Church doesn't suck


(Note: I recognize that this post is unkind and the tone borders on mocking, but this sort of stuff sends me off the deep end)

Speaking of pragmatism...

So my wife met a guy at the local library and in the course of their conversation, he gave her his blog address. From his blog I followed a link to the website of a church in Saginaw (Connecting Points Community Church with the clever webpage churchdoesntsuck.com), and my jaw hit the floor. Their webpage started out with this...

WE ALMOST GAVE UP ON CHURCH
Even if most churches don't want to admit it, church has become notoriously boring and disconnected from our everyday lives. Most of us gave up on church years ago. After all, when's the last time you got up on a Sunday morning and thought about going to church instead of reading the newspaper or sleeping in?

Well, honestly the last time I thought about going to church instead of reading the newspaper was...well, it was last Sunday.

From the first century, within hours of Jesus assending back into heaven, the religious leaders began inplementing man made rules in order to become a Christian. Read Acts 15, it is pretty fascinating! Centuries later a guy named Martin Luther came along and criticized the church for how difficult they made it for those who wanted to follow Christ.

Is that what Martin Luther was mad about, that church was just so darn difficult? See, I thought he was railing against the heretical teachings of Rome regarding justification, regarding the authority of the Scriptures and the need for it to be in the language of the common people. Now I know that he just wanted Pope Leo to hook him up with an espresso machine, a laptop with power point and an electric guitar. I also thought that Martin Luther started (sort of) the movement that became known as "Protestant". Apparently not...

Luther began what we know as the protistant movement, that simplified things for those who wanted to follow Christ, and thousands began to leave the traditional church.

One hundred years later, the same thing that Luther fought so hard to keep out of the church crept right back in. Today, we are still dealing with the same junk that makes it difficult for people to see the love and truth of Jesus! Jesus brother James critizised the first century religious leaders saying "It is my judgement that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. At Connecting Points, we have the same passion! Church is not for church people, church is for EVERYBODY!

Seriously, if you don't know how to spell a word, use spell check. I guess they are spending so much time being relevant and havin' fun that spelling takes a back seat. And church is NOT for everyone. The church is for, well, the church. The church is His flock, made up of His sheep, and not everyone is one of His sheep. Since you are so into looking back at Acts to see how to behave (although I am wondering if we are reading the same Acts), look at see how many unbelievers are in the church. Should we make unbelievers welcome?Absolutely! Should we tailor the service and the message to appeal to them? Absolutely not! I guess I am just an old stodgy dude, heck I even wear a suit and tie to church...

The teaching is relevant, the music is upbeat and it is a relaxed atmosphere. (Don't bring your suit and tie, you might feel a little out of place! Coffee, Jeans and T-Shirts are welcome by all!)

I am thinking that what would make me feel out of place at this church has less to do with my attire and more to do with the cavalier way they manipulate the Gospel to make it seem relevant.

My wife Eva asked the question: how do you harness the intense energy of these people, while bringing them under the authority of the Word? The are so enthusiastic, so desirous of being used. To use her term, how do we bridge the gap? Or do we? Are we all on the same team or is this a different Gospel, and therefore anathema? I gotta admit that I lean towards the latter, that this "Gospel" they proclaim is no Gospel at all. I wonder if they are interested in learning at all, or if by presenting the truth you would drive away people who have no interest in the truth.

If it works, do it!

On the White Horse Inn this weekend, Using God: The Gospel of Pragmatism.

The White Horse Inn last weekend focused on the Gospel of Pragmatism, or as I call it the "God as galactic concierge" movement. In the church growth movement and in many a seminary, the focus is on methods and what works, not what is faithful. The idea of teaching seminarians to learn to study the Word, exegete the Word, proclaim the Word and apply the Word seems antiquated, out of place in a postmodern world. It seems incomprehensible that even if the numbers don't come, a church's faithfulness is measured by their devotion to the Word of God, not the number of people in the pews. Not all big churches are unfaithful (there are lots of attenders at the churches that John Piper and John MacArthur pastor) and not every small church is faithful (there are plenty of heretic with minimal attendance). But ultimately numbers are not the yardstick we measure our faithfulness to God by.

The White Horse Inn boys defined pragmatism as doing what works. I would argue that pragmatism is not doing what “works” but doing what yields the desired results. If we want “church growth”, then we have these programs and it will yield full pews. If we want X number of baptisms, then make sure we do this kind of an altar call to get people up front and dunked. If the result is not glorifying God by proclaiming the Gospel, it probably isn’t a Gospel church, no matter what the name of the organization is.

The Gospel is incredibly impractical. It calls for a method of delivery that is folly to many, preaching. It proclaims a message that is foolishness to unregenerate people. God designed the Gospel to be something that no one would embrace outside of the work of the Spirit, and that is one of the ways we know that it comes from God, not man. What these emergent/seeker-sensitive churches declare is a combination of slick marketing and dumbed down (or non-existent) doctrine to appeal to an unregenerate audience that is not, and never will, come to faith outside of a working of the Holy Spirit no matter how many lattes they drink.

Ultimately the Gospel is designed to be impractical because only then is God glorified, only then do we see people saved by the power of God instead of our own efforts. See my next post for a demonstration of what happens when you abandon sound doctrine in favor of pragmatism and relevance.

Putting political expediency above the Gospel

While milling around the internet, I came across a posting on the Evangelicals for Mitt webpage by a gentleman named David French. Mr. French seems like a solid guy, a Christian who is a Harvard Law educated lawyer, and a Calvinist to boot! However...

With a due respect for David French and his service for our country, when he writes this:

As for me, I'm proud to stand with Mormons as we confront the cultural rot that is destroying our country from within, and I'm proud to serve with Mormons as fellow soldiers facing a hideous evil overseas. I appreciate them more than they could know. I'm grateful for their presence in my life and in the life of this nation. So, I leave the question of "cult, denomination, or religion" to the Judge of all things. I'm content with a fourth category -- one not on that list -- the category of "friends."

...I have to speak up. Friends don't send missionaries out to try to convince Christians to leave Christianity for a heretical belief. The history of mormonism in America, if you go back more than a few years, is one of near open rebellion, of borderline sedition, of introducing polygamy into the American landscape in a major way. The institution of the mormon church is directed at convincing people that the Bible is unreliable, all Christian churches are apostate (including the church that David French and his wife attend, Zion Presbyterian in Columbia, TN which appears to be a solid church) and God is not eternally God but instead a created personage of flesh, a man who progressed to become one of many gods.

Mr. French is putting political pragmatism above the Gospel. My reasons for not voting for Romney have little to do with his faith, and a lot more to do with his waffling on positions, but let's not forget the tens of thousands of missionary "friends" knocking on Christian doors today and every day. The Gospel is more precious than the GOP. As important as the 2008 election is, it is not going to make or break the proclamation of the Gospel if a Republican is in the White House. The Gospel must not be compromised. I would expect a Calvinist to know better.