The Gospel is MORE

The Gospel is MORE

Dr. John P. Davis

I  have more than just an intense interest in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have a deep love for the gospel. The gospel of Jesus Christ has brought me deliverance from my sin, forgiveness, relationship with God, and the assurance of life eternal.

The gospel is the Good News that in the person and work of Jesus Christ God answers the deepest need of humanity and of the world. The gospel is the Good News that the personal and cosmic effects of sin are defeated and reversed through the triumphant work of the Son of God who became man, who lived the perfect life we’ve failed to live, who died that death that we deserve to die, and who rose again triumphantly to declare the Good News that He has vanquished sin and death

I have seen how the simplicity and glory of the gospel can get lost in theological debate. Don’t get me wrong. I am a theologian. I love biblical theology where the development and growth of the thematic seeds of God’s redemptive plan can be traced through the progress of revelation. I also love systematic theology where the great doctrinal truths of Scripture are brought together in coherent, logical systems. 

But, I love the gospel more than biblical and systematic theology.  I love the gospel more, because it is more. 

The gospel is not a lesser, unrefined, more elemental understanding of God’s work of redemption. The gospel is deeper and broader than any biblical theology or systematic theology. The gospel is deeper in its significance and broader in its application than any attempt at formulating theological systems. The gospel is more.

The gospel is more because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. No system can make such a claim. You can be strong adherent and defender of a system, and still go to hell. But if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved.

The gospel is more because it is universal. Theological systems are limited by the cultural and historical systems which gave rise to them. The gospel is supra-cultural as is seen in the diversity of its adherents from every tongue, tribe, and nation.

The gospel is more because it will always bring us to an affection and loyalty to Jesus that supersedes the affection and loyalty that many have for great thinkers and theologians.

The gospel is more because it the basis for the true unity among Christians for which Jesus prayed. History leaves a trail of civil war between Christians who shed the blood of brothers over systems.

The gospel is more because it is eternal. One day we will see that all human biblical and theological reflection and systematizing woefully failed to plunge the depths of the wonder of God’s grace in the gospel.  All human formulations are temporary and at best provisional.

The gospel is more because it alone has the power to humble my heart and warm my heart with a passion for those who do not know Christ. I have met great theologians without passion for the lost. I’ve never met a cold-hearted ‘lover of the gospel.’

Because the gospel is more, I will pursue biblical and systematic theology only as long as they lead me into a deeper love for Christ and the gospel, only as long as they bring me into more committed love to my brothers and sisters in Christ, only as long as they promote a humility in pursuing a deeper and broader understanding and application of the gospel, and only as long as they stir up in me a passion for those who are outside of the gospel.

Are You Born Again?

Following is the classic tractate by J.C. Ryle (1816-1900):

Are you born again? This is one of life’s most important questions. Jesus Christ said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

It is not enough to reply, “I belong to the church; I suppose I’m a Christian.” Thousands of nominal Christians show none of the signs of being born again which the Scriptures have given us—many listed in the First Epistle of John.

First of all, John wrote: “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin” (I John 3:9). “Whosoever is born of God sinneth not” (5:18).

A person who has been born again, or regenerated, does not habitually commit sin. He no longer sins with his heart and will and whole inclination. There was probably a time when he did not think about whether his actions were sinful or not, and he did not always feel grieved after doing evil. There was no quarrel between him and sin; they were friends. But the true Christian hates sin, flees from it, fights against it, considers it his greatest plague, resents the burden of its presence, mourns when he falls under its influence, and longs to be completely delivered from it. Sin no longer pleases him, nor is it even a matter of indifference to him; it has become a horrible thing which he hates. However, he cannot eliminate its presence within him.

If he said that he had no sin, he would be lying (I John 1:8). But he can say that he hates sin and that the great desire of his soul is not to commit sin at all. He cannot prevent bad thoughts from entering his mind, or shortcomings, omissions, and defects from appealing in both his words and his actions. He knows that “in many things we offend all” (James 3:2). But he can truly say, in the sight of God, that these things cause him grief and sorrow and that his whole nature does not consent to them. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Second, John wrote: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (I John 5:1).

A man who is born again, or regenerated, believes that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour who can pardon his soul, that He is the divine person appointed by God the Father for this very purpose, and beside Him there is no Saviour at all. In himself he sees nothing but unworthiness. But he has full confidence in Christ, and trusting in Him, he believes that his sins are all forgiven. He believes that, because he has accepted Christ’s finished work and death on the cross, he is considered righteous in God’s sight, and he may look forward to death and judgment without alarm.

He may have fears and doubts. He may sometimes tell you that he feels as if he had no faith at all. But ask him if he is willing to trust in anything instead of Christ, and see what he will say. Ask him if he will rest his hope of eternal life on his own goodness, his own works, his prayers, his minister, or his church, and listen to his reply. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Third, John wrote: “Every one that doeth righteousness is born of Him” (I John 2:29).

The man who is born again, or regenerated, is a holy man. He endeavors to live according to God’s will, to do the things that please God and to avoid the things that God hates. He wishes to continually look to Christ as his example as well as his Saviour and to prove himself to be Christ’s friend by doing whatever He commands. He knows he is not perfect. He is painfully aware of his indwelling corruption. He finds an evil principle within himself that is constantly warring against grace and trying to draw him away from God. But he does not consent to it, though he cannot prevent its presence.

Though he may sometimes feel so low that he questions whether or not he is a Christian at all, he will be able to say with John Newton, “I am not what I ought to be, I am not what I want to be, I am not what I hope to be in another world; but still I am not what I once used to be, and by the grace of God I am what I am.” What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Fourth, John wrote: “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren” (I John 3:14).

A man who is born again has a special love for all true disciples of Christ. Like his Father in heaven, he loves all men with a great general love, but he has a special love for those who share his faith in Christ. Like his Lord and Saviour, he loves the worst of sinners and could weep over them; but he has a peculiar love for those who are believers. He is never so much at home as when he is in their company.

He feels they are all members of the same family. They are his fellow soldiers, fighting against the same enemy. They are his fellow travelers, journeying along the same road. He understands them, and they understand him. They may be very different from himself in many ways—in rank, in station and in wealth. But that does not matter. They are his Father’s sons and daughters and he cannot help loving them. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Fifth, John wrote: “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world” (I John 5:4).

A man who is born again does not use the world’s opinion as his standard of right and wrong. He does not mind going against the world’s ways, ideas and customs. What men think or say no longer concerns him. He overcomes the love of the world. He finds no pleasure in things which seem to bring happiness to most people. To him they seem foolish and unworthy of an immortal being.

He loves God’s praise more than man’s praise. He fears offending God more than offending man. It is unimportant to him whether he is blamed or praised; his first aim is to please God. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

Sixth, John wrote: “He that is begotten of God keepeth himself’ (I John 5:18).

A man who is born again is careful of his own soul. He tries not only to avoid sin but also to avoid everything which may lead to it. He is careful about the company he keeps. He knows that evil communications corrupt the heart and that evil is more catching than good, just as disease is more infectious than health. He is careful about the use of his time; his chief desire is to spend it profitable.

He desires to live like a soldier in an enemy country—to wear his armor continually and to be prepared for temptation. He is diligent to be watchful, humble, prayerful man. What would the apostle say about you? Are you born again?

These are the six great marks of a born again Christian.

There is a vast difference in the depth and distinctness of these marks in different people. In some they are faint and hardly noticeable. In others they are bold, plain and unmistakable, so anyone may read them. Some of these marks are more visible than others in each individual. Seldom are all equally evident in any one person.

But still, after every allowance, here we find boldly painted six marks of being born of God.

How should we react to these things? We can logically come to only one conclusion—only those who are born again have these six characteristics, and those who do not have these marks are not born again. This seems to be the conclusion to which the apostle intended us to come. Do you have these characteristics? Are you born again? 

Dealing with the Disadvantaged

Dealing with the Disadvantaged

Deuteronomy 23:15-16

Dr. John P. Davis

 

Deuteronomy 23:15-16   ¹⁵ ¶ “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you.  ¹⁶ He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not wrong him.

This text at first glance may seem foreign to us, because of the change in social climate from the ancient world of Israel to today. However, if we would open our eyes, I believe that we’d begin to realize that there are people all about us who are disadvantaged in a similar way that a runaway slave might be vulnerable. Though slavery in the technical sense does not exist in America, yet in a very practical way slavery is all around us. There are many who due to misfortune in life are bound to adverse circumstances and who are crying for someone to help them. Whether it’s the homeless, the jobless, the poor, the immigrant, the ill, the aged, etc., if we’ll open our eyes we’ll find many that experience a form of slavery.

 How should a Christian relate to those in such a situation? What can we learn from these verses that instruct us on how to deal with the disadvantaged?

First I will make a few introductory remarks about slavery in ancient Israel that help elucidate the meaning of the text and then I will draw three applications to our own setting..

 These two verses are found in the greater unit of thought that begins at 22:13 and ends at 24:22. This unit of thought covers matters affecting the social welfare of the nation. Israelite law, in contrast to the existing contemporary laws of its age, placed a high priority on human life and human rights, grounded in the belief that all men were created in the image of God. Even though the system of Jewish law did not abrogate slavery, it yet allowed its concept of God and humanity to permeate its approach to the issue of slavery.

Permanent involuntary slavery was to be imposed only on Israel’s enemies taken captive in war. Temporary involuntary slavery was at times the experience of fellow Israelites who because of adverse economic conditions were placed in temporary servitude, with their debt being cancelled after six years. Voluntary slavery took place when an Israelite whose debt was cancelled preferred the apparent security of slavery over freedom. He then had his ear pierced with an awl.

This particular text is dealing with foreign slaves who have fled from their masters seeking asylum in Israel. This passage is basically teaching that ” … runaway slaves are entitled to asylum in any Israelite village “  (Nicholson 1967, 54). Although in the Ancient Near East there existed suzerain treaty provisions for the return of runaway slaves, Israel was exempted from this stipulation, because she was the vassal of Yahweh alone (Clifford 1982, 125). Israel in her experience of freedom was to be the guardian of the freedom of others. Because of her own experience of slavery and present enjoyment of freedom (ca. Exodus 20:2), her society was to be made up of free men (Phillips 1984, 62) and they, as God’s people, were to be ” …the friends of freedom … (Cunliffe Jones 1956, 133).                       

 There are three principles that are to govern our dealings with the disadvantaged:

  I. The People of God should be a place of refuge for the disadvantaged. “ You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you ”

 Apparently there was something so attractive about the society of Israel that occasioned such instances as runaway slaves seeking asylum in asylum. Certainly as merchants passed through Israel they and their servants would have noticed the elevated status of slaves and the humaneness with which they were treated. The freedom of this people must have been enviable.

As Yahweh was the refuge of Israel, so Israel, the people of God, was to be a refuge to the world.

 I’m afraid that the church of Jesus Christ has often failed in this respect. Our lack of compassion on the disadvantaged is evidenced in many ways.

How many families want to go to the nursing home to minister?

How many people want to be involved in prison ministry?

How many are interested in working with immigrants and illegal aliens?

Who would think of taking an international student into their home?

Who wants to provide foster care for a refugee?

How many are reaching the homeless or are involved in literacy? (Are not the illiterate a disadvantaged people who are slaves, often involuntarily to their circumstances?)

If the church of Jesus Christ is not a refuge for the disadvantaged of this world and if believers have no personal desire to provide a refuge, where then will the disadvantaged find a refuge in this world?

 Have the disadvantaged of this world been turned away so often that they no longer think of the church as a place of refuge for those who are oppressed?

Have the disadvantaged witnessed in the evangelical church such fear, indifference, and reticence toward them that they have concluded, “they really don’t care.”

Can the disadvantaged of this world possibly come to believe in a merciful, caring, loving God if the people of that God are not merciful enough to provide a refuge?

 II. The people of God should provide an environment that encourages the right of self-determination.

“He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him.”

 One characteristic which distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation is the right of self-determination. Humans were created to enjoy freedom under God, and apart from the situations mentioned in the introduction and some legal circumstances, this freedom is not to be denied. Ownership of another is essentially a prerogative of God.

 One of the privileges of a free man is the fulfillment of his own desires (wherever it suits him). A slave is one who lives out the desires of another.  It is also to be recognized that one of the privileges of a free man is the exercise of personal choice (in the place that he shall choose).

The disadvantaged are so imprisoned by their circumstances that their desires and dreams remain imprisoned and their ability to choose is non-existent.

 To deny either of these privileges to a man is to abrogate his God-given freedom.

The people of God should be committed to creating the kind of environments where disadvantaged people can enjoy the freedom of self-determination. The church should avoid programs (as many government programs) that only create another kind of dependency, a milder, kinder form of slavery, yet, nevertheless, still slavery.

As in missions, this principle of self-determination encourages the kind of indigeneity that lessens dependency, and when applied to ministry to the oppressed, it moves toward ministry that is more developmentally oriented.

III. The people of God see the immorality of oppressing the disadvantaged in any way.

     “You shall not wrong him ”

 The older translations catch the nuance of this word (to wrong) by translating it with the word ‘oppress.’ The people of God knew a little about oppression from their years in Egypt. Because of the mercy they received in God’s powerful deliverance of them, they were to extend that same mercy to others.

Exodus 22:21 ¶ “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

The gospel of Christ calls all of those who have been delivered by its power to extend a similar mercy to others.

Luke 6:32-36  ³² ¶ “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.  ³³ And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.  ³⁴ And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.  ³⁵ But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.  ³⁶ Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Are we who are recipients of mercy guilty of practicing oppression or of tolerating oppression?

How about the migrant farm worker who is paid $ 4.50 an hour for work that others are paid $ 8.00. an hour?    

How about the distressed woman who comes to your employ, who really needs a job, she’s in times of difficulty, so you do her a big favor by paying her less than you would pay others.    

How about the teenager in your employ, who works as hard and as well as a grown man, but he’s a teenager, so you take advantage of him.

We seem to have an unwritten business ethic in America that says, if someone is really hurting in life, squeeze him (oppress him) as tightly as you can.  For too many the bottom line is profit rather than human dignity.

We have seen the business men (and now governments) that watch a company begin to struggle financially, and invariably, will come along in that moment of desperation to make an offer of much less than what its worth, taking advantage of their distress.

How about that yard sale, when you come across a family that’s selling everything they own because hard times have come their way, and you walk in with that enterprising spirit, realizing how desperate they are, and you make an offer you know isn’t fair, but they’re desperate so they have to take it. You have just violated the intent of this text.

To oppress anyone, especially the disadvantaged, is to show the utmost disrespect for human life.

To oppress others, especially the disadvantaged, is to live in blatant violation of the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

 To oppress others or to fail to deliver them from oppression is contrary to the call of the gospel. 

Conclusion:

A model ethical portrait of the people of God is provided in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 18:5-9   ⁵ ¶ “If a man is righteous and does what is just and right–  ⁶ if he does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman in her time of menstrual impurity,  ⁷ does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, commits no robbery, gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment,  ⁸ does not lend at interest or take any profit, withholds his hand from injustice, executes true justice between man and man,  ⁹ walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully–he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD.

 The high calling of this model ethic requires an ongoing, transforming experience of the grace and mercy of God which only comes as the life Christ is manifested in us through the Spirit.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Clifford, Richard. Deuteronomy. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982.

Cunliffe Jones, H. Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1956.

Nicholson, E. W. Deuteronomy and Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Phillips, Anthony. “The Laws of Slavery: Exodus 21:2Ð11.” JSOT 30 (1984), 51-66.

The Church and Social Issues

The following is an excerpt from Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) (Chicago: Moody, 2008):

Shouldn’t we care for the poor and the unborn? Shouldn’t we care about justice and righteousness? After all, “religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (James 1:27, emphasis added).

More generally, Christians on the right and left must remember that while Jesus’ message certainly had political implications (most notably, He was Lord and Caesar was not), Jesus never started a political party, nor do we have any record of Him crusading against social and political ills. It’s true that the gospel has social implications. But the social gospel is something else entirely. Rauschenbusch and his followers often equated social action with the gospel so that the kingdom of God was no longer concerned with individual salvation and future life, but with the elimination of intolerance, corruption, injustice, and militarism. This message is hardly a secret or lost one since the mainline Protestant establishment has been saying it for a hundred years. The problem is not in working toward the elimination of injustice, though the specific activities lumped under “justice” are often debatable. The problem is in thinking that this is the main business of the church as church. But when the church’s business is mainly political and its unifying creeds are political instead of doctrinal, the church and state overlap until the church becomes redundant. Which is why the Religious Right has been getting such a beating of late, and why people are leaving the politically liberal mainline churches in droves, and why the emerging church will become little more than a venue for left-leaning politics if they continue to view historic Christian doctrine and faith as ancillary to the gospel.

The emergent church, like Protestant liberalism before it, is quite certain about God’s politics yet equally uncertain about God’s theology. I’m just the opposite. I don’t claim to have the divine word on minimum wage increases, activist judges, or global warming. Don’t get me wrong – I have opinions on these subjects and hope these opinions are well informed and perhaps even right. But I am much more certain about God’s view on the atonement than I am about His view on CEO salaries. On the right and the left, we would all do well to heed Hart’s advice as he summarizes the 1969 guidelines from the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS):

On rare occasions the church’s influence may be “direct and intentional” when some social issues present themselves “about which the Scriptures speak so explicitly and clearly” that the institutional church is bound to speak. But because this kind of influence “always carries the risk of politicizing the church,” it should be done infrequently and “only on the basis of clear and unambiguous teaching of Scripture, where the church’s most fundamental concerns are at stake…. It asserted that the LCMS should “remain alert to the hazard of issuing superficial moral judgments or urging particular forms of action in complex secular matters for which there is no clear Word of God.”

This makes refreshingly good sense to me. Too often well-meaning Republicans and Democrats have been quick to politicize the gospel, unnecessarily alienating their brothers and sisters, and quick to pronounce divinely sanctioned judgments on things they don’t understand. I guess as a gospel minister I tend to focus on, well, the gospel – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I am dogmatic, yet humble (I hope), about orthodoxy, while I am open-minded, yet opinionated, about politics. That is to say, the difference between emerging churches and what I am aiming for in my church is the difference between unity based on social issues and unity based on theological issues. Orthodoxy means right doctrine that overflows in right living, which can be variously applied in the political sphere. For emerging churches, however, it seems that orthodoxy means right living immediately applied in the political sphere without attention to doctrine (190-92).

The Unfreezing of the Christian Church

Unfreezing is an aspect of Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis model. This is a model of “systemwide change that helps change agents diagnose the forces that drive and restrain proposed organizational change” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2009, p. 488). Unfreezing refers to the “first part of the change process whereby the change agent produces disequilibrium between the driving and restraining forces” (p. 489).

Systemic organizational change is rarely, if ever, achieved without conflict. This is true in churches and it is true in business. This process of change has been shown to have identifiable agents that participate in organizational movement from the status quo to a desired condition or state of affairs. The preeminent model that describes systemic change is Kurt Lewin’s “force field analysis.” This model assists in diagnosing “the forces that drive and restrain proposed organizational change” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2008, p. 488).

On the one side of this model, there are “driving forces” that are pushing “organizations toward a new state of affairs” (p. 488). On the other side, resisting the change, there are “restraining forces” that are striving gallantly to maintain the status quo. Carol Bartz (2009), the new chief executive officer of Yahoo, Inc. has witnessed this firsthand. She has correctly observed that organizations frequently can “get in the way of innovation” (“Question of Management”). Often the restraining forces are fearful of change, and automatically assume a hostile stance toward anything new or different. This hostility drives behavior that ends up restraining, or attempting to restrain, the winds of change.  

Within organizational settings, change cannot occur without an “unfreezing” of the status quo. A distortion must be introduced into the organization in order for an unfreezing to occur. The unfreezing process begins as (1) the driving forces for change become more prevalent, (2) when restraining forces are diminished, or (3) as a result of a combination of both of these occurrences (McShane and Von Glinow, 2008, p. 489).

For instance, driving forces for change become more pronounced when someone new is inserted into a key point within the structure of the organization. In a church setting, this can occur when a new pastor or elder is called to serve the congregation. This person may, knowingly or not, begin an unfreezing process that moves the organization in a new direction. “Change rarely occurs by increasing driving forces alone, however, because the restraining forces often adjust to counterbalance the driving forces” (p. 492).

Restraining forces can be diminished when key leaders or managers within an organization relocate, retire, or pass away. If a person was influential within the organization, these types of events can easily begin to move the group in a new direction. If restraining forces are declining as driving forces for change are increasing, then movement from the status quo to a new condition is probably inevitable. Thus, the process of unfreezing begins.

The unfreezing process can create great tension and disharmony within the organization. The disequilibrium that results can generate a considerable amount of stress for those who desire no movement from the existing state of affairs. Those in positions of authority must handle this instability with great care and gracious understanding for those who are uncomfortable with the movement to a new condition. Disgruntled and disenchanted people, even if in the minority, can be a great hindrance to the growth of any organization. Effective resistance to change can take many forms that undermine the goals of the leaders who are trying to move the organization to a better position in order to accomplish their mission.

Rather than resenting the reality of resistance, leaders and managers would do well to consider the brute fact that many people oppose change simply because they fear the process of change itself. The following six items are forces that resist organizational change, adapted from McShane and Von Glinow (2008). These forces are manifest to some degree in all organizational settings, even, regrettably, in churches:

(1)  Direct costs. People tend to block actions that they perceive will cost them something. This cost is weighed socially, economically, or psychologically.

(2)  Saving face. Some resist change as a political strategy in order to enhance their personal reputation within the organization.

(3)  Fear of the unknown. People resist change out of worry that they will not be able to properly adjust and acclimate themselves to the new environment.

(4)  Breaking routines. People are creatures of habit. They like to stay within their comfort zones by continuing routine role patterns that make life predictable. Changes within their workplace or place of worship are viewed with as much gravitas as changes that take place within their own living rooms. Also, people simply do not wish to invest the time and energy necessary in order to learn new role patterns.

(5)  Incongruent organizational systems. Social and psychological rewards accompany certain role patterns within any organization. People do not wish to alter such well-known unspoken social structures.

(6)  Incongruent team dynamics. Groups develop and enforce conformity to a set of norms that guide behavior. However, conformity to existing team/group norms may discourage people from accepting organizational change. In the eyes of those who resist change, new norms that conflict with the status quo must be eliminated (p. 490-91).

Progressive-minded leaders within the organization must create a climate that cultivates change. For this to occur, the leaders must lay a foundation of instruction that teaches people about the necessity of change in a world of constant movement. If the people don’t see the need for change, increased resistance will overwhelm any purposeful increase in driving forces and a continuance of the status quo will be the end result.

The visionary leader is one who can anticipate cultural forces and see the need for the organization to adapt to face the new challenges that lie ahead. In churches, such leaders must, through their teaching, counseling, and personal interaction with the people in their congregation, create a sense of crisis and urgency for change. This must be done carefully and over time, but it must be done if the church is to stay properly contextualized and relevant to the culture it is attempting to reach for the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This does not mean that the church must become “of” the world in order to reach it (cf. John 15:18; 17:16), for the Gospel message possesses universal relevance and, by its very nature as God-given propositional truth, unchanging. However, church leadership must recognize that the church is to be “in” the world (cf. John 17:11, 18) in the sense that we are still here on earth (for we were not instantly translated into the presence of the Lord when we were saved) so that we may carry out our task as ambassadors of the King until He returns to inaugurate His reign in all of its fullness. Being “in” the world as ambassadors necessarily implies that we are to be constantly reaching out to communicate the Gospel in ways that are understandable and meaningful to the culture around us.

For the church to remain static in its outreach and methods of communicating with the culture is to stubbornly stand opposed the effective advancement of the Gospel of our Lord. Paul’s charge to “not be conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2) simply does not apply to the effective, relevant communication of the Gospel by Holy Spirit-empowered and –sensitive saints who are pursuing what is good and eschewing the wicked elements within culture. Paul’s own preaching on Mars Hill in Acts 17 displays a willingness to confront the world with the Gospel on its own turf, utilizing fleeting and changing elements of localized culture (which is itself shaped by those who are created in the image of God) as touchstones for the unchanging truth of the Gospel. Therefore, culturally relevant evangelism cannot be what the Holy Spirit is forbidding in Romans 12:2.

The church never needs to change (its message) but always needs to change (the form that the message takes). Christian leaders must refuse to be defeated by the familiar rhythms of the church’s existence. This merely condemns the church to continue down the same failed path as our most recent predecessors. [1] The solution cannot be to simply shout the message louder. We must change the way we are delivering the message. It is the task of the men whom God has called to pastor our churches to constantly and consistently lay the foundation for effective change within their respective congregations.

McShane and Von Glinow (2008) point out that “effective change occurs by unfreezing the current situation, moving to a desired condition, and then refreezing the system so that it remains in this desired state” (p. 489). In light of what has been said above, any refreezing that occurs should be understood as contingent and temporary.

The church needs to recognize that we are sojourners and pilgrims in this world (1 Peter 2:11). As such, we need to stop building immutable, permanent edifices that testify to the methodologies and religion of past generations. We need to stop sitting around pining about the supposed glory days of Christian yore and whining that the culture has moved on from Churchianity to something else. We need to stop practicing a dead Nostaligianity [2] and embrace a living, vibrant, New Testament Christianity.

Our post-church culture has moved so far beyond these older forms of the expression of the Christian faith that it no longer understands or even values them. My prayer is that church leaders of all ages would recognize the value and necessity of moving their congregations in directions where we can make the Gospel make sense again in our culture. My prayer is for a great “unfreezing” to occur in our churches. It is my conviction that unless such an unfreezing takes place, we will not see Gospel revival again in our lifetimes.

References:

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2006). Version 2.1. Accordance Bible Software, Version 8.2.3, 2009. 

Lindsey, B. (2009). Nostalgianomics: Liberal economists pine for days no liberal should want to revisit. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124508075585515437.html [24 June 2009].

McShane, S. L. & Von Glinow, M. A. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

A Question of Mangement: Carol Bartz on how Yahoo’s organizational structure got in the way of innovation. (2009). The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203431004574196080698220124.html [24 June 2009].

Shalit, W. (2009). Delighting in dust bunnies: The elusive quest for domestic order. The Wall Street Journal. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204482304574217822376214350.html [24 June 2009].

---

[1] I owe the structure and wording of this and the previous sentence to a portion of Wendy Shalit’s “Delighting in Dust Bunnies: The elusive quest for domestic order.”

[2] I came up with the term “Nostalgianity” after reading Brink Lindsey’s “Nostalgianomics: Liberal economists pine for days no liberal should want to revisit.”

Note: Illustrations are from McShane and Von Glinow’s Organizational Behavior.

Sin, Creation, and the Gospel

Sin, Creation, and the Gospel

Dr. John P. Davis

 

            A biblical view of the created world and of the Christian’s relationship to the created world depends upon how one views sin in relation to creation. In Genesis 1-2 the created order is designated as good. Human sin does not exist within God’s handiwork. “Sin, an alien invasion of creation, is completely foreign to God’s purposes for his creation” (Wolters, 48). When sin entered through Satan’s deception, all of creation became ensnared in the throes of abnormality and distortion. However, Scripture does not teach that the goodness of creation was abolished by the fall or that creation is now identified with sin.          

            It is obvious to all that the fall affected the created world, culture, and the institutions of creation such as marriage, bodily functions such as sexuality and eating, etc. Wolter’s distinction between the structure and direction of creation is helpful in understanding the relationship of sin to creation. Structure refers to the order of creation as God intended it to be. Structure reflects the law of creation that the very nature (essence, substance) of something is what God created it to be. So we can think of things, humans, and institutions such as marriage in light of their structure and see their creational goodness. For instance, it is not the human, as a created being that is evil, but evil has distorted the way God intended humans to be. The created world is not evil but sin brings about the distortion of what God created. Sin is an alien invader into God’s creation.

            When we speak of the direction of creation, we refer to how God’s order of creation is either distorted through the fall or it is redeemed and restored in Christ. When the biblical writers use the term “world” in a negative sense (Col. 2:8; Rom. 12:2; James 1:27; 2 Peter 2:20), they mean “the totality of unredeemed life dominated by sin outside of Christ.” Christians who delimit some areas of the created world by calling them “worldly” or “secular” make a grave mistake, as if there is no worldliness in the church or there can be no holiness in the arts or politics. Many Christians have abandoned the “secular” realm and “consequently” the forces of evil often rule. Humans still have responsibility for the created order (structure) but this can be distorted by the fall or it can be redeemed and restored through Christ (direction).

            From the fall of man on, all of future history and revelation is redemptive in nature. The effects of sin are so pervasive and powerful that only a divine solution will suffice. When you move from the fall in Genesis 3 to chapter 4, you immediately realize that sin has passed from parent to child. The story of Cain and Able is not told to “warn us of the dangers of jealousy and

hatred. Rather it shows the solidarity of the human race in Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21); sin has been passed on to the next generation. Moreover, it demonstrates the alienation between an individual, his brother, and his God” (Vangemeren 87).

            The pervasive and powerful effects of sin as revealed in the history of Genesis 4-11 prepare us for God’s sovereign intervention in the call of Abraham and the series of covenants that anticipate Jesus Christ, God’s only solution for sin. All the distortion of God’s created order (structure) and all distortion because of the fall (direction) are ultimately restored through God’s Anointed, Jesus Christ. The complete restoration awaits the Consummation when sin and its effects will be removed (2 Peter 3:10-13; Revelation 21:1-5).

            This conviction that only Christ can fully restore a fallen creation and that only Christ can redeem and restore a fallen life keeps us dependent upon God and involved in prayer, evangelism, and loving acts of justice and mercy. While we continue to bring Christ’s redemption and restoration to bear upon the present created order, we do so knowing that the kingdom rule of Jesus Christ and the removal of sin is the ultimate solution.

            If man is basically good, or at least perfectible, apart from spiritual renewal, then the Christian approach to reformation of society will inevitably be primarily through government-sponsored education and civil legislation. If men are dead in trespasses and sins, darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, then inevitably the Christian approach to society will be primarily through prayer and evangelism. If the sin that is in the world is mere creaturely limitation, ignorance, poor heredity, or bad government, the conclusions are the same. The Christian approach to society will be mainly by education and legislation or perhaps attempted improvement of heredity through biological manipulation of conception.

            But if the sin of the world is a form of bond-slavery to evil, evil in man himself constantly encouraged by demonic evil in the world itself, then the Christian’s hope for cleansing the world’s educational and legislative processes will be realistic as well as real. He will not expect to change the processes of society for the better apart from doing something to make men better.

            This is to say that the Christian is certainly to approve indirect Christian social action through legislative and general educative processes. He also knows hopes for enduring improvement from these quarters are chimerical apart from bringing sizeable numbers of men into spiritual enlightenment. This is to say that prayer and evangelism in the context of vital evangelical Christianity must remain always at the heart of Christian social action. (Culver 1972, 115).

Suburbolationism and American Christianity

 

There exists today an epic crisis in America’s urban areas. This crisis of crime, impoverishment, and anomie has been exacerbated and facilitated over the last several decades by the mass exodus of middle-class Christians from the city to the suburbs. This exodus has left a vacuum of resources both economic and spiritual. While they may exhibit some short-term external benefits, social and political solutions to this crisis can never suffice to bring about a full resolution of the structural problems within our cities. It is only the mighty power of the everlasting Gospel that can transform the heart and life of those within the city. The American Church must turn its eyes back to the city as a place teeming with the very people that Jesus has called us to love and serve: the poor and the outcast.

            The problems in America’s cities are multitudinous: anomie, poverty, homelessness, crime, desolation (spiritual, moral, and physical), decay, addiction, and so on. Unfortunately, the Christian Church has behaved in a way that facilitated the downward spiral of the American cityscape into this state of crisis. Over the last few generations, evangelical Christians have fled the city for the relative peace and safety of the suburbs, and in so doing, have all but abandoned the city as a place to be avoided and even despised. More importantly, Christians have not only abandoned the city, but have abandoned the people who live in the city, both believers and unbelievers alike. Largely as a result of this flight, “The city…remains the repository of the poor and powerless” (Henslin, 2008, p. 409).

            Evangelical flight from our nation’s cities was and is a powerful indicator of a larger-scale, ongoing cultural disengagement by the middle class. The departure of the middle class has left the city devoid of resources, both material and personal. For decades, white Christians with money have fled the city for the suburbs and left behind a “mostly brown and black population that was often bereft of resources” (Byassee, 2008, p. 22). Without these spiritual and physical resources it is terribly difficult, if not impossible, for the city to be renewed in righteousness. Unless and until the Church repents from its neo-monastic stance and behavior and turns its eyes upon our nation’s urban areas, wickedness will continue to reign in our cities and we can expect no real lasting spiritual and cultural change to occur in these areas.

            Government and social programs can assist to alleviate suffering and chaos only in the short run; long-term solutions can only be realized as a result of deep-rooted, spiritual-structural change. Such transformation can only be found in the Gospel. Urban regeneration and renewal must begin with and focus on individual people as holistic beings made up of physical, mental, and spiritual components.

The main purpose of regeneration in urban (or indeed any other) areas must always be the promotion and encouragement of all that will enable human beings to flourish. In this sense, one of the failings, from a Christian perspective, of many statements about [urban] regeneration is that they fail to offer an understanding of what it means to be human…. My argument is that one of the things that Christian theology can offer to urban regeneration…is a strong reminder that regeneration is about enabling everyone to flourish, in every sense (Knights, 2008, p. 220, emphasis in original).

            In order for the city to experience renewal there must first be a renewal and regeneration of individual human hearts within the city. [1] This type of transformation can only be wrought by the power of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While we cannot and should not disparage the impact of social programs that are enacted to combat the various social problems within the city, we must keep these human constructions in a proper context. These institutional arrangements can never bring ultimate or lasting renewal to the city. It is only the grace of God through Jesus Christ that has the power to transform a landscape of chaos, brokenness, and dependency into an environment of love, wholeness, and sustainability.

            It is important to note that this environment of grace will, in all probability, manifest itself incrementally. While God can act swiftly and bring social-spiritual transformation in the blink of an eye, often in this dispensation of grace He acts in an incremental fashion throughout society. [2] Even in periods of great spiritual revival, one can sense order in the process, rather than wide scale upheaval and instant social transformation. [3] Perhaps it is that the Lord works in this fashion in order to soothe our anxieties, as humans are wont to abjure change rather than embrace it, even if the change is for the good. An understanding of this dynamic reality can help to prevent Christian workers in urban areas from becoming too quickly discouraged or burnt out. It can assist Christians in keeping their focus on the task at hand, their hands to the plow (Luke 9:62), working and serving diligently for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31). 

The Importance of the City

            The city is “a place of shelter for the weak and different” (Keller & Thompson, 2002, p. 45). It is a place that the poor and the outcast flee to for refuge. The city is a place of mercy for those who would not be able to survive in other settings: “The city is always a more merciful place for minorities of all kinds. The dominant majorities often dislike cities, but the weak and powerless need them. They cannot survive in suburbs and small towns” (Keller & Thompson, 2002, 45).

            As a place where the poor and needy congregate, one would expect it to be a place to which the followers of Jesus Christ would flock. You know, the same Jesus who taught us how to be merciful unto those in need, as in the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37); the same One who taught us to freely minister to “the least of these” in society (Matt. 25:45)’ this same Jesus who taught His followers to heartily serve those who are unable to repay them such as “the poor, the crippled, the lame” (Luke 14:13-14, 21). Unfortunately, it seems that many suburban evangelical ministries have rendered themselves urban-crippled and metro-lame through the dogged pursuit of things belonging to the kingdom of this world. The sectarian political agenda of the Republican Party and the quest to secure the comforts and conveniences of the mirage of a suburban/rural utopia appear to be two areas where suburban Christianity devotes much of its energy and attention.

            The kinds of Christians bred in twentieth and early-twenty-first century evangelical churches simply do not seem to take well to the teachings of Jesus with respect to the spread of the gospel in the cities and the care of the poor who congregate there. Mercy ministries as a whole are looked upon with suspicion in many churches. A neo-docetic [4] view of humanity has comfortably nestled down into our midst. Instead of viewing people in a holistic fashion, Christians seem to be obsessed with the spiritual needs of others to the total neglect of their physical needs. Perhaps the Church is in need of a reminder that human beings are composed of bodies, minds, souls, and spirits: “not as discrete compartments, but as overlapping facets, and all need to be attended to” (Knights, 2008, p. 221, emphasis added).

            American Christians seem to pour most, if not all, of their resources back into their existing congregations in a frantic attempt to create a womb-like subculture that is insulated from the ravages experienced in urban areas. Pouring energy and resources into people that exist outside of the Christian community simply does not appear to be an option in many ministries. Such ministries may devote a percentage of their tithes and offerings to missions and church planting. But these efforts, to the extent that any of this allotment is invested in the city, goes mainly toward creating “Christ-against-the-city” clone communities that then proceed to gather and isolate new groups of Christians within the safety of their freshly-built walls. At other times, the city may be engaged in a “hit-and-run” fashion whereby Christians run into the city in small groups to accomplish a specific ministry task, such as a homeless outreach, only to leave and return intermittently, if ever again.

            Of the churches that do engage in the planting of new churches, these new ministries are, overwhelmingly, planted in areas similar to the originating church’s own suburban and rural environment. Rare is the conservative evangelical church that catches a vision to plant a vibrant, passionate, Christ-loving ministry in the city. Not only has the local church abandoned the city, but many within the church also refuse to lift a finger to invest in the lives and future of those who live in the city.

            Church planter Tim Keller teaches that, throughout the ages, God’s people have been called to live in and love the city:

When Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem, he brought thousands of Jewish exiles to live in the pagan mega-city of Babylon. At first the exiles refused to move into the wicked city, settling outside in their own enclave, but God spoke to them through Jeremiah and gave them a startling mandate. First, he spoke to them of their actions toward the city. He told them to move in, settle down, raise their families there, and invest in the economy of the city (Jer. 29:5-6). Second, he spoke to them of their attitude toward the city. He said, “Seek the shalom of the city” (v.7). The word ‘shalom’ meant full flourishing-economically, culturally, spiritually. And most amazing of all, God [in v. 7] said, “Pray to the Lord for it, for if it prospers, you prosper” (Keller, 2005, emphasis in original).  

            While God does not call all Christians to relocate to the city, it does seem clear that, given its great lack of the love, mercy, and compassion of God, more Christians should begin to sense the urgency of bringing the Gospel and love of Christ to these places of greatest need.

Impacting the Broader Culture Through City Renewal

            Suburbolationist Christians [5] frequently decry the moral decay of our nation and culture. However, they refuse to go into the very places where they can have the greatest impact on our nation and culture: the city. “If the Christian church wants to really change the country and culture, it must go into the cities themselves, not just into the suburbs or even the exurbs” (Keller & Thompson, 2002, p. 46).

            Many of today’s suburban church planters appear to have overlooked the fact that Paul’s ministry was carried out almost exclusively in urban areas. While many pious Christian leaders are overheard frequently decrying the pagan-ness of our society, it is interesting to note that the early church was urban, while the surrounding countryside was pagan. As a matter of fact, the word “pagan” is derived from paganus, which means “country-man” (Keller & Thompson, 2002, p. 46). Perhaps today’s Christian leaders and moralistic preachers should embrace the complete topographical reversal that has taken place since the early church and begin calling non-believers “urbans” instead of “pagans.” Certainly, this would be more etymologically appropriate and linguistically honest.

            Keller and Thompson state, “While there are millions of born-again Christians, they seem to be having no impact on the culture. The reasons given are usually complex and unconvincing. Nobody notices that Evangelicals are totally non-urban…. This is a recipe for complete cultural irrelevance” (2002, p. 48). Elsewhere, Keller states, “The modern U.S. church is fast losing cultural and economic force because it avoids the city” (2005).

            It appears clear that if Christians are serious about “reclaiming the culture for Christ,” they have to get serious about urban missions and renewal. Christians need to eschew the “privacy, safety, homogeneity, sentimentality, space, order and control” of their predominantly non-urban, middle class backgrounds (Keller, 2005) and begin to embrace the city with the love of Christ while it is still day, for the “night is coming, when no one can work” (John 9:4).

The Blessing of Urban Renewal

            The crisis in urban America will never ultimately be solved by political or social programs, no matter how well intentioned such efforts may be. The problems in our cities, to a great extent fueled by the mass exodus of middle-class Christians, can only be properly addressed and solved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the ministry of the Church. May our Lord grant a burden for the city to the present and future generations of the Church in order that we may fulfill our Christian responsibility to love our neighbors from the same heart into which Christ first poured His own love by the Holy Spirit of God (Rom. 5:5).

            In closing I would like to include a short poem by Sarah Brownsberger on the challenge and blessing of urban renewal:

            It wasn’t where we wanted to live

            but you have to put down roots to thrive.

            Daily we bore the shock of forbearance –

            our own and our neighbors’: the noise, the smell!

            Be fruitful! We tried. Soil of lead arsenate,

            cadmium. We added our detritus,

            peel and core: redemption. And now

            our mineral prison blooms in this,

            the year of our departure: now at last

            the berries fruit in blue abundance.

            Which goes to show our acts are not our own;

            what we make does not belong to us.

            At best we fade softly as timothy,

            and leave our harvest to the next people (2006, p. 8).

—————–

References:

Brownsberger, S. M. (2006). Urban Renewal. Christian Century, 123, p. 8. 

Byassee, J. (2008). The Church Downtown: Strategies for Urban Ministry. Christian Century, 125, p. 22-27, 29. 

Henslin, J. M. (2008). Social Problems: A Down-to-Earth Approach. Boston: Pearson/Allyn-Bacon.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2006). Version 2.1. Accordance Bible Software, Version 8.2.3, 2009. 

Keller, T. (2005). The City: Why We Are Here. The Gospel Coalition. Available: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/The-City—Why-We-Are-Here [22 June 2009].

Keller, T. J. & Thompson, J. A. (2002). Church Planter Manual. New York: Redeemer Church Planting Center.  

Knights, C. H. (2008). Urban Regeneration: A Theological Perspective from the West End of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Expository Times, 119, p. 217-225. 

---

[1] I speak here of a “renewal” in the hearts of Christians living within the city and a “regeneration” of the hearts of unbelievers through the new birth.

[2] Cf. Matthew 13:33: “He told them another parable. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened.’” This speaks of transformation as a process that is not instantaneous, but rather orderly, organic, and dynamic in nature.

[3] It is only in the future that the Lord will work in an instantaneous way to “remove the iniquity of this land in a single day” (Zech. 3:9, emphasis added).

[4] Docetism was a heresy of the early Church. Adherents believed that Christ’s body was not truly human, but a phantasm of some sort. 

[5] “Suburbolationist Christians” are believers who are churched in the suburbs or exurbs, have created their own walled-off church subcultures, and take a militant, aggressive stance toward American culture. They basically ignore urban social concerns.

Simple Church

I just finished reading Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples by Thom Rainer and Eric Geiger. This book gives tremendous guidance to today’s busy but spiritually dying, mediocre, lukewarm churches. I think that many people in our American Christian subcultures equate business with spirituality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The simple fact is that the Church has utterly failed to impact our wider culture with the gospel, to our shame. We are so focused on our programs, special events, and ecclesiologial movements that we have, as evidenced by our actions and despite our rhetoric to the contrary, effectively conceded defeat to the kingdom of darkness. Our churches, for the most part, operate in a closed-loop environment where a lot of back-slapping and affirmation occurs, with little spiritual transformation to show for it.

As the authors point out, many ministries do not have a simple discipleship process in place that can be clearly and briefly articulated by the leadership, let alone the people in the pews. If discipleship occurs, it basically occurs by accident. There is little, if any, intentionality regarding discipleship. Mt. 28:19 says to go and make *disciples,* not converts, not church members, not Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Methodists, or Fundamentalists, or Liberals. Are we serious about this commission to make disciples of Jesus Christ? Or are we more concerned with making carbon-copy clones of our man-made religious models?

Grace Church of Philly is going to be getting off the ground utilizing the simple church philosophy. All aspects of our ministry will be aligned around the “gather-grow-give-go” discipleship process. A PowerPoint slideshow explaining this clear and simple process can be viewed at the links here. 

I eagerly look forward to implementing this biblical philosophy of practical discipleship in our ministry in University City, Philadelphia. My prayer and the prayer of our leadership team is to see many people transformed through it by the grace of God and mighty power of the Holy Spirit.

Clearing Away the Congestion of Groupthink

One of the myriad ways in which a local church can stifle the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the midst of their congregation and in their community is to engage in groupthink. As Satterlee points out, the more that symptoms of groupthink are manifested within an organization, the worse the quality of the decisions will be that are made (2009, p. 154).

How does groupthink occur in churches? Following Satterlee (p. 154-155), here are eight ways that groupthink can manifest in your local assembly:

1. The church has an illusion of invulnerability based upon religious traditions and norms. The motto is, “This is how we have ‘always’ done it. We will continue to do it this way. We will not change.”

2. There is an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent righteousness. Group members doggedly believe in the “rightness” of their particular norm of ministry philosophy and ignore any other philosophies, even ones that are clearly supported by Scripture. 

3. There is a collective effort to restrain alternative norms and philosophies of ministry. No one dares introduce information that may go against the group’s rationalizing efforts because they may be ostracized as a result. 

4. The church collectively stereotypes the “opposition.” Church members, following the leadership, may look down upon those outside of the preferred group because they are providing information contrary to the beliefs held by the group. 

5. Self-censorship is alive and well within the group. Church members may offer mere opinions rather than make strong recommendations for change. 

6. There is a shared illusion of unanimity. Silence within the congregation on a given topic is interpreted to mean agreement. 

7. The application of direct pressure on any member who expresses strong disagreement. It is believed that dissent would never come from a loyal group member. 

8. Self-appointed mind-guards are hard at work. These people are the ones who work to prevent anyone within the group from hearing information that may disrupt the group’s complacency and statisticity. 

Church leaders and members must be vigilant to ensure that symptoms of groupthink are quickly identified and addressed before they solidify and become harmful. If this occurs, not only will the spiritual growth of the local congregation suffer, but the mission of God that He has given to the church to go and make disciples will suffer as well. 

Does your local church suffer from groupthink? If so, gently work to clear away some of the spiritual congestion that is hampering the fullness of the Holy Spirit from manifesting in your midst. 

See also “Groupthink and Functional Conflict.” 

Reference:

Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. Roanoake, VA: Synergistics.

Should Christians be on the Defense?

Satterlee defines a “norm” as “the limitation of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, and the standards by which the appropriateness of behaviors, beliefs, perceptions, and feelings are measured” (2009, p. 153).

I believe that norms, both inside and outside of the church, can be either healthy or destructive. To the extent that norms assist in limiting destructive behavior or growth, they are good and well. To the extent that norms assist in limiting healthy behavior or growth, they are destructive and damaging. Often, norms within the church are formed with the best of intentions. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that all of these norms are healthy or to be desired.

In an effort to preserve the holiness of the church from the impurities of the world, many congregations and movements have focused on remaining “separate” from the world, and thus end up with what has been commonly called a “fortress” mentality regarding the Christian life. This mentality is assisted, reinforced, and affirmed in the social culture of the local church through the formal and informal enforcement of certain norms. When someone steps “outside of the box” with respect to the established norms, this person is, to varying degrees, disciplined. This discipline may take the form of social shunning by key members of the church, a private rebuke from a pastor, or a restriction of ministry involvement in that local church body.

In situations such as this, my concern is that such norms end up constructing an entire edifice and religion that cannot be supported by Scripture. (I find it especially ironic that many heirs of the Protestant Reformation, which was founded upon such teachings as Sola Scriptura, have ended up creating a their own religions and fiefdoms, replete with their own private “popes” who make all the decisions regarding even the personal and private norms of all within the local congregation based on scant biblical evidence or foundation.) 

Many conservative Christians react and respond to the world around them with varying degrees of shock, horror, and disgust. When these Christians who, lest we forget, are still very prone to sin themselves, observe or encounter other sinful human beings sinning, their normal response can be to turn away and internalize their faith, attempting to stave off becoming tarnished in some way by the sin that is in their presence. This is a defensive reaction that many Christians are trained to perform almost without thinking. Instead of attempting to speak a word of grace into such a situation, which is what is desperately needed, many Christians simply turn away and immediately “separate” themselves in an attempt to preserve their “purity.”

By acting in such a fashion, these Christians betray the norms upon which they have been spiritually reared. Their normal stance is a defensive posture toward sin and toward the world. They have, for all practical purposes, given up on sinners and given up on the world. Sure, they may support evangelism and missionaries and the like, but they are not truly serious about unconditionally loving sinners into the kingdom as Christ has. The rigorous enforcement of their religious norms testifies to the fact that their love is most certainly conditional, and unchristian, at its core.

The norms that many of these Christians embrace regarding their reaction to the behavior of other sinners in their personal sphere of influence are all centered on personal holiness and individual communion with the Lord. While these are certainly not improper or wrong motives, I wonder just how many Christians have adopted this same attitude toward the world. It seems to me that many believers have a “close their eyes and hold on till the Lord returns or takes me home” approach to the world.

While the norm of personal holiness is commendable and even desirable, the Christian life does not end there. We need to be busying ourselves with reclaiming this world for Christ and His kingdom (Acts 1:6-8), pushing back the gates of Hell while waiting with confident expectation for the triumphant return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our stance is to be offensive, not defensive in nature. (Note: lest my language here lead someone astray regarding my personal eschatological convictions, I am premillennial, not postmillennial in my thought.)

When Christians are able to influence nonbelievers in a positive direction, we should do so. When we observe an unbeliever blashpeming the Lord in his or her speech, he or she is (unknowingly) giving us a report on their spiritual condition and ultimate need of Christ. When we observe an unbeliever acting in an unjust or unmerciful fashion, he or she is screaming out to us that they have never experienced the amazing joy of God’s mercy in Christ. We should not use these ministry and service opportunities as an excuse to run for the hills like we’re under attack. We shouldn’t use these instances to condemn others in our private conversations with ourselves or other believers (as is often the case). We should use these occasions to remind ourselves of our own need of God’s grace. We should use these occasions to convey this life-changing grace to the person who is proclaiming their need for it by their sinful actions. Instead of using such occasions to go on the defensive and retreat further into our religio-Christian cocoons, we should use them to go on the offensive against the kingdom of darkness that is holding such people captive.

Citing Matthew 16:18,[1] Rainer and Geiger make the following statements regarding the Church’s tendency, or norm, of being too defensive regarding this world:

“[Gates] are always defensive…. Gates are never on offense. Only defense. Hell is always on defense. However, the movement of the church is never on defense. Only offense. The church always has the ball. There are no defenders on the squad…. The enemy never gets the ball. The kingdom of darkness is stuck on defense. And we are on perpetual offense” (2006, p. 85).

I believe that a common norm of many conservative evangelical ministries is that they, not the kingdom of darkness, are the ones “stuck on defense.” Such Christians are not impacting our society with the gospel of Christ because they are too busy defending their pet religious norms and standards and rules of behavior. These ministries are stuck in the “gathering” phase of the “gather-grow-give-go” discipleship process. They gather together, and while some spiritual growth may occur, there is not much “giving and going” out into the local communities in which they live and move and breathe. Therefore, the movement and spread of the gospel is hindered by the spiritual congestion caused by unhealthy norms.

The call is for the fearful and defensive-minded Church to remove the razor wire of artificial norms and boundaries and worldview that it has laid atop its walls, unnaturally separating itself from the rest of a world that is dying for want of the grace of God. 

The religious scandal in Jesus’ day was His tremendous love for and interaction with sinners. The religious scandal in our time is the Church’s lack of love for and lack of interaction with sinners. 

References:

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. (2006). Version 2.1. Accordance Bible Software, Version 8.2.3, 2009. 

Rainer, T.S. & Geiger, E. (2006). Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples. Nashville: TN, B&H Publishing Group.

Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. Roanoke, VA: Synergistics.

1. “On this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”