jdgreear.com

How Much Do I Love This Quote

This is from Kevin DeYoung's new book, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion. How true.

"...But then again, consistency is not a postmodern virtue.  And nowhere is this more aptly displayed than in the barrage of criticisms leveled against the church. 

The church-is-lame crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after-school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love.  They bemoan the over-programmed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing.  They don't like the church because it is too hierarchical, but then hate it when it has poor leadership.  They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirtysomethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets.  They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they'll complain that the church is "inbred."  They want the church to know that its reputation with outsiders is terrible, but then are critical when the church is too concerned with appearances.  They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political.  They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can't find a single church that can satisfy them.  They are critical of the lack of community in the church, but then want services that allow for individualized worship experiences.  They want leaders with vision, but don't want anyone to tell them what to do or how to think.  They want a church where the people really know each other and care for each other, but then they complain the church today is an isolated country club, only interested in catering to its own members.  They want to be connected with history, but are sick of the same prayers and same style every week.  They call for not judging "the spiritual path of other believers who are dedicated to pleasing God and blessing people," and then they blast the traditional church in the harshest, most unflattering terms."

Emerging Culture

I am very grateful for what many of my “emerging” friends have helped me to see about the particular cultural trappings of my own Christianity. They’ve helped me to recognize how I have included many preferences, traditions, even my American identity in my explanations of the Gospel. I am grateful because anyone who can help me see my own blindspots is doing me a huge favor.

However, I can't help but notice that it seems like many of these “emergents” are just as culturally trapped as the people they are criticizing. They lampoon the robe-wearing choirs and suit-sporting, big voice preachers of the past. But when I walk into their churches, I see 4 guys on stage ALL sporting punk hair and black monogrammed t-shirts, whose faces look like they fell face-first into a tackle box (shout out to Ed Stetzer), and talking in a whiney, metrosexual voice. Each one is “different” like all the other ones. Seems like a new uniform.

Most concerning is that this “new, cutting edge, diverse” crowd criticizes the traditional church for being stuck in one culture, but when you look at them, what you see is usually a collage of young, angry, middle-class white people. Seems they are also from the same clas...

It’s kind of like something I noticed in Boston a couple of weeks ago… I was there on the day the new I-phone was being released. People were lined up literally around the block, some having camped out for a few days, to be the first to get the sexy new I-phone. Many in the line were trying to sell their “old Iphone,” released less than 2 years ago. Some of these same people self-righteously refuse to drive SUVs and only buy fair trade products. They seem blind to the fact that they are every bit the consumer as their SUV driving parents.

I’m not trying to be too harsh my younger generation (of whom I am still one!!!!!), but just to say that realizing our own shortcomings ought to make us more gracious with others. Sometimes I feel like my generation is the most self-righteous generation in recent history.

Anyway, that is a rambling, lengthy introduction to this quote in David Wells’ Courage to Be Protestant. I’d love to know your thoughts:

It is true that many in today’s world are comfortable with impersonal structures.  They do not mind being anonymous, an unknown in a large crowd.  And they take in stride the slogans and little inspirational thoughts that fill the air all the time.  After all, that is life in our big, modernized cities.  However, these large structures only deepen the sense of not belonging we carry with us much of the time.  Why, then, would we want to experience this in church, too?  And why would we content ourselves with having yet one more product plugged to us in church when we are bombarded by products and telemarketers all week?  This is a point of acute vulnerability for the marketing churches.

That is what the emergents have sensed.  Rather than large, empty church structures filled with the rhythms of the marketing world, emergents have gone to small, connected groups, to networking, to being deinstitutionalized if that is what it takes, to relationships.  This, as I have suggested, resonates with a loss that is very deep and painful in the (post) modern psyche.  People want to connect and to be connected.

However, while the emergents are intent on making connections, they do not want to make those connections across generations.  They are niche-driven.  The niche is Gen X.  Emergent churches are typically made up from the same social slice.  They are as look-alike as the marketing churches are for those of another generation.

Mark Driscoll and Handling Criticism

Mark said something to me that I've never quite heard put the way he put it. He referred to a number of mentors in his life who had turned on him or disappointed him. He said that he used to be devastated when it happened, feeling like a significant part of his own ministry was crashing. He said that now, however, he looks at mentors as people who put "building bricks" into his life. He's gotten many such bricks from many different people over the years. Some of those people have turned on him since, but he is still eternally grateful to them for the bricks they laid into his life. It made me realize that JESUS is the only mentor and master builder who never disappoints, and HE uses people in our lives who will sometimes fail us. But the valuable things we got from them were really from Him, so we don't have to despair when they fail us.

Some of Mark's best bricks, he said, have come from his critics. They threw their brick at him, and after recovering from the initial sting of it, he picked the brick up and incorporated it into his wall.

Pretty helpful analogy, I think.

At any rate, hope you've enjoyed these few posts about my interaction with Driscoll. I'm grateful for him as a pastor, leader and friend. I believe my own ministry is much richer now for his in my life.

Mark Driscoll and the Emerging Church, part 2

Here are the free downloads of the Convergent conference and here and here are a couple of great articles about it with clarification on Driscoll's criticism of B. McLaren, R. Bell, etc.

One of the most interesting things about Mark Driscoll was his love of theology. He considers himself in the "New Reformed" movement, which, as I mentioned in the last post, differs from the old Reformed in that a) they are nice; b) they look at lost people compassionately as individuals who need Christ and not just kindling; and c) they raise their hands in worship to songs, and not just songs on the cutting edge of the 18th century.

He is a ravenous reader, owning close to 5000 books and talks easily about any number of subjects. When it comes to the union of culture and theology, he is as knowledgable as anyone I've ever met. He doesn't yet have a completed seminary degree (showing you don't need one to know God, reach people, and grow deeply) but he is working toward one (showing that he values study  and learning).

He told me that he has become friends with a number of the most famous "megachurch" pastors... many of whom are not really known for depth. He named a number of them who have asked him to help them develop that part of their ministry... for books to read, etc. He said that most of them are turned off from "doctrinally deep" ministries because they don't seem to reach people and criticize those who are. Mark said that rather than just using these guys as targets, some of the more doctrinally-gifted pastors might offer to come alongside these megachurch guys so that they might learn from each other.

Mark is one of the few in the country who embody both theological richness and evangelistic effectiveness, like a Charles Spurgeon. May his tribe increase. It seems to me that we so desperately need in this country a group of men and women who can readily apply the Gospel to the the massive cultural shifts and societal idolatries while being effective with and accessible to everyone... who can build "great" churches in terms of size and doctrinal fidelity.

Tomorrow I'll post some things about he handles criticism that I found intriguing...

Myths of Preaching to the Next Generation, Part 6

Myth # 6: Evangelism in the postmodern world is better done by modeling activism for social justice than by preaching.

I often hear it asserted that what will convert our skeptical culture is not preaching, but seeing our “acts of service” to the community or our excellence in the arts and other cultural venues. 

For example, Brian McLaren, commenting on the Passion movie, said that our culture has heard enough sermons and seen enough presentations of the Gospel. What they need to see, he said, is “not a movie about Jesus, but a movement of people living like Jesus.” I have heard repeated ad nauseum the maxim attributed to Francis of Assisi, “Preach the Gospel; when necessary use words”--as if to say that our preaching of the Gospel should primarily be an action, not a propositional message! One gets the impression from much of the emerging literature that soup kitchens, art, liturgy, criticizing evangelicalism and drinking beer are much more essential for reaching our culture than is the preaching of the Word.

My point in this post is not in any way to downplay the necessity of acts of love or excellence in the arts as an expression of true Christian discipleship or part of a robust, effective cultural apologetic. My point, rather, is to offer some reasons why these wonderful things can never supplant the centrality of the verbal proclamation of the Gospel.

It is absolutely absurb to imply that we could ever "preach the Gospel without words." Sorry, Francis. Good idea, maybe, but poorly worded.

More and better preaching is, and in a fallen world always will be, the need of the hour.

Jesus and the Apostles operated under the assumption that preaching the Gospel is the most-needed act of service the church can provide for the community. As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones points out in his classic work Preaching and Preachers, Jesus and the Apostles would not be preoccupied with anything that took them away from their preaching.

It is true that Jesus did many miracles that ministered to the needs of people. But note that these His miracles were called “signs”—signs that signified the points He was trying to make with His preaching. The point was always the preaching. For example...

• When Jesus fed the 5000 in John 6, the crowd thought that they had found a Man who could alleviate world hunger. So, they tried to make Him King. He high-tailed it out of there like one running from a temptation, retreating to a mountaintop alone (6:15). After a brief time away, He came back preaching (6:22).
• Jesus repeatedly avoided getting entangled in social justice issues. He dismissed the question of unfair taxation with a simple answer and seeming disinterest (Mark 12:17). In Luke 12:14 Jesus responded to a legitimate social justice complaint (“Make my brother divide the inheritance with me”), with “Man, who made me a judge over you?” He then preached against the sin of greed (12:16–21).

In other words, Jesus' main task, as He saw it, was to preach the Kingdom, not to settle world hunger and social justice issues. He taught people that when they sought "first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness,” all the other things (including justice, prosperity, etc) would be added to them.

As with the Master, so with His students: The Book of Acts highlights the preaching ministry of the Apostles, not their social efforts. For example...

• When the Holy Spirit fell on the Apostles in Acts 2, Luke tells us they began to preach the mighty deeds of God. After Peter and John’s healing of the lame man in Acts 3, when the crowd is understandably excited about the healing powers of these men, Luke records Peter’s sermon about the necessity for repentance and faith in the resurrection of Jesus.
• Acts 4 notes it was the Apostles’ preaching that was “spoken against everywhere.” When the Holy Spirit fell on them in answer to their prayers, Luke notes that the result was more boldness to preach in His name (Acts 4:31). Luke notes that persecution caused them to be scattered “everywhere, preaching” (8:4–5).
• In Acts 6, the Apostles were confronted with a legitimate social need--the neglect of church widows. Lloyd-Jones notes that you can probably hear someone in the early church saying, “Why go on preaching when people are starving, suffering and in need?” But the Apostles would not be distracted. They appointed deacons to meet the inter-church needs so they could go on blessing the world by their preaching.
• Paul's epistles describe the church as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:16), not as a social justice center, a culture repository, or a political-action committee. Preaching the truth is to be primary identity-marker of churches.
• Paul counseled Timothy, the archetype for young pastors, to be devoted to his teaching ministry. “Watch it carefully,” Paul said, because “it is your teaching that saves your hearers.” Likewise, in 2 Timothy Paul charged Timothy to be devoted to studying and preaching the Word in all places and at all times (2:2; 2:15; 4:3).

Preaching the Word of the Gospel is the primary task of the church. Why? Because preaching the Gospel does things that art and social activism can never do. You can’t explain Christology with a finger painting. Try it. You have to use words when you preach the Gospel. Listening to the Gospel without words would be like watching a TV news broadcast with the sound turned down, and there's only so much you can learn about Wall Street from staring at Katie Couric's face.

Now, with all that said... this myth does highlight some things about the preaching ministry which I think we would be wise to heed. (And, in these ways, postmodern aversion to the Word can, ironically, drive us to be more biblical!) Consider these 3 things:

• Gospel preaching should always be accompanied by signs. New Testament signs pointed people to the message, demonstrating tangibly what the message was all about. Jesus' miracles depicted what the Kingdom He preached was like--a kingdom without disease or death or hunger or blindness or injustice. I do not think signs, in that sense, would always have to be "miraculous." Feeding the hungry and standing against racisms are depictions of the nature of the kingdom in many of the same ways that healing blind eyes was. Acts 8 says that when Philip went to Samaria, "there was much joy in that city" because of the message he preached and the signs that he did. There will be much joy in our cities when the message of the Gospel is accompanied by tangible signs of its beauty. At the Summit, we want our community to say: "Even though we don't believe what those Christians believe, thank God they're here--for if they weren't, we'd have to raise our taxes!"
  
• Postmodern people will not be reached by "strangers." Postmodern people don’t listen to strangers because they have been jaded to believe that just about anybody can make their message "sound" true (just listen to political pundits from differing viewpoints on CNN and FOX--both know how to "spin" truth). "Religious" strangers are especially suspect, as some of the slickest, most corrupt sales-jobs have been perpetrated in the name of religion. So, reaching them by preaching to them as strangers is not going to be very effective... whether those strangers are in the form of door-knocking evangelists or mail-out advertisements from churches. Postmodern people will also be suspicious of preachers in megachurches--they are sure we are just charlatans skilled at peddling and spinning our message! It is only when Christian people invest personally in the lives of postmodern people, demonstrating in word and deed the life of the Gospel, that the message will be seen for what it is.
• Christians should be bringing the shalom of the Kingdom to the arts, business, and education. Christians for too long have lived in "Bible suburbia." Jesus didn't die for one of the world's suburbs; he died for the world itself. As Abraham Kuyper said, "There is not one square inch of the entire cosmos over which Jesus does not declare, 'Mine!'"

So. Preach the Word. And use words.

As far as I know, this concludes our myths. Unless my wife thinks up another one. It's been fun.

PREVIOUS MYTHS:

• Myth #1 "There is a dichotomy between preaching deeply and preaching relevantly."
• Myth #2 "All unchurched people are idiots." See p.s., Myth 2.2.
• Myth #3, "There is a difference between what 'seekers' need to hear and what 'mature Christians' need to hear."
• Myth #4, "'Expository' preaching ensure that you are preaching the Gospel.'" See p.s., Myth 4.2
• Myth #5, "Direct, confrontational preaching is ineffective for a postmodern audience."
• Myth #6, "Evangelism in the postmodern world is better done by modeling activism for social justice than by preaching."

(For a discussion of the role of acts of service and artistic excellence in the church, click here.)

Myths of Preaching to the Next Generation, pt 3

This is part 3 in a 5 part series called "Myths of Preaching to the Next Generation." Please note... I do not consider myself an expert on these things... so take these things as the ramblings of a man who obsesses each week how to communicate historic Gospel truth to the college students and young adults who sit in the audience.

You may find this myth #3 to be simply a development of myth 1 and myth 2... and you are right. Forgive any repetition, but I just see this as so crucially important. In Myth #4 we'll move on... we'll, sort of.

OK, enough intro... here it is:

Myth #3: There is a difference between what 'seekers' need to hear and what 'mature Christians' need to hear.

How many times have I heard someone describe a service as great "for the believer" (meaning, full of doctrinal equivocation, biblical history and steps to mature Christian living in the church subculture) but not "for the seeker" (meaning, full of mind-bogglingly-basic how-to steps and simple explanations of how much you suck and how miserable you must feel without God)--as if seekers and believers were not simply people at different stages of healing from the exact same disease. Both seekers and beleivers need to hear the Gospel.

And by "the Gospel" I don't mean endless variations of the four spiritual laws tacked onto the end of each sermon like a commercial calling others to join the club. I mean preaching in a way that continually explains how the Gospel addresses our whole lives at the most fundamental levels. All of life is about turning from sin, our functional saviors and our idols, trusting in Jesus, cherishing Him, looking for "justification" from no one else but Him, learning to be satisfied with no other Gods but Him, and being empowered by the Spirit to live a life of gratitude and joy in God patterned after the life of Jesus. That, of course, is the Gospel.

There may be some variance in degree between how "seekers" and "mature believers" apply the Gospel, but that's all that is--a difference of degree. As believers we are on the other side of the cross, indeed, but it is still the cross which is the antidote for our sin and spiritual weakness. This is the method we see employed in Paul's teaching:

Paul introduced the book of Romans by saying that  he wanted to "preach the Gospel" to those who those who were in Rome. The result was the book of Romans, the clearest explanation of the Gospel that we have... and a book so profound that even the most theologically adept still marvel at it. It is not simply a tract that engaged seekers and bored believers. In other words, in the book of Romans Paul preached the Gospel to believers and even the wisest Bible students today never feel like they get to the bottom of this great book!

When Paul wanted to instruct Ephesian husbands about how to love their wives, he started by explaining the Gospel (Eph 5:25-31).

When Paul wanted to help Peter overcome his racism, he explained the Gospel to Peter and then applied it to Peter's hypocrisy (Gal 2:14).

When Jesus wanted to motivate his disciples to love and forgive others, He tied their ability to forgive to their understanding of their having been forgiven. In other words, He reminded them of the Gospel and then called for their change (Matthew 18:23-25).

When Paul wanted to deal with the interpersonal conflicts of the church in Corinth, he began by walking them through some of the doctrines of the Gospel that would destroy their pride and works-righteousness, which he saw as the source of their conflict (1 Cor 1-3).

When Paul wanted to teach Philippian believers how to get along with each other and work together on teams, he started by giving them a Christology (Philippians 2:5-11).

When Paul wanted to confront believers about the need to give sacrificially, he preached the Gospel to them (2 Cor 8:9). He didn't simply give them 9 ways that God would bless them if they gave to his ministry.

Again, this does not mean that good preaching is complex preaching only intelligible by the brilliant. As Myth #2 explained, good Gospel teaching is understood even by "the simple." Our preaching is not "deep" when it goes wider in its scope of theological nuances and linguistic details, it is deep when it drives the application of the love, grace and joyfulness of God down into the soul. People find deep, Gospel-preaching relevant not because it satisfies their intellectual curiosities, but because the human soul is itself inherently deep and rich, having been made in the majestic image of God--and, as a result of the Fall, that majestic soul now has deep hurts and deep needs. Only the Gospel penetrates deeply enough to get at the roots of sin.

Believers are on this side of the cross, but must continually be called back to it as the antidote for their sin. Unbelievers must be called forward to it. We are not saved as a seeker by the the preaching of the Gospel and then "sanctified" as believers by the teaching of good Christian principles apart from the cross. We are saved "continually" by the persistent preaching of the Gospel (Gal 3:1-3; Col 1:6; 2:6-7; Romans 12:1-2).

Gospel-centered teaching, then, will be wonderfully relevant to both the believer and the not-yet believer! We can preach to both simultaneously! More on this.

Blue Like Jazz

A friend of mine sent me this link today. I'd be interested to know your comments on it. A guy was responding to an article I wrote back on 2005 about how to relate to the "emerging church" and some of the new "fads" in Christianity, specifically in the book Blue Like Jazz.

Whatever it takes: Erwin McManus

Got to spend about 6 hours today with one of the most innovative, creative thinkers in church--Erwin McManus. Erwin is pastor of a 3500-member church, called Mosaic, in dowtown LA. He and I were both speaking at the North Carolina Baptist State Evangelism Conference.

I have met few people that are as focused on doing whatever it takes to reach people as Erwin is. He gave a great talk from Acts 17, and then we got to talk in a small group of pastors, and then a few of us at the Cheesecake Factory where I flat ate him under the table... Here's a little list of things I gleaned from him today:

• Churches fight over going from organ to guitars; then from guitars to keyboards; then from keyboards back to organs because retro is back in... in the end, it is never about the music style, but about whether or not the church is focused on entertaining and placating Christians or reaching its culture.
• The real reason we don't win the culture is that we're not distressed (like Paul was) that the city is full of idols. We're angry about it, but not distressed. We question the motives of those who are going into the culture simply because we don't have motives as strong as theirs.
• Mosaic does not have the name "church" in its title. It's not that they are ashamed of being a church; they are ashamed that people would have to be told it is a church. They should just know. I don't introduce myself as "Hi, I'm Erwin, the human." Human is obvious and needs no title.
• Jesus' first followers did not call themselves Christians; outsiders did. They simply followed Jesus and the world called them Christians; now we call ourselves Christians and the world calls us hypocrites.
• Take almost any dying church, and you'll hear someone say, "It's not growing, but the fellowship is great." Most churches do not have what the Bible calls fellowship, because it's not inviting to those on the outside. It's like walking in on two people making out; it's intimate, but you're not particularly inclined to join.
• "Christians are bolemic: they starve themselves all week and expect to gorge each Sunday. My goal is not to feed the sheep; but to make them hungry and teach them to feed themselves."
• When Jesus told Peter to "feed My sheep", He was referring to unbelievers, not believers. How do we know? Peter went preaching among unbelievers in response.
• You don't disciple new Christians; you disciple lost people. Discipleship happens long before someone gets saved. When Jesus told his followers to make disciples, it was of the nations who had not yet heard the Gospel. In the same way you disciple your children before they become believers; you share your life with unbelievers and disciple thme before they become believers.
• Christians talk about being "called to be saved," then "called into ministry" then "called to serve." There's only one call--to radical discipleship. We have to layer the "callings" to explain why 90% of Christians don't look at all like disciples.
• Failure doesn't mean God is not with you. Sometimes God makes you fail; for the stuff of victory comes out of failure.
• Christians who have followed God for several years who are still asking to be discipled are factory defects. The dough isn't rising. Spend your time with a more profitable audience.
• The 2 characteristics all NT churches had in common: heretical and immoral.
• Hellfire is the effective threat for those inside the church; grace is the effective appeal for those outside the church.
• Many of our churches are not part of the movement of Jesus, but a movement of Descartes. They believe, " I think (Christian), therefore I am (Christian)." They have as their goal Christian education in proper thinking; not radical discipleship.
• Every institution that has as its primary focus the study of the Bible eventually drifts toward liberalism. The more you turn the Bible into an educational tool, and the less you follow it as a manual of radical discipleship that leads you to love and serve people, the more you go toward religiosity and away from Jesus.
• "Our church is not seeker sensitive; we're just equally insensitive to everyone."
• There is enough proof of God already inside of people... we don't have to prove that to them. "My goal is to dig into the universe that is inside of you and show you the fingerprints of God that are already there." This is the subject of Erwin's latest book, "Soul Cravings."
• "Mosaic was not like one of those church plants where some guy sneezes and 10,000 people show up. Building the church has been long, arduous, and full of failures." (My comment: Have you noticed that a lot of the great, disciple making churches are like that? Driscoll's, Dever's, etc... I oscillate on this point a lot: I want the church to grow super fast because I want to see people saved as quickly as possible. But also, the church is to be a picture of the glory of God, which means that care is to be taken building a community that is truly reflective of Jesus. This morning I read Exodus 39, about how careful Moses was to build the tabernacle to God's specifications. God blessed Israel because "they had done exactly as He commanded." I once bought into the philosophy that "only Sunday morning counts, or 'Sunday morning, stupid'" because Sunday morning is what makes people come to your church. But Sunday morning is NOT sufficient for making disciples or real Christian community. That takes deep relationships and ministry that goes on all throughout the week. Jesus did not meet with His 11 disciples for 1 hr on Sunday. In other words, it doesn't seem to me that He bought the "Sunday, stupid" principle.)
  

Well, that's a quick digest. There's a lot to process. Some of the stuff i have mixed feelings on, and am still processing myself. What I take away is that I want so badly for the Summit Church to be a church wholly focused on reaching and shaping her community. I want my daughters to grow up in a house where they see Veronica and me continually interacting with people who are searching for God. I want to be personally involved in the lives of the hurting, the oppressed, the "downtrodden" and the searching.

Jesus was about people; not about sermons. He used sermons to help people. Sometimes I feel like I am the opposite.

Erwin is a huge Chapel Hill fan, even though he lives in LA (he graduated from UNC in 81). He told me that the UNC logo is the most popular emblem in LA, even over UCLA.

One final thing. Erwin (fascinatingly) has been invited to be a part of series of debates at Columbia University, NYU, Harvard, and a number of other strategic places. Quite often he is matched against philosophy dept heads; science dept heads, etc. He is incredibly effective with the students, but not because he knows how to answer each science or philosophy question. He knows how to appeal to mystery and to the "soul God-cravings" in every person--things that science and secular philosophy cannot address. I learn a lot from that. My strategy with people is often to show them that we have more and better answers than they do. However, it is appealing to the soul mystery that science and philosophy can't answer that often speaks to people on their soul levels. This is not to say that Christians should not labor hard to debunk the false claims of historians and scientists with agendas, and to show the logical fallacies of a lot of philosophical systems--just that there are often some more effective doors to enter with people.

Gospel vs. Religion? Part Deuce

So after all the interesting response I got to the blog post "Is the Gospel the Center?" (Part one, published Dec 19, 2006), I decided I probably needed to write a follow up to flesh out a little bit of what I am getting at.

The sticking point seems to be the statement that not centering your message on the Gospel essentially makes one a "non-Christian preacher," even if the preacher is using Christian terminology. So, let me attempt to clarify.

People assume preaching the Gospel is the beginning of the Christian life, the ABC’s of the Christian walk. The Gospel, they believe, is just the diving board which allows us to jump into the pool of Christianity. We become Christians by accepting Christ by faith, but we grow into good Christians by obeying godly principles we find in Scripture.

But the Bible presents the Gospel as the A-Z of the Christian life. It is not just the diving board, but the pool in which we constantly swim! It is only by applying the Gospel and its power to every aspect of our lives that we undergo any meaningful, lasting change. Galatians 3:1-3 says that we are not justified by faith in the Gospel and then sanctified by obedience to good Christian principles on marriage, childraising, money management, and etc. Galatians says we are sanctified by faith in the Gospel as well. Colossians 1:6 says that it is "the truth of the Gospel" that brings forth fruit in our lives. The seeds that survive in Jesus’ parable (Mark 4) are those that drive the Gospel seed deep into the soil. Surface level penetration of the Gospel produces only superficial, fading changes.

You see, most preachers agree that all good preaching has as its goal life change. But there are at least two ways to try and bring about that change. The moralistic/behaviorial approach seeks to motivate the hearer to modify his behavior. Moralistic preaching says "You should change your behavior because it’s the right thing to do;" or "good Christians do this;" or "1st century revolutionary Christians did it this way so this is more authentic Christianity" or even "this works for making a happier home or more fulfilling life!" These applications never deal with the real problem of the human heart: we are idolaters who ascribe to a system of works-righteousness. We feel like we need to do something that will make us more acceptable to God and to others; and we need something besides God’s approval of us and presence with us to ultimately be happy. The unstated assumptions in the above are often, "You need to have a good marriage to be accepted by God" or "living an authentic Christian life will make God happy with you" or "Having a happy marriage will make you ultimately happy, and these principles can bring about that happy marriage."

The Gospel method of change is "transformation," which seeks to address the idols of the heart and our natural proclivity toward works-righteousness. In other words, it aims to correct the assumptions that we need something else besides God’s favor and approval to be fulfilled in life, and that there is something we must do to gain that approval. Only faith in the Gospel transforms the fundamental structure of the heart. The Gospel teaches me that I am fully accepted by God in Christ and should be fully satisfied in Him, therefore I do not need to sin in order to procure some cherished idol (like gaining success, pleasure, or the approval of others).

Let me use my marriage as an example. How does the Gospel transform my attitude toward my wife? For a long time I thought I needed my wife to be happy. That’s why I got married, so she could be the perfect friend and lover to me and make all my deepest dreams come true. However, as wonderful as she is, she disappointed me (as all idols do). So, I became resentful and bitter toward her. She had failed me.

So, my marriage needs improvement. How do I accomplish this? I could try some anger and forgiveness techniques, even ones derived from the Bible. I could deal with my temper and hone my skills in conflict management. This is the most common approach I hear in much preaching. For example, I recently heard a prominent evangelical preacher tell me that the way to deal with anger and bitterness in the home is to 1) remove yourself from the heat of the moment and take time to cool down; 2) pray about your attitude; 3) remind yourself of the wonderful blessing your spouse is; and 4) go on a date night. Let me emphasize: These are good principles, and should be practiced. But they never deal with my REAL problem(s), which are: 1) I have turned my wife into an idol and 2) I demand that she earn my love.

However, when I apply the Gospel to my marriage, as Paul tells me to do in Eph 5:25-31, I FIRST learn that I don’t need the love of a woman to give my life meaning and purpose. I have purpose and significance and am complete because I am in Christ, not because I have a good marriage. Jesus is my God and my Savior, not her. (Every earthly pleasure on earth should have a sign like those bridges that say, "No more than 2 tons." If you put more weight on the bridge than it can handle, it will collapse. So with my marriage. If the weight of my soul’s need for happiness and significance depends on my marriage, then my marriage will collapse.)

SECOND, I am reminded that God loved me WHEN I was unworthy. He did not leave me when I failed and disappointed Him, but loved me even more during those times. Not giving me what I did deserve and giving me what I didn’t deserve saved and changed me; so my giving my wife love and grace and not justice is the way she will be saved and changed too. THIRD, I learn that God’s major purpose for all things in my life, including marriage, is my sanctification. Sometimes he will let me wife be a crucible to me on which I suffer unjustly so that He can teach me to love like Jesus loves. Ultimately, my happiness and purpose in life comes from what God has done and is doing in me, not from some idol I have concocted to satisfy the needs of my soul. (Wow, this sounds like Veronica and me have a rough relationship :)! That’s not what I mean, my wife is awesome! I am leaving out all the ways she is the continual beauty, fragrance, and refreshment of Christ to me. I’m just using this as a way of trying to show where this becomes very practical in my life.)

Tim Keller, to whom I am indebted for insight into much of the above, says it like this: "Faith that does not lead to love is meaningless; love that is not based on love is powerless." Ultimately, as Jesus said, any significant change in our lives must be a change that begins in love. So where does love come from? If my love doesn’t BEGIN and FLOW FROM faith, it will not have the power to last. Without faith in the Gospel, the object of my love will disappoint me, and I will grow bitter. Without continual reflection on my own unworthiness before God, I will be tempted to be ingracious with others.

So, when I hear really good, creative preachers who exegete or apply creatively, but fail to ground their calls for change in the Gospel, I am left "hungry." This preaching, though creative and entertaining, is just creative, entertaining legalism. They have just preached to me a new law. (Change "Jesus says" to "Mohammad says" or "Moses says" and most Muslims and Jews would readily agree with most of our messages on morality and family!)

Being an authentic, real, relevant Christian does not consist in learning what political implications discipleship had in the first century and then conforming my behavior to those principles. It is not learning the four crucial principles for building a godly career and then implementing them in my life. Real, authentic, life changing Christianity is grounding both of those things in the Gospel—the Gospel that teaches me that I am as accepted in Christ as I could ever hope to be, and that His acceptance is the only Savior I will ever need. (For more on  this, see PART ONE posted on Dec 19)

Gospel vs. Religion, Part One

There are two kinds of preachers: those who preach the Gospel in everything they do, and essentially non-Christian preachers. Non-Christian preachers may look like Christian preachers, and they may themselves be saved, but their message is essentially non-Christian. Just to be upfront at the outset, I have preached in many cases like a ‘non-Christian’ preacher.

The Gospel is a message completely unlike any other religious message. It compels you to "do good" because you have been accepted by God, not in order to be accepted by God. As Tim Keller points out, every other religion says ‘I obey, therefore I am accepted.’ Christianity says, ‘I am accepted, therefore I obey.’ Much of our preaching implies the former.

This is not just an issue of how we think we’re getting to heaven. Salvation is more than just "getting to heaven," it is restoring the sense of acceptance we had in the Garden of Eden. Our separation from God there has caused us to feel naked and ashamed—and this manifests itself in the feeling that we are unapproved, unloved, and meaningless. So we spend all of our lives trying to find salvation—some reason we can be loved and accepted by God and others. We turn to what Martin Luther called "functional saviors." It may be making money that makes us feel valuable, being successful, gaining a good reputation, sensual thrills, family, or whatever. Quite often it is being a good religious person that makes people feel acceptable. Someone thinks, because I am "x" (i.e. smarter, richer, more moral than other people, etc)I can be loved.

This is works-righteousness, and, as Luther said, we have a natural proclivity toward it. It is as if life is like one continuous Survivor episode, wherein we are trying to convince everyone else (and God) why we shouldn’t be the one thrown off the island.

Religion-centered preaching, which is woefully abundant in evangelical circles, teaches people that happiness and acceptance is found in living the religiously approved life. The preacher ESSENTIALLY says, "You should change your habits, because it’s really the right thing to do. You want to be a good Christian, don’t you?" "Or, don’t you want a God-centered marriage? Here’s what one looks like. Do this, and you can feel good about how religious you’re becoming and that you have a God approved marriage." The person listening says, "Yeah, i want to be a good person or good husband and I want God to be happy with me, so I’ll do this."

Don’t get me wrong. You can see some good and postive changes from this type of preaching. But such change is what Tim Keller calls ‘mechanical change,’ which is a change in outward behavior to conform to an approved standard. Christianity brings organic change, however, which is a fundamental change in the heart. And what organically changes the heart is knowing the love and grace of God in the Gospel. When you know how much you’ve been forgiven of, then you don’t have a problem feeling like you could forgive and love others. And your approach to your marriage then becomes COMPLETELY different. It is a natural response to the Gospel.

In the same way, when you know that you are accepted in God, you quit feeling compelled to overwork and cheat and lie and steal in order to find acceptance by others. Christian preaching must teach people to find their acceptance in the Gospel, and then to live out the implications. Soren Kierkegaard said that "Sin is finding your identity in anything but God." Our preaching must people that God accepts them fully in the Gospel, and to value that acceptance above all other things.

So, it doesn’t matter how cool the videos, hip the language, how relevant and catchy and applicable the points are, how tied into the first century the speaker is, or how sophisticated in the Greek and Hebrew language use, or even how many cross references the speaker uses, or how expository he preaches, unless the point of each message is what the knowledge of your acceptance by Christ mean in this situation, and flows from your security in him, the message is essentially non-Christian. It is just really creative, cool, religious legalism�trying to change you through mechanical means.

Again, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for heavy application. But the focal point of the Christian message is that 1) God’s acceptance is all we need for happiness, purpose, meaning and security; 2) we have that in Christ; and 3) the knowledge of that in the power of the Spirit changes how we live and love.

Yes, I have quite often preached like a non-Christian. I’ve discovered that I’m a recoving legalist. But I’m trying to quit. I wear a Gospel patch on my inner thigh each morning. To my dismay, I discovered that for many of my messages, if you took out the name of Jesus and substituted it for ‘Mohammad’ then most Muslims would agree with the gist of the message.

Many of my charismatic friends preach continually the victory of the Spirit. That’s wonderful, but it should not replace the centrality of the Gospel. The victory of the Spirit cannot organically change me—i.e. transform me from within. Ony remembering the mercies of God can do that (Romans 12:1-2).

My fundamentalist ancestors often focused on the lifestyle of the Christian (look like one, talk like one, etc). Nothing wrong with that either—standards have their place. But they replaced the centrality of the Gospel with the centrality of an approved lifestyle.

My emergent and theologically-moderate friends are passionate about the kingdom. They say real Christians are revolutionaries—they care about the poor, are activists against racism and oppression, etc. Amen. But I listen to some of their messages and never hear the actual Gospel exalted and our gracious acceptance in Christ given as the impetus for change. The implication is that if we would all live like Christians in the first century or be passionate about social justice then God would approve of us. We should, of course, live like Christians in the first century and we should be passionate about social justice. But we should not be lured into any type of "I obey, therefore I’m accepted" type of thinking.

My "relevant, cutting edge" friends are truly amazing at cleverly packaging legalism. "Do these three things, consider these questions"—but again, they never seem to focus on the Gospel. They motivate me to change through mechanical means.

I have been dazzled by some speaker’s knowledge of Jewish customs. But again, it is not knowledge of the first century that will save my soul. My salvation is complete in my knowledge of Christ and the Gospel (2 Peter 1:3).

Preach the cross.

(for more on this, see "Gospel vs. Religion, part Deuce" and "Radical Generosity")