In an attempt to understand different people's perspectives as a minister of the Gospel, I often ask "how does what we are doing/saying appear to ______?" I recently began reading a book entitled "Jim and Casper go to Church" which tells the story of a Christian minister and an atheist who travel around the country visiting prominent churches--and then giving their perspectives from their particular world views. Very fascinating.
I have been searching for local professing atheists with whom I could dialogue with. Thus far, I have been in email contact with several, and more than one of them has been surprised that a Christian could actually ask them questions without condemning or harassing them.
I asked the question: What, if anything, would appeal to you in a sermon from a minister? It seems my question was less relevant than I imagined, since there is a larger picture they wanted me to see first. In the interest of brevity, I am placing a few links below to excerpts of their email conversations. (Click on them and read a little from their perspective.) Email 1 and 4 interest me the most.
Email #1
Email #2
Email #3
Email #4
(On a side note: Emailer #4 has allowed me to share my perspective on God and scripture, and he was quite intrigued by it. The dialogue continues.)
Turning this back to us: Can we as ministers do anything (preaching, designing ministries, conducting targeted outreaches, etc) that might appeal to atheists, thereby giving us opportunities to share our faith?
Further, it appears most Christians can't give an intellectual, coherent defense of their faith anymore. What do we need to do as ministers to change this? Can we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
Just a thought in response to the question and the email interaction with those athiests:
I wonder if presenting/preaching emphasizing the humanity of Jesus would help reach out to athiests. Portrayals of Jesus dining with sinners, accepting people before they ever professed belief in him, showing compassion and kindness. Jesus may not have been "tolerant" in the sense of condoning any belief system and behavioral patterns, but he was compassionate towards people without any strings attached. He accepted people from all walks of life. Since one of the primary objections to Xianity concerns its supposed intolerance of other beliefs/peoples, perhaps preaching and/or sharing our faith in a way that touches on the human interactions of Jesus would help demonstrate that Jesus and his followers are not meant to be a group of exclusive dogmatists, but rather, a loving, inviting family of failures all asking God to help them together become more like Jesus.
Why would an athiest ever even be exposed to preaching? Under what circumstances would that even take place? Would relationships be the only way for connecting to atheists?
I think with Atheists, as with most other people relationships are important - be their friend and invite them to be a part of your family or circle of friends. Love will certainly have an impact.
Most folks are atheist because of some negative past experience not necessarily through reasoned conclusions - though from their point of view it seems reasoned - but typically the reasons are based on some deep inner hurts or unmet need that leads them to reject God.
Identify the hurt and they may eventually open up to God.
For the more hardened atheist I think gentle confrontation with the Law of God will direct them to Christ (Gal 3) and then they will have to choose what to do with Christ.
At least, this is how I see it.
I think it is one of the most tragic things that we've managed to take what was created to be the most loving institution and turned it into something that others see as hateful and pushy. They're supposed to see Jesus when they look at us. Instead they just see...us. And they don't want to be like us.
It also seems to me that they see Christianity demanding that they become like us, not showing them how to have a relationship with God. Many churches have become focused on themselves--"You must look like us"--rather than focused on pointing others to Christ.
At the same time, we can't let what others think about us dictate what we're going to preach, teach, and hold to be true. One of the emailers suggested preaching about Jesus as a moral teacher rather than as a supernatural being. That's clearly not an option. Of course we can emphasize His loving, moral teaching as our lifeblood, but we cannot deny His divinity just because it takes people aback. There will always be something in the gospel that will be a stumbling block to people. We had just make jolly well certain that it's the gospel doing so and not us.
i have watched the youtube videos by these guys in which the atheist is suppose to inform the church how to "improve". i get the feeling that the videos are to invoke this sense of sympathy for the atheist, "Oh wow, you're so right mr. atheist, our services haven't done a good job catering to you." what in the world does darkness have in common with light?
the church is NOT for the atheists but for the edification of believers. should atheists or any nonbeliever be prohibited from observing a christian gathering? of course not. however, the function of the church is edify and empower believers to be missional people to become witnesses, teachers, and proclaimers/evangelists of the gospel "beyond church invitations".
if atheists feel out of place within a church it's because they are. a church that convinces atheists to become church memmbers is probably a church that simply make atheists look more like a christian with a form of godliness but no power. the atheist does not need to feel at home in a church (he has nothing in common with Light), though they should feel welcomed if inclined to visit. they need to be born again.
the problem is not in the question 'why are sunday morning service not effective enought to reach atheists?' but rather 'why aren't christians effective enough to see atheists and all walks of unbelievers get radically saved outside of church?' if we think that unbelievers not to come to church, hear a preacher behind a pulpit, and get to the altar in order to get saved, then our gospel is reduced to a superstition.
i think it is the last desperate act of the church to resort to seeker-friendly services in which the church no longer trusts its members to be witnesses beyond church invitation.
As ministers the first thing we can do "honorably" is to know what we believe and why we believe it--to the extent that we know why we prioritize specific beliefs above or below others pertaining to "how" we say what we say. This will provide us with the natural stimulation for our personal faith to grow and broaden as we refresh our minds and hearts with clear convictions and consciences so that when we do have the opportunity to share we are ready "in season and out" To this i will add that "we" are all called to study the Bible personally and as a group helps even more with the chance for dailogue--basically, what i am saying is that the "best" appeal you can offer an atheist is a nonjudgmental attitude--which is biblical, as well as a clear and accurate account of the Bible and what you believe in light of the beliefs we hold dear as A/G.
I read all four emails. Indeed, email #4 is stated exactly as if i was talking to my girlfriend--like we just talked about this focusing on the issue of why believers should attend church--and honestly she would say every word of this email to me--as we are getting to know each other bc she was not raised A/G and the Catholic church background she has is a distaste in her mouth...so in light of providing a reflection to the second half of this response i offer the following:
My girlfriend is a "cold" Christian--meaning she only prays--she does not read her Bible nor does she go to church nor does she fellowship with other believers bc she dont have any who she could call friends. So, in light of talking with her and getting to know her and wanting a relationship with her, I have learned these simple truths that allow me to connect with her about my faith in a way that is not condesending or disrespectful...realize that optimism for life is a core value and that you can come along side that value by affirming you proactive value for light in that God created everything "good" and for his pleasure...realize that our belief system is rigid--with little room for tolerance of verging to the right or left--which as you share its not so much about what you say as i have learned its more about how well you listen and understand respectfully their belief system whatever that may be--for my girlfriend its severely broken but by the grace of God not beyond repair...indeed, realize that communicating faith evokes immediate confrontation bc as you share and highlight the differences of beliefs you literally are imposing the need for "change" for me this has been disasterous, but even Jesus learned how to relate to other people with or without a beelief system through confrontation but used life expereiences to cross the bridge instead of mere words...lastly, know u r already labeled as hypocrytical in the eyes of the Gen Y and Millenials but with a dose of potentialty--to get through this i have learned that integrity should be my goal when sharing with someone with another beliefe system but not at the price of losing any credibility...these are my thoughts and hope they provoke further discussion as i am presently trying to allow God and ask God how i can be used to build a healthy and strong relationship with my girlfriend.
When atheists do have an opportunity to hear preaching, it is either because it is mass-media preaching (Joel Osteen or something like that) or because they've met a Christian who has caused them to reassess their perspective of Christianity and so they attend a meeting to see if there's something different about this Christian's religious input that would account for the different output of their lives.
Examples I have observed capturing the attention of atheists:
1) A Christian being able to forgive something unforgivable.
2) A Christian openly affirming belief in evolution.
3) A Christian surpassing them in a competitive intellectual endeavor.
4) A Christian consistently being their friend without making their religious differences the central theme of their relationship.
Once they're open to attending a meeting, they're inclined to dig a Bible discussion group or a special lecture not surrounded by worship music.
Those are my experiences, anyway. Perhaps the committed atheists in your neck of the woods are different.
The best living pastoral model I know for addressing this crowd is Tim Keller. Google him up and download some of his mp3s.
I haven't seen anyone (that I can tell) respond about the second question regarding how most Christians cannot give a coherent defense/apology of their faith.
I wonder if a portion of the atheists I have spoken with were simply condemned and harrassed by narrow minded 'believers' who instead of giving a coherent defense of their faith, simply chastised and berated them for their atheist worldview. Christy M. was right...and I have no doubt why many have turned from the church when treated in such a way.
I am curious where the breakdown started. The trend away from Sunday School maybe? Maybe there are a lack of people who can even TEACH doctrine and faith these days?
I remember randomly asking youth at youth conventions why they believed in God. I couldn't believe the answers!
Atheist or not, all people respond to the same things... That which speaks to them in their situation. This is a global truth. For me a seminarian this might be a sermon on dealing with student loan debt, for an atheist it might be how to provide for their family or save their spiraling marriage. The problem comes in interpreting the mission of the church. Is it as some have suggested to train Christians to become more like Christ or to partner with them to invite non-believers into an environment where we can all take the journey together in community? I think it is somewhat narrow to take an either or approach although I clearly lean toward the second. Andy Stanley divides his church into three environments to help move people along in their spiritual journey, from seeker to disciple. In his view sunday morning is like the foyer of a house which acclamates a person and invites them in, the living room creates environment and opens things up, and the kitchen is where real fellowship occurs. (I have to go back to work I will continue my rant in about 2 hrs).
My point is that growing churches seem to focus on the fact that spiritual maturity, like physical is a process and that we must first reach people where they are. If you want to reach the atheist you must first reach outside of the church to them, through targeted loving outreaches, if relationships are built then invite them to the next step. Logically this is a church service. The real issue is that churches need to understand spiritual maturity as a journey, atheists aren't even spiritual babes, they are like unfertilized eggs that could be. But that process requires a lot of love and attention as well as an incubation period. And even after a baby is born, or born again as it were, they start out on milk not meat and potatoes. The church needs to keep this in mind when providing services of any kind. While it is a nice thought to preach the word and let the Holy Spirit flow, if you don't lay some groundwork you aren't helping Him out any. I could go further with my birth process analogy buy I won't save to say sometimes some flowers and a little mood light goes a long way. I strongly feel that hard core issues need to be addressed in scholarly and sometimes hard core ways, but save this for those who can handle it and provide a venue for that. You don't teach or discipline children the same way as you do adults. If the understanding of the church systems is to use the service to minister to the saved, then the church is derelict in duty if it doesn't provide another venue for reaching out to the lost. In conclusion, and sorry for ranting, but the church is most recognizable in it's sunday moring service. That's where the most seekers go and so we have a responsibility to steward that resource in the way that will produce the most return on God's investment. Jesus left the 99 for the one, so clearly He is concerned about those outside of the fold. Whether more or less and how to follow His example, I suppose are decisions we must each face in our own ministries.
A couple further thoughts:
First, I wonder if the church grounds is really the best place to reach the lost (athiests included). Why not go where they are? (bars, clubs, their homes, etc). Jesus dined with Zaccheus (sp?) and other "sinners" in their homes. Why do we think we must first get people to a church service, even if it is supposedly designed for "non-believers", for them to come to Christ?
Secondly, to respond to Shannon's second question, regarding an intellectual defense of our faith, I wonder how meaningful such a thing is when reaching athiests. I've read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and other such books and I just don't think trying to "prove empirically" to people that Jesus is who he says he was is the right way to go. I think the foundational question we must first ask ourselves is "Is our faith logical?" If it is, then how is it faith? Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about logical details of our faith, and be more concerned with modeling a transformed life that reflects the power of Christ and allows the Spirit to summon the hearts of unbelievers through our witness.
Amen Nathaniel! Remember "Show and Tell"? We should be able to show them the transforming power of our faith before we tell them about it. That is VERY important.
But we do have to be able to coherently explain our faith. Not that it is reasoned and rational, but explain things like the atonement, and grace, etc. The average Christian couldn't even define those words, let alone explain what function they serve.
While no one I have ever met has been persuaded by arguments alone, I have never met an atheist who converted who has not needed certain questions answered along the way.
A committed atheist has thought about life and decided that the concept of God doesn't make sense. Before they can consider anything else, the category of "God" must shift from "impossible" to "maybe".
Unless they witness a miracle, this migration tends to happen through a lengthy and thoughtful explanation of the faith.
And when they do convert, they don't tend to convert to Christianity. They convert to deism or theism. And from there they wind up converting to Christ.
Perhaps part of the problem which we all are seeing revolves around supposed Christians not really living the faith. Or as Shannon brilliantly asked, can we actually defend the faith?
For instance, there's a news story about how almost 50 % of Britain does not claim to be Christian anymore:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3412118.ece
could this be possibly for a lack of an internal apologetic in Britain's Christians? Having an archbishop who states that the nativity might be a fable, albeit he still believes that Jesus was born, has to undermine believers who attempt to witness to others.
I have really been debating this idea about going into bars, into the place where the sinners dwell, etc. I just don't know how well it works just going cold turkey! I went to a Hillary Clinton rally 2 weeks ago and this guy got up and started preaching. Everyone mocked him. I just kind of felt out of place, especially given that I had been talking with people about being a preacher! Yet, open air preaching was the method for so long! The disciples were looked at as drunks! (Acts 2) Who am I to judge him?
Finally here, I think it's interestingmthat there hasn't been a mention (I could have missed it) about the Prince of this world stealing the seeds! Where does that fit into this conversation?
Matt <><
Nathaniel, In terms of faith being beyond reason in some terms I couldn't agree more. In the world of relative truth evidential methods seem to take a backseat to the experiential witness of faith and personal testimony. It is a perfect way to use their own argument to prove that if it is true for me it doesn't matter if it is true for them because it is true. As sad as this circular logic is, sometimes it is convincing to those who believe it.
In response to Matt, I am facilitating a class with seekers/starters at my church and a woman in the class was also at the clinton rally and she specifically mentioned the negative effect that the megaphone style turn and burn guy had on her. Needless to say, it wasn't good. For the one person in dire straits who responds to that sort of thing there are nine others not on their deathbed who are driven further from church and the true message of Christ. - I don't think church is neccessarily where we should seek to reach the unsaved, but I do think we need to take a look at where we are putting our treasure. If the mission of the church is to reach the world for Christ shouldn't the bulk of our resources go towards that purpose and not self maintenance? Whether out in the world or at the church building, the mission should be done with excellence and fervor, not left in the hands of one or two people who who have the gift to pursue mostly on their own. If at a bar or club then do an outreach that impacts those people in a positive way without condeming them. They are unsaved, why should we expect them to care about a standard they don't claim to believe. If they are at a bar offer to pay for their cab ride home so they don't die before we have the opportunity to accept Christ. Over time little things like this gain us a place in their lives that will allow our oppinions and views to matter to them and ultimately impact them. The Holy Spirit works in miraculous ways, but generally people are stubborn and it takes repeated encounters.
I know I talk a lot... Sorry, I don't have much to do on my breaks.
I think for me the reason I look positively on the seeker model is because it puts the ball in our court. From a pragmatic standpoint, when we go into secular territory in an attempt to specifically convert people they become offensive. It's like someone coming into the seminary and offering to hand out birth control. We probably wouldn't respond that well. However if one of us was in a bad situation and willingly went to a clinic our response would be a lot better. When the unsaved make the step to take an initial leap and come to a church, our odds of impacting them skyrocket...if we have the right systems in place to engage them where they are. Which is likely to be a place of uncertainty and trepidation. Similarly if we were to go to a bar for the first time we would be on our heels, and leave at the first excuse.
defensive
Good stuff. My problem with the guy outside the Hillary Clinton rally isn't saying it's wrong or right. Does it "work", I doubt it! But, how can we condemn it? It's still the word, if one person comes to Christ, the whole of heaven sings! Who are we to condemn? That's pretty much what I'm saying. Plus, where does the seeds tossed and being stolen by the enemy fit into our paradigm?
Since I go home every year to militant, professing atheists as family members, I would be happy to relay my experience for what it may be worth. I have found that the people I know who profess to believe there is no God have a hard time with circumstances as stumbling blocks to belief, rather than having some elaborate philosophy as to why such a being cannot be. Issues such as--"I just can't picture a being the way God is described" or "why won't he take care of me" and the usual, "why is there evil in the world" questions and the like. Since I go home to family that refuses to even hear my words about a God, I just let my life do the talking. Of course the plot thickens when they see me mess up, but it is always a good ending for the testimony when I mention the need for God's mercy and his written revelation that he will provide it. Most of the time I just need to unswervingly stand firm in the lifestyle I know God has chosen for my life. That speaks more than words ever could and more effectively as well I have found. By the way, even some atheists go to church on Christmas and Easter.
Shannon asked the question twice about actually explaining what we believe.
When we make it about an intellectual discussion we miss the whole point.
As Pentecostal believers we are supposed to be Spirit empowered as witnesses for Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8)
Jesus also said in John 12:32-33 "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
My challege is this: what does it mean to lift up Jesus and be a witness for Jesus?
I hear the vast majority of people today talking about God. Are we supposed to be witnesses for "God?"
The Holy Spirit draws people to Jesus for salvation when He is lifted up. If we talk about God we are not lifting up Jesus.
The Jews of Jesus day already lifted up God. The Bible says that the devils believe in God and they tremble.
Do a Bible study of the New Testament and I think you will find that we are commanded to "love" Jesus repeatedly. But we are never comanded to love God.
Jesus use of the Jewish "Shema" is no exception to what I just said either.
What do you think?
To answer the second question and corroborate what Glen said...we do need to be able to have some sort of apologetic ready for athiests...
Obviously not all Christians are unprepared...but it is never a bad idea to brush up on some of the basics like the problem of evil, the moral argument, a defense of a book like Joshua,
I come from a very liberal part of the US. I actually do not think athiests are a majority by any means...even in a place like Seattle. There are much more agnostics...or people who have severely synchronized the truth to fit their lifestyle. The best arguments against theism may do well in attacking it, but i have never heard a very good argument defending atheism... I am not saying they dont exist...
In my pluralism class last year i watched a debate by William Lane Craig and some biological Ph.D. from Europe...cant remember his name now. They guy attacked Craig for believing in God, but never postulated his own arguments for atheism. Craig forced him pinned him to the wall and called him an agnostic...not an athiest. Most of the time...athiests are actually agnostic...especially if they use a moral framework to identify evil.
Intellectual arguments do exist...but on a grassroots level...most simply struggle with the basics that any Christian can read about in "A Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel.
If most churches had christian ed. class or small groups that went over this once a year...honestly, it would help a great deal for the basic apologetic needed to discuss the simple hangups for people...At Evangel Temple we did that last year.
John...you said:
"But we are never comanded to love God."
Not sure what church you are from brother...but the last 2000 years of orthodox Christianity we have believed in a triune God existing before time began...
That is besides the point (only to crossref every command to love Jesus)...wasnt it Jesus who insisted the most important command in the entire Law was to love the Lord your God...yadayada...no need to go further.
Saw my latest post didnt post...i asked:
How exactly does Jesus' use of the Shema not contradict your argument...?
Really interesting topic!
I have to agree with Beaty and ask, "When will and atheist come to church?" It seems to me that most professing atheists are not unchurched, but rather they are people who subscribe to a religion of humanism. They are religiously committed as a Hindu, Buddhist, or Moslem. For these people, they will see Christ when they see Him reflected in our lives outside of the church.
As to the question of being able to give a coherent defense of our faith, I have found that intellectual discussion is very rarely a convincing force in bringing someone to Christ. More often, the lack of a coherent defense appears as a hindrance for educated people finally deciding to commit to the inner desire that they feel to accept the love and forgiveness of Christ. To them, it can appear that all Christians are "simple” people who have been tricked into believing a lie by some abusive and charismatic leader who takes advantage of people. We need to educate our people to be able to articulate that they have chosen to put their faith in God for specific and well thought out reasons (be they intellectual defenses of Christianity, or simple life experiences). The important part is that people (atheists, agnostics, seekers, Buddhists, etc.) see that Christians are not simply blindly following tradition or peer pressure.
It seems that the old adage it true “Actions DO speak louder than words”!
Based on Email #3
I think the benifit from all of the emails (1-4)is not so much that we take his ideas, for example, emphasising Jesus' moral leadership rather than portraying him as than a supernatural being (ultimatly, the Christian message conflicts with his, for instance, an exclusivist view of Jesus Messian probably would not go over well with him but it is still Truth); However, he misconstrues what he sees in the church. He sees the Christian stance against Homosexuality and the position of women in the church, as based on fear and hatred. He does not know any different. Therefore, being aware of our audience helps us shape the message.
i agree with brian.
relationships.
2nd part. I think its good for Christians to know somewhat how to defend their faith even a logical sense. Very simple basics is all thats needed. But.. at the same time i don't think it's 100% needed. WHat's needed is the Bible. When I go out to evangelize to people, I don't go there to tell them logical things. I go to tell them the gospel, period. If they have questions, later on, I may talk to them about some apologetics, and the book case for faith and waht not, but do christians really need to know apologetics? i don't think its required, but its good to know
hansen,
Sorry, it's been a few days since I have been able to get here.
First, let me be a little more specific. We are never instructed nor commanded to love "God the Father" in the New Testament.
If you examine the NT, especially the Gospels, you will find that the Father loves the Son and us. You will also see that the Son loves the Father and us. We are repeatedly commanded to love Jesus. But we are never instructed nor commanded to love the Father. I find that very significant!
I find that my study of 2000 years of church history provides a different emphasis than simply a "triune God existing before time began."
My study of church history shows me a very distinct and exclusive focus on Jesus Christ. That it is faith in Him and His atoning sacrifice on the cross which saves people from their sins.
Jesus Christ is God. Believing and confessing that, for 2000 years, has cost people their lives. First, by the Romans, then by the Roman Catholic Church, then even by the Lutheran reformers.
I don't want to make this a book, so I will break this post at this point.
hansen,
Let me comment about your question concerning Jesus' use of the Shema.
If you examine the text closely, you will find that in each case, Jesus was not "insisting" that the most important command in the entire Law was to love the Lord your God. In each case Jesus was responding to religious leaders who were challenging Him regarding what the Law said. In each case Jesus was merely quoting the Law in answer to the challenge.
In light of all of Jesus' teaching throughout the Gospels, about loving deity, I believe it can be logically inferred that Jesus' point in quoting the Shema was to apply it to Himself. He is God. And He is Lord. We are to love Him.
hansen,
Let me add one more comment to our discussion, to place it in our modern context.
We live in a postmodern era. One of the central tenants of postmodernism is that there is no "center" around which all truth revolves. A corollary tenant is that there is nothing objective or "real" behind our words. Words only mean what the people who make up a particular community define them to mean.
Thus, in a postmodern age, as Christians, we must articulate clearly what we are saying if we expect intelligent, educated people (perhaps atheists), to understand what it is we are saying.
Over the last 40 years I have watched these two tenants play out in the marginalize of Jesus Christ to a "doorway" through which we get to "God the Father", and a three word saluatory ending to our prayers (i.e. in Jesus' name).
As we drift away from Jesus Christ as the focus of our faith, as the unifying "center" of our lives, we lose the very essence of what it means to be "Christian".
In our postmodern age, if we talk about "God" what god are we talking about? I believe we do not have the luxury of assuming that people will know we are talking about Jesus Christ.
Once we move away from the centrality of Jesus to a more generic, ethereal "God," the door is then opened for the possibility of including other means of salvation - means other than exclusively through Jesus Christ.
I think Atheists mostly do not want to be offended by Christian witness. Atheists may just oppose to the way of our telling the Gospel (like Email#4).I think it is a basically communication skill problem.
Having friendly dialogues with these folks are generally not difficult. Dialogue requires Christians to be humble. We can tell the truth but we cannot have a sense of superiority in the dialogue. They generally take care of how they are treated.
In this post modern age, many people disagree with our traditional way of oral evangelism like Agrippa's word to Paul(Acts 26:28).Some people easily find out our (holy?) intention to reach out and convert them to Christian. Atheists could talk about religion but I do not think that they discuss about spirituality even though spiritual blindness is the real issue between God and them.
Christianity today has made effort to blend the gospel into their culture like contemporary worship. Atheists may find Christ touched by the Holy Spirit when they listen to a contemporary Christian worship or even when they may listen to short messages and testimonies.
Dialogue or friendship evangelism generally takes a lot of time.
My conclusion is Christians need more patience to keep having relationship and waiting for the divine moment to tell the Gospel to them with adequate words.
We also need daily intersession prayer for spirtual berak.
John,
I am starting to get you...
I completely agree...when we say love God it is not a particularly Christian. Who's idea of God?
Only through Jesus Christ can we understand who God is...
I am not so sure i buy into the "We are never commanded to love God idea..."
I will have to study it for myself...does anyone have anything to say concerning this idea?
hansen,
Please understand, I'm not trying to raise some wierd doctrine when I say we are not commanded to "love God the Father".
I simply did a word study for a Bible study I was teaching. I was struck by how often Jesus referred to everything being about Him in the Gospels (e.g. John 15)
Looking at all four Gospels, I saw passages where Jesus talked about how He loved the Father. Then I saw passages that said that the Father loved Him. There were also passages that said that the Father loves us, and passages where it says Jesus loves us. There are also many passages that say we are to love Jesus.
It then seemed logical to me that there would also be passages that say we are to love the Father. But I found NONE! My first question was "why?" Why were there no passages that focused our "love" toward the Father? To me, the silence was deafening and it seemed apparent the Gospel writers were making a very definite, and distinct point.
Then, add to that the Father's own words on the Mount of Transfiguration when the disciples were confused too, that they were to listen to Jesus. And, the exhortation of the writer of Hebrews in 3:1 and 12:2 when he says we are to focus our "eyes" and our "thoughts" on Jesus.
All of our focus on the "Father" suddenly becomes odd. The idea seems to make only a "doorway" out of Jesus through which we walk to get to the Father. Instead of realizing that Jesus IS God. And having come to Him we now are in right standing with the Father - as long as our focus remains on Jesus.
I get a strange feeling that we don't really view Jesus as God. That somehow He is incomplete and to really know "God" we must get to the end of the journey - the Father. And, after we do that we can speak of Jesus in the past tense - what He "did" for us.
I can reach out to my "Daddy" and Jesus really becomes a historical figure in my life.
I posit that this is incorrect Christology.
What do you think?
John,
I think you make a decent point. Certainly Jesus comes to represent to us incarnationally what we need to understand and believe about the Father. Jesus is what we can know about the Father who reaches out to us. To the degree the church becomes Father-centric or even Spirit-centric may proportionatly relate to our suffering Christology.
I think you are on to something about why there is more focus at times on the Paternal nature of God as opposed to the Incarnational nature of God. My experience personally as well as corporately has been that believers today don't have as much difficulty believing Jesus was fully God as they do believing he was fully man. That may simply be the result of a dearth of sound teaching. But it could also be that "elevating" Jesus' deity above his humanity allows for justification and rationalization away from the call to true discipleship. That would be my bet. If Jesus was certainly more God than man, we can then begin to justify our carnality and lack of obedience as the expected result of a "lowly and virile nature." Keeping Jesus above the fleshly fray makes the separation from our carnality and his holiness much easier on the palate.
Gary Black
why would atheists step foot in the church in the first place?
as ministers--what could we do to catch their attention? --it would have to be us. many atheists have encountered narrow minded Christians who do try to "shove" Christianity down their throats--this turns them off.
beaty asked the question "would relationships be the only way for connecting to atheists?" i'm a personal fan of friendship evangelism -- but being open to what they have to say and how they feel opens a door in itself to share Christ. I don't think programs in the church are necessarily always the way to reach the lost.
As far as intellectual debates and conversations among Christians and non-Christians -- perhaps more workshops or in depth Bible studies would be effective? I just feel like it's our responsibility to know our faith and how to defend it. There's so much to learn--but we don't have the answer to everything.
Cindy makes an excellent point. Why would an atheist walk into a church? Most wouldn't and I would say they probably shouldn't.
I'm not a big fan of and I do not see the viable benefits of the now four decade old focus on the seeker sensitive, seeker friendly, seeker driven brand of cultural Christianity. The Church Growth model has been around long enough for us to review its contributions to Christendom. In my opinion, as a whole, it has produced the type of growth best described as cancerous. Whether the Church growth model has produced malignant or benign tumors on the broader Church remains to be discovered and perhaps is a topic better left for another day.
But the central question remains: Are we, as an evangelical people, following the example of Jesus more closely today than we were 40 or 50 years ago? Has the mega-church, CEO pastor, over-contextualized model worked to convert a lost, pluralistic culture to a life of singular discipleship and lone obedience to Jesus Christ? Is the gospel that is widely preached in our evangelical churches strong enough to transform a life beyond mental assent to a set of historical facts, traditional beliefs and mystical practices? If you believe only half of what George Barna has researched over the past 10 years the answer factually must be a depressing: NO.
I think what hard core atheist and fence sitting agnostics are looking for is evidence of power and a window into transcendence. You know....the kind of power we say we believe in. Kinda like the power of Pentecost. The power of Exodus. The power of Mt. Sinai. The power of Mt. Carmel. The power of the Mt. of Olives, Gethsemane, Golgotha. The atheists I know are looking for those kinds of events in our lives. The transforming, reckoning, history making power of an almighty God on display. They are looking to find the sign of Jonah in our lives. Yours and mine. Unfortunately we look pretty impotent in that department, as a whole. What has the Church in America done, as a group, to display the kind of earth shattering, ground shaking, evil vanquishing power in the past 50 years? Did it overturn Roe vs Wade? Nope. Prayer in school? Lost. Influence in the culture? Gone. AIDs crisis? Global pandemic. Orphans? Widows? Prisoners? Hit and miss at best. Poverty? More than ever. Sickness? More without health care than ever. Faith and hope? Political slogans. There is more widespread fear, more hate, more violence, more divorce, more abuse, more addiction, more depression, more intolerance, more war, more senseless death than ever.
When I talk to atheists this is what they say. They have a point. They know us better than we know ourselves. Probably because they are watching.
But why? Why are we so powerless as a church? I have a guess. Everyone knows (well almost everyone) not to put a loaded gun in the hands of an immature minor. Why? A 12 gauge shotgun is too powerful a tool for my 8 yr old to control and the consequences of a mishap can be permanent and life changing. However a firearm in the hands of a trained, experienced, responsible adult can exert a tremendous use of force for the benefits of protection, provision and justice. Could it be that like any good parent, God will not load the church simply because it remains filled with immature and/or unskilled children incapable of handling such a tremendous, life changing force responsibly? Please remember, the greatest force unleashed by Christ for his kingdom reign was love. It may be that we as a church simply lack the ability and strength to effectively target and utilize the power of love for protection, provision and justice. So perhaps God in his wisdom, fully aware of how bad things are, knows we would only make things worse if he empowered us with the gifts of Moses, Elijah, Peter and Paul. Therefore in mercy he leaves our chambers empty until we can prove ourselves worthy of our calling.
If you doubt my perspective ask yourself the questions that have begun ringing in my ears. Are you willing to be banished to the desert for 40 years living of your father in laws good graces, tending sheep in absolute isolation? Are you willing to face unjust rulers and call those authorities who have turned their backs on God and followed their selfish ambitions to repentance in exchange for death threats and ostracizing? Are you prepared to be whipped and beaten? Hungry, lonely, stripped bare, forgotten, cold, sick, wounded, falsely accused, imprisoned, stoned and worst of all betrayed by your own people? As I read the Scripture, those individuals get their chambers loaded with power from on high, God's kingdom is advanced forcefully and atheist and polytheists alike regularly drop to their knees and beg for salvation.
Until I am ready and willing to step into that place with my life, many of the atheists around me will continue to go unsatisfied in their search for meaning and purpose. And the world will continue to grown for Christ return even though he left the Kingdom and his Spirit with us.
That's my opinion. I could be wrong.
Oh snap, Gary!!!
I find a lot of things in what Gary says that I can agree with and even like to some extent. There certainly seems to be a split between the power that I theologically believe in as a Pentecostal and that which I regularly operate with in my everyday life. In addition, I have often asked myself the martyrdom question which is tough no matter who you are.
The problem I see with his argument is in throwing out a form of Christianity that has brought more people into the fold than thousands of other smaller churches who operate on a paradigm of power with barely discernable differences save perhaps a more active spirit of condemnation. If atheists are looking for power, and I don't disagree that they are, then shouldn't the churches of our parents who "operated" in the Spirit have been saving them in droves?
I have several concerns with this condemnation of the seeker model, although I also realize that in its worse form it leads to a mixed quasi-Christian paganism. On the other hand, when done effectively as by Saddleback or Willow Creek people are being changed by the power of Christ.
These are in no real order and with barely discernable reason:
1. Perhaps power isn't as regularly seen in the American church because we live in a culture that doesn't demand it. We are not a part of the Roman empire as were the early church members. In America we are blessed by a process where people go through years of trials and appeals before ever seeing a real jail, whereas the early church was persecuted at the drop of a hat. In other coutries and settings the church seems to have a more accessible flow of Spiritual power, specifically those that are in more desperate situational need where miraculous are the only option. We have access to medications which make healings a little less imperative. Are these discoveries and our access to them any less miraculous because the lack the glitz of an instantaneous healing?
2. I think it is necessary to ask whether the power of a changed life is any less of a miracle than a healing. When Sally crack attic comes to a seeker church and begins a slow process that may take her several years before the full fruit is realized, is that not the power of God at work? Maybe she isn't saved today but thank God, he gives her the grace to keep on living for the years necessary to come to faith. Is this not part of the reason The end times have not come upon us?
In my mind a changed life is equally as miraculous as any manifestation although again, slightly less glitzy.
3. As for the whole conclusion of why the church lacks power being somehow seen as Gods protection from danger, like a shotgun in the hands of children, I have a hard time understanding that. It seems as if the Bible makes no provisions for how long a person must be saved or how "mature," however you define that, they must be before being empowered. In the early church things seemed to move much more rapidly. I don't know if good hard nosed Pentecostalism and teaching had that much to do with it. Peter walked with Jesus and he was still pretty stupid at times, much like myself as a new believer in that respect and generally everyone else. Yet God empowered him in mighty ways, sometimes despite his own immaturity.
4. Atheism is more often than not the wrong term. I work with an "Atheist" who quotes pithy zen sayings all day. The problem is that the majority of people who deem themselves atheists don't realize the nuances of the word and are in fact agnostics or essentially spiritual seekers who are uncertain, although certainly their level of active versus passive persuit varies. If you believe in an afterlife, Heaven, Hell, some sort of God, or any of the like then you are not an atheist. It is a very specific category of people who willfully hold that their is no God consistently throughout their thinking.
5. It seems scary to consider a church movement cancerous. I may not like Catholic theology, and even believe a lot of it is heretical, but it still seems like judging whether those people will be in heaven or hell is a matter best left up to God.
6. As for the littany of ways in which America is falling because of the church, I would say that some of those accusations are fair, and certainly we would hope for better influence on the culture. On the other hand a lot of those "facts" are fuzzy. Teen pregnancy is at an all time low, gang violence is way down. I'm sure I could rattle off some more, but the point is that some of those things are a matter of perspective and the one you cast is somewhat pessimistic. As a side note, the downward spiral of humanity is ultimately inevitable as God intervenes in Revelation. It is sort of a foregone conclusion, not to negate the churches responsibility to do what we can. I only mention this to say that Christ is the solution not the church. Even after his millenial reign, we as a people rebel?! How could the church accomplish what his presence does not?
7. If I were called to a place where martyrdom were an issue, I believe I would go down with Stephen like glory. Luckily I havn't been to this point. The question of martydom is really one of opportunity for most people. There are undeniably ways I can kill my flesh in life, but for oftentimes more powerful shows of conviction don't come up in this country. I don't think Christians should go out of their way to offend in the effort of confessing Jesus's name before men because they are committed and to the uncompromised Gospel as some evangelical personalities go out of their way to do. As a pagan kid, being offended by the Gospel was one thing, but being offended by the messenger of the Gospel another entirely. When Christians lack grace it causes people to go further from the cross, when we are meant to be ambassadors who close the gap. One day we will all have to give an account, perhaps of those we drove further away as well.
In conclusion, I strongly agree that the church needs to display power in the world. We are called to be agents of change drawing all men to Christ. We are the salt and light. I only wonder if perhaps God's methods can't somehow be contextualized given the whole context of the culture. If something is working to fulfill the great commission who are we to judge its worth, aside from the few essentials and non-negotiables. God's grace is pretty wide, perhaps ours should be a little more so as well.
Whoa, that was ridiculously long, you don't have to read it...
My apologies
Whoa, that was ridiculously long, you don't have to read it...
My apologies
George P Wood has a good blog post that addresses the relevance and current situation of the church at agthinktank.com. It is entitled the american church in crisis.
I don't know why that last one posted twice. My bad
Fisher:
Great points! I appreciate your perspectives and intellect. I think we can dialog about this a little bit. Unless Shannon and Dr. Oss want to end our thread because we seem to off topic a little. That would be OK. We can e-mail back and forth if you like.
Let me take your points one by one:
#1 I’m not throwing out a brand of Christianity. I would never want to throw out any form of saving faith. Encourage it? Yes. Challenge it to grow and deepen? Yes. What you see in my evaluation of the church growth theology and practice is based on both Barna and Max Hull’s evaluation. They purpose that this form of evangelicalism may not be proclaiming a gospel powerful enough to save. Dallas Willard makes this point as well when discussing “cultural Christianity” in America. So I am not critiquing the seeker movement which has produced transformed believers in process. I am critiquing a movement that seeks only to produce consumers of religious products and services under the false assumption this makes them Christian.
#2 You make a good point about understanding and discerning divine power. In no way do I believe a transformed life is any less a miracle than any other supernatural display. In fact I tried to make this point when I describe atheists who are looking for the “sign of Jonah” in our lives. That was a metaphor I used to describe the events in our own personal narrative where we rebelled, gave up in despair, died and were raised again, born anew in Christ. That is a miracle, every time and in every way. But too often I find believers are unable to describe that time or those events in their lives which points to the new creation they became and are now becoming. Could it be for many it has yet to occur? Could it be they have yet to give up and are using Christian beliefs and practices as a sin management system? I think for many the answer may be yes. Where does the church oppose this as a viable option? When did membership replace discipleship as the premier ethic in Christendom?
#3My point in using the power/shotgun analogy was simply to point out that too often the church and its power hungry (tele-evangelist, mega-church, CEO, “personal ministry” focused, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, ORU, etc) leadership has blown off their foot. I find myself cringing when listening to many of these personalities discuss issues, idea and theology in the broader media. I often wish they would just keep their mouths shut because it makes it so much harder for the rest of us to maintain and extend any sense of credibility and authenticity with our field of influence. Every time Joel Osteen is on 60 Minutes I am ultimately put in the position of having to detox my pre-Christian friends about what Christ centered faith is all about. Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be to explain an obedient, suffering Christ centered faith if someone within those camps was performing the miraculous signs we see in Acts? If God loaded their “gun” it would legitimize all their other bad theology. That is why I purpose God leaves our churches mostly powerless. It may also be why believers in other countries who are so deeply persecuted have seen an increase in supernatural phenomenon.
#4 Good point I agree.
#5 Yes I see cultural, marginalized Christianity as cancerous. It may not kill but it makes for a very difficult and painful existence. Cancer feeds on healthy tissue and creates an organism that fights for its own survival in opposition to its host. Most often it must be cut out and/or eradicated with heavy doses of pharmaceutical poison. It requires radical treatment because it has a radically negative effect on the natural design and function of the body. I stick by that analogy. Cancerous does not mean evil however. I am not equating the effects of the church growth movement as a design with an evil intent. This is not a theological distinction in my mind between say Catholic and Anglican doctrine or ecclesiology. I believe the gospel has been lost in most of these settings and what they are proposing as the gospel cannot be discovered in the New Testament.
#6 Regarding my points about the degradation of our society: I don’t think my facts are fuzzy. Perhaps I assumed too much of the reader. Much of what I described are facts one could take from any regular reading of the USA Today. (not that I consider that publication the end all on social matters.)Sure there are bright pockets. Teen pregnancy may be in decline. However, abortions are up and now with the RU 483, the “morning after pill”, we will never really be able to tell how high the count will go. Is teen pregnancy down because RU 483 is now available? I wonder. They seem to coincide. Gang violence may be down but prisons are fuller than they have ever been. Is that a success? Murders worldwide continue to increase at an alarming rate. I guess I could start footnoting by facts, but I don’t know of anyone who reads a broad-based newspaper, is otherwise well versed in the issues of our day and is a student of culture would say we are evolving or progressing closer and closer to even a more civilized society much less a godly one. Do individual people still make a difference? Sure. You bet. Is racism and sexism on the decline? It looks like it with Obama and Clinton attaining their respective positions in society. As awhole has we stemmed the tide? No. That would require supernatural intervention of the nature I described. One bright exception in the last 20 years would have to be S. Africa. I would say based on my understanding of Dr. Mostert’s comments on that era it was absolutely a supernatural event played out in the lives of people dedicated to biblical obedience and who were purged through great suffering.
#7 I am not talking about a bloody martyrdom here. In our context in America, thankfully that is such a rarity now to be almost extinct. But I am proposing a modern example of the classic “white martyrdom.” : A self denying, self-depreciating willingness to lay down plaudits, plans and positions to the rule and reign of our King. I think that is what Paul describes as dying daily. Those are the questions I described that have been echoing in my soul as of late. Am I willing to walk away from the comfort of financial security to follow God’s call? As a hypothetical example that may mean abandoning a position offered in a larger church or denominational security to create something new and risky for the kingdom. That could involve pain, loneliness, ostracism and who knows what else? But for a disciple, one following Jesus, I believe that where ever he leads us, he will meet us there. Where he is, there is power, freedom, grace and provision. It is that type of abandonment of self that I see modeled in the biblical biographies that is not represented or encouraged much less expected in our churches today.
Your conclusion: I think it is important here to distinguish what I think the purpose of the church is. I believe the great commission to be the final and all encompassing directive for the church. Matt 28 makes it clear that we are to make, (develop, equip, bring or build up) disciples, taught to obey all the commands of Jesus, immersed (baptized) in the Trinitarian understanding and presence of God, sent out to live in and among all ethnic people. That’s disciples. Not converts to a set of religious beliefs and practices. Not consumers of religious goods and services. Disciples are singular followers of the Master rabbi and teacher Jesus. And in that process, Jesus promises he will be with us (his church) always, even until the end of the age. I am just naïve enough to take him at his word. To the degree the church is focused on that edict, we corporately experience the miraculous power and presence of the spirit of Jesus. To the degree we are not about his kingdom edicts, we won’t. I disagree with your assumption the great commission is the singular focus of the greater western evangelical church today. In that same measure, I do not see the Great Commission as currently being fulfilled. The results of which are the conditions we currently experience within our society that I previously described.
Again, these are just my (long winded) perspectives from where I sit in my world. I could be wrong on multiple accounts. I look forward to any corrections and illuminations you might have. Thanks.
I am all for reaching out to atheists, but I must say that there seemed to be little objectivity on the part of these people you emailed. I would say the only way to reach these people is by a longterm relationship where their beliefs (which were just as biased as those they were accusing of bias)are challenged on a daily basis. Once they can trust us, perhaps they will be more open to question the veracity of Christianity on a logical and spiritual basis.
If I had an atheist who actually would come to listen to me, I would use a conversational tone, and I'd make time to meet with him afterwards. If I could do a targeted outreach, I wouldn't do a debate--if I wanted to achieve any sense of harmony with atheists at the end of the night. Though, I think the Dinesh D'Souza/ Richard Dawkins style debates have their place. I might do a discussion with there concerns on Christianity and where it's going.
Gary, to respond to your response to my response...or something like that.
1. I definitely think that this is a distinction worth making. I can see your point but don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater so to speak. Again, there are pros as well as cons.
2. I have not had the bad experiences of which you speak. Most of the Christians I know wherever they may be in their walks are genuine. This doesn't mean they're perfect, but at least progressively trotting along toward Christ. I think your membership versus discipleship point is also very valid, although to their credit I believe most people who operate under this system feel as though the Spirit will guide and correct those who are making an honest effort. If a person involves themself enough to tithe and be a member of a church do we believe that they can really resist the Spirit's prompting in other areas of their life? - I preface this by saying I think the unpardonable sin is a rare occurrence and probably the only instance where people can out rightly refuse the spirit over a prolonged period of time. - to your credit though I do think the American church is too comfortable as consumers and should be convicted, although I don't think the seeker model is the bad guy but rather the natural tendency of every body to settle into a comfort zone and resist the task that is sacrifice and progressive change.
3. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the characters mentioned. I think my issue is with grouping them with the seeker movement. I generally tend to group the movement at large with the best in the class and so perhaps that is an oversight on my part. I consider those fellows something fundamentally different although still agree they are off base. I still have an issue with the powerless argument though because there are a lot of churches that are good and yet still lack power. I understand withholding from people who are off base, but it seems illogical to withhold from true seekers because of that. In the Gospel we see the faithful rebuke the strange with power. It is hard to assign reason why seek and you shall find no longer applies across the board.
5. I still think that analogy is a bit harsh, and I am prone to hyperbolic analogies myself. Part of that again is on the varied understandings of seeker, as I have previously mentioned. As you understand it, there is certainly a much stronger case to be made, although I personally would still tread lightly. I think that there is a balance between grace and justice and it seems as if God could go either way. We all may be shocked when we get to heaven to see who is and alternately who is not there with us.
6. Fuzzy facts might have been one of my overly hyperbolic outbursts. That said, I still think some of those issues are overly pessimistic. One can assume that the morning after pill and the teen pregnancy rate are proportional, and perhaps they are, but isn't that overly pessimistic? On the other hand maybe it is just realistic and I give the world too much credit. Although I am generally the first to admit I am usually too hard on people. On the whole, no, I don't think society is moving closer to God. In my understanding though that is somewhat of a false expectation and a pipe-dream...again with the hyperbole. Sorry. Throughout history the tendency has been to ebb and flow as people clearly can't conquer sin nature. Again, the book is written.
7. You are correct in that. People find it very hard to give up personal security. We are a spoiled nation, thankfully so (as opposed to living in Iraq). On the other hand there is certainly a balance that needs to be found here. I think it is good and pleasing to enjoy the fruit of our labors, ala the Sabbath, but we must still make the kingdom our priority. On the whole clearly in our culture this is not being lived out, although I don't think the church at large is to blame. Certainly aberrant strains such as the prosperity Gospel should share a portion but I think most churches have good intentions and will be rewarded in heaven despite not doing everything perfectly. Again this is shaped by my tendency to see the seeker movement through the lenses of those fellowships which are admirable in my eyes, and not the ones who are off base.
I pretty much agree with your conclusion save that fact that I can’t seem to reconcile the disparity that seems to show up between personal and corporate Christianity. I mean this to say that a sincere believer should be experiencing fullness, despite the brokenness of the church at large. Although the two are mysteriously intertwined so perhaps that distinction is artificial. Anyway, I am not that concrete on this conclusion and am working through it as we speak. It's been fun chatting with you
Fisher,
I thank you as well. It has been good dialog and I have benefited from, and adpated some of my thinking as a result of, your insights, humility and clarity of thought. Let's do it again.
People always want hard proof, evidence that they can see first-hand. The sad part is that the evidence is right in front of them…Creation! If I want to get close to God, all I do is step out into His world and surround myself. The trees, animals, rivers, stars, etc. all point to the Creator!
Post a Comment