laity to grapple with where we are headed.

Sola deo Gloria.

Announcing the Launch of "The Reformation Project'

Tomorrow marks the 499th anniversary of the date on which Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, setting off sparks that inflamed Europe in what came to be known as the Protestant Reformation. For the historically minded, a grouping that includes an unfortunately small ratio of American Christians, the year leading into the 500th anniversary will be one of analysis of what Luther has wrought. Was it necessary or needlessly divisive? Do the reasons for Luther's actions continue to hold sway or have they been resolved? What relationship do those events bear to the current state of the church?

As an advocate of reformational theology who believes that Luther (and Calvin and others in the Reformed stream after him) helped to recover the Gospel, this blogger obviously has already taken sides in many of those upcoming debates. Nonetheless, on this blog readers will find in the coming year a different focus. While historical events will be in view -- Christianity is, after all, a religion in which believers, having been united together with Christ, have a connection with other believers in this and prior ages through whom the faith has come down to us -- the focus in the coming year will be on the current state of the church, with the intention of answering a question: does American Christianity stand in need of another reformation? In asking that question, the intention is not to assert that American Christians face the same set of issues as those confronting Luther and those who came after him, though some of those earlier issues have similarities to those facing the church today. However, it will be asserted that the church today faces problems of a comparable magnitude to those that Luther found when he set off events that changed the face of western Christianity.

The method for this study will be as follows: a while back I made visits to the ten largest churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, taking into those visits a working hypothesis that in those churches I would find indications as to the future direction of American Christianity. I remain convinced that is a defensible hypothesis, and I will defend it in a future post. The first portion of my study will focus on narrative summaries of what I encountered in those visits, with later follow up analysis of the significance of what was witnessed. In the last half of the study, I will develop a series of my own theses for consideration designed to get believers to look at the state of the church and determine if deep reform is required. Do we, like the reformers of a half millenium ago, stand in need of recovering the Gospel?

This is an ambitious project -- arguably a pretentious one for a layman in a Presbyterian church. Nonetheless, if the Gospel is truly at stake, then there are few subjects that could be more worthy of our time.

Book Review: “Introducing Christian Ethics: a Short Guide to Making Moral Choices,” by Scott B. Rae

Shortly after beginning my first pastorate, I was called upon to help a family in the midst of making decisions about declining medical treatment. Realizing that there was some difference of opinion among family members, as well as uncertainty about what the hospital would be willing to accommodate, I knew that I would need to have clarity with regard to what my pastoral counsel should be. I would also need to be able to communicate that counsel compassionately and convincingly to a hurting family.

Of course, I had thought about those issues in the abstract, but being confronted with a real situation was different, and I have to confess that I initially felt completely lost. Fortunately, a former seminary professor answered my late night call and walked me through the issues, helping me to apply biblical truth to my specific situation. While I am grateful for that professor, it occurs to me that I could have also been helped by a book such as Introducing Christian Ethics, a newly published book written by Scott B. Rae.

Dr. Rae, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California, teaches ethics to business students at Biola University and to seminary students at Talbot School of Theology.

The opening four chapters of the book are foundational in nature, establishing the sources of ethical authority from a Christian perspective and placing the Christian understanding of ethics in the context of other contemporary views. These introductory chapters conclude with a helpful model for ethical decision making, particularly in complex situations where ethical considerations seem to conflict. In that chapter, Rae develops an example of a manager attempting to determine the right course when obligations to his employer and to his friend seem to be in conflict.

The remaining chapters develop a Christian understanding of a variety of contemporary ethical concerns: abortion, the use of reproductive technology, genetics and biotechnology, issues related to death and assisted suicide, capital punishment, war, sexual ethics, and economics and the value of work. For each of these, the author develops realistic examples in order to identify areas of ethical impact, lay out the Christian position(s), and answer objections.

Because this is an introduction, and, as the title indicates, a “short guide,” one should not expect an in depth treatment – obviously, each of these issues could take up its own volume. For those wanting a deeper understanding, each chapter provides a bibliography of two or three other works that the reader might consult.

Rae points out that Christian ethics requires that we learn to think through what we believe: “Often we focus on what position someone holds on a specific moral issue. That’s important, but it’s also critical to identify how they think about right and wrong more generally and how they justify their position.” This book will help the reader to think as Rae suggests we should.

This book could be useful in a variety of ways. Because it is not overly technical, it is accessible for both pastors and laymen. As such, it could be consulted by pastors developing sermons on these issues or looking for a quick guide for his pastoral work. It could also be used by small groups, and to that end each chapter has a list of review questions that could be used for group discussion.

Does American Christianity Have a Woman Problem?

If you had asked me a few years ago about gender related concerns about the church, I would have pointed to the fact that too many men drop out.

While that remains true, in the last year, it has become increasingly clear -- at least to me -- that there is a different kind of problem, one that results in women sometimes being treated badly. I write as someone who takes the position that the offices of elder and deacon should be held by men. I also hold that the proper exercise of discipline is a mark of what constitutes a church. All of that said, consider the following:

1. From what I have seen, nearly all of the teaching directed toward this subject is in negative form. It is hard to find sermons oriented toward how women can use their gifts in the church. When the issue is addressed, it tends to focus on gifts that are deemed feminine, such as hospitality. However, many women do not have that gift, nor do all women feel gifted to work with children. What are these others to do?

2. While there are strong Christian traditions of male headship in church and home, there are movements within American Christianity willing to take extreme views of male leadership. In recent years, a prominent American evangelical suggested that Christian women should not work as police officers because their taking authority over men pulled over at traffic stops is awkward. How in the name of Deborah do they find biblical support for extending male headship in this manner?

3. Generally, strange views result when the Apostle Paul's assertions of male leadership in specific church roles is extended to other areas of life. There is no biblical precedent for this, and it is frankly impractical. As an example, my wife teaches me theology on a regular basis. Our conversations, praise God, are not limited to her asking questions and me pontificating. The fact that I happen to have more formal training in theology and church history makes a difference, but she is smart and thinks through her beliefs carefully. We have discussions, and sometimes she changes my mind about things. This is as it should be.

4. While I think reasonable and compassionate church discipline is important, I note that every instance I am personally aware of that involved credible complaints of being abused by the disciplinary process came from women. I am sure that men have had legitimate complaints, as well. But women have too often had concerns, particularly arising out of abusive relationships, that have not been taken seriously by male leaders.

5. In recent weeks, we have seen the sad spectacle of Christian leaders downplaying a public figure bragging about sexually assaulting women. This is not intended as a political comment, and the politician's statements wouldn't be relevant to this discussion except for the fact that some Christian leaders have been openly dismissive of the issue. While ministers have admitted the language to be vulgar, they have failed to -- or chosen not to -- recognize that the language went beyond vulgarity to actual celebration of sexual assault. Christian women should be deeply offended that male leaders have taken this course. For that matter, Christian men should be offended, too.

I am not sure that I have answers to this "woman problem," but I do know that thought needs to be given to it. Churches can retain their commitments to male leadership while also emphasizing and putting into practice the apostolic affirmation that "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all kinds of people" (Titus 2:11, my translation). Indeed, to be biblically faithful, we must do so.

Christians and the Culture

My wife and I have just begun a study of the relationship between Christianity and culture. While we are only less than two chapters into the book we are reading, our conversations have been both rich and intense. It is a good study. I hope to further review the book itself once I have read it completely.

In arguably his greatest work, City of God, Augustine of Hippo differentiated the city of God from the city of man. They have different origins, institutions, goals, and destinies; yet, he said, they are co-mingled. Christians participate as citizens of the city of man, and unbelievers can be found in the visible church. In considering the relationships between the two, Augustine saw commonality due to this co-mingling, yet he also pointed to a fundamental hostility between the two due to the condition of fallen humanity and its relation to God.

Augustine set the tone for understanding the relations between church and the state in the middle ages, but his views were over time modified in significant ways. Whereas Augustine saw hostility between the two cities, Pope Gelasius I posited a more cooperative relationship between the two spheres. According to Gelasius, the emperor would submit to the church on ecclesial matters, while the Church would submit to the civil government on civil matters. Pope Boniface VIII made further changes while also assuming a collaborative relationship. He contended that the civil ruler only held power at the will of the church.

American Christians, while acknowledging belief in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, often express themselves in terms that would be recognizable to Gelasius and Boniface. The assumption of collaboration between the church and the broader culture is odd given that most Protestants -- and all practicing Catholics, for that matter -- affirm in their historic doctrinal standards a belief in an ongoing personal and social impact of original sin. However, the extent to which Christians expect unbelievers to collaborate in and further their goals can be seen in the sense of betrayal that is expressed over cultural changes that reject Christian moral teaching, as well as ongoing efforts to enact Christian instruction (the 10 Commandments and prayer, for example) into public education and other areas of life.

As our culture continues into a path that resembles the days of the Roman Empire more than Victorian England, Christians need to rethink how our theological foundations inform the relationship of both the institutional church and individual Christians to the world in which we live.

Book Review: “A Theology of Biblical Counseling: the Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry,” by Heath Lambert

The Biblical Counseling movement is an outgrowth of the nouthetic counseling movement begun by Jay Adams roughly half a century ago. The movement is maturing and growing more prominent, particularly (though not exclusively) among evangelicals of a reformed bent. In “A Theology of Biblical Counseling,” Heath Lambert, who is the Executive Director of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, has furthered that maturation by providing book demonstrating the doctrinal basis for the movement.

The expanding role of the biblical counseling movement has not occurred without controversy. The movement’s distinguishing characteristic is its belief that the Bible provides a fully sufficient resource for counseling. Thus, Scripture should be used in “counseling conversations,” and biblical doctrines should have practical relevance to a counselee’s needs. This not only sets it in opposition to secular psychology -- which biblical counselors acknowledge sometimes provides correct, but unnecessary, insights – but also sets it apart from Christian counseling, which typically emphasizes an integration of Christianity and modern psychology. The early chapters of the book, which set forth a doctrine of Scripture emphasizing the Bible’s sufficiency, largely represent an apologetic in behalf of biblical counseling in opposition to Christian counseling.

While I did not find myself in entire agreement with Lambert on that issue, I am somewhat sympathetic. Certainly, much Christian counseling – and even much of the evangelical church – has followed the larger culture into understanding life through the framework of therapeutic categories often at odds with scriptural understandings of human nature, sin, and grace. Self-proclaimed integration often devolves into the inundation of a facile Christian understanding with unbiblical ideas. I would consider my own seminary training in counseling at an evangelical seminary to be deficient in that regard. As such, the biblical counseling movement – and this book –offer a helpful corrective that would benefit many of us even as we wrestle with some of its broad claims.

Though confrontational on that issue, much of the rest of the work is irenic in tone. While it is a work of theology, its focus is practical. Doctrine is not explained and defended in exhaustive fashion, but is summarized and focused on theology that can be related to the needs of people in counseling interventions. Thus, each of the doctrinal categories (God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, humanity, sin, etc.) is expounded in chapters describing a variety of counseling encounters dealing with real life problems ranging from being victimized by a long period of sexual abuse and cutting to marital difficulties in the wake of personal tragedy to anxiety. I found these descriptions of how Scripture and scriptural categories can aid people experiencing these kinds of issues to be extremely useful.

That said, the book suffers from the writer’s painting with overly broad strokes. Most grating is his insistence that acceptance or rejection of the biblical counseling approach comes down to a matter of belief in the sufficiency of Scripture. Many evangelicals outside the movement would want to emphasize that they fully believe in Scripture’s sufficiency in all that it addresses, but they differ with a use of the Bible that seems to view it as a counseling manual. Reliance on vague terms in arguing that the Bible is sufficient for “life” and “problems” really didn’t help Lambert’s argument. Additionally, he often minimizes the value of secular psychology due to noetic effects of the Fall. Fair enough. However, he doesn’t seem to recognize that the noetic effects of the Fall continue to impact Christians engaged in biblical counseling, even though he acknowledges that sanctification is progressive and incomplete in this life.  Thus, the question of truth and error in counseling falls more along a spectrum than perhaps Lambert seems to appreciate. The sufficiency of Scripture does not guarantee the sufficiency of a not yet glorified believing counselor.

I also found highly unconvincing Lambert’s arguments that women should not counsel men because “Paul’s prohibition against women teaching doctrine to men applies equally to counseling and preaching. Counseling is ministry of the Word of God, just as preaching is.” Really? This is particularly questionable in light of Lambert’s broad definition of counseling that takes in informal as well as formal conversations and relationships. This would seem to lead to the notion that spouses and friends need to truncate conversations for fear that a woman might end up teaching a man doctrine, a premise that is both stifling and unhelpful. I doubt that Lambert intends that result, but his broad definition of counseling together with this claim would seem to lead to that conclusion. Nonetheless, Paul’s prohibition is better understood as relating to church office, not to all teaching that could include teaching doctrine.

On the other hand, I agreed with Lambert’s warnings about men engaging women alone in long term counseling relationships. While some would view that as hopelessly old fashioned, I would simply point to the unfortunate number of good men and women who have fallen into sin after bonds developed in counseling. One should not ignore the emotional connection that can develop through counseling situations.

In spite of some criticisms, I hope that this book obtains a wide reading. Those convinced by the biblical counseling arguments will be enriched by it. Those not fully on board will be helped by interacting with its arguments. Surely, all pastors should believe that Scripture and scriptural categories, wisely deployed, are necessary and helpful to those that come to us looking for solutions to life’s problems.

For a Continuing Church, by Sean Michael Lucas -- a brief review

Those who like their history sanitized and scrubbed won't enjoy this book, but it is well worth the read.

Lucas traces over the course of the 20th century the background leading to the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America in 1973. Courageous ministers and laymen took stands for biblical authority, evangelical commitments, and the reformed faith in the face of growing heterodoxy and authoritarianism in the southern Presbyterian Church.

If only the story could be told fully in those terms! Even those with iron wills often have clay feet, and the same Presbyterian conservatives that defended orthodoxy most often also wanted to defend the southern way of life, including commitments to racism and segregation that they claimed were rooted in the Bible. While the stain of racism defended in biblical terms was diminishing to a significant degree by the time of the PCA's founding in 1973 largely due to younger ministers who repudiated that history, it is necessary to recognize the role that the south's racial culture played in conservative Presbyterian's 20th century.

This is an important story, well told.

If I had one request of the author, I would have liked to see more about conservatives in the south prior to 1950 that disagreed with the majority on social questions. Does silence in that regard in this work mean that there were none? It would be interesting to know.

That said, this book is readable and meticulously researched. I highly recommend it.

Specifically Religious

I am in the midst of reading Kathryn Greene-McCreight's marvelous "Darkness Is my only Companion: a Christian Response to Mental Illness."

The book has been illuminating for me, and I would encourage Christians to read it, as this is an area where the church has not thought clearly, but needs to. I hope to write a review of it once I complete the reading.

While the book deserves a review that keeps its main points in view, a statement made by the author that I read this morning jumped out at me because of its wider applications. While hospitalized due to her mental health condition, she attended once a "Spirituality Group" led by the chaplain, but did not return. Explaining that decision, she wrote, "It was generically religious. I am not generically religious."

Better than I could have said it myself, that explains my indifference bordering on hostility toward the American civil religion that seems to excite so many people.  I suppose it means something to the generically religious.

I am not generically religious.

More on the Trinity

In response to my previous post, I have been asked to explain the Trinity. Rather than try to write something original, I thought I would simply provide the summary description found in the Belgic Confession along with the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. These should provide good resources for Bible study.

Article eight of the Belgic Confession reads as follows:

God Is One in Essence, Yet Distinguished in Three Persons

According to this truth and this Word of God, we believe in one only God (1 Cor 8:4-6†), who is one single essence (Isa 43:10), in which are three persons (1 John 5:7 [TR]; Heb 1:3), really, truly, and eternally distinct, according to their incommunicable properties; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matt 3:16-17†; 28:19). The Father is the cause, origin, and beginning of all things, visible and invisible (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Eph 3:14-15†); the Son is the Word (John 1:1-2; 1:14†; Rev 19:13; Prov 8:12), Wisdom (Prov 8:12, 22, etc.; 1 Cor 1:24†), and the Image of the Father (John 5:17-26†; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3); the Holy Ghost is the eternal Power and Might (Matt 12:28), proceeding from the Father and the Son (John 15:26;Gal 4:6). Nevertheless, God is not by this distinction divided into three, since the Holy Scriptures teach us that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost have each his personality, distinguished by their properties; but in such wise that these three persons are but one only God. Hence, then, it is evident then that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, and likewise the Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son. Nevertheless these persons thus distinguished are not divided nor intermixed; for the Father hath not assumed the flesh nor hath the Holy Ghost, but the Son only (Phil 2:6-7; Gal 4:4; John 1:14). For the Father hath never been without his Son (Mic 5:2†; John 1:1-2†), or without his Holy Ghost. For they are all three co-eternal and co-essential. There is neither first nor last; for they are all three one, in truth, in power, in goodness, and in mercy.

For further elaboration, I would suggest additionally reading through and looking up the Scriptures found in Article 9, Article 10, and Article 11.

Older expressions of Trinitarian faith can be found in the ecumenical creeds recited in Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern churches to this day. These include, among others, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.

Teaching the Trinity

Last year my wife and I visited an Anglican church. We weren't thinking about becoming Anglicans -- we are committed to both Presbyterianism and to our local congregation -- but we saw it as an opportunity to see how another Christian tradition worships. Some of my favorite authors -- James Packer, John Stott, Leon Morris, C.S. Lewis, and on and on -- are Anglicans, so I thought it would be interesting to see a bit of the tradition that they were nurtured in and participated in.

As I would have expected, there were things I liked and things that I found confusing or that I disagreed with. Much of Anglican worship centers around the Book of Common Prayer. It creates the form and content for most of the service. What I most noticed about the worship that day -- and I think that this is fairly standard in churches that adhere to historic Anglicanism -- is that the worship service generated by prayer book was relentlessly Trinitarian. That is to say that no one could leave the service without realizing that they had participated in the worship of one God who eternally exists in three persons. It was emblazoned into the entire fabric of the service.

Over the years, I have known many laymen who have struggled with the doctrine of the Trinity. My own view is that Scripture -- when it is all pulled together -- is clear on the Trinity, but people have a hard time understanding it because it is not similar to anything in human experience. People attempt analogies to explain how God can eternally exist as one God and three Persons, but the metaphors tend to break down in one way or another. Because of that, there is a tendency to resist the data from Scripture. When compiled, the scriptural data is clear and impressive.

Yet, many laymen have said to me that not only do they struggle to believe it; they say that they have never heard it clearly taught. That is sad. Also sad is the fact that in recent weeks a controversy has broken out among some Christian scholars -- mostly reformed leaning folks who do not come from confessional denominations and are not accustomed to thinking creedally -- over the Trinity. If even Christian scholars are not understanding scriptural teaching about the Trinity, what is a layman to do?

I think sermons alone, while helpful, are not enough. Though I am not an Anglican, I like their worship approach, which, as I put it, was relentlessly Trinitarian from start to finish. As another approach, I thought recently about a church I preached at several times last year. They recited the Nicene Creed every single Sunday. While I thought that perhaps every week was a bit excessive, the regular reciting of the creed certainly would serve to help those under the church's care to understand who God is.

And, that is what is important. We can talk all day about the various functions of the church, but if we are wrong about who God is, we have erred on something that is very serious. Whether we are Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, or whatever, there is an understanding derived from Scripture, forged out of controversy, and articulated by God's people that has stood the time for 1600 years. By whatever means we determine best, we need to make sure that the people in our churches understand it.

Which calendar?

For those churches that follow a liturgical calendar, Pentecost Sunday falls 50 days after Easter -- this year on May 15. Ascension Day, 10 days prior, fell on May 5, though some churches will mark it on Sunday, May 8, rather than have a special service on Thursday. Of course, a large percentage of churches don't follow such a calendar and won't mark those days at all.

That is fine, as I confess that I have never marked these days myself. However, it seems curious that churches that don't find a need to mark these biblical events will nonetheless observe a purely secular holiday, Mother's Day, on this Sunday.

Again, I can understand the belief that anniversaries of biblical events don't require marking. However, ignoring the church calendar while observing a non Christian one seems to be a strange choice.

Do We Need Jesus in the White House?

Recently, a friend posted on Facebook a picture of Jesus superimposed over a picture of the White House. A caption suggested that the country would be better off when Jesus moved in there.

But, aren't we better off with Jesus right where he is: at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us?

Given that the religious right has attempted to be a force in American politics for nearly four decades, one would think that along with such activism should come among evangelicals an understanding of church teaching, church authority, and how it relates to that of the state. Unfortunately, Americans tend to be doers, not thinkers, and the evangelical movement, not to mention individual Christians, has been harmed by the failure to think clearly about the same.

Christians -- and the world around us -- are much better off with Jesus at the right hand of the Father making intercession for us, for it is with the Father that true authority lies. Christians seem frustrated that it is not the power of the sword that spreads the Gospel -- it is the foolish power of Word and sacrament by which God's church is grown -- but that is the ordinary means that God has used over these last 2000 years.

In the news recently: the Tennessee legislature voted to make the Holy Bible the state book of Tennessee. The governor fortunately vetoed that legislation. In explaining her vote in favor of the bill, one state legislator said she hoped that the legislature would start a great national revival. 

The people of Tennessee are better served by legislators who understand their role of punishing evil and promoting civic righteousness. Revival, if such is to come, will be a work of God, performed through the ordinary ministry of the church. The power of the state is not required.

When did Christianity start to lose its hold on American Culture?

Taking the long view, I would say around 1770.

Yes, 1770, give or take.

While many evangelicals see the revolutionary period as a golden age in American history -- and in many ways it was-- Christians during that era frequently lamented that religious commitment had waned. While such jeremiads have been common throughout American history, there is reason to think that in this instance they were correct. Clearly, religious fervor had declined since the end of the Great Awakening around 1750. The clergy claimed that the realities of the Revolutionary War distracted the population from religious exercise, and in the aftermath of the war Christians became concerned at the influence of French skepticism making inroads in the culture.

The Second Great Awakening, which began around 1800, provided a religious response to these trends, but it was one that did not come without a cost. As American religion became democratized, traditional forms of religious authority began to be marginalized. In some ways that was a positive for American Christianity: the growth of a menu of democratic religious options meant that most of the people could find something to their liking, unlike in Europe where more limited choices resulted in people dropping out. Nonetheless, Christianity during this period became more emotional and anti-intellectual, which would become problematic as the nation became more diverse. In addition, American Christians became more concerned with religious fervor than with coherent commitments to historic orthodoxy.

Nonetheless, the Protestant mainstream maintained a quasi-establishment role in the country through the 19th century; however, once again, it did so at a cost. The population of the country was becoming much more diverse, as the result of democratizing influences, frontier expansion, immigration, and other trends. This diversity resulted in greater religious pluralism. Thus, in order to maintain that Protestant establishment, American public religion came increasingly to emphasize moral over doctrinal concerns. There is an irony in the fact that many modern evangelicals will cite early American affirmations of the need for religious morality for the health of the Republic without realizing that such moralizing actually represented a decline in Christian specific content proclaimed by the churches.

The standing of the Protestant establishment became further strained in the latter half of the 19th century, as industrial and academic trends tended to push Christian concerns and activism toward the margins. Urbanization proved challenging to the essentially agrarian outlook of much of American Christianity. As American industry began to look to colleges to produce workers capable of meeting the needs of the new economy, the presence of clergy among college directors seemed less advisable, and they began to be replaced with business leaders. In addition, naturalistic philosophy, as well as scientific Darwinism, took American academia by storm. Even in divinity schools, naturalism began to have influence, with the result that many schools began producing ministers that no longer believed in Christianity. One result of this was the withdrawal of many religious conservatives from mainstream culture in a movement known as fundamentalism.

By the 1950's, as noted by historian George Marsden, American thought leaders shared a belief in the goals of America's founders, but they no longer believed in the basis for those goals, which largely consisted of a belief that inalienable rights came from a creator. Efforts at resolving that gap failed, resulting in the deterioration of America's civil debates into an era of identity politics that has continued up to the present. Thus, what emerged in the 1960's had obvious roots in the culture of the 1950's. In that atmosphere of identity politics, beginning in 1980 the Moral Majority (note the emphasis on morality without  any theological commitment and majoritarianism rather than shared commitment) provided foot soldiers for conservative victories for a while, though anyone looking at the demographics of those holding varying views should have recognized that, in fact, the moral relativists had already won. As older generations died out, they would be replaced by those without the same moral, much less theological, commitments.

Thus, American culture had changed long before the recent same sex Supreme Court rulings made the country less hospitable toward evangelical views. Many have responded with a sense of betrayal -- in spite of past Court actions (particularly Roe v. Wade), many still considered this to be a "Christian country." It would benefit them to think more carefully about both their theology and their history.

Of course, Christianity remains broadly influential in the United States, though it may never again hold the level of respectability and influence that it has had in the past. However, that is not entirely a bad thing. Christians should now be humbled from their quest to impose some form of Christianization on the country by political means, thus providing an opportunity to return to basics, i.e., the preaching of the Gospel. The reality is that Christianity has always taught that sound theology is at the core of what the church is, with moral action being the outworking of what we believe. Christian teaching has become sloppy, often not being adequate for those within the church and not providing a compelling message for those outside.

With the lack of social influence, perhaps American Christians can repair those breaches. These days, everyone knows what evangelicals think about gay marriage. The church will be healthier when the world knows what the church thinks about justification by faith.