Skip to main content

Come, Let Us Adore Him

Come, Let Us Adore Him

by Rick Shrader

Some say that ever ‘gainst that season comes Wherein our Saviour’s birth is celebrated, The bird of dawning singeth all night long; And then, they say, no spirit dares stir abroad; The nights are wholesome; then no planets strike, No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm, So hallow’d and so gracious is the time.         William Shakespeare: Hamlet

With no irreverence intended to the season of our Savior’s birth, I think today Shakespeare would have had to conclude, ‘‘so shallow’d and so avaricious is the time.’’ While once again Christian eyes are turned toward the holy birth of our Lord, we will not help but spy the ever encroaching secularization of the season called Christmas.  It is not always what we may consider blasphemous. At least blasphemy takes a subject seriously. The secularization of Christmas robs the Saviour’s birth of its religious significance.

Gene Veith, in Postmodern Times, wrote, ‘‘Traditional symbols, such as those of religion, are not repudiated; rather, they are trivialized. Statistics reduce beliefs to opinions and moral standards to personal preferences. Technological reproduction and ceaseless visual representation work against any concept of mystery or the sacred.’’ And so the ‘‘season’’ has become a technological production of color schemes, attractive products and personal pleasures; things that, of themselves, are not harmful but as a substitute for the sacred surely become.

In his Letters to an American Lady (29 December, 1958), C.S. Lewis wrote, ‘‘Just a hurried line . . . to tell a story which puts the contrast between our feast of the Nativity and all this ghastly ‘‘Xmas’’ racket at its lowest. My brother heard a woman on a bus say, as the bus passed a church with a Crib outside it, ‘‘Oh Lor’! They bring religion into everything. Look–they’re dragging it even into Christmas now!’’ What is sad about such a comment in the 1990’s is that I don’t believe my neighbors and many of my acquaintances would get it! They probably would agree with the lady. After all, this is the generation that will, at Christmas, buy a music video called ‘‘The Immaculate Collection’’ by a woman who calls herself ‘‘Madonna’’ and will never make the connotation.

For a long time now we have seen the secular set side by side with the sacred.  As the years went on Christmas became more secular than sacred until the sacred was found only in churches and private dwellings but certainly not in any public setting.  Recently, however, the secular is using the sacred as a productive marketing tool the fruit of which is just beginning to be reaped.

This process of secularization is snowballing due to this society’s lack of respect (much less reverence) for anything religious. This year in London (according to the AP) Pepsi-Cola got in trouble when their advertisers beamed its logo onto the Anglican cathedral in Liverpool as a marketing tactic. To the offended parishioners Pepsi said, ‘‘It was never meant as any offense. It was a light-hearted stunt.’’ McDonald’s came under similar fire in Britain for printing a burger bag with the flag of Saudi Arabia including a passage from the Koran. Apology was made. In this country there is a commercial for Hebrew National Frankfurters which, at the end claims to surpass federal standards because (the camera shifts toward heaven) ‘‘We have to answer to a higher Authority.’’ Where once a clear distinction was maintained between the secular and the sacred, now we see a slow erosion of the border, a trivialization of the things once thought too sacred to tread upon. We shouldn’t be surprised this year to see marketers turning the manger of Christ into a den of thieves.

Twentieth-century Christianity cannot dodge all the blame. We have spent a lot of time ourselves scaling the secular city (as one title puts it) in search of slogans, sounds, styles and other similitudes from a secular society. It never bothered us when we were the ones crossing the line and bringing back the secular into the sacred.  It seemed to make our worship more realistic and a lot more up to date. British theologian J. S. Whale put it best when he said, ‘‘Instead of putting off our shoes from our feet because the place we stand is holy ground, we are taking nice photographs of the burning bush from suitable angles.’’ Well, that was all right for us but not for the world? Perhaps we only see the vulgar when we see it in others.

I have written these lines with a distaste for the negative, especially at Christmas. My prayer is that they may have a farthing of positive effect and that we should not be, on December 26, as Franklin Pierce Adams who once said, ‘‘Christmas is over and business is business.’’ We should rather be as Charles Dickens when he wrote, “I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys . . . And so as Tiny Tim said: ‘A merry Christmas to us all, my dears, God bless us, every one.’”

Come, all ye faithful, joyful and triumphant;

Come ye, come ye to Bethlehem;

Come and behold Him, born the king of angels;

Come and adore Him, come and adore Him,

Come and adore the Lord. (St. Bonaventure)

 

For Glory And For Beauty

For Glory And For Beauty

by Rick Shrader

I wish that the young men might have something to rid them of their love ditties and wanton songs and might instead of these learn wholesome things and thus yield willingly to the good; also, because I am not of the opinion that all the arts shall be crushed to earth and perish through the Gospel, as some bigoted persons pretend, but would willingly see them all, and especially music, servants of Him who gave and created them.

Martin Luther, Wittenberg Gesangbuch

I am no artist nor artiste but I do know nonsense when I see it.  As when a group of ‘‘artists’’ near Pinedale, Wyo. were found painting words on cows (funded by a $4,000 grant) and calling it ‘‘art’’ since the cows are going to ‘‘randomly reorder the words for us and make new meanings.’’ Or when Joel-Peter Witkin (funded by a $20,000 grant) had a pathologist saw a human head in half, turned the halves toward each other, photographed it and called it ‘‘kiss.’’ Or when Peter Hutchinson attached each end of a rope to garbage bags full of rotten food, tossed it into the ocean, waited for the rotten food to expand and rise under water thus lifting the rope in a bowed fashion. He photographed it, called it ‘‘arc’’ and sold it to the Museum of Modern Art.

Ten years ago George Will wrote a column titled ‘‘The Shocking Bourgeoisie’’ in which he wrote, ‘‘There will be an abundance of fine art if you declare that fine art is anything that anyone calling himself an artist calls fine art. If I call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog got? Five? No, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.’’ And calling cows with words painted on them ‘‘art’’ doesn’t make it art. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. confessed, ‘‘Today’s art is fashioned, for the most part, by quacks and the occasional fool.’’

No people should grieve to see the destruction of the fine arts more than the people of God. We are in the unique place of understanding divine truth and its illumination in the created world through things that man can make, i.e., art. But Christianity (especially conservative) has too often flinched at the overt atrocities in the art world and has, at the same time, consented to mediocrity in the rest. There is a type of art known today as ‘‘kitsch.’’ It is the poor quality ornament or ‘‘knickknack,’’ Elvis on black velvet or dresser-top souvenirs sold at tourist traps. Calvin Seerveld says, ‘‘it is hard to talk to Christians about kitsch because those who love it are naive about it, unaware that they are identifying with something fake and inferior.’’

As Luther (quoted above) points out, we are apt to present divine truth this way and become a religious knickknack shop. Take a stroll through the local Bible book store and ask yourself, ‘‘Do Christians love kitsch?’’ But don’t stop in the knickknack aisle, browse through the Christian fiction section, play the latest Christian video game and listen to the popular tune coming none too softly over the speaker system and don’t forget your free ‘‘Honk if you love Jesus’’ bumper sticker on the way out.

It was Sir Arnold Toynbee (A Study of History) in the 1940s who called this sort of thing ‘‘promiscuity . . . an act of self-surrender to the melting pot . . . in Religion and Literature and Art as well as Manners and Customs.’’ Francis Schaeffer in The God Who Is There wrote, ‘‘Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously. Then we shall have the right to speak again to our generation.’’ But Christian kitsch prevails in most of our lives. In the books we read (or don’t), the things we watch, the music we play, the decor of our homes and churches and even our vocabulary all mark us guilty of this promiscuity of God’s creation.

I confess to being guilty and am sorry for it. I am the worse off for having succumbed often in my life to the spirit of the age. A few of my ‘‘friends’’ (as Dr. Harju often calls them) have brought me a little closer to reality. There are some past ‘‘friends’’ such as Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, A.W. Tozer, and some present ‘‘friends’’ such as Gene Veith, Cal Thomas, and Neil Postman. They are helping me be an iconophile rather than an iconoclast. The following thought was induced by Gene Veith in State Of The Arts (reviewed this month).

Adam was told to ‘‘dress’’ the garden of Eden and ‘‘keep it’’ (Gen 2:15). After the fall he must struggle with nature and labor by his sweat to survive (Gen 3:19). To do that, man must depend both on the resources of nature and his own creative abilities. Food comes from God’s earth but man must apply the art of farming to get it. Every honest occupation is an art because it is a God-given craft. Dishonest occupations (robbery, fraud, embezzlement) exploit other’s artful labor to get gain without work. All honest work, the talents and gifts from our Creator, is art.

‘‘Fine art’’ is developed ability to make beautiful things that honor the Creator (painting, music, oratory). In Exodus 28, twice God commanded (vss 2 & 40) the tabernacle to be built for ‘‘glory and beauty.’’ Fine art has a two-fold nature: it is to have meaning (‘‘glory’’) and form (‘‘beauty’’). God is interested in both. A Sunday School picture of Jesus may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of Christ. In meaning they are nearly the same, both referring to God Incarnate. In form, however, they are worlds apart. The photo-copied curriculum picture cannot compare in form to Rembrandt.

In our churches, as well as in our personal lives, we should strive to honor God by the best ‘‘glory and beauty’’ possible. And we should be tolerant when we try our best but fall somewhat short (I’m not sure how tolerant we should be when we don’t try). When I hear a song sung that glorifies God both in words (meaning) and music (form), it blesses me. When someone introduces a song with ‘‘listen to these words,’’ he may be preparing me for good meaning but poor form. So I try to appreciate the meaning. Another may sing a song that misses meaning altogether but has beautiful form. So I try to appreciate the form. I think God desires both ‘‘glory and beauty.’’

Of course, this line of thinking could (and should) be followed further. A lost world usually grieves God in form and meaning (can we seriously doubt that in our day of erotic art, MTV and slasher films?). If our generation of believers succumbs to the artistic kitsch of the day, we will fail to honor God in either form or meaning. The church of Jesus Christ must take the lead. We have the meaning given to us in His Word, and we have the form being created in Him unto good works. We should strive to do the best in both areas. As one kitsch expert says, ‘‘Anything less would be uncivilized!’’

 

A Virtual Reality World

A Virtual Reality World

by Rick Shrader

Men seek stronger sins or more startling obscenities as stimulants to their jaded sense . . . They try to stab their nerves to life, as if it were with knives of the priest of Baal. They are walking in their sleep and try to wake themselves up with nightmares.         G.K. Chesterton

The February 8, 1993 issue of Time magazine introduced us to ‘‘Cyberpunk.’’ It is ‘‘technology with an attitude.’’ The word describes the growing world of ‘‘Virtual Reality,’’ the fusing of humans and machines. ‘‘Cyber’’ is taken from ‘‘Cybernetics’’ and ‘‘Punk’’ from the idea of an antisocial hoodlum. This technological underworld is a labyrinth of hypertext such as cyberspace, interzones, synaesthesia, cryonics, dystopia and rants. Thousands of otherwise bored souls are exploring worlds that only exist in the mind and a computer link.  According to Time, during WW II, Norbert Wiener of M.I.T. designed systems for antiaircraft guns and found that the critical component in a control system is a feedback loop that gives a controller information on the results of its actions. He called this type of study ‘‘Cybernetics’’ (from the Greek word kubernetes), the science of communication and control theory.

In the New Testament, kubernetes means the ‘‘master’’ (Acts 27:11) or the ‘‘shipmaster’’ (Rev 18:17). It was a person linked together with the rudder (from a word signifying hardness) that controlled the ship. Whereas I might call this device a ‘‘steering wheel,’’ my kids would most likely call it a ‘‘joystick.’’

The concept of virtual reality grows out of cybernetics. It is the ability to contact and control a situation without actually being there and without actually suffering negative consequences for inappropriate action. As Neil Postman writes in his 1992 book Technopoly, ‘‘Putting on a set of miniature goggle-mounted screens, one may block out the real world and move through a simulated three-dimensional world which changes its components with every movement to one’s head.’’ Gene Veith, writing in his 1994 book Postmodern Times adds, ‘‘When this technology is perfected, we will be able to take part in multi-sensory fantasies, as if we were the main character in a science fiction movie. Some people are even looking forward to virtual reality body condoms which will offer pre-programmed sexual fantasies.’’ The fact is, according to Time, magazines already exist that are user guides to ‘‘everything from virtual reality and wetware to designer aphrodisiacs and techno-erotic paganism, promising to make cyberpunk’s rarefied perspective immediately accessible.’’

We should not be overly negative nor alarmists. There will also be amazing educational tools developed from this technology. Students may be able to travel to foreign lands or take a simple field trip without leaving the classroom. I may be able to go fly-fishing along a mountain stream but never leave the office. But human nature being what it is, the dangers will overshadow the benefits. That is why the market is already flooded with attractions to the flesh while the classroom sits empty. And I am not sure I am willing to give up the real thing for what is virtually real anyway. I can see my old professor Noel Smith, who wouldn’t drink coffee out of a paper cup and disdained clip-on ties, thanking the Lord that he ‘‘checked out’’ when he did!

We may, however, be witnessing the inevitable outcome (coupled with the technological know-how) of a long infatuation with the unreal. My first trip to a theme park was to Disneyland. I loved it and always have. I could be Tom Sawyer riding a raft down the Mississippi, a star fighter in outer space or Pinocchio inside a giant whale. Now, almost every town has a mall which creates the idea of being outside while you are really inside. Some, like Minnesota’s Mall of America takes you virtually anywhere else you want to go. We can go to Mexico to eat Mexican food at Chi Chi’s or to the great outdoors to buy a fishing rod at Bass Pro Shop. We can even jump from dangerous heights to experience the sensation of falling to our death only to be yanked back to reality by a bungee cord. Of course, we may add to this the theater, television, video arcade and computer.

‘‘The problem,’’ says Veith, ‘‘comes when the mind-set of the malls and theme parks becomes confused with Christianity.’’ Witness, for example, Rev. Tommy Barnett, pastor of Phoenix First Assembly with its $500,000 special-effects system (copied from Bally’s casino in Las Vegas), as he ascends into the auditorium’s ceiling after finishing a Sunday sermon (Wall Street Journal, 12-11-90). Does such miraculous simulation make real or virtually real believers? Can we turn such faith on and off like a television set? Do we exit the game by exiting the auditorium? Robert Wenz in Room For God? writes, ‘‘The marketing church has led to dangerous application of church growth principles to the ‘now’ generation that demands instant gratification or at least instant feedback.’’ Exactly like being at the controls of the latest video game.

To gain our bearings we might download a bit of information from Webster. We might conclude, for example, that ‘‘virtual reality’’ is a bit of an oxymoron. Virtual is from the Latin virtus meaning ‘‘being in essence or effect but not in fact.’’ Virtu is a noun form describing an art lover ‘‘especially of a curios or antique nature.’’ Art, after all, is a representation but not a reality. Virtue is a derivative which means ‘‘conformity to a standard of right’’ but never attaining the real perfection. On the other hand, reality is from the Latin Res meaning fact. Real is to be ‘‘fixed, permanent, or unmovable.’’ It is ‘‘agreement between what a thing seems to be and what it is.’’ That is why we call a piece of land ‘‘real estate.’’ So what is virtual reality? It is unreal reality. Nonreality. Nonsense.

Christopher Meyer, a cyberpunk himself, said that cybernetics is ‘‘all data. It all takes up the same amount of space on disk, and a lot of it is just plain noise.’’ But we must remember that we all have a kubernetes, a pilot over our body and soul. Seneca said, ‘‘No man is free who is a slave to the flesh.’’ Hermes said of Christ that he is the ‘‘kubernetes ton somaton hemon,’’ the ‘‘Pilot of our souls.’’ That is not virtual reality but reality that is virtuous.

 

Worshiping Worship

Worshiping Worship

by Rick Shrader

%%tb-image-alt-text%%

We who defend Christianity find ourselves constantly opposed not by the irreligion of our hearers but by their real religion. Speak about beauty, truth and goodness, or about a God who is simply the indwelling principle of these three, speak about a great spiritual force pervading all things, a common mind of which we are all parts, a pool of generalised spirituality to which we can all flow, and you will command friendly interest. But the temperature drops as soon as you mention a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character.

C. S. Lewis, Miracles

It was Napoleon Bonaparte who said, ‘‘If Socrates would enter the room we should rise and do him honor. But if Jesus Christ came into the room we should fall down on our knees and worship Him.’’  Perhaps it is for that reason that we often find ourselves entirely uncomfortable in many of our fundamental or evangelical ‘‘worship’’ services today. A. W. Tozer wrote (in God Tells the Man Who Cares), ‘‘In the majority of our meetings there is scarcely a trace of reverent thought, no recognition of the unity of the body, little sense of the divine Presence, no moment of stillness, no solemnity, no wonder, no holy fear.’’ I think if Jesus Christ entered the sanctuary of most churches today He would get a standing ovation. It would be an atrocity!

But as soon as this lack of reverence is mentioned we hear the pleadings of the defense mounting. In reality, they say, we have recovered worship. We have opened new doors for the expression of the spirit and created new ways in which to meet the needs of each participant.  Our singing is made easier by electronic power so that it takes the least effort possible to ‘‘make a joyful noise.’’ As a matter of fact, any average person can now be ‘‘special music.’’ We have lessened the difference between the view inside and outside the sanctuary so that one may enter without realizing he has come to church. The times of services are shorter and much more convenient, the attire is totally unassuming and the message is tailor-made for the lowest common denominator. And to seal the defense, we have only to observe how comfortable the average person is and how good he feels being in our services which is evidenced by the numbers on the attendance board (‘‘I object!’’ Sustained. Scratch that last remark.).

Some time ago, I heard that a music professor in a SBC seminary had studied contemporary church services and concluded that, in his opinion, most congregations were ‘‘worshiping worship rather than worshiping God.’’ When I heard that (from one who was in his class) I thought to myself, that’s it! That’s the description of what I have experienced. In a worshiping worship service, everything is in the right place, carefully orchestrated, moments of wide-eyed laughter mixed with moments of closed-eyed sobbing, each mood change perfectly timed by the chorus leader to lead one moment to the next. But when it is finished, though you have stepped off a worshiping roller coaster, you are the same as before. But at least you are out in time to catch the kick-off (‘‘I object!’’ Sustained.)

I am simply saying that to many people today it does not matter what the doctrine of the church is, what the church covenant may or may not ask, what the words of the music may actually say or even what the preacher preaches.  If the mood is right and the feeling is good then the head can take a rest.  And someone reading this right now may ask, “What’s wrong with that?”  Because, then, worship is only for the worshiper’s sake, not for God.  In that case we have no object to our worship other than ourselves.  We become our only audience and we hope that God will find a way to enjoy it.

Paul told the Athenians in Acts 17 that they were ‘‘ignorantly’’ worshiping. They were worshiping! They were as sincere as any people could be. But they weren’t worshiping God. The same is true of the woman with the spirit of divination in Acts 16 who followed Paul for three days crying, ‘‘These are the men of the Most High God who show us the way of salvation.’’ A truer act of worship could not be had but she was not worshiping God and Paul cast a demon out of her. She was a pagan involved in Zeus worship originating at the oracle at Delphi. Pagans worship worship! They make statues out of wood and stone and devise more elaborate services than Benny Hinn could dream of in a life-time. And people are moved to tears. And offerings (‘‘Objection!’’ I withdraw the remark.)

Modern pagans usually center their worship on happiness. Ralph Waldo Emerson, the son of a Unitarian minister and a product of literature’s enlightened period, said, ‘‘the happiest man he is who learns from nature the lesson of worship.’’ Similarly, Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, ‘‘Do not forget that even as ‘to work is to worship’ so to be cheery is to worship also, and to be happy is the first step to being pious.’’ I say that these two, though literary giants, were content and happy to worship worship, but they were far from worshiping God. A speaker today, however, will impress more modern men by quoting Emerson and Stevenson than, by contrast, John Milton who, two centuries prior, wrote for a ‘‘fit audience, though few.’’    Gene Veith, writing about our post-modern age said, ‘‘When writers (or speakers!) give their readers exactly what they want, the readers are seldom enriched. They hear only what they already know; their prejudices are confirmed, their weaknesses pandered to. The audience is entertained, but not challenged nor instructed. This is the weakness of so much postmodernist fiction. It may be scintillating, but it is ultimately trivial.’’ But worshiping worship worshipers are happy in this modern triviality. Tozer wrote, ‘‘The Bible was written in tears and to tears it will yield its best treasures. God has nothing to say to the frivolous man.’’ He is not listening anyway, he is too busy worshiping.

It is unfortunate that the word ‘‘orthodox’’ has gained a negative connotation in regard to our services. Almost every time the word is used to describe a modern service it is with the prefix ‘‘un.’’  The style is ‘‘unorthodox.’’ The music is ‘‘unorthodox.’’ The message is ‘‘unorthodox.’’ But the word ‘‘orthodox’’ simply means ‘‘correct praise.’’ Jesus insisted that we must worship God in orthodoxy, in ‘‘spirit and truth.’’ It was because they had learned this lesson well that Jesus’ followers insisted that they must ‘‘please God rather than man’’ when faced with worship (‘‘objection!” Overruled!).

 

The Earth Is Satisfied

The Earth Is Satisfied

by Rick Shrader

It is truly a most Christian exercise to extract a sentiment of piety from the works and appearances of nature. Our Saviour expatiates on a flower, and draws from it the delightful argument of confidence in God. He gives us to see that taste may be combined with piety, and that the same heart may be occupied with all that is serious in the contemplations of religion, and be, at the same time, alive to the charms and loveliness of nature.         Thomas Chalmers

Psalm 104 says, ‘‘Bless the LORD, O my soul, O LORD my God, thou art very great; (vs 1) . . . He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works’’ (vs 13). In a sin-soaked culture it is easy for God’s children to forget that this world was made the way God wanted it to be made and it is a mistake for us to let the fallenness of it block our sight of God’s handiwork.

Perhaps it takes a week such as this one, waking each morning to the song of the Lark Bunting and the crisp air of the Colorado mountains (and the constant distant roar of the most ferocious of beasts: 200 junior campers), to see such testimony as pine trees, growing from every angle of ground, all pointing like a million church steeples toward their Creator; or stars of the big dipper, brighter than temporal lights, still pointing to the North Star with Divine consistency as my father showed me years ago.

It was the first Adam who saw most dramatically the contrast of the perfect and fallen worlds. He was brought into a world of perfect harmony and peace. The function of every star and season and tree and stream worked together more smoothly than the most expensive Swiss watch. Adam’s work and trade, thoughts and ideas, blended precisely with God’s created purpose, enhancing its melody. Man’s purpose for existence and labor were never in doubt or regret.

Adam had a simple stewardship. It was overwhelmingly positive with only one negative. The inability to live with the restriction and the prompting of the Evil One cost Adam the perfect environment. Now his life would be one of recapturing, as best as possible, the former glory where God’s presence was so clearly visible. His vocation would be in danger of clouding rather than enhancing God’s created purpose for man. The culture formed by his descendents, who never walked with their Creator in the cool of the evening, would quickly digress to a newly accepted norm of ‘‘every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart’’ being ‘‘only evil continually.’’ And after thousands of years his descendents would need, periodically, to retreat to the mountains from such a culture in order to readjust their human priorities.

The second Adam, Jesus Christ, also saw the contrast between fallen and perfect worlds. But unlike the first Adam who mostly regretted an old world, He anticipated as well a new world where the breeches of sin would be repaired and man would again live in harmony with his Creator. During His brief time on earth, the Savior opened the windows both of the lost world of Eden and the coming world of a new heaven and earth. C. S. Lewis, in his marvelous book, Miracles, called these works of Christ miracles of the old nature and miracles of the new nature.

In miracles of the old nature Jesus repaired what the first Adam broke. By turning water into wine he quickened the vine that distills the dew and rain. By multiplying the fish in the nets he momentarily fulfilled the Creator’s command to fill the earth. By turning one loaf of bread into many he became sower, reaper and baker in an instant.  Should not God’s own children see the mountain stream that produces the Brook Trout as a multiplying of fish? Should we not see the wheat fields of the plains as huge bread mills where God continues to multiply the loaves? Should we not see the Concord grape vine as a divine press turning water into wine? By doing so we are not minimizing the interruptions of nature we call miracles, but we are attesting to their purpose as Christ showed.

In miracles of the new nature Jesus advanced the creative clock and gave man a glimpse of a future world. Walking on water never has been a normal part of this life. The laws of the old nature dictate against it now but not in the future life. Jesus knew Nathanael’s whereabouts and the disciple’s thoughts in ways only a future life will know. Foreshadowing the greatest miracle of the new nature, the Lord reversed the process of death itself, brought on by the first Adam’s disobedience, by making death come back to life instead of the other way around. Bruce Lockerbie wrote, “Faith in Jesus of Nazareth recognizes his sovereignty as Lord of time and space . . . He is the focal point from which all being takes its meaning, the source of all coherence in the universe.  He is the reality for which Newton’s laws and Einstein’s theory are approximations.  He is the fulcrum, the keystone; in T. S. Eliot’s phrase, he is ‘the still point of the turning world.’ Around him and him alone all else may be said to radiate.  He is the Cosmic Center.”

So what are we doing here? First of all, we are testifying of the original creation by living life the way God created us to live. Our vocations and vacations recognize and are in harmony with the original creation as if it were still untainted by the disobedience of one. The construction of a machine that enhances our productivity or the moonlight stroll under the canopy of God, are all our created business. Second of all, we are inviting people to view the new creation through the miraculous means of the new birth, when a person releases the present sinful world to make reservations in the next. The old creation groans as an old windmill in the night breeze to be released from the present struggle. ‘‘Not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. . . (for we walk by faith, not by sight).’’

 

Were The Reformers Wrong?

Were The Reformers Wrong?

by Rick Shrader

Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or (since I put no trust in the unsupported authority of pope or of councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves) by manifest reasoning I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything. For to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.             Martin Luther, 1521

The Roman Catholic Church has always looked on the Reformation as the antics of wayward children. Sooner or later, they believe, children come home. That is why the Church does not rebaptize a Protestant, but consecrates his baptism. In 1961, Msgr. John J. Dougherty said in a New York conclave, ‘‘Let no one be deceived that reunion is just around the corner. Great doctrinal chasms separate the Catholic and the Protestant churches, the greatest being the concept of the church itself.’’ But their outlook has always been ‘‘reunion.’’ And when it comes, they say, it will be on their terms.

On March 29 of this year, in New York, forty prominent Evangelical and Catholic leaders signed a declaration titled ‘‘Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.’’ It is a result of a coalition launched in 1992 by Charles Colson (an Evangelical) and Richard Neuhaus (a Catholic Priest) to have Protestants and Catholics put aside their differences and call one another brothers in Christ. The document is signed by such Evangelical leaders as Colson, J.I. Packer, Pat Robertson, Bill Bright and Michael Novak.  In true ecumenical spirit, the document says, ‘‘As Evangelicals and Catholics, we dare not by needless and loveless conflict between ourselves give aid and comfort to the enemies of the cause of Christ . . . We together, Evangelicals and Catholics, confess our sins against the unity that Christ intends for all His disciples.’’ I guess that means that they are apologizing to God for Luther’s words (quoted above) and the resulting Reformation movement! It is one thing to join a Catholic in a voting booth, it is quite another to call him born again!

Even two agencies of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Home Mission Board and Christian Life Commission endorsed the document (Baptists, of course, were never Protestants). And this after the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Bible interpretation said, ‘‘The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life.’’ And, ‘‘Fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.’’ The Commission espouses the historical-critical (rationalistic) method of Bible interpretation.

Charles Colson, in his 1992 book The Body, spends the first section arguing for accepting Catholics as believers. ‘‘Who are we to question, let alone know, whom He calls? He has the people of His own choosing in every nation of every color and political persuasion and from every confessing tradition’’ (p. 89). ‘‘I’ve been enriched deeply by my fellowship with those who hold different, but equally strong doctrinal convictions–particularly my Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, and Lutheran brothers and sisters’’ (p. 99). On p. 104 he cites a survey that suggests that more Catholics than Protestants claimed to have a personal relationshipwith Jesus Christ. On p. 87 he presents Mother Teresa as an obvious believer with a ‘‘single-minded devotion to Jesus as Lord and Savior.’’

The rest of the book is a plea to the ‘‘church’’ for action but without committing what he calls ‘‘the sin of presumption’’ (p. 86) i.e. presuming to know who is really in the faith and who is not. That is why the March 29 declaration condemned ‘‘proselytizing’’ and ‘‘sheep-stealing.’’ In other words, we must stop treating Catholics as if they are not Christians and stop trying to win them to Christ! I know that Colson and others want to clean up America and that it takes all Americans with moral values to do it. But to ask that we ignore the view of personal faith apart from works is too high a price. How can we call spiritual darkness light for any purpose?

John Calvin, the great Reformer, asked that all people ‘‘make confession and render reason of their faith, that it may be ascertained a) which accord with the Gospel, and b) which prefer to be of the kingdom of the Pope rather than of Jesus Christ.’’ I am surely not Reformed in my theology, but the Reformation was a reform of soteriology (salvation) with which I, as a Baptist, am in agreement about personal faith. ‘‘Without faith it is impossible to please God.’’ Do we remember? Perhaps we, as people of faith, are just tired of the strife that contending for the faith brings. Colson writes, ‘‘Harmony and oneness in spirit can be achieved only when Christians put aside their personal agendas’’ (p. 107).

Vance Havner wrote in 1955, ‘‘Some Christians who once championed sound doctrine beat a retreat once in a while and from stratospheric heights announce that they ‘do not stoop to controversy.’ When a man contends for the faith in New Testament style he does not stoop! Some assert that they have become mellow in later years, but one must remember that some things become mellow just before they spoil.’’ Where would Luther have been if he decided that peace was more valuable than freedom? Of Romans he said, ‘‘This passage of Paul became to me a gateway to heaven.’’ Yet the fight for the truth of Romans cost him his life and that of many others who loved truth more than peace.

One cannot read an Evangelical periodical today without being urged to ignore soteriological differences for the sake of peace. From Tony Campolo uniting Irish Catholics and Protestants in Belfast to Alexander Solzhenitsyn uniting Russian Orthodox with Russian Evangelicals to Bill McCartney leading the pep rallies, all we seem to want is freedom from contention even over the mode of salvation. In 1958 A. W. Tozer wrote, ‘‘The Bible is a book of controversy. The Old Testament prophets were men of contention. Our Lord Jesus while on earth was in deadly conflict with the devil. The Apostles, the Church Fathers and the Reformers were men of controversy. They fought the devil to the death and kept the torch of truth burning for all succeeding generations. Is our contribution to history to be the ignoble one of letting the torch go out?’’

 

Ministering To Our Culture

Ministering To Our Culture

by Rick Shrader

Who cares how many boxes of cereal can be sold via television? We need to know if television changes our conception of reality, the relationship of the rich to the poor, the idea of happiness itself. A preacher who confines himself to considering how a medium can increase his audience will miss the significant question: In what sense do new media alter what is meant by religion, by church, even by God?       Neil Postman

Arthur Hugh Clough once wrote, ‘‘Grace is given of God, but knowledge is bought in the market.’’ I doubt if anyone would wholeheartedly agree or disagree with that statement. If the goods sold at such a market are the expressions of a contemporary culture, most Christians would realize that some expressions are good, some are very bad and many are simply neutral. Good cultural expressions can be made bad.  Neutral things can be used for noble or ignoble purposes. Bad usually remains bad.

The church remains in a dispute over where one category ends and another begins. Like the colors in a rainbow, we all see different colors but it becomes difficult to tell where they change. Where does music cease being a good cultural expression and become merely neutral? And where do we insist it is simply bad? Where do we change from being fully clothed and ‘‘modest’’ to being unclothed and ‘‘immodest?’’ We could add similar analogies from art, theater, literature, refreshments and entertainments.

We could further complicate the question by asking at what time in history such evaluations would be made and though cultural expressions change with time, should our definitions of good, neutral and bad change? Allan Bloom points out that the very concept of culture, as we speak of it, began with Immanuel Kant to evaluate the motivations of the bourgeois and from this came our definitions of moral and immoral.  ‘‘Honesty is the best policy. Thus he corrupts morality, the essence of which is to exist for its own sake.’’ He is asking, do we have a solid foundation for morality or does it float with the culture?

If you have stayed with me this far, I can proceed to my purpose (for which you are grateful, I know). I have noticed that the way one answers these questions about culture largely determines how he goes about ministering to the culture in which he lives. Many have noticed the same thing. Leith Anderson wrote, ‘‘If your answer is that culture is the enemy of the gospel of Jesus Christ, you will become a separatist. If your answer is that culture is the friend . . . you will become a contextualist.’’ He is the latter. But, then, as I pointed out, saying that culture is an enemy or friend is not so clear cut. It may be easier to turn the procedure around. Observing the way you go about ministry, reveals how you have actually defined such terms. I see three definite approaches to ministry related to our culture.

1. Infiltration. This is the ‘‘User-friendly’’ and ‘‘Seeker-friendly’’ method, or the ‘‘Contextualization’’ of Leith Anderson. This approach sees culture as amoral, neutral and basically friendly. The infiltration method, therefore, will build strategy on the latest polls and market studies and strive to adapt to the cultural norms. Ed Dobson asks, ‘‘Who are we trying to reach? What kind of service is most likely to reach them?’’ He further preaches, ‘‘To reach the nonevangelical generation of our day, we must break out of our tradition-bound isolation and relate the gospel to people where they are.’’ In an infiltration ministry, you would see dress, hear music and even visit a building seeming more like the local mall than a traditional church.

2. Dissociation. I do not mean simple ‘‘separation’’ from the world while being in the world. Dissociation is to see almost every aspect of culture as bad and therefore to be avoided. Some, like the Amish, are extreme in their dissociation and leave their generation altogether. Others may choose to stay only one generation behind or to stay permanently in a comfortable place like the Fonz who said, ‘‘If I had my way it would be 1955 forever.’’ Gene Edward Veith sees dissociation as a viable alternative for believers in a postmodern culture and calls it the ‘‘ghettoization’’ of Christianity reminiscent of the Jews retreating from the Nazis to the ghettos for their own preservation.

A more thoughtful kind of dissociation is theological in nature. There has been a revival of Reformed thinking which emphasizes elective grace and the inability of man’s will. In many ways these men have been a blessing in writing about the Charismatic movement and related things. But the dissociation is seen when, for example, John MacArthur said on the radio of his Lordship Salvation position, ‘‘I’m not concerned about getting the elect saved. I’m concerned about keeping the non-elect from thinking they are saved.’’ This produces a more guarded procedure for evangelism often emphasizing dissociation from the culture.

3. Confrontation. This approach sees culture as basically neutral but highly expressive of that generation’s attitude toward God. This view is often expressed by secular educators such as Allan Bloom, Neil Postman, Gene Veith, who are in a hostile environment and by men like the late Francis Schaeffer who traveled into those environments. Schaeffer criticized Christianity in the 1960’s for dissociating themselves, on the one hand, from the culture and for accommodating the culture on the other hand. Either position, he said, ‘‘Leaves the destructive surrounding culture increasingly unchallenged. It is easy to be a radical in the wearing of blue jeans when it fits in with the general culture of wearing blue jeans.’’

MacArthur, criticizing the infiltration method said, ‘‘Instead of confronting the world with the truth of Christ, the market-driven megachurches are enthusiastically promoting the worst trends of secular culture.’’ Schaeffer would say, ‘‘The evangelical church has accommodated to the world spirit of the age.’’ To confront the culture, therefore, is to insist on the highest levels of its expression seeing that all things come from God. Music, art, literature and oratory expressing cultures that have glorified God should be emulated while not capitulating to cultures that have expressed an anti-God message.

So what? A bumper sticker that so aptly described our generation said, ‘‘It Don’t Matter.’’ Many are concluding the same and their speech usually betrays them as well. Sadly, our churches and our pulpits often give the same message. You may find yourself in each of these categories to some degree or strongly attached to only one. Personally, I travel in approaches two and three and I have friends in each of them. But I think it is wrong of us to suppose that culture doesn’t matter or to think that the expressions of that culture are harmless. That’s why we all draw the line–somewhere!

 

Reaching The Postmodern Man

Reaching The Postmodern Man

by Rick Shrader

I searched for America’s greatness in her matchless Constitution, and it was not there. I searched for America’s greatness in her halls of Congress, and it was not there. I searched for America’s greatness in her rich and fertile fields and teeming potential, and it was not there. It was not until I went into the heartlands of America and into her churches and met the American people that I discovered what it is that makes America great. America is great because America is good; and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Alexis de Tocqueville

It has been over one hundred and fifty years since Tocqueville wrote those words as French Minister of Foreign Affairs, searching for the key to a cultural foundation for his country which was collapsing due to the French Revolution. He came to America when Samuel Morse had, through strange impulses over an electrical wire, uttered the words, ‘‘What hath God wrought?’’ Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had just passed off the scene (both dying on July 4th, 1826). The population in the 1840 census was just over seventeen million, the telephone did not exist, neither did television nor any modes of horseless transportation except steam.

We look at the change in the world since those days and marvel at what man has been able to accomplish. Knowledge and technology have exploded to such a degree that the days of Morse seem like ancient history. And in a way they are! But the question we find ourselves asking as we enter the twenty-first century is, are we really advanced or are we simply able to build the tower of Babel faster?

In the same age Walt Whitman said, ‘‘To have great poets, you must have great audiences.’’ But, of course, as the level of the audience decreases, so does the quality of the poets. Great societies, like great rivers, said George Will, run naturally downhill. This poses a unique problem for the church living in the times when the river’s currents are almost impossible to manage. I have paddled a canoe valiantly against the current only to realize that though I was pointed upstream I was only slowing my advance downstream. And even at that, to the world of the current, I was only making a huge commotion. Sometimes the commotion is necessary and sometimes it’s merely due to a lack of skill. Oh, for the wisdom to know the difference!

Philosophers and observers are calling our present age the postmodern age. It is an age beyond what we called modernism. About the time we thought we had identified the enemy and learned how to fight him, he has taken a different form. When we fought modernism we had to choose between Atheism and Theism, Evolution and Creation, Rationalism and Supernaturalism. Now, in the postmodern age, neither are true and both are true. Nothing is moral and nothing is immoral. There simply are no absolutes because what we call truth is only someone’s idea. History itself is a manipulation of words by those who wanted to gain power over the oppressed in society. And so there are no great poets because the present audience refuses to hear poetry.

In describing this postmodern age, Gene Edward Veith writes, ‘‘The age of literacy is over. Reading has become obsolete. The written word is giving way to the electronic image. Reading demands abstract thought, the connection of sequential ideas, and an inner life. Once reading goes, the anti-intellectualism, relativism, and shallowness that already characterize postmodern society will accelerate out of control. To a degree, this is happening. The electronic media is the supreme postmodernist art form, both aesthetically and in its all-pervasive influence.’’ And Gore Vidal admits, ‘‘Music remains the most powerful of the art forms, whether it’s heavy metal or Verdi.’’

With our old friends the modernists, we could reason and fight over ideas and concepts. We could argue objectively that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He may scream, yell and disagree but at least we understood each other. To the postmodernist, however, the only truth is that there is no truth (an apparent contradiction, I know) and such concepts matter little to him. If it works for you it is true for you. That doesn’t mean it is true for me. This is dangerous to a person who must accept a verbal proposition in order to be saved! He can say yes to whatever is asked of him, being entirely sincere, without mentally consenting to any ‘‘truth.’’

To the postmodern, the distinction between reality and non-reality, truth and non-truth is impossible (and unnecessary) to tell. This has to be a great concern for any evangelistic believer. A good example is postmodern art. Traditional art found meaning in representing reality. Modern art found meaning in the mind of the artist. To the postmodern artist, however, meaning is found in the reaction of the audience (since truth is only what you perceive it to be). If the audience is shocked, art has occurred. The more bizarre, the better the art.

Postmodern architecture also creates a semi-fantasy world. Theme parks make you feel you are in frontier days but in reality you are not. Malls make the inside feel like an old city street but it is not. Buildings are turned inside out so that you see elevators, heating ducts and beams on the outside of the walls. One doesn’t quite know what is real about this place and what is illusion.

But the most profound fusing of reality and non-reality is the electronic media. Television can present a ‘‘documentary’’ about an historical character but mix it with fictional story lines to keep interest. News, on TV and radio, is often a ‘‘commentary’’ on the way the reporter sees it. Commercials present a fantasy world as a reward for buying a product. Music videos present pain and death as a normal (but drab) part of life. Movies present cartoon characters or alien beings as real as humans. The viewers are pandered to, entertained and given what their weakest will wants. And all of this through the most amazing, exciting and creative medium this world has ever seen.  If Samuel Morse could only see us now!

Reaching our generation for Christ will take more than merely using the art, architecture and media of the postmodern man. We must keep the proposition of God’s truth distinct from the non-reality of the world in which people live today. We cannot win postmodern man by turning the clock back because it won’t turn back. We must investigate every legitimate means the postmodern world offers us to evangelize. But we must do more than entertain and amaze. We must ask people to think.

Accepting truth is a cognitive process. If we only present Christianity as a more exciting alternative, postmodern man will readily acquiesce until the excitement wears off and then he’ll quietly vanish. Jesus offered the truth to set men free. Regardless of the mode in which it comes, if the receiver doesn’t understand it to be fact and not fiction, he is not free.

 

Is There Fruit In The Vineyard?

Is There Fruit In The Vineyard?

by Rick Shrader

Why, they ask, do not those miracles, which you preach of as past events, happen nowadays?  I might reply that they were necessary before the world believed, to bring the world to believe; but whoever is still looking for prodigies to make him believe is himself a great prodigy for refusing to believe where the world believes.

St. Augustine, The City of God

 

The Vineyard movement, led by John Wimber and Peter Wagner, is a growing phenomenon and concern of our time. Just as Wimber’s Vineyard Christian Fellowship grew from fifty members in 1978 to thousands, other Vineyard churches are springing up all over the country with similar results. Though very charismatic in nature, Vineyard leaders claim to be on the crest of a totally new wave of spiritual renewal.

Three Propositions. The Vineyard movement makes at least three claims to legitimacy. First, they are the Third Wave of the Holy Spirit (the first being the Pentecostals, the second the Charismatics) which is arming the church for the last days. Second, they alone are combating Satan through ‘‘power encounters’’ (signs and wonders are the ‘‘calling cards’’ of the kingdom) as the power of God challenges the power of Satan. Third, the church of the Western culture (including the Reformers) has adopted a secular world view and needs to learn a spiritual world view from Asian cultures. The West has been guilty of an ‘‘excluded middle’’ in their world view i.e. a physical world and a heavenly world but no middle world where the two really meet.

Five Evaluations. I would make these criticisms of the material I have collected and read from Wimber and Wagner. (1) The Vineyard Movement is historically naive. Why has the Holy Spirit only challenged Satan’s kingdom in the twentieth century? The only examples we have, historically, of charismatic-type phenomena were by known heretics. To say that the twentieth century Anglo-American worldview (which has wonderfully eliminated mysticism from our normal life) is inferior to the Asian worldview (Wimber, Power Evangelism, p. 129) and, therefore, has been a great detriment to the spread of the gospel, is to not see the forest for the trees. We are being asked to return to the pre-Reformation (p.139) spiritism when demonic activity and encounters were prevalent rather than be thankful that Western Christianity has largely delivered us from such things.

(2) The Vineyard movement is spiritually anemic. In a typical attempt to grant true spirituality only to the initiates of the movement (i.e. experiencing a power encounter), it has actually reduced biblical spirituality to outward showmanship. In all the literature I read there is almost no emphasis placed on anything like the fruit of the Spirit. Those things alone leave the believer out of the Third Wave mainstream. That type of Christian evidently is not living in the real world. D. A. Carson rightly said that this spiritual view, ‘‘Represents not only the triumph of triteness, it reflects a profoundly secular worldview broken up by moments of divine intervention. That is sad; it may also be dangerous.’’ (Power Religion, p. 115).

(3) The Vineyard movement is exegetically trite. The pattern of these books is a biblical reference followed by numerous examples of power encounters with virtually (I am being careful) no exegesis of the text. In fact, Wimber approves of saying, ‘‘The historical-grammatical method is inadequate, in other words, because it does not address piety’’ (Power, p. 192). He means that biblical interpretation often gets in the way of our experiences. A typical example of this piety would be Wagner’s presentation of the four levels of faith: saving faith, sanctifying faith, possibility thinking faith and fourth-dimension faith, the last of which is a fantasy faith from Paul Yonggi Cho (Third Wave p. 37).

(4) The Vineyard movement is experientially overloaded. A major thesis of this movement is that the initiated believer receives revelations from God on a constant basis and that these experiences are equal to biblical revelation. Wagner’s words speak volumes. ‘‘In the early years . . . I focused mostly on Bible study and not enough on a personal relationship with God. . . Jesus said ‘the sheep hear his voice.’ I am beginning to distinguish the voice of God from my own thoughts and to allow him to speak to me directly. I still study the Bible but I find this other dimension of personal intimacy equally important’’ (Third Wave p. 129).

(5) The Vineyard movement is prophetically skewed. The key belief is that the kingdom of God has come (in one of its two senses) and we are battling Satan to advance God’s kingdom. It sounds almost like Catholic amillennialism. Any passage, therefore, that mentions the kingdom of God can be immediately applied to the church today. Wimber directly applies millennial prophecies like Amos 5:24 and Psa 146:7 (Power, p. 163) and any passage from the New Testament he chooses. By doing this, no room is left for a concept of pilgrims and strangers, much less suffering for the kingdom of God’s sake.

Three Major Factors. The first factor to be considered in evaluating the validity of the Vineyard movement is the nature of God’s revelation. Is it still being given even after the completion of the Bible? This is a serious question and has always been at the center of charismatic controversy. If God is indeed revealing new information to the world, it is as binding on all of us as the Bible.

The second factor to be considered is whether we are supposed to be out looking for ‘‘power encounters’’ in order to live the full Christian life. James Boice quips, ‘‘If I believed that casting out demons and performing healings was the way to do evangelism, what would I do? Either I would go around looking for a lot of demons to cast out, or I would begin to interpret demonism to include a lot of other things I encountered’’ (Power Religion, p. 128).

The third factor to be considered is the validity of miracles in the age of grace. There is more disagreement among non-charismatics on this question than the others but it must be addressed by any thinking person. It is not a question of God’s ability but of His volition.  God has the ability to flood the world tomorrow but we know it is not His will to do so. Similarly, if this is the kingdom of God, where is the lion lying down with the lamb? Am I saying I don’t believe they can? No. I am asking when such a thing will take place.

Three Options. If you have ever conversed with an experience-oriented person, you know that a major contention is between what he has experienced and what you read in your Bible. In considering the demonic and spiritual encounters of the Vineyard movement, one or more of three options seems to be necessarily true. 1) It could be that the movement is led totally by hucksters and charlatans and the so-called miraculous happenings are only staged. This may be true of some, but I don’t believe it characterizes the movement as a whole. 2) The people of the movement may be very sincere and the so-called miraculous events are normal but coincidental happenings. This is obviously more correct than they would like to admit. The so-called miracle healings usually involve head-aches, back-aches and other ‘‘invisible phenomena.’’ 3) The movement may be dealing in real occurrences with real power of the kind that Moses met in Pharoah’s magicians. Even the ‘‘good’’ power may be Satanic power disguised to deceive even the elect (this is common in scripture, see Acts 16:14-18). I think this is a real possibility.

To underestimate the power and deceptiveness of Satan is a tragic mistake. To think that he can be manipulated like a page-boy when he can sift you like wheat is deadly. Thank God the light of the gospel has delivered Christian nations and individuals from the effete life of animism and spiritism. May our goal always be to deliver, not to enslave.

 

Signs Of The Times

Signs Of The Times

by Rick Shrader

Unfortunately there is in religious circles a cult of the intelligentsia which, in my opinion, is merely beatnikism turned wrong side out. As the beatnik, in spite of his loud protestations of individualism, is in reality one of the most slavish of conformists, so the young intellectual in the pulpit shakes in his carefully polished Oxfords lest he be guilty of saying something trite or common. The people look to him to lead them into green pastures but instead he leads them to a sandy desert.  A. W. Tozer

 

Robert Louis Stevenson once wrote in a note, ‘‘Went to church today, and was not greatly depressed.’’ I am grateful I do not feel that way in my own church but I think I often feel that way after reading the popular literature about church. Jesus asked of the religious leaders of his day, ‘‘You can discern the face of the sky; but can you not discern the signs of the times?’’ I think the Lord’s point was that they were able to determine how to succeed in religious endeavors that affected and profited them, but they had no clue or concern about how they fit in with God’s purpose in His over-all plan. Expediency was the word of the day.

There are at least two ways these days we seem to be discerning the face of the sky. First, in our present American generation, the new thought meteorology is consensus polling. With it we determine the right and wrong of almost any issue of our day. Recently, for example, we have learned that traditional family values are right because 76% of people polled prefer them to non-traditional values. There may be a Hell because 60% of people polled said so. Children cared for by their mother rather than a daycare center are better off because 63% of people polled say so. Seeker sensitive churches have a 67% better chance of numerical growth than others. Interestingly, we should not have churches over 1000 because only 7% of people polled like them! The Los Angeles Times was very sagacious when it described a megachurch that grew from a marketing study and titled the article, ‘‘Customer Poll Shapes a Church.’’

Second, we are good at forming our philosophy direction by the limits of our exposure. The Brady Bill may have passed because we now find that in the major media presentations, 75 supporters were shown compared to only 24 opponents. We are greatly persuaded by what we hear or read the most. Leaders easily become crusaders for the causes and opinions to which they expose themselves most often. We can become mimics of another man’s definition of success having never faced the issues with our own thoughts. By listening and reading selectively we may actually isolate ourselves into our own generation and lose sight of our place in history.

How does this affect the church? The same way it always has but with the added intensity of the computer age. I grew up in large churches where thousands of people attended. In the 60’s and 70’s they were criticized regularly for being pragmatic and opportunistic, of tricking people into coming to church. In the 80’s and 90’s, these same critics now have churches of their own with thousands in attendance but they, of course, are ‘‘progressive’’ and people of ‘‘vision.’’ Their every strategy was carefully plotted and grafted on a spread sheet according to the latest statistics. And now, today’s leaders are anxious to follow in order to obtain the same result. After all, they say, it is only a matter of methodology. I have agonized over the question, ‘‘is this current methodology an ability to discern the face of the sky while ignoring the signs of the times?’’ It seems to me that success is still measured in the same old way–visible results not philosophical stewardship! Thomas Carlyle once said, ‘‘He who has no vision of eternity has no hold on time.’’ I think that is what Jesus meant in differentiating between the face of the sky and the signs of the time.

There have been those who were truly the pioneers in their generation. Not that they were right in what they did or believed but at least they were original thinkers. Socrates’ hemlock; Luther’s ninety-five theses; Hitler’s Mein Kampf; Lincoln’s Gettysburg address; C.I. Scofield’s Bible; Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority; all were ideas of passion by men who believed a principle. Most successful people, however, are simply good prognosticators. They can read the face of the sky and the attitude of the polls and be three steps ahead of the rest. Business men like Sears, Penney and Walton were such men who profited greatly by seeing where people  were going and giving them what they really wanted. There are many such leaders in church movements today who are hailed as successes. A.W. Tozar wrote, ‘‘Pleasing the crowd is a time-proved way to get on in church circles. Instead of leading his people where they ought to go, the minister skillfully leads them where he knows they want to go. In this way he gives the appearance of being a bold leader of men, but avoids offending anyone, and thus assures ecclesiastical preferment when the big church or the high office is open.’’

I don’t think every successful minister is simply climbing the ecclesiastical ladder. I think many, if not most, are sincere in their pursuit of success for the gospel’s sake. But sincerity is such a refluent thing! We must be careful to be honest ambassadors representing a King from another culture. Shouldn’t we be most concerned with what God will one day say to us rather than what people said to us last Sunday? Robert Browning said, ‘‘Better have failed in the high aim, as I, than vulgarly in the low aim succeed as, God be thanked, I do not.’’

How can we discern the signs of the times? I certainly do not want to be found as Peter when the Lord said, ‘‘Thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.’’ First, I think we need to ask people to identify with the truth, not with image. The rich young ruler (a failed experiment in any evangelism class today) could not accept the truth of Christ’s person even though he wanted to be a part of the group. Jesus did not allow him to become comfortable without true conversion. Second, we must give people what they need, not merely what they want. The lame man at the temple in Acts 3, wanted a few creature comforts from the Apostles. Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8 wanted a little profit along with the Holy Spirit. In both cases Peter gave them what they really needed. Third, we need to be on the convicting edge more than the cutting edge. On Mars Hill, in Acts 17, Paul passed on his chance to build a progressive ministry in Athens by bringing up the subject of the resurrection when he knew well that he would be run out of town for it. But what good was success without conviction?

My intention has not been of a critical nature. I have no rocks to throw at anyone. I do have a burden about the low road many of our churches seem to have taken. My desire is to hold the cross of Christ high in the midst of this crooked and perverse generation. I agree with Henry Ward Beecher when he said, ‘‘The strength and the happiness of a man consists in finding the way in which God is going, and going that way too.’’  I’m sure many I have described believe they are going God’s way.  I have here disagreed.  But, then, that’s why anyone can use the mail service.