Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Things? We Have! (part 2)

by Rick Shrader

I have been defending the small church. I have not said that a church must be small to be spiritual or that largeness is an evil in itself. But I have said that the small church is the normal church; the one seen most often in the New Testament and throughout church history. I have also implied that there seems to be a feeding frenzy on the small churches by the church growth movement which infers that the small church is inferior because it has not grown, and that therefore it must change its whole way of doing things into a more “progressive” worship style or die. I disagree that the small church needs to change in order to be accomplishing God’s will, and I object to the view of the church growth movement that it must. When we do this, we despise the day of small things—things that have no choice but to trust in God’s Spirit.

We despise the suffering

Martin Luther once said, “Wherever the gospel is preached in its purity, it engenders conflict and controversy.”¹ I think it is no doubt that one reason we dislike small churches is that we are embarrassed over what people may be thinking of us if we belong to it. Even though the church may be doing everything to the glory and honor of our Savior, to some people that is not enough to compensate for the disdain that the world has for things that don’t appear to be successful. This is a kind of suffering that we just cannot bear.

Paul told the Galatians, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the cross ceased (Gal 5:11). Paul suffered persecution in Galatia because he would not intermingle his pure gospel of grace with the legalistic gospel which included the fleshly work of circumcision. For this refusal he suffered being stoned and left for dead. But accepting the offense that came with the cross was of more honor to him than men’s praises. He said, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world (6:14) . . . . from henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus (17).

I am not proposing that the church growth movement is guilty of gospel legalism as were the Galatian Jews, but if it is true that some allow the world’s demands for worldliness in order to avoid their disdain, is that not the same kind of thing? Hasn’t the offense of the cross ceased for them? It is a hard thing to watch a visitor come into a service in which he is uncomfortable or even antagonistic. You can tell he wishes he had not come and that he probably will not come back. This is where we find ourselves in a battle over this kind of cross-bearing. It may not be a bearing up under physical torture, but a bearing up under social disdain can be an equally challenging dilemma.

The easy solution for escaping this kind of suffering is a total immersion in “redefinition sanctification.” By redefining the long-standing terms of worldliness, godliness, separation, et al, we are able to change our approach to ministry, satisfy the demands of the waiting public, and still maintain a use of the Bible’s terminology. Where separation meant a removal from sin, now it can mean a mere attitude within the sin; where liberty in Christ meant a freedom from sin, now it can mean a freedom to sin; where perfection meant a striving for holiness, now it can mean a satisfaction with confession; where a weak brother meant a backslider, now it can mean anyone who is offended by sin. Where Fundamentalism meant an attitude of conviction about doctrine, it can now mean an irreducible minimum of doctrine.

Even the winsome Os Guinness has observed, “But Scripture and history are also clear: without maintaining critical tension, the principle of identification is a recipe for compromise and capitulation. It is no accident that the charge of being ‘all things to all people’ has become a popular synonym for compromise.”² The biblical path is to live with the tension and realize it is the path of Scripture, of our Lord and His Apostles.

We despise the soul-winning

This may sound odd, especially if it is true that the church growth movement has adopted the new posture “in order to see as many people saved as possible.” But I would say that the new posture avoids personal confrontation over the gospel and therefore will fail rather than succeed in bringing as many people to Christ as possible.

It is only natural that in larger churches lost people avoid personal contact easier than in small churches. Add to this fact that many larger churches are softening or doing away with invitations and in many cases eliminating the preaching services where invitations were once given. I do think that the small group concept has actually helped make personal contact with unbelievers, but the small church is already a small group (it is the “small group concept” found in the New Testament) and has found this personal contact easy all along.

A greater danger is in making the church a concert and performance hall where we attract the lost but they are just faces in the crowd to us. And if the crowds are large, who will complain that the messy business of altar work, personal soul-winning and especially house-to-house visitation gets lost in the shuffle. I’m not saying that it always does, but I am saying that a smaller church must live or die by these methods of personal contact with people. Alexander Maclaren said, “It is better for most of us to fish with the rod than with the net, to angle for single souls, rather than to try and enclose a multitude at once. Preaching to a congregation has its own place and value; but private and personal talk, honestly and wisely done, will effect more than the most eloquent preaching.”³

We have also seen “redefinition evangelism” in our day. By redefining what a true believer is, we have done in a stroke of the pen what evangelists and missionaries could not do for two thousand years. On a large scale, the ECT documents⁴ simply took a long-standing definition of “Christian” that excluded Catholics and drew the line differently to include them, thereby, in a single stroke, bringing millions into the family of God. On smaller scales, I have attended funerals for Christian saints, where known unbelievers (to me and others) talked about faith and God and were praised for their “testimony.” In sports and Hollywood, anyone who talks at all about God or Jesus Christ is accepted as a true believer without further question. No doubt, by dropping all barriers within professing Christendom (especially denominational ones) we have opened ourselves up to this danger. And nowhere is this danger more apparent than when numbers mean more to us than true conversions. It has become easier to redefine them than to win them.

We despise the Spirit

Paul asked the Galatians, Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3:3). He wrote to the Philippians, For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:3). Zechariah was criticizing the Jewish remnant precisely for their lack of faith in God’s powerful Spirit when he said that God’s work was not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts (Zech 4:6). How can we deny that the modern mega church with its lights, sounds, screens, bands, videos, and multiple programs finds it easier to lean on the arm of the flesh for its strength and success than on the smaller church who must trust God for provision?

Tozer wrote, “Our meetings are characterized by cordiality, humor, affability, zeal and high animal spirits; but hardly anywhere do we find gatherings marked by the overshadowing presence of God.”⁵ Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote, “Churches are emptied in proportion to the failure of pulpit occupants to discover the anointing of the Spirit.”⁶ And G. Campbell Morgan wrote, “There has been much quenching of the Holy Spirit by service that does not wait but rushes, and by the burning of false fires upon the altars of God. The attempt to carry on the work of the kingdom of God by worldly means, the perpetual desecration of holy things by alliance with things that are unholy, the pressing of mammon into the service of God, have meant the quenching of the Spirit; for God will never allow the Fire of the Holy Spirit to be mingled with strange fires upon His altars.”⁷

Have you ever noticed that the Holy Spirit’s ways are not our ways? None except the Son of God Himself, including the Apostles, seems to be able to discern completely how the Holy Spirit is pleased to work. Paul wanted to go to Ephesus from Galatia on his second missionary journey but was forbidden by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6). The same was true for his desire for Bithynia (16:7). But the Holy Spirit called him to Macedonia (16:10) and he went, suffering opposition and leaving small churches of baptized believers in every city. It was not until his third journey that he could stay in Ephesus and plant a church. This time the Holy Spirit blessed and did His wonderful work upon twelve men. These twelve men, before Paul’s life was over, planted churches all over Asia which remained until the end of the century. This was more common in New Testament church life than Pentecostal growth found in the early chapters of Acts.

In truth, the only safe way to follow the Spirit in ministry is to follow His Book in detail. It is impossible for us to devise how the Spirit will work if we depart from what He wrote through inspiration. It alone is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16-17). In a day of large things as well as small things, it is dangerous business to despise a particular path because it seems unwise to us. God only knows what can be accomplished if we, with His Word in our hands and His Spirit in our hearts, are stirred (Acts 17:16), pressed (18:5), purposed (19:21), and bound (20:22) to follow Him in church planting and soul winning.

And So . . . .

Let us not despise the day of small things, nor the value of small churches. A hundred years ago, in the third volume of The Fundamentals, Bishop Ryle wrote,

“This is the Church which does the work of Christ upon earth. Its members are a little flock, and few in number, compared with the children of this world; one or two here, and two or three there. But these are they who shake the universe; these are they who change the fortunes of kingdoms by their prayers; these are they who are the active workers for spreading the knowledge of pure religion and undefiled; these are the life-blood of a country, the shield, the defense, the stay and the support of any nation to which they belong.”⁸

Who Hath Despised the Day of Small Things? We Have! (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

When Zechariah was asked that question by the interpreting angel in the fourth chapter of his prophecy (Zech 4:10), the present temple project looked dreadfully small compared to the glory of the former temple. But the prophet as well as the people who worked on the walls were reminded that God’s work is Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts (Zech 4:6). One day, in a more glorious age, the Lord Himself will build a temple in Jerusalem that will overshadow Solomon’s, Zerubbabel’s and Herod’s combined in glory, beauty and splendor.

The churches of Jesus Christ today are apt to forget the same thing. As a matter of fact, they are being persuaded to forget it! George Barna, for example, has a current online article¹ (advertised, ironically, on many local church web sites) in which he proposes that smaller churches (defined as 100 or fewer) have fewer spiritually active people (percentage wise) than larger churches and even fewer born again people. The survey (the church’s current prophetic voice) is taken of 4501 adults from “Protestant” churches. Barna proposes that people in larger churches are more likely to have a solid theological foundation. Some, I suppose, might take that at face value. But one must understand what a “Protestant” church is and what all the “Protestant” congregations, liberal and otherwise are like, which would be represented in that class.² Also, the fact that people in larger churches are more “spiritually active” does not necessarily mean spiritual. In addition, of course, I always question the answers given in a phone conversation compared to the reality of a person’s life.

It has been my opinion for a long time that the present-day church growth movement is the same as it has always been but with newer methodologies and with wiser terminology.³ Smaller churches are told or given strong implication that they are inferior, that they lack a proper vision, that they are out of touch with reality, etc., because God has not blessed them with growth. This theme comes across strongly (as every small-church pastor knows and senses) although we always hear the caveat that smaller is not necessarily wrong, if God has so willed it. In a more postmodern lingo, we are even boldly told that they believe smaller is better. But that claim always comes with “insider” understanding (for example, that a small group may be good under the umbrella of a large church oversight).

I am still trying hard to believe that the church-growth movement is doing what it is doing in order to see as many people saved as possible. The idea is that if the churches are larger more will be hearing the gospel, more may be called into full-time service, more money will be given to missions, and the organizational institutions will continue (all worthy and honorable objectives). I am trying hard not to believe that a more sinister motivation is at work here—that the church growth movement is uniquely connected to a change toward a contemporary⁴ ministry philosophy and that this new style of church is what the masses are really after (not those other objectives). Yes, they will come and give as long as that is what they experience and they will be gone if it ever stops. In the meantime, however, church leaders are willing to do this in order to bring in the resources for getting people saved (or so they think).

Regardless of the motivation, the proposition that “bigger is better” when it comes to winning the world to Christ has not been, and need not be, the attitude or the methodology of God’s people and churches. More has been done throughout our history by small churches and personal evangelism than in any other way. These are the biblical norms as well and we should not despise them. As a matter of fact, we ought to embrace them as the blessings of God and seek to promote more of them. I think that our modern day rush to find success in bigness will not bring the best results, but will only cause us to despise the day of small things—things that can only succeed by God’s Spirit and not by man’s might or power.

We despise the size

Although the church at Jerusalem grew rapidly due to the influence of Pentecost, it is not the normal thing we see in the New Testament. We are glad for the blessings of God when they have truly come, but neither should we be sorry when we find ourselves within the biblical norm of small, local church congregations. Charles Ryrie wrote, “Indeed, one receives the impression from the New Testament that the Lord preferred to have many smaller congregations rather than one large group in any given place. And there seemed to be no lack of power that stemmed from lack of bigness.”⁵ One of the articles in volume 3 of The Fundamentals (from 1917) argues strongly for a return to this biblical pattern so that true evangelism and church life may continue.⁶

Many today are criticizing the smaller, pastor-led, church as a “hub-and-spoke” model.⁷ This church, they say, can only grow as big as the pastor can handle the situations. This is limiting growth, they say, and only with a change in philosophy can a church like this break out of the smallness mentality. But I see the “hub-and-spoke” church as the normal church in the New Testament. The pastor is responsible before God for all of the members and it is his stewardship to be involved in their lives (Heb13:17, 1 Tim 4:6). When the church grows to the size where he cannot do his God-given responsibility, the church should divide and start a new congregation. Who knows how many soul-winning churches there might be in America today if this had happened rather than building empires to men’s glory.

If a particular church grows to the size a pastor can handle and remains at that size, what is the difference between that and a mega-church growing to a certain size and stopping? Both have reached a plateau. Neither is growing now. Is a church of 1000 which has leveled off in growth doing more for Christ because they have 1000 than ten churches of 100 which have leveled off? It is wonderful if a man can faithfully pastor 1000 people. It is equally wonderful if a man can faithfully pastor 100. Ten churches of 100 and those ten faithful pastors can accomplish a lot for God.

In 1792, in the area of Nottingham, England, a group of pastors met to discuss foreign missions. They had about $50 among them and “were pastors of small, poor village churches with congregations numbering in some cases no more than twenty-five members.”⁸ But among them were Andrew Fuller, John Sutcliff and William Carey. More was done from those few small churches for missions than we can imagine. Similarly, included in a list of Baptist churches in Shropshire, England from 1839 to 1851 are thirty churches, the largest having 103 members. When these churches overcame the cold hyper-Calvinism and the lethargic worldliness of their day, they truly attempted great things for God and expected great things from God.

Recently, in a day away from my own pulpit, my wife and I attended the most well-known Baptist church in Colorado (a SBC church) for the morning service, and then probably the least-known Baptist church for the evening service. There was no comparison when it came to the blessing, warmth and evangelistic atmosphere of the two. The large church of about 1000 was a mix of contemporary music, videos and lights and sounds, and a light message geared for the light-hearted. In the evening we found ourselves in the midst of about 50 people giving testimonies, singing (all of them!) hymns from the heart, and hearing an expository message geared for the thinking person. If I had to take a lost friend to one of those two churches for the conviction of sin and moving of the Holy Spirit, it would no doubt be the smaller of the two.

We despise the shame

Usually we find ourselves in a position to either be ashamed of the gospel or shamed by the world. If we fear the world, we will be ashamed of the gospel, but if we fear God we will, no doubt, be shamed by the world. Jesus said, Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (Mk 8:38). Paul admonished Timothy, Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord (2 Tim 1:8) and reminded him that Onesiphorus was not ashamed of my chain (16). Timothy was to be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed (2:15).

If Saul of Tarsus persecuted Christ because he persecuted His church, I think that most Christians today are ashamed of their Lord because they are obviously ashamed of His church. They are ashamed to have a lost person walk in and see them the way they should be: kneeling, bowing, in quietness of spirit before the Lord, reverent, as well as singing, listening, and responding in a way that would make their lost friend uncomfortable. That is why we have decided to make the churches more comfortable for the world than for Christ or the Holy Spirit. John R. Rice once wrote that he was sure that the Holy Spirit made His home in every believer, but was equally sure that most of the time He locked Himself in His room!

American churches are the only places where we look at pictures of brothers and sisters in foreign lands under persecution, meeting in small, dirty places, giving their very lives rather than to recant their faith, and then in the next hour discuss how we can keep a crowd coming and giving in order to pay off our multi-million dollar church building debt. William Wilberforce once paraphrased John Owen as saying, “Religion in a state of prosperity is like a colony that is long settled in a strange country. It is gradually assimilated in features, demeanor, and language to the native inhabitants, until at length every vestige of its distinctiveness has died away.”⁹

I have never been there, but I recently saw pictures of the catacombs under the Coliseum in Rome. It is a ghastly sight, even in pictures, to see the graves, human remains and desperate writing on the walls. Above all of that is the magnificent structure of the Coliseum where Christians were tortured and killed while Roman citizens cheered. America’s twenty-first century legacy has moved from the catacombs to the Coliseum. The world cheers with us now and our churches are larger and more entertaining than even Rome could have devised.

Are we ashamed or shamed? Herman Melville in Moby Dick had his Father Mapple preach a sermon before the sailors left for sea, “Woe to him whom this world charms from Gospel duty! Woe to him who seeks to pour oil upon the waters when God has brewed them into a gale! Woe to him who seeks to please rather than to appall! Woe to him whose good name is more to him than goodness! Woe to him who, in this world, courts not dishonor! Woe to him who would not be true, even though to be false were salvation.”¹⁰

To be continued in the next issue:

We despise the suffering

We despise the soul-winning

We despise the Spirit

Generic Church: The New Formalism (part 1)

by Rick Shrader

Solomon said, Meddle not with them that are given to change: For their calamity shall rise suddenly (Proverbs 24:21-22).  It is my opinion that we are seeing a blind allegiance to change for change’s sake, not because the Scriptures ask that of us, but because the world does. That kind of change is the most rigid formalism of all and in the end becomes the most useless.  Chesterton said the same when he wrote, “The modern young man will never change his environment; for he will always change his mind.”¹ When the church is constantly asking the world what it wants, the world will never ask the church what it needs.  This is true whether it involves the incidentals or the fundamentals.  Constant change, even in the incidentals, sends the message to a postmodern culture that nothing is important enough to be believed absolutely and permanently.

Our fundamental and evangelical churches have played with this fire long enough to think they cannot be burned.  We have sold our soul to a pragmatic approach to church growth for the past fifty years.  Now, when someone appeals to what our “fathers” in the ministry used to do, they have their own “historical” examples of the same pragmatism.

Today, however, the methodology isn’t even unique (at least our “forefathers” were more original thinkers).  Everyone is different together!  Every church is on the cutting edge, every church has a part of the vision, every church does the same innovative things!  But when all have changed, who is different?  When everyone is on the cutting edge, who is not?  The fact is, for all their “innovativeness,” all the “contemporary” churches are alike!  And they are the same regardless of creed or doctrine.  The instruments, the stage, the volume, the screens, the dramas, et al.  It is all generic.  You will find the same thing in almost any contemporary service you choose.  In my city, you will find it in the Unity church as well as the Evangelical church, and even in the contemporary Catholic church.

Now if the change were for the better, we might be glad for them all.  But if the change is inferior, then all will be inferior.  If God cannot bless opposite doctrine, why are all of these contemporary-style churches experiencing the same results?  It is because the results have little to do with God’s blessing but everything to do with a common methodology—a methodology demanded by the world if we are to be blessed by their presence in our services.  But then once we have acquiesced to the demands for their presence, we must continue to acquiesce if we are to be blessed with such success.

It is my contention that the new formalism is not better in form or methodology, but is inferior in almost every way to what our independent Baptist churches knew and practiced for many years before the current pragmatism.  The very reason why lost people are more comfortable in the new formalism is an obvious reason why it is inferior.  They love the confession before the conversion; the worship before the wonder; the participation before the partaking.  We have forgotten that we are there to worship the immutable God, not to please His whimsical creatures.

Our normal Baptist churches are not without their problems.  Many in our congregations have lost their zeal and warmth.  Many have fallen prey to the thinking that we come together to worship, rather than being worshipers who come together.  Hence, they bring nothing in their heart or head to offer to God.  They are bored with the whole arrangement.  They have lost their love for the brethren (the church!) and begin to fall away in spirit as well as body.  But this is an individual heart problem, not a problem with the church.  And it cannot be solved by the world’s alternative, nor by the contemporary alternative.

In the new generic churches you will find modern characteristics that are assumed to be better than the normal church service.  With a little reflection one will realize they are not.

It is juvenile, not mature

Whereas the normal church service has been led by elder believers, the new formalism is led by novices.  Sadly, their parents and elders seem to be held hostage by the threat of desertion if they do not get their way, which usually means control.  Why should we be surprised?  Our homes, our schools, and our nation are being held hostage by the same threat.  And all of those institutions are dutifully handing over the reins.

It is often retorted, “The youth are the future of the church!”  But that is an obvious misnomer as well as a formula for disaster—not to mention just plain unbiblical!  Rather, it is the belief, maturity and direction of the elders that is the future of the church.  And it is the biblical duty of young people to respect and obey this direction.  Paul plainly gave instruction for leadership:  Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17).  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil (1 Timothy 3:6).

I have received letters and emails from all across the country of older saints who feel their church has gone through a hostile takeover!  Many older saints have shown amazing resiliency in putting up with this immaturity (even to the point of walking away and leaving their life’s investment to these who are now occupying the facilities).  The younger saints are not hesitant to seize that for which they did not pay.

But there is a fine line between patience and permission.  The elders in our churches must not fear their God-given authority, even if the threat of desertion is followed through by one’s own children or others.  When it comes to eternal things, (baptismal) water must be thicker than blood.  Is this not what our Lord said would be the case in the latter days?  I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother . . . . And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household (Matthew 10:35-36).

It is profane, not reverent

Profane means to be unworthy of the sacred place.  It describes that which is out of place where the holy and reverent are called for.  Language can be profane as well as action and deportment.  The Bible admonishes us to let our moderation be known unto all men [for] the Lord is at hand (Philippians 4:5).  We are not to be a profane person, as Esau (Hebrews 12:16) but rather we are to make straight paths for your feet. . . . Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God (Hebrews 12:13-15).

As the world has become more profane in their dress, their language, their casualness, their arrogance, it is not fitting before an unchangeable God to don what is unworthy of our worship services.  G. Campbell Morgan wrote, “There has been much quenching of the Holy Spirit by service that does not wait but rushes, and by the burning of false fires upon the altars of God.  The attempt to carry on the work of the kingdom of God by worldly means, the perpetual desecration of holy things by alliance with things that are unholy, the pressing of Mammon into the service of God, have meant the quenching of the Spirit;  for God will never allow the Fire of the Holy Spirit to be mingled with strange fires upon His altars.”²

Christians ought to prefer quietness over loudness, deportment over casualness, an attitude that asks the head to bow and the hands to fold rather than the proud and unyielding posture of so many today.  “Breeziness and singiness are no compensation for lack of depth and dignity.”³ Being in a contemporary church’s “worship” service is like Vance Havner’s description:  “They say the words and sing the songs, but they are like fountains in public squares where water gushes out of lips that never taste it.”⁴

Ezekiel mourned the priests of his day who have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and clean (Ezekiel 22:26).  But when Ezekiel prophesied of the Lord’s return and the building of the millennial temple, he recorded, And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean (Ezekiel 44:23).  The writer of Hebrews, anticipating these coming things, admonished, Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: for our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:28-29).

It is worldly, not heavenly

In the contemporary services in which I have attended, I almost have to chuckle at the invitation to stand and begin “our worship time.”  What follows is more like a rock concert than a church service.  One would have to spend the entire week before, immersing himself in the world’s noise, music and bodily actions in order to feel comfortable in such an atmosphere.  And I fear that is why the average lost person feels very comfortable there.

But the church has never measured herself by applause or approval of the world.  Today we have become acute technicians, measuring up to the world’s standards, winning ourselves to them, but not winning them to a different life.  The apostle wrote, Seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.  Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth (Colossians 3:1-2).  Many believers have prepared themselves to live in the world, but are, I am afraid, totally unprepared to enter heaven.  The glory of God will be a total surprise to them.  Paul’s desire was to attain unto the resurrection from the dead, not to attain unto the fellowship with the dead.  It is a good thing that one day our sanctification will match our justification, and not the other way around, or we would be hopeless.

Our churches ought to be places where we escape the world’s clatter and enjoy the blessed quietness and fellowship of heaven.  We come to church to let our guard down, not have to defend ourselves from the world.  It seems the contemporary church minister spends more time defending David’s naked dancing than preaching against the world’s sins.  As Havner wrote, “He mistakes the stretching of his conscience for the broadening of his mind.  He renounces what he calls the ‘Pharisaism’ and ‘puritanism’ of earlier days with a good word for dancing, smoking, and even cocktails now and then.  Instead of passing up Vanity Fair, he spends his vacations there.”⁵

The generic contemporary church is busy trying to prove that the world’s culture is neutral.  We read it in almost every publication.  It would be a comfort to them to think that lost man’s actions come from an amoral basis.  Then we would be free to use any of it that we like.  But this is like hitting one’s head against the wall, it feels so good when you quit!  Culture, as T.S. Eliot once wrote, is the incarnation of a man’s religion.⁶ It is the “world” man has created in his lost condition.  The church must confront it, not cater to it!

To be continued in the next issue.