Skip to main content

Merging into the New Century

Written by Rick Shrader

Merging into the New Century

by Rick Shrader

This article appeared in the Baptist Bible Tribune, January, 1996.

We are ready to pay our last nickel of time to the twentieth century. If the first ninety-five years are indicative of the last five, we had better fasten our seatbelts and prepare for warp drive. Learning to navigate the “information super highway” is not unlike the experience of merging onto I-70 for the first time as a sixteen-year-old student driver. I didn’t know if I would like it but I had no choice. Years later, and a thousand miles from the hills of southern Ohio, I’m thankful for the speed and ease of I-70. But to tell you the truth, I would rather be putting along old Oxford-Milford road on a lazy autumn afternoon with no particular place to go!

The difference between I-70 and the information super highway didn’t begin in this century. It began on May 24, 1844 with an inventor named Samuel Morse who never drove a car nor heard of a computer. With one small impulse through a metal wire, Morse removed space as a barrier to the exchange of information. Immediately, neither the horse nor train (and therefore neither the clock) were necessary to get information from one location to another. The very next day, over the same Washington-to-Baltimore line Morse had constructed, the Baltimore Patriot sent a news story from Congress to its readers on the Oregon issue. The information age had begun! Today we have over 11,520 newspapers in the U.S.; 11,556 periodicals; 27,000 video outlets; over 500 million radios and 100 million computers. Instantly, we can see and hear anything that happens anywhere in the world.

The Christian, perched on the on-ramp to the twenty-first century, is faced with a real dilemma: it’s called change. He will have to accelerate from the avenue speed to the Interstate speed. It’s a dilemma because he knows that most people on this new highway are determined to go as fast as possible, ignoring all restraints until they crash and become a faceless casualty on the side of the road. He also knows that an immutable God has made a world which both changes and remains the same. He agrees with C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape who writes to his nephew Wormwood to explain about God’s wish for man, “He does not wish them to make change, any more than eating, an end in itself, He has balanced the love of change in them by a love of permanence. He has contrived to gratify both tastes together in the very world He has made, by that union of change and permanence which we call Rhythm.”

A new year has begun which contains new challenges, hopes and fears but it is not really new, it has happened before thousands of times. Springtime will bring new flowers and grass and sap in the trees but it is not new; it is as old as Eden. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote, “God had infinite time to give us; but how did He give it? In one immense tract of a lazy millennium? No, He cut it up into a neat succession of new mornings, and, with each, therefore, a new idea, new inventions, and new applications.” It is that “rhythm” of change and permanence that brings quality to life. Hunger is a good and enjoyable experience but it is meant to be taken in cycles. To stop eating or to never stop eating takes away from the intended pleasure and creates an abnormality.

It will be our temptation (since we are children of our age) to desire change for change’s sake more than to desire the things that never change. To our generation the perfectly good word “permanent” has become “stagnant.” Early in this century G. K. Chesterton wrote, “It is true that a man (a silly man) might make change itself his object or ideal. But as an ideal, change itself becomes unchangeable. If the change-worshipper wishes to estimate his own progress he must be sternly loyal to the ideal of change; he must not begin to flirt gaily with the ideal of monotony.” Sunrises and sunsets are monotonous because they happen every day and yet because they are each different they create true abundance in life. It is the child full of vitality for life who says, when bounced on daddy’s knee, “Do it again, daddy!” At the close of each day or the end of every season, at the climax of each worship service, we should say as well, “Do it again, Heavenly Father.”

The Christian legacy in this world is the balance between change and permanency. The Christian hates suicide but loves martyrdom because he understands the difference between the two. He is the keenest visionary, understanding the signs of the time, and yet is a lover of tradition in order to give past generations a voice in his affairs (what Chesterton called “the democracy of the dead”). He understands that God, who is the “same yesterday, today and forever” has also said, “My Spirit will not always strive with man.” The cycles of God’s creation are always the same as before but always different, in perfect harmony with His character. In this way God shows the world “His eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse.” The Christian has accepted the permanent attributes of God as well as His changing stewardships and has made both a part of his life.

With this balance of things old and things new, believers can present their Savior to a generation who are stuck in either forward or reverse and never able to fully see God’s purpose in life. The Christian who hides in the past and wishes tomorrow would never come as well as the Christian who worships the future and ignores what happened yesterday have both left the front lines of Christian warfare. We are called to confront the emptiness of our time, not desert and run away nor surrender to the other side.

So let’s pull on out onto this new highway, look ahead, find our open space and get up to speed. But let’s not forget to look in both mirrors as we pull out. A good glance back as well as forward will get us an “A” in the class. And when we’ve roared down the highway for a while and covered more ground than any generation of drivers before us, let’s pull off and take the side road a ways so we don’t miss the flowers that are blooming again or this evening’s sunset.

Rick Shrader

Note:  The author regrets that the footnote references were lost due to the article being originally written on an older PC system.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

From What Should We Separate?

Written by Rick Shrader

From What Should We Separate?

by Rick Shrader

This article appeared in The Baptist Preacher, Mar/Apr, 1997.

My Missouri grandmother used to say, “There’s not a pot so crooked but what there’s a lid to fit it.”  She had a way of making all things find their proper place.  The wisest man who ever lived warned, “A false balance is not good” (Proverbs 20:23).  In a day of degenerating values and confused standards, it is becoming increasingly difficult to fit the right pot with the right lid.   What is important to one will not be important to another.  What one cannot do another may.

A.W. Tozer wrote, “For the church, wherever she appears in human society, the constantly recurring question must be: What shall we unite with and from what shall we separate? The question of coexistence does not enter here, but the question of union and fellowship does.  The wheat grows in the same field with the tares, but shall the two cross-pollinate?  The sheep graze near the goats, but shall they seek to interbreed?  The unjust and the just enjoy the same rain and sunshine, but shall they forget their deep moral differences and intermarry?”1 This article is a step toward answering Tozer’s question.

Unity, liberty and charity

An appropriate quotation often used today is, “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity.”  Although we can use it as we see fit, the quote seems to have originated with Richard Baxter in the seventeenth century and was originally written, “In necessary things, unity; in disputed things [some have ‘doubtful’] things, liberty; in all things, charity.”2

Richard Baxter was an English Nonconformist who urged moderation among those who would leave the Church of England.  Eventually, however, he himself could not remain in the Church because of the Uniformity Act of 1662.  He refused a bishopric offered to him by Charles II and was later imprisoned by James II.3 Baxter wanted religious liberty for those who disputed the church’s dogmas but did not find it in his lifetime.  His appeal to liberty for “disputed things” fell on deaf ears in the Church of England.

What things are essential:  Early voices

Baxter’s word “disputed” and today’s word “nonessentials” may or may not carry the same connotations.  The word “nonessential,” however, has a religious history older than Baxter.  It goes back a hundred years in the Reformation era to a dispute called the “adiaphora.”4 This word literally means “things indifferent” or “nonessential.”  In 1548, two years after Luther’s death, Charles V attempted to unite Catholic and Protestant Germany with a law called the Augsburg Interim.   Due to its failure to please Protestants, a compromise measure was reached in Leipzig the same year by consulting Melanchthon, who was the Reformation leader at the time.

Melanchthon agreed that many differences in doctrine were adiaphora or nonessential and need not be disputed by the Lutheran churches.  Among these were confirmation, veneration of saints, the Latin mass, Corpus Christi Day, extreme unction.   He also “adopted a modified and vague doctrine of justification by faith.”5 Conservative Lutherans, who more closely followed Luther, could not abide by what Melanchthon deemed adiaphora.  Their spokesman, Matthias Flacius, opposed him, “objecting to his compromising with the Catholic Church on nonessentials.”6 It is “widely conceded that Flacius saved the Reformation.”7 It was not until 1580 and the Book of Concord, that the Lutheran faith was again a clear voice of the gospel.

Believer’s baptism an essential

I don’t know if Baxter had the adiaphorists in mind when, a hundred years after, he pleaded for the unity of the Church of England.  Both he and Melanchthon failed in unifying divergent churches by appealing to so-called nonessentials.   They both failed to realize there are just some things that cannot be relegated to the status of nonessential.  Flacius could see that even the great Melanchthon could not.  J. Gresham Machen, who, early in this century, sacrificed his position in the Presbyterian Church, USA, over what the Church considered nonessential, wrote, “Indifferentism about doctrine makes no heroes of the faith.”8

Interestingly, during Melanchthon’s time in Germany, each state could choose to be Catholic or Lutheran.  Toleration was given to Catholics in Lutheran states and Lutherans in Catholic states.  But as Jacobs says, “Calvinism and Anabaptism were excluded from toleration.”9 The great Anabaptist, Balthasar Hubmaier, had earlier debated Zwingli over infant baptism.   Zwingli argued that though the New Testament doesn’t mention infant baptism, neither does it forbid it.  Therefore, he claimed, it is a nonessential and can be allowed.10 Of course, the candidate and the mode of baptism were essential to Baptist belief.  And even though Zwingli argued for infant baptism on its nonessential basis, it was essential enough for him to drown dissenters to keep them from disrupting the state church.

Baptism battles still being waged

In the 1963 Fundamental Baptist Congress of North America held at the Temple Baptist Church, Detroit, Michigan, Baptists from various fundamental groups showed historic unity against regarding infant baptism as a nonessential.  Noel Smith, preaching on the separation of church and state said, “This is why Baptists were persecuted, imprisoned, and murdered for so many centuries.  Their believer’s baptism was decisive blow against the church state.”11 In the same congress, Richard Clearwaters spoke of the Reformers, “All of these in turn became persecutors themselves! These Reformers, after so heroically freeing their churches from the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, fastened a State Church upon their churches because they all refused to cut the cord of infant baptism.”12

There is effort being made today to again bring Catholics and non-Catholics together in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document urged by Charles Colson and Richard Neuhaus.  The issue is whether coming to Christ by “faith alone” is essential to becoming a believer.  In the shadow of this last year, Promise Keepers celebrated communion with both Evangelicals and Catholics in the Clergy Conference held in the Georgia Dome.13 Though the objections are increasingly fewer, many Baptists (this author included) think the meaning of the Lord’s Table must not be relegated to a nonessential for the sake of ecumenicity.

Local churches determine essentials, nonessentials

I said in the beginning that I thought Baxter’s quotation, even the way it is used today with the words “essential” and “nonessential,” is appropriate.  Somewhere Christians do give and take on things regarding their faith.   It figures that if there are things that are essential, there must also be things that are nonessential.  That doesn’t mean that we don’t strive to bring every thought into captivity to Christ, but that we live in a broken world, and we are not going to be able to change everything.  This is true within the individual, between husband and wife, among local church members and in larger Christian efforts.

The Articles of Faith of my church are designed to be both broad enough to include many Baptist families who differ on some things, and yet narrow enough to say something definite and to distinguish us from other kinds of churches.  Still, what is essential to the operation of a particular local church may not be to the cooperation of many local churches.  To Baptists, independence is the key that allows each church to decide when the nonessential has crossed over the line into essential.

In the last issue of The Baptist Preacher, a message by Art Wilson from 1960 was reprinted concerning a difficulty among the churches of the Baptist Bible Fellowship that year.  In resolving the problem, Wilson wrote that they “were all prayerfully concerned, that in this dreadful hour of world history we would not come up with something which would, upon presentation here, divide our forces, split our larger interests and defeat the very cause for which we believe God raised up the Fellowship.”14 That did not mean that the details of everyone’s doctrine were not important.  But it did mean that Baptist churches of like faith and practice could count smaller differences as nonessential to fellowship and cooperation.

An example from Baptist history

In his History of the Baptists, Thomas Armitage spends considerable space describing the ribald Munster Movement of the sixteenth century, a parallel to real Anabaptists of the time.  Munsterite congregations practiced such things as polygamy, public flagellations and followed a pagan practice (Armitage lists Catholic and Protestant practitioners also) of baptizing converts completely undressed.15

This practice of indecency was confronted by the true Baptists of the day who said the Munsterites had gone beyond the line of nonessentials in fellowship.   Baptists were accused of enough things in that day without adding nakedness to the list.  Baptists since then have striven to distance themselves from the fanatics at Munster.  Armitage then adds a description of what Baptists did to combat this error.   “In Augsburg, in three gardens attached to houses there used to assemble more than eleven hundred men and women, rich, mediocre and poor, all of whom were rebaptized.   The women, when they were rebaptized, put on trousers.  In the houses where a baptistry was these trousers were always kept.”16 The reader may draw his or her own conclusions.

A New Testament example

The Corinthian church could not make the proper distinctions between things essential and nonessential.  They had taken Paul’s teaching on liberty and turned it into license.  “All things are lawful,” they would say, and Paul answered, “But all things are not expedient” and “I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor 6:12).  It was true, that “Meats were for the belly, and the belly for meats” (vs 13).  Eating various kinds of meat was nonessential.  But the Corinthians went further and equated the use of the body for fornication with the use of the body for meat.  “No!”, Paul said, God will destroy the belly and meat because they are nonessential, but He will raise up the body in resurrection because it is essential.

Interestingly, Lenski (a Lutheran) says, “In this instance, the principle that ‘all things are allowed’ cannot be applied.  God himself regulates the sex relation.  He limits it to two distinct spheres, the one that is stamped with His approval, the other with His severe disapproval; both are thus entirely removed from the territory of the adiaphora.”17 The Corinthians had the same problem when they had smugly accepted the man practicing fornication (chapter 5) as if they were being loving and generous.  They could not see the essentials involved.  Then in the second letter, Paul had to teach them to forgive and accept the same man once he truly repented (2 Corinthians 2).

The power of wisdom

We all have a tendency, like the Corinthians or Melanchthon, to relegate essentails to nonessentials with a slogan.  We say, “Oh, that’s just being legalistic and judgmental.”  We also have the ability to turn myths into essentials, much like Zwingli’s infant baptism.  Or we imitate the Munsterites by combining an essential like immersion with something nonbiblical and then call that historic Baptist doctrine.  A.W. Tozer wisely wrote, “Power lies in the union of things similar and the division of things dissimilar.”18 May the Lord help us to know the difference in our generation.

Notes:
1. A.W. Tozer, The Best Of Tozer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 72.
2. Frank S. Mead, 12,000 Religious Quotations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) 43.
3. Mayo Hazeltine, Ed., Orations From Homer To McKinley, Vol 4 (New York: Collier, 1902) 1548.
4. History and definition of the adiaphora can be found in Bible dictionaries as well as church history books.  Eerdman’s Handbook of Christianity has a helpful article on p. 374.
5. A. Renwick, Baker’s Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978) 24.
6. “Flacius Illyricus, Matthias,” Columbia Encyclopedia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1964) 725.
7. A. Renwick, Ibid.
8. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity And Liberalsim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 51.
9. Charles Jacobs, The Story Of The Church (Philadelphia:  Muhlenberg Press, 1947) 231.
10. Thomas Armitage, The History Of The Baptists, Vol. 1 (Watertown: Maranatha Press, 1976) 197.
11. Noel Smith, “The Separation of Church and State,” The Biblical Faith of Baptists (Detroit:   Fundamental Baptist Congress, 1963) 197.
12. Richard Clearwaters, “The Heritage of Baptists,” The Biblical Faith of Baptists, 215.
13. See an excellent article by Dr. Myron Houghton in the January 1997 issue of the Faith Pulpit (Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, IA) entitled “Promise Keepers: A Fundamental Evaluation.”
14. Art Wilson, “The Decision To Remain A Fellowship,” The Baptist Preacher, Vol 6, No.1, p. 11.
15. Armitage, 378.
16. Ibid, 389.
17. R.C.H. Lenski, First Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963) 259.
18. Tozer, 73.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

A Response from No-Man’s Land

Written by Rick Shrader

A Response from No-Man’s Land

by Rick Shrader

This article appeared in the September/October 2001 issue (Vol. 10, No. 5) of The Baptist Preacher.  The original article is found in the September 2001 issue (Vol. 8 No. 9) of Aletheia under the title “Is There An Alternative Point Of View?  (To The Traditional vs Progressive Debate)”.

An ancient saint once said, “It is equally wrong and stupid to censure what is commendable, and to commend what is censurable.”1 G.K. Chesterton once argued against a false premise by stating, “It was not two ways of finding the same truth; it was an untruthful way of pretending that there are two truths.”2 That is what I often think after hearing or reading comparisons of today’s ministry philosophies.

Should we be traditional or progressive in our ministry?  Are these two ways of approaching “how we do church” mutually exclusive, two sides of the same coin, or are they even choices at all when trying to be biblical in church ministry?  I think we have become, like the world around us, champions of the definition!  That is, we spend more time arguing to make the definitions of those buzz words fit what we already do, than evaluating our ministry in light of Scripture and changing to fit it.

None of us wants to be seen as anti-traditional because we realize we have an historical faith that is filled with traditional teaching.  Yet none of us wants to be seen as non-progressive because that would mean we are not visionary and up-to-date with today’s culture.  So it seems that good people from both points of view go out of their way to convince us that they are really both.

On the one hand

To be “traditional” ought to mean that we realize the value of our history, a history that is rooted in the historical person and work of Christ.  Christians are still doing what Christians have always been doing:  praying constantly, studying an old book, singing scriptural songs, witnessing of the resurrection of Christ.  It has not historically included unswerving loyalty to one Bible translation, nor only one expression of modesty as opposed to others just as modest. Those things are more ritual than traditional and, as James Draper wrote, “There is nothing wrong with ritual as long as we understand that ritual is like a telescope—not something to look at, but something to look through.”3

Regardless of its difficulties, I am more inclined to be called a traditionalist today than a “progressive.”  It seems to me that those who have misused the definition of “traditional,” have done so out of a positive desire to honor Christ and a willingness to be identified, not with the world but with Him.  I can live with that and argue with these fellow believers about definitions.

On the other hand

To be “progressive” ought to mean that we see clearly where a lost culture is going and we take the steps outlined in Scripture to speak to it regardless of the consequences.  That would be truly progressive in the biblical sense.  Though I believe most progressives truly love souls and desire to see them saved, many, I am afraid, simply do what the Apostle John warns us about apostates:  They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them. (1 Jn 4:5).  To do such a thing is to love the world and its praises more than the praise of God.  Much of today’s “progressiveness” becomes simply worldliness.  It is not, like its “traditional” counterpart, willing to be despised by the world.  In fact, many “progressives” see that as an error to be avoided at all costs even though it is the clear biblical teaching such as when Peter writes, If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you:  on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified (1 Pet 4:14).  Such an approach wins us to the world, but is misguided at winning the world to Christ.

A Dilemma

It is not the purpose of this article to simply criticize the traditional and the progressive approaches, though, as I have stated, I believe they both have their faults.  I do not question the evangelistic sincerity of either.  Nor do I doubt that spokesmen for either approach could produce verses to support their point of view.  I do believe, however that too often we read our perspective into the Bible, seeing wording that supports our preconceived ideas and thus merely confirm what we already think.  We all know this is a fatal flaw of anyone’s Bible study, including, of course, mine.

In my own circle of Christian friends, many of whom are ministers and instructors, I have, for a number of years, been left in “no-man’s-land” when it comes to whole-heartedly supporting either of these two sides.  I have felt that neither is what I read clearly in the Scripture, nor what I see is the need of the lost world.  On numerous occasions I have been unable to say “Shibboleth” (see Judges 12:6) as was requested of me in order to have the blessing of participation in either side.  This was all of God, at least for my account.  It drove me back to the Scripture for my help and my foundation (aren’t you glad I didn’t use the tired misnomer “vision” at that place?).

I think sometimes we have to lose any hope in man’s blessing, which all of us by nature wants, in order to find help solely in God.  It is my own opinion that far too many Christian leaders are desperately desiring far too much approval by their peers.  But the Apostle admonishes,  For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. (2 Cor 10:12).

An Alternative

From the Gospels to the book of Acts and the Epistles to the church letters of Revelation, I find an overwhelming call in the Scripture for sacrifice:  sacrifice of our wills, our life’s possessions, things, and even our own life; sacrifice to the point of danger to the body whether by harm or ridicule; sacrifice of the praise of men in this life for the praise of our Savior in the next life.  This is biblical patience.  We are called to give of ourselves in this life; to wait for our rewards; to live an inward life of contentment though the outward man is perishing day by day.

We are living sacrifices, having no ability of our own toward our outcome.  We are stewards of God, entrusted with divine instruction for the household of God.  We are heralds of the gospel, having no right to embellish or bargain with the message from the King.  We are earthen vessels, made to be broken and disposed.  We are priests, offering up spiritual sacrifices to God.  We are sheep and branches and lively stones and a host of other analogies that make us totally dependent on the Lord for any usefulness we may have.

Personally, I have not found this type of thinking in services where participants shout, wave hankies or black Bibles and brag about how tough they are; nor have I found it in services of loud, unsettling music accompanied by casualness, shallowness and bragging about how accepting of everything they are.  Rather, Let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:28-29).

A Biblical Model

This “sacrificial” model of New Testament ministry is seen in virtually all Bible writers.  One of my favorite passages is Second Corinthians, especially from chapter 3 to chapter 6.  Paul’s own ministry is put forth as an example against the false apostles who “commend themselves.”  Paul, on the other hand, is always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body (4:10).  He is an “earthen vessel” (4:7); bearing the “light affliction” (4:17) of this life; ready to be “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord” (5:8); an “ambassador for Christ” (5:20) who proclaims a message of reconciliation of the sinner before a holy God.

This ministry must not be “blamed,” Paul says in chapter 6.  Therefore, in order not to “give offense in any thing” and to “approve ourselves as the ministers of God,” we must enter into a three-fold approach to a sacrificial ministry.  I say “three-fold” due to the various cases of the prepositions used in verses 4-10.4

I am proposing that we are sacrificial servants . . .

In Propitiatory Relationships

The believer finds himself in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, etc.  Paul was the example of evangelism that often resulted in antipathy with the world.  I call these “propitiatory” because the sinner is taking out his anger at our Lord through the believers.  Just as sinners crucified Jesus because His perfect life aggravated their sinful soul, so His servants are to speak of Him to sinners and enter into the same persecutions brought on by their guilty consciences.

Is this not the “fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable to His death?”  Yes!  And it is this that brings to our evangelism the “power of His resurrection” (Phil 3:10).  It is when Jesus is lifted up in the way of a cross, that all men are drawn to Him.  The evangelist must be willing to enter this frame of mind if he is to minister.  Suffering for our Lord is primarily to be rejected and resisted, even hurt, by the sinner for Christ’s sake.  Paul knew this fellowship well.  He also knew the power of such preaching.

By Passive Responses

How did our Lord and His Apostles respond in such circumstances?  By pureness, by longsuffering, by kindness, etc.  Peter says of our Lord, Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:  Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judges righteously (1 Pet 2:22-23).  Should those who represent Him respond any differently?

The effectiveness of our witness does not come through human instincts.  We are preservationists by human nature.  We would protect, strike back and defend ourselves when others attack us.  But the true minister does not because his Lord did not.  If the kernel of wheat dies, it will produce more wheat than can be imagined!

As Perceived Realities

How was Paul perceived by those who persecuted him compared to what Paul really was?  As unknown, yet well-known; as dying, and behold we live; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing, etc. Just as sinners perceived Jesus to be different than what He actually was, so His servants are to be perceived differently by the world than what they really are in Christ.

Aren’t people more concerned with how they are perceived by others than with anything?  That is why true evangelism is so difficult.  It truly takes a dying to self, a willingness to be seen in a bad light in order to be effective.  The believer knows, of course, the way God really sees him and is content.

And So . . .

The Corinthians were poor evangelists because their own selfishness restricted the power of their witness (vss 11-13).  They could not bring themselves to such sacrificial action.  They were unequally yoked to the world (vss 14-16) to the point that God Himself could not be as a Father to them (vs 18).

It is spiritual near-sightedness to preserve our image before the world and lose them, rather than concede our image in order to win them.

Notes:
1. Gorgias, “The Encomium on Helen,”  Orations: Homer To Mckinley, Vol I (New York: Collier, 1902) 49.
2. G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Image Books, 1956) 93.
3. James Draper, Jr., Colossians: A Portrait of Christ (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1982) 8.
4. All Greek texts agree in the prepositions used.  The A.V. does the best job of dividing the en into locative and instrumental cases in vss 4-7.  Other versions follow the word for word translation of en being “in” (usually taken as locative) where the A.V. recognizes how en can be instrumental as well.  Lenski says, “This en differs from the en found with the preceding plurals which = ‘in the midst of’ the experience of tribulations, etc.  The present eight en = ‘in connection with’ purity, etc.”

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Saving Faith

Written by Rick Shrader

Saving Faith

by Rick Shrader

This article originally appeared in the Sept/Oct 1996 issue of The Baptist Preacher under the title, “Why are there pious pretenders in the pews?”

In exalting faith, we are not immediately putting ourselves in contradiction to modern thought. Indeed faith is being exalted very high today by men of the most modern type. But what kind of faith? There emerges the difference of opinion.

Faith is being exalted so high today that men are being satisfied with any kind of faith, just so it is faith. It makes no difference what is believed, we are told, just so the blessed attitude of faith is there.       (J. Gresham Machen, 1923)1

Almost two years ago I wrote an article entitled “Worshipping Worship.” I thought it was time to write a follow-up on worship, so I pulled my “worship” file and perused the entries of the last two years. It has become a huge file with men of varied stripe offering comment and observation. Fundamentalists and evangelicals especially have been justifiably critical of the irreverence in today’s “worship style.” But I’ve noticed (as have many others) that there is an issue that mirrors worshipping worship, and that is trusting in trust or faith.

The nature of saving faith

An Easter article in our local paper was titled, “Many experience rebirth of faith at Easter time.” It seems a man was returning from his faith in the “material world” to a “sense of freedom and comfort” in his Catholic church. He said, “It’s not a change in belief but a change in the method of adoration.”2 The troubling fact is that such a faith has no object. Faith becomes its own object! It is faith in the ability to have faith which, of course, is not faith but works.

When the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) document appeared in 1994, the only good news was that the issue of saving faith was pushed to center stage. Sadly, many who call themselves “evangelical” have lost the distinctive of their name by proposing that the “good news” is that salvation is in one’s content of faith rather than in one’s object of faith. But I would also suggest that fundamentalists have often been as guilty in proposing that salvation is in one’s confession of faith. That, as well, is a trust in trust rather than in Christ. It seems to me that both errors can pack the pews with pious pretenders.

The Bible basis of saving faith

The New Testament furnishes us not only with examples of genuine faith, but with examples of unsaving faith. John 2:23-25 shows us a group of people who “believed” in the content of Jesus’ message, but John makes it clear that they were not regenerated (James reminds us that the devils “believe” in this way). Acts 8:13-24 shows us a man, Simon, who “believed” and was baptized but, it turned out, his public confession was not enough to bring him to salvation. On the other hand, Hebrews 4:3 speaks of “We which have believed” and have entered into rest. Alexander Maclaren commented, “He does not mean, ‘we which acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Savior of the world,’ but we who, acknowledging, let our hearts go out to Him in trust, and our wills bow down before Him in obedience and submission.”3

When I say that saving faith is not in the content alone I mean that it takes more than just believing that the facts are true regarding Jesus Christ to get saved. When I say that saving faith is not in the confession alone I mean that it takes more than just mouthing some words about Jesus Christ to get saved. The liturgical churches have often been guilty of the former, and the non-liturgical churches have often been guilty of the latter. One error creates an evangelism where faith, or trust, is in the ability to understand, while the other is in the ability to say so.

The vocabulary of saving faith

One biblical (and historic) way of defining saving faith is by using the three Latin words notitia, assensus and fiducia. The Baptist theologian, Augustus Strong, reminded us of these in his 1907 Systematic Theology.4 Recently, R.C. Sproul has defended saving faith against the ECT agenda by using these words.5 I find the three-fold (four, counting confession) definition in the New Testament.

Notitia means knowledge. One must hear of Jesus Christ before he will ever be saved. Faith cannot come before “hearing” (Rom 10:17). Heb 11:13 describes the saints as “having seen them afar off,” i.e., the promises which told of salvation. Obviously, no one can believe if they do not know that salvation is available.

Assensus means to give assent to something or agree. After one hears the message, he may or may not agree as to its validity. Many have never believed that the gospel story is actually true. Heb 11:13 (in KJV & TR) reads, “and were persuaded.” Rev 1:3 has, “Blessed is he that readeth (notitia) and they that hear (assensus). In 1 Cor 14:25 Paul said that prophecy was better than tongues because then someone can interpret and give the meaning so that a visitor may be “convinced of all” that is said.

Fiducia is trust or what Strong calls the “voluntary element.” Heb 11:13 says that they “embraced” the message of salvation which they had “seen” and were “persuaded of.” J.O. Buswell, in his Systematic Theology, stresses at length what he calls this “cognitive element” of faith.6 This is not just a hearing of the gospel and is more than just admitting that the gospel story is true. It is to realize that Jesus Christ can be your Savior and for you to want that more than anything else. (Note: This is where repentance comes in this progression. Paul, in 1 Cor 14:25, says that at this point the man will “fall down on his face.” The Thessalonians, in 1 Th 1:9, “turned to God from idols.”) Sproul speaks of this moment as a change in “perceived value.”7 Now, for the first time, the sinner sees Christ as something to be desired and to grasp with his whole heart.

The confession of saving faith

The Bible adds one more concept to these three, and that is confession. Hebrews 11:13 says that at this point “they confessed.” Rom 10:10 (a passage that deserves a fresh study) says that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto (‘because of’) salvation.” Obviously there are no magic formulas for saving faith. Confession is just that, a public display of what the heart secretly has believed. If the belief is real, the confession will definitely follow.

True saving faith takes place when a sinner has exercised fiducia. After having learned of Christ and become convinced that His claims are true, he is willing to give up anything and pay any price to have Him. When this kind of faith takes place, confession will not only follow but will be impossible to silence; invitations will not have to rely on trickery; lordship will not be a problem; godly living and separation from the world will come naturally because a selfish nature has been overcome by a new nature in love with Christ.

The outgrowth of saving faith

Why does Peter (2 Peter 1:5-7) tell us to “add to your faith virtue?” Because a person who has true faith wants, first and foremost, to please the One with whom he has fallen in love. This simple obedience is virtue. Why does he then say to add “to virtue knowledge?” Because now this person wants to know what he should do to produce such virtue. And the progression continues through agape love.

If you think I am suggesting that a real problem in Christendom today is not that we are becoming too exclusive of all “faiths,” but rather that we have become too inclusive of any partial expression of faith, you happen to be right. And could this not be a vital reason why we see so many saying they have faith but having no interest in virtue? And because there is no virtue, there is little interest in knowledge?

This unsaving kind of faith is simply trust in trust, a faith in faith, but it does not have Jesus Christ as the lovely object and desire of reception. I don’t know how widely this may be the case in our church, but it must cause us some concern. A.W. Tozer wrote, “To the question ‘what must I do to be saved?’ we must learn the correct answer. To fail here is not to gamble with our souls; it is to guarantee eternal banishment from the face of God. Here we must be right or be finally lost.”8

Notes:
1. J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdman’s, 1959) 141.
2. Fort Collins Coloradoan, April 3, 1994.
3. Alexander Maclaren, Exposition of Holy Scripture, Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1959) 304.
4. Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, 1907) 836-844.
5. R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995) 75-88.
6. J.O. Buswell, Systematic Theology (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) II, 175-186.
7. Sproul, 86.
8. A.W. Tozer, The Best of A.W. Tozer (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1978) 100.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Baptist Name

Written by Rick Shrader

The Baptist Name

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

This originally appeared in the May/June issue of The Baptist Preacher with the title, “Why we won’t take the name ‘Baptist’ off our church.”

There is no denying we live in a generation that disdains labels. To assert any belief with a personal label is to be intolerant and insensitive to those who disagree. The modernist used to simply disagree and was willing to fight about it. The postmodernist says no one should be so dogmatic to say they are right and others are wrong. This is a change from our forefathers, says Bruce Shelley, “The first, now traditional, form of the Christian community in America emphasized denominations. The term for this new arrangement, denomination, comes from the Latin word nomen, meaning ‘to name.’ A denomination, then, is an association of congregations under a special ‘name’ with similar basic beliefs, similar goals in their mission to America.”1

With that positive and historic attitude toward church names, popular singer Steve Green disagrees. In the song “Let the Walls Come Down,” he sings, “Walls designed by Satan in the twilight of the ages, now stand as great divisions all across the world today; walls not born of governments nor strife amid the nations, but walls within our churches and between denominations; stones of tried tradition carved in fear and laid in pride, become a dismal prison to those withering inside; let the walls come down, let the walls come down.” Though these words are not historically accurate, they have become a convenient theology for many of today’s churches and only add fuel to an unnecessary fire.

Some say that they have been offended by unguarded and even unloving statements from some Baptist brethren. I don’t doubt these offenses nor the fact of these statements. However, I don’t see them changing their family name when someone proves to be a nut in the family tree. And I think the analogy is valid. Others say that the lost are offended by the name Baptist and it becomes a stumblingblock to them. But how far are we willing to follow this acquiescence? We could conceivably end up disallowing all speech except the literal reading of the biblical text. Anything else would be human interpretation and may give offense. Others point out the ignorance of our generation and the problem of laying this baggage on their brittle minds. Yet, that is why the schools have not taught Johnny to read. It would be an unkind difficulty to put upon the first-grader.

I have to agree with Spurgeon when he says, “I am unable to sympathize with a man who says he has no creed, because I believe him to be in the wrong by his own showing. He ought to have a creed. What is equally certain, he has a creed—he must have one, even though he repudiates the notion . . . The objection to a creed is a very pleasant way of concealing objection to discipline, and a desire for latitudinarianism. What is wished for is a Union which will, like Noah’s Ark, afford shelter both for the clean and for the unclean, for creeping things and winged fowls.”2 I am not ridiculing nor belittling my friends who have dropped their denominational name. I have been asked my opinion and I am saying I strongly disagree with them. I think the trade-off will pay very poor dividends.

Without trying to defend Baptist history in this short space nor delineating my agreement with its historic doctrines (doctrine being the first factor listed in Acts 2:42), I wish to give some reasons for retaining the name Baptist, especially in our generation.

1. Denominational names (I mean, of course, the one which describes you) are not divisive but unifying because they are up front and honest.

My grandparent’s generation knew what they believed, were honest enough to put it out front on a sign, thanked the Methodists for being honest enough to do the same and all went about their business as good citizens and neighbors. Don’t we today call that being open and genuine? It was the knowledge and forthrightness of their convictions that brought them together. It is today’s ignorance and lack of conviction that separates Christians. J. Sidlow Baxter wrote, “The fatal blight on modern Protestantism is not its plurality of denominations, and the WCC is wasting our time laboring that dreary blunder.”3

2. The willingness to discard the name Baptist is due more to a loathing of tradition than to a concern for the unchurched.

If this generation really doesn’t know what the name means, then what’s the problem? If they are that ignorant then it doesn’t matter to them what the name is. Evidently, it matters more to someone already there. G.K. Chesterton called tradition the democracy of the dead.4 It is allowing past generations a say in our present decisions. Jaraslov Pelikan of Yale University said, “Traditionalism may be the dead faith of the living, but tradition is the living faith of the dead.”5 Perhaps we have become more attached to the ethics of this generation than any other generation.

3. If these denominational names fade away, others like them will take their place.

We already see this happening with names like “Bible Church,” “Vineyard,” etc. Churches will gravitate to others of like faith and wear their labels. So what’s wrong with keeping the ones we have? Besides, any study of postmodernism will tell us that it was the moderns who discarded old labels, the postmoderns are into restoring. The name-changing fad may already be out of date! One postmodern writes, “The idea that all groups have a right to speak for themselves, in their own voice, and have that voice accepted as authentic and legitimate is essential to the pluralistic stance of postmodernism.”6

4. The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have.

Our doctrine is our conviction about truth, and a denominational title is still a legitimate identification. We are to “stand fast in sound doctrine.” I know we can have correct doctrine without a label, but why? In 1966, Addison Leitch wrote, “But suppose we accept the ‘freedom from definition’ principle. After all, the important thing is to be a Christian, not a Presbyterian. Very well, a Protestant or a Romanist Christian? Will not the attitude that refuses to draw lines between Presbyterians and Baptists or between Protestants and Romanists eventually blur the distinctions between Christians and Buddhists and Moslems?”7

One Baptist wrote in the early 1800s, “From these remarks it will be perceived that while the subjects and mode of baptism is the external ground of difference between Baptists and others, that difference involves a great principle; and the primary question is not, shall infants be baptized? But, whether God’s Word or tradition shall be our guide.”8 I don’t mind wearing a title that indicates that commitment.

5. I’m more concerned with not saying enough with the name Baptist than fearing I have said too much.

I am constantly looking for ways at our church to inform the visitor of what we believe and how we practice. We used to be able to let new people come right into our membership with little or no orientation. But today people will join with little regard for our belief and practice, and we must be as careful as possible. I am not interested in discarding one more way of getting this accomplished. And, if someone mistakenly thinks that doctrine is stuffy and boring, it is our biblical duty to change that thinking (1 Tim 4:12-16). Chesterton said, “This is the thrilling romance of Orthodoxy. People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy.”9

C.S. Lewis said of his loyalty to his own church, “I found that it was the only way of flying your flag.”10 I have lowered the flag on the pole enough for this “untoward generation.” It has made me uncomfortable in almost every area of life outside my own home. I have simply drawn the line at the name of my church. They can’t have it too.

In a recent reprint of a Vance Havner article, I read and identified with these words, “The church began to degenerate, as Augustine tells us, when holy days were merged with holidays to please the influx of new pagan members. Today we have moved from the catacombs to the colosseum and revised our standards to suit a generation of pleasure-lovers who do not love God.”11 I think we’ve gone far enough.

Notes:  (This was originally an article without formal notes.  Updated footnotes are coming)
1. Bruce Shelley, The Consumer Church ( ) 59-60.
2. Quoted by John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993) Appendix 1.
3. J. Sidlow Baxter, Rethinking Our Priorities ( ) 29.
4. G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1994) 47.
5. Quoted by Bruce Shelley, 72.
6. David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity ( ) 48.
7. Quoted by Kenneth Myers in Power Religion, Horton, Michael. Ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992) 49.
8. John Adams, Baptists: Thorough Reformers ( ) 64.
9. G.K. Chesterton, 106.
10. C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994) 61.
11. Vance Havner,

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles, Featured
Leave a Comment
Read More

Preaching the Word in a Pagan Age

Written by Rick Shrader

Preaching the Word in a Pagan Age

by Rick Shrader

This article appeared in The Baptist Preacher, December, 1998.

William Wordsworth once said, “Language is the incarnation of thought,”1 which may tell us either why conversation is so scarce these days, or why it is such light fare. But it was Confucius who said, “When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty.”2 That makes the current state of our language very critical. “Anyone wishing to save humanity today must first of all save the word,”3 Jacques Ellul wrote. As preachers, our interest in language is also utilitarian. It is for preaching the Word; for communicating the truth to our own generation. For us, if truth cannot be communicated in normal, everyday language, or if meaning cannot be given in a straightforward manner, our cause and our effectiveness are greatly damaged.

In communication today, there are many wolves in sheep’s clothing. A postmodern age has brought about an impreciseness in language as well as truth. A devotion to relativism causes us to parse every word for the nuance of meaning we want, and to force truth into any mold that meets our need. In such a time as this, we need to take caution in the manner in which we preach the Word. We must be careful in a number of popular areas.

Polling the crowd for moral authority

Over the last few months Christians in this country have had an uneasy feeling about the way governmental leaders have explained their morals and convictions by popular opinion polls. Because a Christian has a Bible which he believes to be inspired of God and to be an unchanging standard of truth and morality, he recognizes false “truths” which are fabricated by popularity. It is essential to the Christian message that truth be seen as coming from a transcendent God and not something that is created by the majority of people.

Soren Kierkegaard once said, “The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.”4 If we were told up front that this statement came from Kierkegaard, we would immediately label it as existential and we would, of course, be right. Now consider the following statement, “Our task is to grasp and articulate God’s vision for our future and to facilitate the change necessary to create that future.”5 Though this statement is very close to Kierkegaard’s existential statement, we embrace it because it comes from George Barna and has been proven by polling to be the key to success in ministry. In such ways, what was once considered unworthy of the Christian ministry has become its mantra. And the justification for the change is the power of public opinion. As one observer of modern culture has said, “What is at stake here in the debate over postmodernism’s vocabulary is ultimately our vision of the truth and moral order.”6

Can anyone doubt that we have come to a day when Christian ministries are designed and guided by what the audience wants, and often in direct contradiction to what we otherwise say is right or wrong? I have no bone to pick with Rick Warren’s ministry, but in reading his book I can’t help but notice this very thing. At one point he insists, “Faithfulness is often defined in terms of attendance rather than service.”7 And yet when he is deep into the reasons for his successful ministry he says, “After surveying who we were reaching, we made the strategic decision to stop singing hymns in our seeker services. Within a year of deciding what would be ‘our sound,’ Saddleback exploded with growth.”8 And true to our postmodern way of thinking, the only thing that will be seen as wrong about using this quotation is that I have criticized it!

Years ago, the Englishman, Harry Blamires wrote:

Yet, within the Church as well as outside it, this perverted notion persists. Truth is conceived on a quantitative basis—no doubt under the influence of statistical reasoning and public opinion polls. It is being assumed that the more people there are with different opinions to contribute, the greater ‘truth’ will emerge from the mixing of these opinions in the melting-pot. Truth is regarded as a kind of pudding, or brew, which you concoct from human opinions. But truth is more like a rock than a pudding—a rock which you lay bare by scraping away the soil. And the soil is largely compounded of human prejudice and passion.9

Structuring truth for personal advantage

That brings us to a second area of caution. It has become too easy these days to stretch and reshape history, literature or even the Bible itself into anything we want to say or prove. The culprit in this waning standard of truth is two-fold. First, we are selfish creatures who, since Eve and Cain, have found a way to make God’s Word fit our own wants and desires (insert “vision,” “success,” “growth” etc.). Second, our wants and desires find their fulfillment in the approval of our fellow creatures. The approval of the crowd simply feeds the ego which in turn seeks for more approval. In this way truth is “constructed” by popular opinion. The dangers, however, are these: what is truth today may not be truth tomorrow if the crowd’s desire has changed; morality is replaced by “values” which are seen as belonging only to a specific group; and the most base displays of sinfulness become the norm, according to biblical warning (Rom 1:22-28).

The defenses for this method of structuring philosophy are numerous: none of us can follow the ideal completely and so it is judgmental to hold someone to part of it; the quantity of good accomplished by such structuring far outweighs the lack of quality used in obtaining it; and who, after all, can really be sure of what the Absolute Standard says? Isn’t that all a matter of subjective interpretation anyway?

My concerns in approaching such a topic are these: 1) If repentance is necessary for true salvation, what are we saying about that when we ask the sinner what he would like in order for him to come to God? Though I am not a Calvinist and am not recommending the old Puritan “seeking” period for the sinner, I do believe that a sinner has to completely give up his own desire, pride and self-worth in order to accept God’s help. I fear we have created a way for sinners to have their religious cake and eat it too, by placing their interest first in themselves and secondly in Christianity.

2) I fear that we are adding to the consumer mentality which already has engulfed our culture. Bruce Shelley wrote, “The Christian message and lifestyle, which in an earlier day could be more directly imposed, now must be ‘marketed.’ It must be ‘sold’ to a clientele that is no longer constrained to ‘buy’ . . . . Most churches and parachurch ministries are dominated by the logic of marketing agencies.”10 One of George Barna’s books is actually titled, A Step-By-Step Guide to Church Marketing.

3) We are in danger of quickly taking the direction of our churches out of the hands of our elder saints and placing it squarely on the young. We are committing Rehoboam’s error. In a relativistic age, those who scream the loudest demand and get the most attention. That doesn’t mean it is right. It’s just the way it is.

John Wesley once said, “I love Calvin a little, Luther more; the Moravians, Mr. Law and Mr. Whitfield far more than either . . . But I love truth more than all.”11 Perhaps we should hear Solomon’s words to Rehoboam, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23).

Redefining Language for cultural sophistication

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English has this definition: “Sophism: false argument, one intended to deceive. Sophist: captious or clever but fallacious reasoner. Sophistic: related to sophism. Sophisticate: sophisticated person, related to sophism. Sophisticated: worldly-wise, cultured, elegant, highly developed and complex.” G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Mere light sophistry is the thing that I happen to despise most of all things.”12 But I think that today such sophistry has become “sophistication” and it is the thing our generation covets the most.

We see examples of this on a daily basis. Recently I heard the word “iconographic” (usually used in reference to art) used in reference to words and language that defend morality and truth. The speaker was arguing that words are merely icons (symbols, but not the reality) that have come to mean certain things, depending on how culture has affected them. For example, I may say “adultery is sin” but the word “adultery” is only a symbol that has been crafted (deconstructed) to produce a certain connotation in my mind. It may or may not have anything to do with the actual act. In this way “adultery” is iconographic.

These thinkers would insist that Puritanical Christians of generations past decided to attach a negative meaning to this activity by calling it “adultery.” But today’s liberated thinkers are not bound by such moralizing. Remove the attached label, or icon, redefine the word and all such cultural prohibitions are also removed. In such ways, today’s cultural sophisticates have become verbal iconoclasts. Or, as William Bennett just wrote, “They have persuaded many that the sophisticated thing is to dismiss the scandalous as irrelevant.”13 They are effectively reaching into every area of sacred honor and belief and toppling every word that carries moral meaning.

We children of the sixties laughed when the Beatles sang, “I want to hold your hand” because we knew that Mom and Dad thought that’s all they meant. But now we are reaping what we sowed. We groan to hear the most powerful man in the world, himself a product of the sixties, say that adultery is not adultery. He has traded a sacred trust for a mess of iconograhic porridge and he has “found no place of repentance,” even in tears.

As we continue to move from a print-based society to a visual, image-based society, such pillaging of words will continue. The soil is ripe. Attention spans will continue to drop while the demand for entertainment in media will increase. Personal accountability in society and culture will wane while escape to virtual worlds will broaden beyond belief. Reasoning, based on commonly accepted word meanings in conversation, will grow scarce if not disappear altogether. The dictionary will become obsolete.

Technology, far from deepening our mental and verbal skills, has destroyed and replaced them with easier alternatives. Neil Postman wrote, “To every Old World belief, habit, or tradition, there was and still is a technological alternative. To prayer, the alternative is penicillin; to family roots, the alternative is mobility; to reading, the alternative is television; to restraint, the alternative is immediate gratification; to sin, the alternative is psychotherapy; to political ideology, the alternative is popular appeal established through scientific polling.”14

Changing the message for a pagan audience

A specific irritant in this emerging new age will be the preacher, the heralder of “thus saith the Lord,” one who must insist that a written text carries specific meaning, including the word “sin.” He has no right, being only a messenger of the King’s words, to negotiate with the text. His is only to proclaim it. Of course, it will become difficult enough to relate specific truths from specific words to an illiterate society who has become too technologically sophisticated to listen.

The preacher will become contentious for Jude, the Lord’s brother, said he would have to contend. He will need to define meaning and refuse multiple choice answers to eternal questions. He will judge between truth and error by an unchangeable standard, and thus commit society’s greatest offense—that of judging something to be wrong. He will be busily running behind the iconoclasts and propping the words up again, only to see them fall as soon as he walks away.

Lest we end our thinking here, on what could easily be defeatism, let me suggest the good news with the bad. The bad news is that the western civilization we have known for a few hundred years, a civilization greatly influenced by Christianity and theistic thinking, is being overrun by paganism. This paganism is bringing with it a whole new way of defining and coming to truth—a way that leads unto death!

The good news is rather ironic. If our job as heralders of God’s truth is to put ourselves in a biblical frame of mind with the biblical writers, then our job is much easier now. Our new pagan world is much like their old pagan world. Their world was awash with thinking about gods being known through nature, experience being the basis for truth, the natural world enmeshed with the supernatural world and therefore as changeable as the seasons, and (something we forget) sex being an integral link between physical experience and celestial significance. Even history had no significance to the pagan because meaning could only be secured at the moment. “The supreme norm is always the status quo.”15

There is apparent danger with the good news. We must not become attracted to the pagan world and think like it rather than in a biblical way. We don’t need to poll the crowd to get our message. We don’t need to structure truth for our advantage because our gospel is established truth. Our Savior is a fact of history. Our message is a revealed truth given in propositional form that transcends centuries and cultures. Our message has clear and unmistakable meaning with words that must not be redefined or changed. Our task is the same as those apostles who first delivered the gospel. We are bringing light to darkness and hope to despair. However sophisticated we become, whatever contextualizing we do, we now have the blessed opportunity to preach the “like precious faith” which they preached in the midst of a pagan age like theirs.

Notes:
1. Quoted by A.T. Pierson, Pulpit Legends (Chattanooga: AMG, 1994) xviii.
2. Erik van Kuehnelt-Leddihn, “Liberalism in America,” The Intercollegiate Review—Fall 1997, 44.
3. Quoted by David Wells, No Place For Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 187.
4. Quoted by Ravi Zacharias, Can Man live Without God? (Dallas: Word Pub., 1994) 205.
5. George Barna, The Second Coming Of The Church (Nashville: Word Pub., 1998) 98.
6. Roger Lundin, “The Pragmatics of Postmodernity”, a chapter in Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1995) 34.
7. Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995) 104.
8. Ibid., 284.
9. Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (Ann Arbor: Servant Books, 1963) 113.
10. Bruce & Marshall Shelley, The Consumer Church (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1992) 20.
11. Quoted by J.S. Baxter, Christian Holiness (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977) 174.
12. G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1994) 5.
13. William J. Bennett, The Death Of Outrage (New York: The Free Press, 1998) 10-11.
14. Neil Postman, Technopoly (New York: Vintage Books, 1993) 54.
15. Wells, 268.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Dancing and the Local Church

Written by Admin

Dancing and the Local Church

by Admin

by Stephen R. Button

This article is reprinted by permission from the October, 2003 issue of The Baptist Bulletin, the official organ of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, published by Regular Baptist Press. For subscription information, visit The Baptist Bulletin web site, or e-mail at bbsubs@garbc.org.

What’s wrong with dancing?  Why not use dancing as a means to bring the unsaved to church?  Can dancing in the local church be used as an opportunity for evangelism?

Today’s local churches risk increased secularization.  What many churches formerly considered inappropriate for Christians they now consider acceptable.  Attempting to attract the unchurched, many churches are adopting programs and activities once considered worldly.  Though promoted for the noble purpose of eventually winning the lost to Christ, these activities must be evaluated.  Are we changing the lost through them, or are the lost changing us?

Some agree that the church can use almost any technique to draw the unsaved into the church to hear the gospel.  This pragmatism extends into a variety of areas that are often directly, or even indirectly, prohibited in Scripture.  Each church must evaluate how or if it should accommodate itself to an ever-changing society.  One increasingly popular accommodation is that of Christian- or church-sponsored dances.

Dancing and the Biblical Record

“What’s wrong with dancing?” some people ask.  “The Bible is full of references to dancing.  After all, David danced before the Lord.  If it were acceptable for David to dance as a part of worship, why can’t Church-age saints dance as a part of our religious activities?”

The Bible does indeed refer to dancing, using at least six core words to define the activity translated “dance.”  These words appear in a variety of settings and describe a variety of activities.  A study of these words will reveal, however, that dancing in the Bible had little similarity to what is commonly known today as dancing.  The lexical meaning, coupled with the context, will give a clear understanding of what “dance” meant to the writers and first readers of the Biblical accounts.

One word translated “dance” is raqad. This word means “to stamp or spring about wildly for joy.”  It involves leaping and skipping.  When Job answered his critics, he may have had in mind the picture of children playing in a field:  “They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance” (Job 21:11).  He also used the word in contrast to the heaviness of heart associated with mourning (Ecclesiastes 3:4).

Another word, machowl, means “to whirl about or to twist in a circular or spiral manner.”  It seems to suggest the circular round dances familiar in ancient cultures, which were usually segregated by gender.  “The dances probably consisted only of circular movements with artless rhythmical steps and lively gesticulations and were accompanied by women beating tambourines (Judges 11:34).”1

This word also describes the movements one might make lying on a bed when in severe pain due to an injury or illness.2 At least three references use machowl to contrast gladness with sorrow (Psalm 30:11; Jeremiah 31:13; Lamentations 5:15).

The word mechowlah is the feminine form of the previous word, which suggests dancing in the company of others.  This is the word used in Exodus 32:19 to describe the activity Moses found the Hebrews doing when he came down from the mountain.  This “mixed” dancing was obviously sensual and forbidden.  Other uses of this word refer to a kind of cheerleading by the village women in response to a victory.  (Judges 11:34; 1 Samuel 18:6).

The word chagag refers to the processional march, moving about in an organized fashion in a circle.  It was used of festive occasions and by implication suggests being giddy or excited (1 Samuel 30:16).

Two words for “dance” are prominent in the New Testament:  orcheomai and choros.

We get our word “orchestra” from the first, orcheomai. This term suggests a uniform, regulated motion caused by “lifting up” the feet, or leaping about.  It is the word John used to describe the performance by Herodias’s daughter as a form of “artistic” dancing.  Scholars generally assume that her dance had sexual overtones (Matthew 14:6).  However, the term is also used in the nonsexual context of children responding to the sound of a flute, perhaps in a funeral procession or in a parade (Matthew 11:17; Luke 7:32).

The second word, choros, from which we get the word “chorus,” suggests a cooperative effort.  Before it became known for the dancing itself or the group of dancers, it primarily denoted an enclosure for dancing (Luke 15:25).3 This dance would resemble today’s folk dancing and would require a homogeneous activity, as in square dancing.

Commentary Regarding the Practice of Dancing in the Bible

It should be apparent from researching Biblical references to dancing that the “dancing” practiced in Biblical times differed from what is commonly considered dancing today.  “While the mode of dancing is not known in detail, it is clear that men and women did not generally dance together, and there is no real evidence that they ever did.  Social amusement was hardly a major purpose of dancing, and the modern method of dancing by couples is unknown.”4 Note these observations:

  • Many Biblical references to dancing indicate a joyous movement of the body in a spontaneous outburst of excitement and enthusiasm. This movement might be compared to the moves of a football player who prances around the end zone and victoriously spikes the football after completing a seventy-yard run.

  • Many Biblical references to dancing relate to a processional to honor and praise those victorious in battle, or to some other festive occasion.  This “dance” might be compared to the choreographed precision of a band or drill team during the halftime of a football game or to the splendor of the Rose Bowl Parade.

  • Most Biblical references to dancing are in the context of some religious observance, both of true worship and of idol worship.  In true worship, the dance celebrated God and expressed adoration of Him.  The focus was not on the dancing partner.5 In the case of idol worship, however, sensuality was paramount.6

  • Dancing in the Bible was performed mostly by women7 (young maidens), with an exception such as David’s dancing before the Lord.  His dancing was clearly an act of worship, and it may well have been the kind of spontaneous outburst as described above.

  • Dancing as recorded in the Bible was always in the open, in fields or pastures, and during the daytime, with the exceptions of Solome’s dance, which was indoors, and the illusion to dancing in the story of the prodigal son.

  • Dancing was seldom performed with a mix of genders, and the sensual, intimate nature of today’s dancing was foreign to the religious-observance dancing of Biblical times.8

  • None of the dancing referred to in the Bible was social in nature,9 but rather had specific significance to the celebration of an event or as an act of worship.  The nature of Salome’s dance was entertainment, and its style was probably similar to that of a modern-day stripper’s, obviously not sanctioned by its placement in the Biblical record.

It would be improper for us to implant the contemporary meanings of “dance” into Biblical references to dancing.  Biblical dancing reflected its culture, not ours.  From the lexical definitions it is obvious that a dance involved rhythmic movement of the body that was usually accompanied by music.  Biblical dancing expressed joy and gladness at times of military victories (1 Samuel 18:6), cultural celebrations (Judges 21:19-23), or religious and national holidays (Psalm 68:25; 150:4).10 Children would imitate adults in their play and “pretend” to dance (Job 21:11; Matthew 11:17).  Never did men and women dance together.11 Even when both danced at a sacred celebration, they danced separately (Psalm 68:25; Jeremiah 31:13).

Social Dancing from Past to Present

Social dancing often provides the opportunity to become physically close to a member of the opposite sex, which, apart from the dance itself, would be totally unacceptable by many people.  In referring to the nature of social dancing, it has been said, “Its chief fascination lies in the relation of the sexes” (Dr. Brand).  “Take sex out of the dance, and it would lose its fascination for most of those now captivated by it” (Dr. Haydn).12 To appreciate the impact of these quotations, we need to note that these statements were made over a hundred years ago and that they related to the kinds of dances that refined society generally found acceptable (e.g., ballroom dancing).

As Christians, we should have a standard of modesty that is tied to Scriptural principles and not the whims of society.

Dancing as It Applies to the Local Church

Since we cannot use any Biblical reference to dance as a defense of social dancing today, because of the obvious differences in the nature and type of dancing then and dancing today, on what basis can we find defense for a participation in, or approval by, a local church?  Perhaps the answers to the following questions will guide in the formulation of a position regarding dancing in the context of the local church.

  1. Who is permitted to participate in social dancing (that is, the intimate touching, holding, and moving to a musical rhythm)?  Should we allow young people access to each other in such a form as to promote intimacy before marriage?  Should we encourage unmarried people of any age to participate in an activity that is, by nature, a form of sexual arousal?

  2. Would we find acceptable the intimate touching, holding, and moving that characterizes such dancing apart form the context of a dance?  Do we want to create an atmosphere in our church activities that encourages intimacy?

  3. Is it necessary for married couples to openly display their affection and intimacy in public view during a dance?

  4. Would those who wish to dance in this manner be able to comfortably do so as a witness for Jesus?  How can a dance of mixed couples testify to the love and salvation of Jesus?  Would it be appropriate to dance in this way to the tunes of “Amazing Grace,” “To God Be the Glory,” “How Great Thou Art,” or other tunes attributing glory to God and recognizing our need of the salvation of God?

  5. Would such dancing indicate a recognition of the need to be separate from the world, to not “Love the world or the things in the world,” or would it confuse those trying to understand their role as Christians in an ungodly world?  Would dancing accomplish the Great Commission, drawing men and women to Christ?  Or would it distract from the love of God required for any believer in God, and would it focus inordinate attention on human affection?
    Would an unsaved person watching a Christian dancing see the Christian as distinct and set apart unto God, and therefore different from him- or herself?  Would the unsaved person’s observations cause him or her to conclude that since there is no difference in the Christian’s behavior and his or her own, there would be no need for the unsaved person to alter his or her beliefs, since Christian beliefs apparently would have no bearing on behavior?

  6. Could dancing by mature Christians give weaker or immature Christians a license to participate in dancing but with less discernment and discretion?
    Could a weaker believer discontinue his or her journey toward spiritual maturity because of the unnecessary diversion and distraction of dancing or of seeing a mature Christian dancing?  Would this weaker believer have a distorted view of Christian values and standards as a result of witnessing or participating in a “Christian dance”?
    How could dancing in a “Christian” environment add to an immature believer’s concept of spirituality or bring an unbeliever to understand that he or she needs the Savior?  Are we free to use any method to further the cause of Christ?  Are there limitations to our “liberties in Christ” for the sake of others and the gospel?

  7. Is dancing so important that it’s worth the risk of tempting the unmarried with the possibility of sin (adultery), openly displaying the intimacy of a married relationship, jeopardizing a testimony for Christ, or leading an immature believer away from spiritual growth?

Since dancing is such a broad subject, questions about it may be answerable in such a way that an individual believer will feel comfortable in some kinds of dancing.  That is between him or her and the Lord.

But when it comes to the matter of the corporate practice of social dancing by a local congregation, the restraints and requirements increase.  It is necessary for a church to hold the highest possible standard to ensure the purity and holiness of its members before God.  The universal church is, after all, the Bride of Christ and is to be blameless at the appearing of her Bridegroom.  The local church must, therefore, guard its members from the influence of the world and provide the guidelines and atmosphere for the greatest possible spiritual growth.

Utilizing a worldly activity (as demonstrated in the comparison of the nature of social dancing today with the dancing of Biblical times) to draw an unsaved person to Christ is unhealthy for the church and is unproductive in spiritual reproduction.  As a pregnant mother is told to abstain from certain foods, beverages, and activities for the health of her child, so those who are expecting to witness effectively must abstain from certain influences and activities for the sake of those for whom they are to have spiritual care.

Concluding Principles

The purpose of this article is not to pontificate regarding an artificial list of do’s and don’ts.  Every believer has the responsibility to evaluate and apply the principles from Scripture as he or she encounters them.  The pastor of a local church, however, is held accountable to Christ for the care and protection of the local church and its testimony.  Therefore, we must step back from single issues to see the overarching principles to apply:

Personal Purity. We are to keep our lives free from contamination by that which is worldly or sinful.  Scripture clearly defines specific sins for which there should be no question–lying, stealing, adultery, and so on.  However, some attitudes, behaviors, and acts may not be classified as sin, but they pose a threat to a believer and may, in fact, provide an occasion for sinning.  Such gray areas need to be addressed by each believer through careful application of Biblical standards, the counsel of other believers, and an alignment with the priorities of godly living.

Public Testimony. We are to present to the world a model of Christlikeness that will demonstrate the value of forsaking sin and accepting the cross of Christ.  Trying to hold to elements of worldliness (possible remnants of our lives before accepting Christ) may only impair our effectiveness as witnesses to the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.  Truly “old things have passed away; . . . all things have become new,” but when we cling to our former things, we are suggesting that life in Christ is insufficient to satisfy the desires of the heart.  Nothing this world has to offer is worth retaining at the cost of losing our testimony before a dying world.

Protection of the Weak. Our example always influences someone.  Scripture teaches us to “abstain from every form of evil” because people make judgments based on what they observe, not on what they know.  For example, a parent may be able to walk close to the edge of a precipice without danger.  His or her child then assumes by observation that there is no danger and, therefore, ventures beyond without fear.

Similarly, our safe participation in a gray area may lead others to accept the gray area as safe, and then they may venture beyond.

Hovering close to the forbidden border may be safe, but it puts one too near danger.  When we are indiscriminately involved in the gray areas, not only may we be in danger of falling, we may be in a position of pushing another over the edge by our laxity.

These principles should be applied to all areas of our lives.  Unfortunately, we tend to accept our “liberty in Christ” as a license to do whatever we want, without reference to how it might affect those around us.  This is selfishness and does not represent the selfless love that Christians are to display.  Jesus could have done whatever He wanted to do, but He was restrained from doing so by His selfless love and commitment to the will of the Father.

Dancing is at best a gray area.  Like other practices, it is not directly forbidden in Scripture.  What references there are to it are couched in a culture that no longer exists and that does not parallel our situation.  That the Bible refers to dancing should not cause us to assume that it gives approval of dancing today.

Since the church must maintain a standard that provides for the spiritual health and security of all believers, young and old, immature and mature, it is inappropriate for us to adopt a policy to allow dancing at church functions or church-sponsored events.  To use dancing as a witnessing tool or drawing unbelievers to church contradicts the basis of the gospel message, which declares a distinction between the things of the Lord and the things of the world.  While privately people such as married couples may be able to dance without jeopardizing that distinction, as a church body it would be virtually impossible.

Notes
1 The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988).
2 R. Laird Harris, ed., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 270.
3 choros – “probably related to chortos (Latin: hortus), chronos, etc., denoting primarily ‘an enclosure for dancing’”: (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, electronic database, Biblesoft, 2000).
4 H.M. Wolf, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, 1975), 12.
5 “Men and women never danced together.  Even on those occasions where both sexes participated in the sacred professional dances, they always danced separately (Psalm 68:25; Jeremiah 31:13).  Dancing for sensual entertainment was unheard of among the Hebrews” (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986]).
6 “The Jewish dance was performed by the sexes separately.  There is no evidence from sacred history that the diversion was promiscuously enjoyed, except perhaps when the deified calf had be erected in imitation of the Egyptian festival of Apis, and all classes of Hebrews intermingled in the frantic revelry.  In the sacred dances, although both sexes seem to have frequently borne a part in the procession or chorus, they remained in distinct and separate companies (Psalm 68:25; Jeremiah 31:13)”  (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Chicago: Moody Pres, 1988]).
7 “The performers were usually females, who, in cases of public rejoicing, volunteered their services (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 18:6), and who, in the case of religious observances, composed the regular chorus of the temple (Psalm 149:3; 150:4), although there are not wanting instances of men also joining the dance on these seasons of religious festivity” (McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, electronic database, Biblesoft, 2000).  See also: “It was usually the part of the women only (Exodus 15:20; Judges 11:34; comp. 5:1).”  (Easton’s Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database, Biblesoft, 2003).
8 “Dancing by men and women together was unknown; as indeed the oriental seclusion of women from men would alone have sufficed to make it seem indecorous” (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, electronic database, Biblesoft, 1998).
9 “Of the social dancing of couple sin the modern fashion there is no trace” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, electronic database, Biblesoft, 1996).
10 “the dances probably consisted only of circular movements with artless rhythmical steps and lively gesticulations and were accompanied by women beating tambourines” (The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary [Chicago: Moody Press, 1988]).
11 “Dancing by men and women together was unknown; as indeed the oriental seclusion of women from men would alone have sufficed to make it seem indecorous” (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, electronic database, Biblesoft, 1998).
12 Perry Wayland Sinks, Popular Amusements and the Christian Life (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1896) 42.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Music and Worship

Written by Admin

Music and Worship

by Admin

By Don Shrader

Regarding music and worship in the church today, there is much controversy surrounding  “contemporary” versus “traditional” music in our services.  Some want to know what is meant by the use of the word “contemporary.”  Does it mean the use of rock music or is it simply the use of praise choruses or is it something else?  Is it really important?  There is a great gulf developing in our churches over this issue.  Much of the issue is caused by the perception, if not the reality, that those who hold to one position on this subject are trying to force the church to accommodate that side’s individual tastes in music in deference to the personal likes of the other.  However, no matter the agreements or disagreements between the two sides, this issue is much more complex than what you, I or others merely like or dislike.

ENTERTAINMENT vs WORSHIP

I grew up in church listening to the latest gospel quartets and singing what are now called praise choruses.  Not all of it was good, and looking back on it within the realm of my current position regarding church worship, I would not necessarily support all of it in the church worship services even though I enjoyed it thoroughly.  But, no matter what it was or how it was performed, it was distinctly Christian.  Admittedly, there were times that it was done to attract the outside world to church and thus too often it began to reflect the world rather than the uniqueness of the gospel.

Within Christendom, there have always been those songs and other entertainment features that were just that – entertainment.  It is my contention that there is a gulf between entertainment and worship.  Coming out of my generation with the all-night gospel sings, etc., we have wrongfully (in my opinion) attempted to label everything gospel as worship.  We are afraid to differentiate between worship and Christian entertainment.  But I think there are both, and although they may sometimes come very close together and even overlap at times, I think they are different; there is a gulf between them that should not be bridged, and yet we should not label Christian entertainment as wrong except when it definitely violates Christian values and sensitivities.  And, we should not be afraid to call Christian entertainment what it is.  We should be able to enjoy it whether it is music, drama or whatever.  It may have a gospel message and it may not.  One of my favorite nights at Cedarville College the past couple of years was attending a concert given by two professors in the music department.  It was during Parents’ Weekend.  It was a great time, it was extremely entertaining and it was totally clean and just plain fun. And they did not play one gospel song!  It was intended as pure good clean entertainment.  To me, much of what is considered Christian music has no more spiritual content than what I heard at Cedarville.  It doesn’t make it bad, it just is not worship nor, in my opinion, is it worthy of worship.

At the same time, not every old hymn in the book is good and worthy of being included in our worship.  I do not equate old with good.  There have been some excellent songs/hymns written in the last decade that are worthy of being part of the worship process.  And there are a number of songs in our old hymnbooks, some of which we sing, that are not worshipful, are not good and are not particularly useful in my opinion.  If it were up to me, I would not include those hymns in our worship service either.  The real issue is not what we like or dislike but “what is the purpose of music in the worship service?”  If we can truly answer that, I think we can resolve many of the disagreements within the church regarding the proper use of music in worship whether contemporary or traditional.

THE PURPOSE OF MUSIC IN WORSHIP

It is my opinion that we sing many of the songs that we do because it makes us feel good.  This is not the purpose of worship.  To me, worship should be instructional, it should strengthen us in our daily walk with the Lord by reminding us of the God we serve, and it should be instrumental (not in the musical sense) in bringing the entire congregation together in praise of our wonderful Lord, the Almighty God.  It is NOT about me!!  It is about Him!  And any hymn or praise song which does not accomplish the goals set forth above in either word or style should not be included in the worship process.

Leonard Payton, a professional musician and worship leader writes the following in his chapter “How shall we sing to God?” for the book The Coming Evangelical Crisis.

We are, more times than not, a people defined by our music.  We fight over it in the church.  We change congregations because of worship music style, with little concern for the theology of the new or the old congregation.

(Many ministers of music today) sense that we are in a runaway train headed straight for a broken bridge.  My prayer is for a deep reformation in church music – that all alike will be led to insist, within their own spheres of influence, that comprehensive biblical principles be brought to bear on every detail of worship music.

Indeed the real crisis is this:  Ecclesiastical authorities, while recognizing that music is important to congregational life, usually fail to see that its biblical role puts it squarely within the ministry of the Word as a partner to preaching. For, as the apostle Paul told us, the word of Christ dwells richly within us with all wisdom when we teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and sing with gratitude in our hearts to God with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Col. 3:16).

Our congregations are concerned that we make them feel a certain way when they come to church.  In the rampant uncertainty of the postmodern world, parishioners understandably want stability in church life (even though they claim to want diversity).  If we church musicians paused for a moment and realized how much music belonged within the ministry of the Word, we might alter our practices in a way that would disrupt the general bonhomie [good nature or amiability].

Ours will be a difficult task because music literacy in our surrounding culture is at an all-time low, even though we hear more music in our day-to-day existence than in any culture preceding ours.  This task requires, clearly, that we understand both the Bible and music.  If we are to recover the authority of Scripture in our worship, then we must likewise recover it in our music, which is an important element of true God-centered worship conforming to the principle of sola Scriptura.

I truly wish we understood our church doctrines better and were more careful in what we choose to sing, whether old or new, to ensure that they are in-line with our church doctrines, beliefs and teachings.  The songs we sing and listen to should reflect these teachings to us, to the lost and particularly to our children.  God instructs the Israelites to “be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, ‘Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.’”  (Deuteronomy 4:9-10).  I think this is what we are to do for our children through our corporate worship, and in particular, our singing of hymns, whether old or new.  The Bible is replete with examples of the children of Israel employing songs to carry out the commands of God as given here in Deuteronomy and elsewhere.  Think about it.  Sometimes there is no better way for children and others to learn than through instructional songs.  Reflect on how you or your children learned their ABC’s, through the song, “A, B, C, D, E, F, G….” I am certain you can think of many other such examples.  Thus, it is important that our singing, whether through traditional hymns or praise choruses, teach doctrine to those around us including and especially our children.

Ephesians 4:11-13 tells us that “He gave some… to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ [the church] may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and  become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”  This needs to be our primary focus in all that we do in the church.

Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow conducted a study in which he employed a team of trained interviewers to seek out Americans who would “give a full account of the nature and attributes of God, as well as a doctrine of creation, the origins of evil, the possibilities of redemption, and reasons people should believe in certain tenets about immortality and eschatology.”  “We found no living examples of such people,” writes Wuthnow, despite the fact that their interviews included clergy, PK’s (Preachers’ Kids), and others trained in religion.  (They did not ask me, or others that I know who I believe could have satisfactorily answered these questions – depending upon how they were phrased.  But that does not take away from the impact of these results.  I know many including clergy and the like who could not properly respond to or defend their position on these topics.)

What Wuthnow’s team did find was that “many Americans are focusing on spiritual practice while ignoring traditional doctrine.”  This is what others have called “worshipping form over substance” or in other words, “worshipping worship.” (See “Worshiping Worship” by my brother, Pastor Rick Shrader.) It is my judgment that much of contemporary music fails to accomplish the goals for which music in worship exists.  It may make us feel good because we like the beat or whatever, but that does not make it appropriate for worship.  Our churches are suffering spiritually because of this and our children are being robbed of a precious heritage.

RICK WARREN – THE OPPOSITE VIEW OF MUSIC AND WORSHIP

Rick Warren, taking the other side in his book The Purpose Driven Church, expands and expounds upon his contention that “music is neutral, only the words make the difference.”  In the book he says, “I reject the idea music styles can be judged as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ music.  Who decides this?  The kind of music you like is determined by your background and culture.”  He goes on to say, “churches also need to admit that no particular style of music is ‘sacred.’  What makes a song sacred is its message.  Music is nothing more than an arrangement of notes and rhythms; it’s the words that make a song spiritual.  There is no such thing as ‘Christian music,’ only Christian lyrics.  If I were to play a tune for you without words, you wouldn’t know if it was a Christian song or not.” (Not universally true in my opinion.  If the word “sacred” intimates “set apart for God” then I submit to you that music that reflects or emulates the world or the culture is not sacred.  My niece, a college graduate with a major in piano, pointed out with respect to Warren’s comments here that  “No musician I know, Christian or secular (unless they have an agenda), would limit music to just the elements.  That is a reductionism type of argument, like saying language can be reduced to letters, numbers, and spaces.…”)  Then comes the clincher, the threat if you dare disagree with Warren, “To insist that one particular style of music is sacred is idolatry.”  (“Straw men” make such good fire starters!)  Warren says about his church services, “We’d alternate between traditional hymns, praise choruses, and contemporary Christian songs.  We used classical, country, jazz, rock, raggae, easy listening, and even rap.”  (I leave it to you to match which style of music fit into which classifications of traditional hymns, praise choruses, and contemporary.)

Regarding the above statements, I have trouble reconciling Warren’s position with the likes of James 4:4-5 wherein the Holy Spirit states through the half-brother of Jesus, “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?  Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.  Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?”  Does this sound like a God who is unconcerned with how we come to him in worship (i.e. the methodology we use), whether it is regarding our music or other aspects of the service?

Prior to the statements contained in the above paragraph, Warren states, “Music is a divisive issue.”  Strange, that something that is neutral is divisive, is it not?  He goes on to state, “The style of music you choose to use in your services will be one of the most critical (and controversial) decisions you make in the life of your church.”  (Again, strange words concerning something that is defended by him as absolutely neutral.)  He goes on, “It may also be the most influential factor in determining who your church reaches for Christ and whether or not your church grows.  You must match your music to the kind of people God wants your church to reach.”  (I presume this is the essence of the current “Refocusing” effort being carried out by many churches around the country today, determining the “kind of people of God wants for our church” so they can “match our music” to them.  What utter foolishness!!  We need to establish a worship service that honors God in accordance with His word and then invite all who will, to come and observe or be a part of that which God desires of His people.)

With respect to Warren’s statement, “There is no such thing as ‘Christian music,’ only Christian lyrics,” even that flies in the face of today’s postmodern generation.  A rock musician was recently interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on his TV show.  O’Reilly questioned the use of extremely coarse language in the lyrics of the rock star’s songs and the effects such “poisoning” might have on teenagers’ minds.  The rock musician’s response was, “What are you so upset about? They are just words.”  I.e., words have no intrinsic value in and of themselves.  They are morally neutral.  Only actions have meaning.  Which is exactly what said rock star indicated by noting how he and the band supported various “worthwhile” social causes and agencies.

While we may think this attitude is irrelevant to our church today, I submit to you that there is an element of reality in our worship music.  We normally include some of the great hymns of the faith in our worship services.  Many have both wonderful Godly words and music.  Too often our singing is lifeless and dead.  But as soon as the drumbeat from the Praise Choruses start up, the congregation comes to life clapping and swaying, even though the words of the associated praise chorus may be simplistic and repetitive.  Thus, it is not the words that make the message, it is the feeling from the style of music that is the message. This is further reflected by comments such as, “The praise choruses are just so much more worshipful to me than those stodgy old hymns.”

Warren continues, “The music you use ‘positions’ your church in your community.  It defines who you are.  Once you have decided on the style you’re going to use in worship, you have set the direction of your church in far more ways than you realize.  It will determine the kind of people you attract, the kind of people you keep, and the kind of people you lose.” Reference: Warren, The Purpose Driven Church Pages 280-281

I wholeheartedly agree with this last assessment by Warren.  At the same time, I once again find this strange for something that is supposedly neutral or amoral.  In my estimation, I think that because of this, it becomes highly incumbent upon us to be very cautious and determined as to the music we incorporate into our worship service.  It is not that we do not want all to come to the knowledge of Christ.  “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”  I Timothy 2:3-4.  We do want them to be saved but according to knowledge, not feelings. (Feelings are fleeting, thus spirituality based upon feelings will only keep one focused on God as long as he or she feels worshipful.  The apostle John states in I John 5:13, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life,” not “so that you may feel that you have eternal life.”  Feelings are never elevated in scripture while knowledge is constantly exalted.  As a matter of fact, the word “feelings” is never mentioned in scripture while “feeling” is only mentioned twice, or three times at best – depending upon the version you are using, and then only in a negative context.  “Know” or “knowledge” is mentioned over 1,000 times in scripture, normally in a positive vein.)

CULTURE AND BIBLICAL SEPARATION

Paul says of the Jews, “For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.”  Romans 10:2-4   What I want of our services is for them to reflect I Corinthians 14:24-25 wherein Paul says, “But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, ‘God really is among you!’”  How can we prophesy as a group any better than in corporate spiritual songs and hymns that reflect the truths of God’s word, or the corporate reading of scripture, thus edifying and admonishing all, both the believer and the unbeliever.  Our goal in preaching and singing needs to be to “seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.”  I Corinthians 14:12b.  What I do not find in scripture is the need to accommodate the culture (“culture” being a more amenably acceptable substitute word for what scripture calls “the world”), that we must “tickle their itching ears.”  II Timothy 4:1-4.  We are specifically instructed by God’s word that while we are in the world (the culture), we are to be separate from the world as indicated by verses such as John 17:15-16, I Corinthians 2:12-16, Ephesians 5:6-13, Colossians 2:8, James 1:27 & 4:4, I John 2:15 & 4:5.  This is the essence of biblical separation as held and practiced by Baptists, and other evangelical and fundamental churches throughout the generations.  See II Corinthians 6:14-17.  (Of course, those of us who hold to Biblical separation are labeled by the progressive church growth movement as “isolationists,” otherwise termed “a holy huddle.”  Reference Romans 11:16 & 12:1-2, Ephesians 1:4 & 2:21, II Timothy 1:9, Hebrews 3:1, plus I Peter 1:15-16 & 2:5 & 9 [a holy huddle for sure]).

THE INFLUENCE OF RICK WARREN’S VIEWPOINT

Many in the pulpit have claimed that they will never be a Rick Warren church.  Yet many of these same pastors consider Warren to be the most innovative pastor in our generation and maybe of all time.  Others are direct Warren advocates having gone through church growth and other training at Warren’s Saddleback Community Church.  So, in this and many other ways, the sphere of influence of a Rick Warren readily reaches down into even the small community church.  While we may not emulate them directly, the leaders of the church growth movements such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and John Maxwell, among others, have tremendously affected how we, as a church, even in small remote communities, view church worship.  They have their well-honed arguments as to how to embrace the culture and while we may think we are not buying into their philosophy of ministry, we are certainly influenced by them far beyond what we may think we are.

DEFINITION OF CONTEMPORARY MUSIC

This brings us to the issue of “contemporary music” and my definition of it.  “Contemporary” to me is that which reflects the world.  I realize that is my definition and others may define it differently as these are connotative definitions, not denotative.  But I think my definition is aligned with artists like Amy Grant, the Oak Ridge Boys, and others who began in gospel but wanted desperately to attain the riches available in non-gospel music.  Thus, artists of this ilk have been primarily responsible for the blending of so called gospel and non-gospel music into that which today is regarded as contemporary.  These groups then spawned a whole new generation of trans-generational musicians such as Jars of Clay, Stryper, etc. that further transformed the contemporary style into such music forms as Rock and Raggae.  Today we have an entire culture of CCM (such as Caedman’s Call and Audio Adrenaline) and Christian Rock (an oxymoron if you ask me) musicians who cause me to constantly change radio stations in my car – even listening to supposedly conservative “Christian” stations such as WCDR. While we may currently think or pledge that we will never have rock music in our church, I submit to you that may be true only for the moment.  When one’s primary church emphasis is evangelical rather than doxological, one’s mind can be changed to pursue the pragmatic approach to church growth, whether employing rock music in the worship service or taking the name “Baptist” off the church sign.  (This is happening all over the country as churches, particularly Baptist churches, remove any denominational affiliation from their church names in order to achieve their “renewed vision” of reaching the community for Christ.  A 1999 article in Christianity Today noted that “Community” is now the most common church denominator.  Thus, it is my opinion that our attitude towards music style is only the first step in redefining, refocusing, or “visioning” who we are as a church in order to accommodate the culture as opposed to retaining a historical biblical perspective of confronting the culture.)

But back to the definition of “contemporary.”  The real issue in this case is not what I mean by “contemporary,” but what others intend by it.  Key to this discussion is what is meant by a “blended” worship service, conventionally described as a mixture of “traditional and contemporary music.”  What one congregation may mean by blended and what others confer or infer, may be two widely differing perspectives.  What the majority of members at one church may mean by “blended” is a balanced mix of traditional hymns and praise choruses without inferring particular instrument types or style.  Others, however, insist that such a simple mixture is not the essence of a blended service and that such a congregation is ignorant of the meaning of “blended” and “contemporary.”  “They” further insist that contemporary means the use of drums, percussions, acoustic or electric guitars, and the like playing in an upbeat mode.  They point out that while a congregation may claim to have a blended service by the simple intermixing of traditional hymns and praise choruses, that is not the case by the world’s or religious mainstream’s understanding of such. Thus, as to the question of “what do I mean by ‘contemporary,’” I submit that it is not what I imply by it but what the culture intends by such terminology.  And yet, who are “they” to determine for us, as an independent Baptist or other independent church, what we must do to conform to a blended service?  Yet, that is exactly what is happening.

Also, with respect to praise choruses and traditional hymns, why is it that in a blended service, we have a portion of time devoted to traditional hymns and then a portion for praise choruses?  If they are truly a part of our worship of Almighty God, then why must they be separated or why must the services themselves be separated into contemporary and traditional as is happening all over the country?  Why should they not be integrated into an overall consistent message for a particular service that accomplishes the tenets of music in worship as given previously?

In his chapter “How shall we sing to God,” referenced earlier, Leonard Payton goes on to state the following concerning contemporary music:

It is important to recognize that high culture [akin to the traditional] has its roots in aesthetics; folk culture [more in line with our praise choruses] has its roots in sociology.  Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges.  They are both good when done well, and the canons of what is “good” are quite different for the two types.  The Bible has a good deal more to say about folk culture than high culture, because folk culture is inextricably based in interpersonal relationships.  Indeed, the church is a folk culture that transcends national and ethnic boundaries through a divinely inspired printed word.

There is yet a third type of culture or style presupposition that borrows liberally from folk and high culture.  It is an impostor and a parasite because it is based in deceit.  This third type of culture, or art, is made by people who tend not to know one another for people they do not know at all and will probably never meet. This is made possible by magnetic recording and by broadcasting.  Before the twentieth century, the effects of these technologies and the kind of culture they would create were unimaginable.

This third type of culture is not fundamentally concerned with beauty of form, as in high art, or in wholesomeness of community, as in folk art.  It is concerned primarily with dollars and cents; therefore, it is not surprising to discover that several Christian music companies are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The artists are not primarily held accountable to God for a transcendent standard of beauty, nor to a local community with ethical responsibility.  Rather, the artists answer most directly to the shareholders.  As the technology driving commercial music emerged, church leaders and seminary professors failed to realize how integral music was to the ministry of the Word.  They left a gaping hole that business interests were all too ready to fill.  In other words, music technology created a new entertainment market niche while ecclesiastical authorities stood by flat-footed.

COMMON OBJECTIONS

The first objection runs something like this:  “But aren’t all the people who work in these Christian music companies believers, and don’t they want to serve the Lord with their music?”  Yes, their intentions may be good.  The problem is not with their intentions but with their lines of accountability.   There is no potential for church discipline when (if) these people spread marginal or outright false teaching.  Whenever anyone teaches in the church, as Christian musicians certainly do, they display a low view of human depravity when their teaching ministry is accountable to shareholders rather to ecclesiastical authorities.

The second objection might run like this:  “Isn’t popular music just today’s folk music?”  This is, in reality, a good objection, since pop music forms often closely resemble folk music forms.  If, however, we bear in mind that form and beauty are not the chief ends of folk music, the difference between folk and pop music will be clearer.  Our God is at least as concerned with why we do something as with what we do, for out of the heart “are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23 KJV).  It is a noble desire to “become all things to all men, that [we] may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).  But I would caution that to “become all things” does not mean to embrace the world’s culture uncritically.  Remember, folk culture is primarily communal.  Pop culture is primarily profit driven.  Contemporary Christian music is a half-billion-dollar-a-year industry.

While Payton gives the commercial contemporary musicians rather high marks for “wanting to serve the Lord with their music,” I do not believe this is always the case.  My brother, a Baptist pastor, recalls visiting a “Christian” recording studio while serving as a Youth Pastor for a large Baptist church.  While the primary artists for the recordings were the church quartet, the background musicians were imported from the local music conservatory.  They were basically scruffy looking musicians who played the music very well but were not Christians nor were they pretending to be.  Listening to radio interviews with members of CCM groups such as Caedman’s Call and Audio Adrenaline highlights even further their lack of any true Christian testimony in deference to Payton’s remarks.

Often churches indiscriminately employ audiotapes, videotapes and/or CD’s as accompaniment in their worship services, particularly for the “contemporary” portion of the service.  When we bring these musicians – instrumentalists and vocalists – into our worship service to lead our praise choruses via a tape or CD, we usually have no indication concerning the musicians’ testimony.  If a church is going to use these in their services, then I have to ask, why not just be honest and forthright and bring in a local live “Christian” band if testimony is not an issue?  They are available locally in almost any and every locale.  Many churches, of course, have already done so.  Eventually, that is likely where they will end up anyway.  If people truly want percussion, guitars, etc. for the “praise and worship” part of the church service, then it will not be long before those desiring that type of service will be dissatisfied with the tapes and CD’s and will insist that in order to reach out to their local community with the gospel, they must have a more attractive service.  And tapes and/or CD’s detract so much from the praise and worship service that what they will really need in order to effectively evangelize their community is a live band.  The church will then not have an argument against it.  After all, what is the difference between the percussion and guitars on the tapes and CD’s and a live band, except that the band is better.  So, let’s save all that lost time and get the band on stage now!  After all, as quoted once before, Rick Warren tells you, “”The music you use ‘positions’ your church in your community.  It defines who you are.  Once you have decided on the style you’re going to use in worship, you have set the direction of your church in far more ways than you realize.  It will determine the kind of people you attract, the kind of people you keep, and the kind of people you lose.”  Thus, a live band will enhance a church’s effectiveness in reaching that portion of the community drawn by the type and style of music being played.

(And if testimony is not an issue, then would it not be better to obtain CD’s of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or the London Symphony Orchestra to lead the traditional hymns portion of the service.  After all, think of how that sound could reverberate through a really good sound system in the church auditorium! Of course, I am being facetious at this point but the principle is valid.)

DRUMS IN THE WORSHIP SERVICE

Am I against instruments in the church other than piano and organ?  Absolutely not!  Not as long as they truly help the congregation – those worshippers who are come together – to better fulfill the tenets of music in worship set forth above.  But am I against drums, percussion and guitars being played in a truly contemporary/worldly (world pleasing) style? Absolutely!  Are drums and a drumbeat neutral or amoral?  For the answer to that, I would first like for you to talk to my friend from high school who played drums in the school band and then in a rock band for several years after high school – before he became a Christian.  He will tell you unequivocally how drums are intended to elicit certain responses from the audience and he can tell you just how it is done because that was his job when he played in those bands.  (My wife has pointed out, with respect to drums, that they are not mentioned anywhere in scripture which is interesting in light of the fact that certainly there must have been drums available early in history as it is the simplest of all instruments to construct – in at least a crude form. I did do a small amount of research on the subject to verify her proposition.  In reality, there is a form of drum mentioned in scripture which is the timbrel or tambourine.  However, as the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia notes concerning this subject:

In the Old Testament the drum is used on festive occasions; it is not mentioned in connection with Divine service. It was generally played by women, and marked the time at dances or processions  (Exodus 15:20 for instance).

SO, WHAT IS MY POSITION ON MUSIC AND WORSHIP?

I am not against new music or praise choruses.  I was raised on both.  Not all was good, but a lot was.  Yet many of the excellent praise choruses with which my wife and I grew up, our grandchildren and their friends have never heard much less know. However, while I may not be against choruses, etc., I am avidly against stupidity and things being done poorly, particularly when it comes to the church.  I often truly wish I could be like so many and not care as long as I am cozy and comfortable (I call it being a “bobblehead”), but, alas, I cannot.

A number of people have asked me what I want to see with respect to music in our worship services.  If it were up to me, I would change the way we approach even the traditional hymns so that they truly accomplish the purposes listed herein.  We need to better understand what we are singing and why.  Our kids need to hear and understand this.  They need to learn those solid choruses of the past as well as the new hymns and choruses.  As to the choruses, I would do away with tapes and CD’s and return to singing these to God within our own native capabilities, using our own accompaniment and probably often singing acappella.  I would have the choir practice all of the songs to be employed in each worship service to the point that they knew them in four-part harmony when appropriate and truly be able to lead the congregation in these songs.  I would also opt for good songbooks.  There are some marvelous ones on the market.  There are hymnals out now with a blend of wonderful traditional hymns that many people in our local churches have never sung or heard because they are not in their old, antiquated, outdated hymnals nor are they part of the choruses shown on the overhead screen.  Some of the newer hymnals have a tremendous blend of traditional and contemporary hymns and choruses.  But they have something more, that the screen in the corner does not have – musical notes by which those who have the capability can read the notes and sing in that wonderful style created in us by God – vocal harmony!  (It is a shame that our grandkids and particularly our great grandchildren may never know the joy of singing something other than melody while accompanied by those instrumentalists who are able to read notes.)  I think it is a shame that as part of the overall “dumbing” down of our culture, that it not only includes substituting reading about the Bible for reading of the Bible but also insists on mindlessly singing to words on a screen as opposed to making music to our Lord.  (Yes, I have heard all the arguments about how much more worshipful it is to look up to God – looking up to the screen – as opposed to looking down into a book.  Well, many of us have been trained to read music from a book and think about what is being sung while letting our minds reach up to Almighty God.  So can others likewise be trained.)

To quote once again from Leonard Payton:

Prudential wisdom would encourage us to consider not buying and using commercial Christian music. On the face of it, this measure might seem Draconian, in part because it will force us to home-grow our own contemporary worship music, and the bald fact remains that music literacy has dropped to such a dismal level that skilled composers are not frequently found in local congregations.  The local church will have to review its vision in light of this failing and take steps to remedy it.  As worship music begins to flex its biblical muscles, we will quickly find that our general music literacy is woefully inadequate to the task.  This will take a generation or two, thousands of hours of careful music study, and many dollars to remedy.  The church has left the job of music education to the public school and to the whim of individuals.  But public schools do not train very good worship musicians.

One thing that new/young believers want, particularly in today’s postmodern world, is “proof texts” to prove one’s point.  And that particularly pertains to music in the church. The position of many, including those like Rick Warren unfortunately, is that if you cannot show me chapter and verse as to why one should not do something, then I have no right to oppose it.  Well, there are many things in life for which if we had chapter and verse for every aspect, we wouldn’t be able to transport the book or books.  Just look at the law books for our current state or federal laws.  Try to transport the volume upon volume of law books for just one state and often just for one discipline of law within that state.  It is my belief that God gave us elders that were to be wise (and I admit that sadly many have abrogated their position of responsibility to others, particularly to the younger, and this is wrong) and that the wisdom of the elders is to be employed when we do not have chapter and verse.  And I can provide chapter and verse that tells the younger to respect the elders in the church!

As to the traditional hymns in church being boring at times, I totally agree.  That is because we are just going through the motions and singing songs that have, or seemingly have, no purpose.  That is boring no matter the style.  That is one reason why I advocate having hymnals with the really great hymns to which too many congregations have never been exposed.  In addition to good hymnals, we need to instruct the young believers as to the history of many of the hymns and help them understand their greatness in relating the truths of God’s word.  Without that understanding, many of the hymns are just so many antiquated words.  At the same time, the younger believers need to understand the importance of the heritage being passed along in the traditional hymns and revere them in much the same manner as God repeatedly instructs the Jews to remind the nation of Israel, and particularly the children, of how he rescued the Israelites from Egypt.  That repeats itself in scripture many times through the centuries right into the New Testament.  Those of us who are more mature need to do a better job of communicating these values to younger believers. Further, it is the duty of us all to respect and learn from the battles our forefathers fought with Satan and the world and through it all persevered.  We need to do this through song and other forms of communication.

CONCLUSION

My dear old grandmother used to say concerning church music, “Music is the Devil’s workshop.”  She was not against music in church nor did she intend to mean that Christian music was evil.  Only that the Devil was able to use music to wreak havoc within the church.  My mother used to teach high school English, noting the attitude of high school students – beginning in the ‘60’s.  She proclaimed that as a teacher she could talk about and criticize any aspect of student behavior from the use of illegal drugs to engaging in illicit sex and no one would challenge her comments or attitude.  But the one thing that was “off limits” was their music.  Being critical of any aspect of the cultural music styles of the day was immediately met with stiff resistance.  This attitude has seemingly permeated the church today, particularly with respect to the progressive use of more culturally relevant music within today’s worship services.

Music is an important element of our worship services.  As worshippers come together before Holy God, it is essential that we come before Him in a manner that honors Him according to His holy word.  Thus, I close by emphasizing once again the tenets for the purpose of music in worship as identified herein with this one last quote from Leonard Payton:

We will need to review the way we spend our time in corporate worship. Each Sunday, we will need to ask, “Did the music ministry today cause the word of Christ to dwell in us richly?  Did we teach and admonish one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs?  Did we sing with gratitude in our hearts to God for Christ’s finished work on the cross?  My guess is that we will quickly find that we do not.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

Evangelizing the Postmodern Man

Written by Rick Shrader

Evangelizing the Postmodern Man

by Rick Shrader

This paper has been presented to pastors’ meetings (March, June 1999).  It has been published in The Baptist Preacher, September/October, 1999.

The battle for the soul of postmodern man is a dilemma: how do you bring the truth of the gospel to a man who does not believe in truth? Perhaps Blaise Pascal said it best centuries ago, “Truth today is so obscure and error so established, that unless we love truth, we will never know it.”1 Today, more than at any time, if the Christian does not have his “loins girt about with truth” (Ep 6:14), he will be fooled by the double-speak of a generation that uses truth (and the truth of the gospel) for its own convenience.

We are hearing quite a lot today about postmodernism and we are hearing postmodernism used as an excuse for a myriad of evangelistic methodologies. But as is usually the case, we will not know whether the present efforts are truly bearing fruit until enough time has gone by for it to be too late to change. The present danger is increased by the fact that postmodernism’s basic tenet is that all beliefs are equally valid and all are to be accepted or rejected in light of one’s own convenience. We cannot, as Carl Henry writes, “run the risk of forgetting that nothing that postmodernism affirms is to be taken as objective truth.”2

The Difficulty of the Biblical Perspective

We start at this point not to re-teach the doctrines of sin and salvation, but to highlight the root of the problem. If a person will not repent, that person will not get saved. Postmodern man’s credo is “to thine own self be true.” We must understand where it is we are taking him before we ask him to go along. “If our comprehension of this relatedness is not clear at its base, we cannot give basic solutions to effect a cure.”3

This is a broken world.

The Bible teaches that the present world situation is not the way God made it. Sin has entered and has disrupted nature, the make-up of human beings and the fellowship human beings have with their Creator. This was Francis Schaeffer’s starting point in dealing with what he called a “post-Christian” society in the sixties and seventies. He said in various books, “The Bible, however, also says that man is fallen; . . . Therefore, people are now abnormal.”4 “Of course we know, as we look across mankind and as we look in our own hearts, that man is not what he was originally made to be.”5 “Christ died for a man who had true moral guilt because he had made a real and true choice.”6

Sin, however, is not a concept that postmodern man is willing to accept. To him, if no standard of positive morality exists, neither does any standard of negative morality. Once morality (true right and wrong) is eliminated, it becomes impossible to violate the standard any longer. Lockerbie writes, “History shows that, without recognition of a universal moral Good, man readily assumes that what satisfies his lusts and indulges his pride may logically be called good.”7 He must be made to see, in reality, that to make such a statement is itself a moral proposition, and relies on some appeal to justice for its reliability.

Law is a God-given teacher of morality.

The apostle Paul argues, in Romans 1-3, that God has given not only the Mosaic Law to show the Jews their sin, but also the Moral Law to show the Gentiles their sin. Paul writes, For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another (Rom 2:14-15). Even Immanuel Kant’s own moral syllogism was: All people are conscious of an objective moral law; moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver; Therefore, there must be a supreme moral Lawgiver.8

In our Western, postmodern culture today, the Moral Law is much more useful than the Mosaic Law. Every day the postmodern man must make choices with moral implications. The very action of making a moral choice forces the individual to assume the presence of a higher Moral Law. Beckwith explains, “Certain moral rules are not conclusions we reach; they are premises we begin with. All moral reasoning must start with foundational concepts that can only be known by intuition, which is why one doesn’t carry the burden of proof in clear-case examples of moral truth.”9 As Schaeffer said, “Ideas are never neutral and abstract. Ideas have consequences in the way we live and act, both in our personal lives and in the culture as a whole.”10

The Law’s function is to condemn.

The curse of the Law, whether Mosaic or Moral, is that no one can keep it. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10). For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:10). For any person to be saved he must first come to the point of repentance; and for him to repent he must first be convinced by God’s Law that he is a sinner and in need of salvation.

C.S. Lewis, one of our century’s best apologists, wrote, “An accusation always implies a standard.”11 A sinner must stand accused by the Law, by a Moral Standard far above himself and to which he must answer. The challenge is to keep the Moral Law before the postmodern man, not as a psychological therapy, but as a necessary step to repentance. Paul told the Colossians that Christ had blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross (Col 2:14). Until a person sees that he is against God’s Moral law, and it is truly contrary to him, he is neither in a place of repentance nor near the foot of the cross.

The Deception of the Postmodern Perspective

If we ask the question whether it is possible to know all the facts of the gospel and still be lost; whether it is possible for a person to be in and around the Christian church and yet not be a part of it spiritually; whether apostasy from within the church might be a prominent deception at the end of the age; then the deceptive nature of postmodern faith is of great concern. Jude said, These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear (Jude 12). John said, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1 John 2:19). Notice how both men warn that there are such false believers already inside the church.

The purpose here is not merely to identify apostasy in our own age, but to do everything within our power to keep sinners from falling into its insidious trap. Beginning to understand the thinking of our own postmodern generation is the place we must start.

Modernism: tethered to morality though stretched to the limit

It has generally been agreed that postmodernism is in some sense a time designation. Thomas Oden put it, “If modernity is a period characterized by a worldview which is now concluding, then whatever it is that comes next in time can plausibly be called postmodernity.”12 The baby boomers came into this generation as modernists but they will go out as postmodernists. As modernists, they were tied to two hundred years of modern thinking, spanning the time from the Eighteenth Century Enlightenment to the Twentieth Century Sixties.

During this time (the modern era) science had “closed” the universe. No longer did man wish to think of avenues open to God and His revelation, whether through nature or Scripture. Man had become supreme and was answerable to no Higher Being than himself. He began by chance and would end by his own destruction or utopia. Whatever feelings of divinity he might experience were there purely by the same chance that caused him to be there. Those feelings were binding on him only if he chose to make them so. At least, this is what the culturally elite were now selling to the common man.

But even modern man was still tethered to older teachings of conscience and morality. Though he may have dismissed the idea of a transcendent deity who prescribed moral laws, modern man nonetheless lived by laws derived from his surroundings. This is called moral relativism because the morals are relative, or related to, the society from which they are derived.

Beckwith and Koukl give three varieties of moral relativism13: 1) “Society Does” relativism gets its moral code by whatever society happens to be doing. Cannibalism is moral in a society where cannibalism is common practice. The same is true of lying, stealing, adultery or murder. This is also called cultural or descriptive relativism. 2) “Society Says” relativism gets its moral code by making imperatives out of what society consciously determines should be right and wrong. What one society decides is not necessarily right for another. This is also called conventional or normative relativism. 3) “I Say” relativism, known also as individual relativism or ethical subjectivism, is morality that is good for no one but the individual. One man’s moral code has no bearing on another’s.

The modernist was not a theist, but neither was he necessarily amoral. His morality was more social or economic and depended on the collective will of the people to determine. One of the great voices of modernism, Will Durant wrote, “I survive morally because I retain the moral code that was taught me along with the religion, while I have discarded the religion, which was Roman Catholicism. You and I are living on a shadow . . . because we are operating on the Christian ethical code which was given us, unfused with the Christian faith . . . But what will happen to our children . . . ? We are not giving them an ethics warmed up with a religious faith. They are living on the shadow of a shadow.”14 The “children” are those who are post-modern!

Postmodernism: severed from morality altogether.

Ironically, though the postmodern child is more amoral than the modern father, the postmodern is more consistent with his world-view. The last two hundred years of British and American literature is a testimony to modern man’s struggle to find some consistency, to make any sense, of a moral universe without a God who gives the moral laws. Most modern writers, poets and artists ended their lives and careers in despair.

The search for consistency ended in the 1960s. All hope of finding some connection between God, morality and living our everyday lives was abandoned. Veith writes, “Faced with the inherent meaninglessness of life, modernists impose an order upon it, which they then treat as being objective and universally binding. Postmodernists, on the other hand, live with and affirm the chaos, considering any order to be only provisional and varying from person to person.”15 The postmodernist has opted for the “I Say” relativism.

For him, it is useless to strive to keep rules and “oughts” if there truly is no power “out there” that makes it incumbent. As a matter of fact, if there is no power “out there” then our existence is all by chance; we are just a random coincidence of atoms bumping into one another. A man is the same as a rock or tree. All are made from the same material and came about by the same coincidence. Is it not right to conclude, therefore, that nothing “of substance” exists? Our thoughts are a mirage created by the same atoms bumping around in our brain. They really aren’t there because nothing is there except random matter. Benjamin Woolley says, “Artificial reality is the authentic postmodern condition, and virtual reality its definitive technological expression. . . . The artificial is the authentic.”16

Ravi Zacharias recently wrote, “Herein lies the crucial death in our times. There is no transcendent context within which to discuss moral theory. Just as words in order to have meaning must point beyond themselves to a commonly understood real existence, so, also, must the reality point beyond itself to commonly accepted essence. Otherwise, reality has no moral quotient whatsoever and moral meaning dissolves into the subjective, rendering it beyond debate. Only the transcendent can unchangingly provide fixed moral worth.”17 In other words, if there is no God then there is no purpose for being alive; and if there is no real purpose in life, how can anything be right or wrong, i.e., moral?

Results from being severed from morality.

Though this section is rightly reserved for a different emphasis than the current article can explore, a few obvious examples are briefly given.

Power is the only imperative. As in the animal world or the world of flowers and weeds, the thing that is the strongest will win. If man is no different in his essential make-up, then he is also subjected to this point of view. When we have reduced our actions to non-personal atoms and chance, the fact that some atoms end up on top of others has nothing to do with morality. R. V. Young of North Carolina State University, calls this Nominalism and describes its consequences: “Nominalism, which begins as an epistemological idea, eventually breeds moral consequences: if universal terms are only subjective mental conventions, then universals such as the natural law cannot apply to all men, at all times, and in all places. The result is moral relativism, which means that those with sufficient power can alter the law to suit their convenience”18

Culture is the only religion. To the postmodern man, the self-expressions of humans are the only valid spiritual statements. Ravi Zacharias wrote of these, “Religion is the essence of culture while culture is the dress of religion.” Worship becomes a celebration of self-expression, whether it is the act of prayer, singing, Scripture reading or “accepting Jesus.”19 It is truly worshiping worship, or as Francis Schaeffer saw in the sixties: “The significant thing is that rationalistic, humanistic man began by saying that Christianity was not rational enough. Now he has come around in a wide circle and ended as a mystic—though a mystic of a special kind. He is a mystic with nobody there. The old mystics always said that there was somebody there, but the new mystic says that that does not matter, because faith is the important thing. It is faith in faith, whether expressed in secular or religious terms.”20

Lying is the only truth. Words have become someone else’s manipulation of events. The postmodern man dismisses history as a huge conspiracy of the powerful over the oppressed. Words are only sounds or scribbles on a page until the listener or reader attaches the meaning that is in his mind. Therefore, the only meaning which is valid is the one he puts on the words. Lying, then, is dismissed. The meaning one person put on those words, doesn’t have to be the meaning another person put on those same words. To say that my meaning is more valid than yours would be arrogant and hateful and that is worse than any supposed lying could ever be! Besides, with no moral right and wrong possible, lying is an impossibility, a “non-truth” at best.

This is not just a word game, like an exercise in spiritual Scrabble where the most adroit verbiage wins. Timothy Phillips & Dennis Okholm bring the situation into focus by writing, “What is at stake here in the debate over postmodernism’s vocabulary is ultimately our vision of the truth and moral order.”21

The Primacy of the Evangelistic Perspective

Schaeffer wrote, “The Christian must resist the spirit of the world in the form it takes in his own generation. If he does not do this he is not resisting the spirit of the world at all.”22 Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ.”23

Higher attempts to tether the world to morality.

Many Christian men are laboring to challenge the postmodern culture at the point of moral accountability, primarily on the university campuses. C.S. Lewis saw this age coming and wrote about it in books like The Abolition of Man, with his chapter titled “Men Without Chests.” Schaeffer challenged the sixties with concepts such as man falling “below the line of despair.” Recently, men such as Ravi Zacharias, Os Guinness, Neil Postman, Allan Bloom and Gene Edward Veith are working to reestablish a moral compass to our culture. Their sphere of influence and credibility reaches into areas where most of us cannot go and we ought to be thankful that they are there.

Their argument often follows what Schaeffer wrote in 1968, “The sobering fact is that the only way one can reject thinking in terms of an antithesis and the rational is on the basis of the rational and the antithesis. When a man says that thinking in terms of an antithesis is wrong, what he is really doing is using the concept of antithesis to deny antithesis.”24 J. P. Moreland wrote, “When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting. Such statements are necessarily false. The facts which falsify them are unavoidably given with the statement when it is uttered.”25 So when a postmodern says, “There is no such thing as absolute truth,” he is using an absolute truth-statement as his proof. When he says, “Morals cannot exist in our world,” he is claiming a moral imperative (“cannot”) to prove his point. So go many of the campus debates.

Practical attempts to preach the gospel with integrity.

Pastors and other Christian workers most often cross paths with postmodern thinking by seeing it in people who are not even aware they are thinking that way. The Christian may be criticized for being bigoted or biased because he claims that Christianity is the only way to heaven. An immoral person may lash back at his accusers as being worse in their judgmentalism than he is in his immorality. The Bible student whose deepest exegesis is “I just believe that . . . ,” may defend his method as being more open-minded and Spirit-filled because it is emotionally charged. In many ways we have become postmodern in our thinking as believers. Here are some suggestions to guard against this error.

We must not feed the selfish nature on the one hand, and then ask it to repent on the other. This is like pouring water on a weed everyday but all the while hoping it will wilt and die. The book of Acts is filled with confrontation over the gospel, not praise by sinners in need of repentance. This is because the Apostles were asking sinful people to recognize their sinful condition and renounce it, and the sinner never surrenders without a fight! In a postmodern culture, we cannot fall into the trap of thinking that because the sinner likes us, he is coming to repentance. If our attempt to make him like us dulls the rebuke of his conscience, he will gladly say whatever we want him to say, pray whatever we want him to pray, sing whatever we want him to sing.

Church historian, Bruce Shelley, writes of the Arian heresy and the reason for its popularity: “Arius’ views were all the more popular because he combined an eloquent preaching style with a flair for public relations. In the opening stages of the conflict, he put ideas into jingles, which, set to simple tunes like a radio commercial, were soon being sung by the dock-workers, the street-hawkers, and the school children of the city.”26 Sinners have always blindly accepted doctrine, even false doctrine, if it is presented in a non-threatening way.

We must guard against separating private and public morality. The believer of our age understands clearly how this moral error destroys people’s lives. But often the believer is guilty of this in ways that are obvious to unbelievers: in not keeping a promise; in breaking public laws such as speed limits; in losing control of temper, tongue and emotions; or immoral innuendoes in jokes or personal behavior. When we do these we are saying to the postmodern man that he is right! Morality can be manipulated which proves that morality is not absolute (which indicates there is no need to fear a Lawgiver).

Diogenes Allen wrote, “Arguments that seek to show the objective reality of good and evil are unavailing, because we are blind. We must act before the arguments, inferences, and distinctions that are used in ethical and political philosophy can be morally fruitful. We must make an examination of our actions at a fundamental level before the very categories of good and evil as dealing with realities, not human preferences, come into play.”27 Our private lives must be as indicting to the sinner as our public lives.

We must guard against separating our methods from our message. We have come to a point in church life where such a statement is immediately questioned rather than accepted. One would think it would be the other way around! If we can separate the two, however, accomplishing tasks in this world becomes much easier and less encumbered. But if we separate the two, are we not separating our public and private morality in preaching the gospel? Os Guinness wrote, “Truth, in fact, gives relevance to ‘relevance,’ just as ‘relevance’ becomes irrelevance if it is not related to truth. Without truth, relevance is meaningless and dangerous.”28 So methodology estranged from the message.

This does not mean that we cannot look for effective ways to convey the truth. John MacArthur wrote, “I do believe we can be innovative and creative in how we present the gospel, but we have to be careful to harmonize our methods with the profound spiritual truth we are trying to convey.”29 The problem usually comes when methodology is just a tool for personal successes and not for reaching the lost. If our method is selfish, carnal or encourages the fallen nature, then it cannot help our message any more than a questionable private life can help a public life.

The postmodern man loves to have dichotomy in these areas. A dichotomy bolsters his world view that nothing is “out there” that gives any imperative to our actions. We don’t have to transfer any thought from what we are doing to what we believe. For the believer, this dichotomy in life of public and private; of method and message; of thought and action is unacceptable. This is why the churches continue to employ the two strangest methodologies possible, baptism and communion, to a world which needs to transfer thought from the known to the unknown, from the method to the message.

We must insist that culture is not morally neutral. Culture is an outgrowth of belief, the actions of morally responsible people in society. Steven Connor of London University writes, “In popular culture as elsewhere, the postmodern condition is not a set of symptoms that are simply present in a body of sociological and textual evidence, but a complex effect of the relationship between social practice and the theory that organizes, interprets and legitimates its forms.”30 The postmodernist pays much more attention to cultural mores than the Christian—to the detriment of the gospel. The postmodernist believes strongly that culture is not neutral. The more chaotic the culture, the more it is in agreement with his view of the world and universe.

The pressure in this area is tremendous today! R.C. Sproul says, “Adjusting to the customs and worldview of one’s environment is one of the strongest pressures people experience. To be ‘out of it’ culturally is often considered the nadir of social achievement.”31 Ravi Zacharias, one of today’s leading apologists to university campuses says, “Culture has become like a dress code, varying with the time of the day and presence or absence of the elite. Such drastic variables have blurred the lines of demarcation within which we may navigate our lives.”32

The discussion of culture ought to delve into the field of imagination leading to the arts and sciences (yet space prohibits that discussion here). Art, literature, music, even architecture are all outgrowths of human nature. Culturally aware Christians have always been screaming to the churches not to capitulate in these areas. Schaeffer warned years ago, “As we shall see, whenever art or science has tried to be autonomous, a certain principle has always manifested itself–nature eats up grace, and thus art and science themselves soon began to be meaningless.”33 We have been often warned not to let culture become separated from the moral, or immoral, nature of human beings.

Conclusion

When two thieves hung on crosses beside the Son of God, the one who did not find salvation for his dying soul railed on him, saying, If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us. It was a selfish request that saw no need of humility and repentance. The other rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. The second man had come to realize that he stood justly condemned before the Moral Law of God, the Moral Law manifested in the Holy One who was being crucified beside him.

Our postmodern culture has lost the ability to humble itself before the Son of God. It is a sad thing! Schaeffer laments, “It is a horrible thing for a man like myself to look back and see my country and my culture go down the drain in my own lifetime. It is a horrible thing that sixty years ago you could move across this country and almost everyone, even non-Christians, would have known what the gospel was. A horrible thing that fifty to sixty years ago our culture was built on the Christian consensus, and now this is not longer the case.”34

We cannot be ostriches nor chameleons. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and pretend that postmodernism does not exist. But neither can we change with every whim of our culture and believe that we are reaching this generation. We must be brave enough to confront man’s depravity with the truth, accepting the expected resistance, and know we have done the will of God.

Notes:
1. Blaise Pascal, Pensees, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin Books, 1966), 739/864, p. 256.
2. Carl F.H. Henry, “Postmodernism: The New Spectre?” in The Challenge of Postmodernism, ed. David S. Dockery (Wheaton: A Bridgepoint Book, 1995) 44.
3. Francis Schaeffer, The Church At The End Of The Twentieth Century (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994) 12.
4. Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live? (Old Tappen: Revell, 1976) 87.
5. Francis Schaeffer, The Church At The End Of The Twentieth Century, 48.
6. Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1968) 25.
7. Bruce Lockerbie, The Cosmic Center (Portland: Multnomah, 1986) 52.
8. Robert Lightner, The God of the Bible and Other Gods (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) 44-45.
9. Francis Beckwith & Gregory Koukl, Relativism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) 59.
10. Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992) 30.
11. C.S. Lewis, Christian Reflections ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 65.
12. Thomas C. Oden, “The death of modernity and postmodern evangelical spirituality,” The Challenge of Postmodernism, 24.
13. Beckwith & Koukl, 36-39.
14. Quoted by Robert Lightner, 41.
15. Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern Times (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994) 42.
16. Quoted by Douglas Groothuis, The Soul In CyberSpace (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997) 27.
17. Ravi Zacharias, Just Thinking, Winter 1999, p. 3.
18. R.V. Young, “Juliet and Shakespear’s Other Nominalists”, The Intercollegiate Review, Fall, 1997, p. 28.
19. Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil (Dallas: Word, 1996) 82.
20. Francis Schaeffer, Escape From Reason (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1977) 56.
21. Timothy Phillips & Dennis Okholm, eds., Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1995) 34.
22. Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1968) 18.
23. Ibid.
24. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, 35.
25. J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) 92.
26. Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas: Word, 1995) 100.
27. Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World (Louisville: W/JKP, 1989) 105.
28. Os Guinness, Dining With The Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993) 63.
29. John MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993) 85.
30. Steven Connor, Postmodernist Culture (Oxford: Blackwell Pub., 1997) 205.
31. R.C. Sproul, Willing To Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997) 16.
32. Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil, 5.
33. Schaeffer, Escape From Reason, 23-24.
34. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 28.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More

The Church in Postmodern Times

Written by Rick Shrader

The Church in Postmodern Times

by Rick Shrader

This article appeared in the December, 1998 issue of The Baptist Bulletin.

Has there ever been a time like ours, when the believer at one moment can be so encouraged about the prospects for the gospel and in the next moment be so disappointed? We rejoice to see the modernism of yesterday losing ground in many ways, only to be shocked by what we see replacing it. We can readily identify with Dickens when he wrote, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Even if the flood of modernism is in fact waning, believers cannot afford to become unguarded about the present day. As James R. White has written, “Now a new tidal wave, called by the scholars postmodernity, is sweeping across Western thought, undermining the very idea of absolute truth. What should be the response of the Christian church in the face of these waves of philosophical attack?”1 This article is an attempt to answer that question.

In an interview, Dennis McCallum responded, “A simple definition of postmodernism is the belief that truth is not discovered, but created . . . . No one has more to lose from postmodernism epistemology than Christians.”2 By the very nature of postmodernism, Christian churches may be falling into this mode without even realizing it. If the modern era has indeed ended, as most think, then we are now postmoderns and the question only remains as to whether we will be postmodernists.

The History Of Postmodernism

As the name implies, postmodernism is something that comes after modernism. It is a recognition that modernism has run its course and that a change is taking place in the thinking and beliefs of our present generation. We can understand postmodernism by seeing it as the third of three time-frames.

The Pre-Modern Era

What most of us learned as “Western Civilization” is the study of the western world before and including the advent of modernism. If modernism began in the 16th century with the Enlightenment, brought on by the French Revolution, pre-modernism is that long period of history that led through the Dark Ages, the Reformation and up to the 1700’s. This pre-modern or “classical” era was a mixed bag of beliefs and cultures. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. includes the three elements of mythological paganism, classical rationalism and biblical theism.3

All three elements, though differing in obvious ways, shared certain assumptions that made this age unique. There was a definite belief in a God (or gods) which meant, even to the pagans, that there is a certain moral accountability to a Being beyond ourselves. This being true, there was a belief in good and evil as present realities which affect our lives. Mankind was made by a Creator (even if a mythological god) and was free to obey or disobey his Creator’s wishes.

The Modern Era

Thomas Oden says, “By postmodern, we mean the course of actual history following the death of modernity. By modernity we mean the period, the ideology, and the malaise of the time from 1789 to 1989, from the Bastille to the Berlin Wall.”4 Though not all students of postmodernism place its inception so neatly at 1789 nor its culmination at 1989, we can see by this two hundred year span, modernism’s recent rise and fall.

Space does not allow us to review the contributors to modernism such as English Deism, French Skepticism, German Rationalism and American Pragmatism. The coming of this modern era, however, effectively reversed most basic scientific and religious assumptions of the previous era. The world was now a closed system which could be satisfactorily explained by cause and effect; morality was utilitarian; nature is self-contained and man is the highest product of the survival system; and only the senses contain reality. “Logical positivism” had become the law of scientific investigation: If we cannot see God, he does not exist.

The Postmodern Era

Few would say that every effect of modernism is now over and that we aren’t affected by it any longer. But many are saying that today’s challenges signal a definite change from the type of thinking of the last two hundred years. Carl Henry wrote, “The intensity of ‘anti-modern sentiment’ is seen in the widening use of the term ‘postmodern’ to signal a sweeping move beyond all the intellectual past—ancient, medieval, or modern—into a supposedly new era.”5

Many see the second world war as an end of modernist optimism and the 1960s as a beginning of change. Wherever one places its beginning, as Oden says, “If modernity is a period characterized by a worldview which is now concluding, then whatever it is that comes next in time can plausibly be called postmodernity. We are pointing not to an ideological program, but rather to a simple succession—what comes next after modernity.”6

Perhaps this “postmodern” era is a hinge between modernism and another two hundred year phenomenon or perhaps it is the tip of its own future. But for those of us who are now in this era, the elimination of truth, the moral relativity, the meaninglessness of normal language, all present a formidable challenge to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Expressions Of Postmodernism

Once we realize that we are in this postmodern time, we will begin to see its expressions in every area of our culture. In 1984 Francis Schaeffer stated, “Finally, we must not forget that the world is on fire. We are not only losing the church, but our entire culture as well. We live in a post-Christian world which is under the judgment of God.”7 Ravi Zacharias, himself Indian born, observed, “What’s happening in the West with the emergence of postmodernism is only what has been in much of Asia for centuries but under different banners.”8 Though there are many expressions, these examples are readily seen.

Language

Language is a most important tool to the postmodernist. Reality resides on the surface of things, and language is a surface tool that “spins” the events in a way that will be best suited for the situation. To him, all meaning is socially constructed and can be used for his own purpose, or must be deconstructed to discover someone else’s purpose. Hidden in the text is the agenda of the author. Many oppressive agendas, it is believed, have been forced upon society throughout the modern and pre-modern ages. People today think and act the way they do because of this manipulation of the language by oppressors.

Carl Henry notes, “Not only is all meaning held to be subjectively bound up with the knower rather than with text, but words are declared to have still other words as their only referent. Texts are declared to be intrinsically incapable of conveying truth about some objective reality.”9 These “Metanarratives” are texts built upon texts. One historian is building his own version of the truth by building upon another historian’s version of the truth who built upon another’s. Language, therefore, becomes a tool for manipulation, not a basis for finding historical reality.

The number one tool for deconstructing established language or literature is the “hermeneutics of suspicion.” Rather than take language at face value, the reader or listener must suspect that the author has an ulterior motive. In the words of Roger Lundin, “Words are indeed in the saddle and ride mankind. You pick up the language of contemporary pragmatism, thinking of it as a net to cast across the waters for a great catch; you find, instead, that you get hopelessly entangled in its never-ending web of words.”10 This has a devastating effect upon a Word-based ministry. Today’s listener is preconditioned to suspect that any piece of ancient literature, such as the Bible, was written to give a few people authority and power.

Art and Architecture

In 1970, Francis Schaeffer wrote, “In art museums throughout the world, the viewers are at the mercy of the artists. People, even children, who go through the art galleries are being manipulated whether they know it or not.”11 The modern art of 1970 can’t compare to the postmodern art of the 90s. If Dante’s seventh circle of Hell is reserved for those who have sinned against art, surely the postmodern artist will find a place there.

Whereas pre-modern art was representational and modern art was abstract, postmodern art intends to “shock.” Rather than the picture or the artist being important, the audience becomes the important factor. Because the world is a “text” and we create our own reality, the only value of an artist’s work is the reaction created in the audience.

Veith says,

The implication is revealing—the standard of shock replaces the standard of beauty. Concepts such as beauty, order, and meaning are being challenged by the new aesthetic theories in favor of ugliness, randomness, and irrationality. The purpose is not to give the audience pleasure, but to assault them with a “decentering” experience. Art becomes defined as “whatever an artist does.” As a result, the work of art becomes less important than the artist, a view which encourages posturing, egotism, and self-indulgence instead of artistic excellence.12

Architecture always follows the artistic trend of the day. John Stackhouse writes, “Medieval cathedrals spoke eloquently of the devotion of princes, clergy and townspeople to God—and to civic and personal pride.”13 This was not only true of high church traditions but “even Baptists [constructed] church buildings that asserted the moral status of Christianity in an increasingly materialistic culture.”14 Postmodern architecture is, in a refreshing way, a return to a more natural look. It’s central characteristic is, however, that it surrounds the person with facades, things that are unreal rather than real. Theme parks, designer restaurants, super malls, and so on, place us in a fun but unreal setting.

Churches are having to ask themselves how far they can go to accommodate the postmodern thinkers. We cannot return to the older age of “nave” and “transept” where each worshiper was brought into the cross, but should we give up on all symbolism? As believers we know that the church is not the structure. But are we gaining or losing by giving up on good art and architecture? God commanded the tabernacle to be built for “glory” and “beauty” (Exodus 28:2). We ought to strive to have the best of both meaning that honors the truth of God, as well as form that lifts our thoughts to the Creator.

Technology

Technological wonders such as television, movie theaters, videos and computers have become realities and no state of existence typifies postmodernism better than “virtual reality.” It is a state of being informed but disconnected; of power without the difficulties of confronting others face to face. Leonard Payton wrote of technological wonders that they are “made by people who tend not to know one another for people they do not know at all and will probably never meet.”15 Indeed, to a postmodernist, “all reality is virtual reality.”16 Since our existence has no meaning and we are not connected to history or its values by any binding truths, no one can be quite certain where reality and non-reality start and stop. Francis Schaeffer wrote, “If one has no basis on which to judge, then reality falls apart, fantasy is indistinguishable from reality; there is no value for the human individual, and right and wrong have no meaning.”17 Technology can be a blessing or a curse. In this regard it is becoming a curse.

Neil Postman has called this technological control, “Technopoly–The submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology.”18 Groothuis, in the same vein as Postman, laments the takeover of our society by such a valueless medium, “When information is conveyed through cyberspace, the medium shapes the message, the messenger, and the receiver. It shapes the entire culture.”19 A key ingredient is not only the blurring of the fact with the fiction, but the participation by the user in this virtual world. Through a computer, one can actually participate (of course, only virtually) in sporting events, world-wide field trips, and even in virtual eroticism. Technology fits well in the postmodern world of surface realities.

The Apologetics For Postmodernism

The most important question for any Christian to face is how to reach his own generation. We understand that the only really important question is the eternal question and understanding our culture has always been a key to reaching the culture. Douglas Groothuis wrote, “Our souls reflect our worlds and our worlds reflect our souls. One who aspires to understand the nature of the soul ought, then, to be an auditor of culture.”20

Nothing is compromised by learning about the culture in which one lives, nor by trying to think like they think. We cannot retreat out of the world to win the world. But while learning about our culture, we must not adopt the philosophy and life-style that is contrary to God. Retreat is wrong and capitulation is wrong, but infiltration with confrontation must be accomplished.

There are four areas in which the Christian must keep the right balance in a postmodern age.

Truth and Reality

Never in the history of Christianity has truth been more under attack, not just the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions, but the very existence of truth as a possibility. Without the possibility of truth, the postmodern man sees no reality in history or science. Francis Schaeffer, some years ago wrote, “History as history has always presented problems, but as the concept of the possibility of true truth has been lost, the erosion of the line between history and the fantasy the writer wishes to use as history for his own purposes is more and more successful as a tool of manipulation.”21 Believers must not give in to this same manipulation. Ron Mayers points out, “The individual who says he is a Christian, but does not live like a Christian, actually gives the lie to his own testimony. Unfortunately, unbelievers interpret this contradiction as an indication of the absence of truth in the claims of Christianity.”22

In reaching the postmodernist whether by words and actions or by worship styles and homiletics, Christians must show the reality of God and His hand in this world by displaying an unswerving loyalty to truth. One recent article lamented, in the onslaught of attacks on truth, that “the church in North America is not answering postmodernists effectively, and we are losing ground so rapidly that many church leaders are ready to join the new postmodern consensus.”23 Such capitulation must never take place.

Worship and Immanence

To the postmodernist, worship is mere technological symbolism over substance. We have discovered that in his world the symbols are the substance. Groothuis writes, “The image is everything because the essence has become unknown and unknowable.”24 Because he sees reality and truth as being constructed at the moment, worship need not go beyond the worship act. This amounts to worshipping worship. The more “real” the worship service seems, the less a postmodern person needs or wants anything beyond that.

We must proclaim God as transcendent—but not too transcendent. His ways are not our ways and He is above the limitations of the world. But He is not so far away that we cannot know Him. And we must proclaim God as immanent—but not too immanent. He condescends to men of low estate. But He is not the world itself, nor the music, nor the emotion of a worship service. We are not converted by “getting in touch” with the immanent.

It would be abnormal if Christians did not want to reach the present generation in any way they could. But because we are also of this postmodern age, we must ask the sobering question: Are we changing our worship style because it is what will reach the lost? Or are we changing our worship style because it is what we like? The early church reached the lost by doing what God wanted them to do in order to worship Him.

Culture and Moral Law

We are coming dangerously close to believing that culture is morally neutral. Most definitions, however, will necessarily include some word like “expression” or “achievement” to describe the thing called culture. We ought to remember that the root of culture is “cult.” Culture is a society, or at least the norms of a society, that have been formulated by the members of that cult. That is why John Leo can decry the absence of truth by saying, “This casualness in popular culture is reinforced by trends in the intellectual world which hold that truth is socially constructed and doesn’t exist in the real world.”25

Sadly, it is the churches that have been slow to realize and admit that current culture cannot be adapted and used in any way it chooses. While church leaders have ignored the moral implications of popular culture, other Christian leaders have had to sound the warning. Ravi Zacharias writes, “History is replete with examples of unscrutinized cultural trends that were uncritically accepted yet brought about dramatic changes of national import . . . . Cultures have a purpose, and in the whirlwind of possibilities that confront society, reason dictates that we find justification for the way we think and why we think, beyond chance existence.”26

William Bennett, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities and Secretary of Education, as well as the author of many books dealing with culture, writes, “My worry is that people are not unsettled enough; I don’t think we are angry enough. We have become inured to the cultural rot that is settling in. Like Paulina, we are getting used to it, even though it is not a good thing to get used to.”27

Repentance and Faith

A.W. Tozer wrote, “To the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ we must learn the correct answer. To fail here is not to gamble with our souls; it is to guarantee eternal banishment from the face of God. Here we must be right or be finally lost.”28 This must be our bottom line with the postmodern man. Here we cannot be content to have learned what it takes to gather people together week after week, to have been culturally savvy enough to attract attention, or to have been well-liked and accepted by our generation. The postmodern man can follow every demand we make of him, even pray whatever we ask him to pray, and in his mind simply be adding Christianity to the file of other practical self-helps. If we are truly interested in being “culturally relevant” in the most important thing, we will study our generation to find out how we can bring them to repentance and faith. If all we are doing is winning their approval we have failed.

We must remember that the postmodernist questions whether history has actually taken place. As Craig says, “Indeed, it is not clear whether there really is such a thing as the past on a thoroughgoing post-modernist view.”29 Or as Benjamin Woolley writes, “Artificial reality is the authentic postmodern condition, and virtual reality its definitive technological expression . . . . The artificial is the authentic.”30 This is why we are evangelizing on thin ice when we turn our church services into technological playlands for the postmodern’s sake, and then ask him to respond to a real, historical message. It is existentialism, not Christianity, that talks much about faith but admits we cannot know the historical facts behind the faith.

While being postmoderns, we must not be postmodernists. Our stewardship is to preach the wonderful grace of God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. No generation has been promised that such a task would be easy or popular. But the call to ministry is a call to the proclamation of truth and to believe that the gospel God asks us to give is exactly what our generation needs.

Footnotes:
1. James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996), 9.
2. An Interview with Dennis McCallum by Focal Point Magazine, Spring, 1997, 5.
3. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Postmodern Times (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 29.
4. Thomas Oden, “The Death Of Modernity” The Challenge of Postmodernism (Wheaton: BridgePoint Books, 1995), 20.
5. Carl F.H. Henry, The Challenge of Postmodernism (Wheaton: BridgePoint Books, 1995), 34.
6. Oden, “The Death Of Modernity,” The Challenge Of Postmodernism, 25.
7. Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992) 90.
8. Interview with Ravi Zacharias, “Reaching the Happy Thinking Pagan: How Can We Present the Christian Message to Postmodern People?” Leadership Magazine, Spring 1995, 23.
9. Carl F.H. Henry, “Postmodernism: The New Spectre?” The Challenge Of Postmodernism, 36.
10. Roger Lundin, “The Pragmatics of Postmodernism” Christian Apologetics in the Postmodern World Phillip, Timothy R. And Okholm, Dennis L., Ed. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 32.
11. Francis Schaeffer, The Church At The End Of The 20th Century (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 91.
12. Veith, The State Of The Arts (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991) 21.
13. John G. Stackhouse, Jr., “From Architecture To Argument,” Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World, 40.
14. Ibid, 41.
15. Leonard Payton, “How Shall We Then Sing,” The Coming Evangelical Crisis (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 198.
16. Gene Veith, Postmodern Times, 61.
17. Francis Schaeffer, The Church At The End Of The Twentieth Century (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 50.
18. Neil Postman, Technopoly (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 52.
19. Douglas Groothuis, The Soul In Cyberspace (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 53.
20. Douglas Groothuis, The Soul In CyberSpace, 23.
21. Francis Schaeffer, The Church At The End Of The Twentieth Century, 89.
22. Ron Mayers, Balanced Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1984), 58.
23. Jim Leffel and Dennis McCallum, “The Postmodern Challenge: facing the spirit of the age,” Christian Research Journal, Fall 1996, 35.
24. Groothuis, The Soul in Cyberspace, 16.
25. John Leo, “This column is mostly true,” U.S. News & World Report, December 16, 1996, 17.
26. Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1996), 17.
27. William Bennett, “Redeeming Our Time,” Imprimis, Hillsdale College, November 1995, 3.
28. A.W. Tozer, The Best Of A.W. Tozer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 100.
29. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), 167.
30. Quoted by Douglas Groothuis, The Soul In CyberSpace, 27.

 

Click here for more “Senior Saints & Sensibility” articles.
Articles
Leave a Comment
Read More