by Chris Alexion, Copyright December 13, 2006, all rights reserved. 375 views
My friend James Eglinton is at it again, adding to his post on secular fundamentalism by musing about the role of the church in a post-Christian society. James makes a great point:
We cannot afford to go on using the dialect of old Christendom now that we no longer live in Christendom. . . . If a post-Christian Brit enters a church and finds language characterised by: Christian idioms and expressions which to him (having no previous connection to Christianity) are utterly incomprehensible, or a sermon which assumes he (as a non-Christian) isn't present, or which isolates him through 'we-them' language, or archaic forms of English to which he cannot relate and would never use or hear outside of church; the consequences will be that he won't understand Christianity and will go on in his unbelief. Our corporate worship must be clear and comprehensible to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:24-25) so that in seeing Christians worship, they might be converted. Bearing in mind that God normally works through secondary causes (normal social and psychological processes) to convert people (Westminster Confession of Faith), isn't it to our shame if we make those secondary causes (i.e. our choice of language) ordinarily incomprehensible to the non-Christian nation around us?
While James isn't looking, I'm going to hijack this quote and use it as a springboard for one of my pet peeves: trendy evangelical disdain of the unconverted. This attitude is often unintentional and surfaces in outreach programs that treat non-Christians as numbers, stats, or even targets. At our worst, it becomes a sort of spiritual snootiness and teeters dangerously close to denying the doctrine of imago Dei. We're so concerned with keeping ourselves unspotted from the world (as we're quick to quote) that we neglect what Jesus said about being in it. After all, we should avoid the very appearance of evil, right? I keep expecting some enterprising ministry to come out with an "Evangelism Sniper Rifle" that lets us convert these sinners without getting too close.
Yet this is precisely what Jesus avoided. He dined with cheating tax men, hookers, and the unrespected–not because they had no sin, but because their sin required a remedy that couldn't be delivered via satellite. Christ created man, and man retains His image despite the Fall. A more biblical approach to evangelism, it seems, would begin by conceiving of non-Christian people as just that: people. Shock of all shocks; horror of all horrors. And maybe then these people might be considered acquaintances and friends with needs beyond the recitation of a four-step formula prayer.
All this isn't to minimize the importance of salvation itself. Christ is essential, and no one can come to the Father but through Him (John 14:6). No emphasis on love and compassion can replace the Gospel.
But after all, why should it? It's part of the Gospel.
1 • James Eglinton • December 14, 2006 • 5:21 PM
I am looking!
Thanks again Chris. Really, all I'm doing is copying Tim Keller! Reading his stuff has challenged me to do a big critical rethink of my whole approach to ministry here in Scotland.
I'm completely with you regarding the presence of non-Christians at church services. I think one of the key assumptions that all preachers should make is that there will be people present who do not understand the gospel. (And by that, I do not just mean unbelievers!)
If we make that assumption, we should then bear that in mind as we preach (and lead worship generally). As Keller says, preach assuming non-Christians are present. Even if there are no non-Christians there, keep preaching like that and eventually they will start coming.
I'm wary of approaching preaching with an almost slavish relationship to the lowest-common-denominator approach to communication found in tabloid newspapers. I don't think that's a good idea. But what I do think is that it's all about clarity, plainness of speech, and above all, through our communication making Christ utterly accessible (though not acceptable).
What say ye? Have you read much of Keller's stuff? If so, what do you think of his distinction between an evangelistic and a missional church?
2 • James Eglinton • December 15, 2006 • 1:55 PM
Hi Keith,
Hopefully I do have some understanding of the worship service. I am not seeker sensitive, nor am I particularly keen on the emergent church. I'm Reformed and entirely committed to the Regulative Principle of Worship whereby Scripture (rather than pragmatism) directs worship.
I used to think the same way as you, but my thinking has changed a lot on this subject. I just cannot reconcile the idea of 'the worship service is for worshipping God and edifying Christians, not for evangelism' with the picture of the worshipping, missional church of the New Testament.
In 1 Cor. 14, Paul gives the Corinthian church a hypothetical situation: what would happen if an unbeliever saw your incomprehensible worship? He'd remain unconverted. But what if an unbeliever saw orderly worship? By seeing you worship, he would know God is among you.
Worship in Corinth was supposed to be evangelistic, as was the worship in Acts 2.
The New Testament expects non-Christians to be present at the public worship service, and for them to be converted within that context.
Can I ask you a few questions on your understanding of the worship service (working on the basis that there is a strict divide between edification and evangelism)?
1) What is it that edifies believers and makes them grow as Christians, the law or the gospel?
It cannot be the case that dry, gospel- and grace-less preaching will spur people on to holy living in a post-Christian world, can it? Isn't the New Testament against any such notion? 'The grace of God which teaches us to say no to all ungodliness…?'
So if our basic theology is, 'preach in a grace-filled way, where all the ethics are gospel oriented, and where we're being clearly evangelical even when we're not being overtly evangelistic,' why on earth can't that kind of preaching (at the climax of the public worship service) not speak powerfully to both Christians and unbelievers?
If faith comes by hearing (and you know that Paul in Rom. 10 brings this immediately into the context of preaching), we cannot but make sure non-Christians are there to hear our preaching.
2) Do you believe the means of grace (preaching, prayer, Scripture, baptism and communion) are necessary for salvation?
I do. I believe these means of grace have been chosen by God as the normal means by which he saves people. And as these means of grace are found most fully in the public worship of the church, that is where we need to bring unbelievers to see them made into disciples (rather than just remaining at the level of mere converts).
As I said, I used to share your opinion, but now I don't. I'm not saying this is true of you, but it certainly was of me: when I used to think 'evangelism and edification are mutually exclusive, you cannot hit both targets at the same time', my theology was basically 'the gospel gets you into the kingdom, your obedience keeps you in': hence my approach to unbelievers (evangelism) and believers (unevangelistic 'edifying' (i.e. law) preaching) being so radically separate.
Have you ever read 'Evangelistic Worship' by Tim Keller? (http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/evangelisticworship.pdf) Have a read of it, he expresses what I'm trying to say here (but much more competently). I'd like to hear your thoughts on what he has to say.
Cheers,
James
3 • razzendahcuben • December 19, 2006 • 5:04 PM
Hi James,
I actually very much agree with what you wrote. Pardon me I sounded too sharp in my first comment. I had a problem with your words—it seems as though any emergent church could say the same thing and yet mean something completely different. Seeker sensitive churches do exactly what you describe as being missional and yet end up with a show instead of a worship service.
Evangelism and edification aren't the same thing, but that doesn't mean that one can't touch the other. Obviously a non-believer can be converted as a result of watching the good works of believers (Matt. 5:16).
It cannot be the case that dry, gospel- and grace-less preaching will spur people on to holy living in a post-Christian world, can it? Isn't the New Testament against any such notion? 'The grace of God which teaches us to say no to all ungodliness…?'
Did I say otherwise?
2) Do you believe the means of grace (preaching, prayer, Scripture, baptism and communion) are necessary for salvation?
I'll answer this as soon as you tell me whether you really believe in God.
And as these means of grace are found most fully in the public worship of the church, that is where we need to bring unbelievers to see them made into disciples (rather than just remaining at the level of mere converts).
And now you're implying that I'm against discipleship?
'evangelism and edification are mutually exclusive, you cannot hit both targets at the same time'
You're right, I never believed that. Evangelism and edification are not the same thing and yet they are not mutually exclusive.
my theology was basically 'the gospel gets you into the kingdom, your obedience keeps you in': hence my approach to unbelievers (evangelism) and believers (unevangelistic 'edifying' (i.e. law) preaching) being so radically separate.
OK, that clears it up. I see what you are saying. Still, I can't say that I ever held on to this. 1 Cor. 1:30 it clear that sanctification is through Christ, not the law. However, I must say that it is very strange that you consider edification to be "law preaching".
I agree with Tim Keller, but there has to be balance when applying things like "preaching in the vernacular". The fact is, unbelievers aren't going to know right off the bat what sanctification, justification, and a whole host of other words refer to. So does this mean we get rid of them? Obviously not. I probably should I have expressed this to you in my initial comment. Wisdom precedes balance, wisdom comes from God. So we must pray that God shows us how to tune our worship services in a way that is understandable to the unbeliever and edifying to the believer.
I was also glad to see that he referenced John Frame's excellent work on the regulative principle.
Well, all in all, I think our "disagreements" are merely the result of semantics.
Thanks for the response and the link!
Keith
4 • James Eglinton • December 20, 2006 • 6:40 AM
I think the problem here is that we're trying to discuss big things in small posts (with even smaller emphases).
In addition to this, we're both thinking out of entirely different cultural contexts: hence your problem with my words. Here in the UK, Christianity has a wholly different complexion. Perhaps I'm more familiar with your context than you are with mine?
Good day to you.
——-