I think I may have my blogging muse back after a rough patch. Let's put it back on the road with the beginning of a discussion that takes me back to a Michael Spencer post from last week where he rips "Christless preaching."
In fairness, the sermon was on an older testament story, but I am
holding the preacher responsible for somehow preaching a Christian
sermon, not a motivational talk.
...
Let me suggest that if the sermon I heard represents what we have to
look forward to in evangelicalism, then being post-evangelical means
that Jesus matters, the Gospel is the Biblical good news and
faithfulness to either requires an intentional removal from what is
happening in evangelicalism. Post-evangelicalism is a place to stand in
the midsts of a tide that has washed everything out and left the
flotsam and jetsam of a crumbling, degraded culture on the beaches of a
vacillating, deluded church.
When a preacher can stand in the pulpit, hold the Bible, represent a
significant church and the training of a major school, claim to expound
the meaning of the Bible and never even once mention Jesus or the Christian good news at all, there’s something monumentally wrong at work.
“Houston, we have a problem….Jesus has left the sermon.”
Not entirely. The God of the Old Testament includes Jesus as part of the Godhead. Jesus didn't start existing in Mary's womb, He goes back to Day 1 and before.
However, the incarnate Jesus who died on the cross for us is a no-show in such sermons, and Baptist custom is that every sermon should have some sort of evangelistic content; while Spencer is a bit of a maverick Southern Baptist, he's a Southern Baptist nonetheless. In the Southern Baptist churches I've been in over the years, part of the closing altar call will include a call for people wanting to be publicly come forward and proclaim Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It's awkward to slap that at the end of a sermon that doesn't have much evangelistic content.
Should every sermon be required to have a overtly evangelistic message, just in case unchurched and unsaved Joe Schmoe wanders in that day (and that day only) and has that one shot at hearing the Gospel? If you give him a nice sermon on one of God's attributes out of the Old Testament or a Holy Spirit-centric sermon out of one of the epistiles, he might not hear that Jesus died for his sins.
That's entirely possible, but unlikely in our culture. If Joe caught a Jesus-free sermon at that church, he's likely to be witnessed to in some other fashion along the way at other services or by other people crossing his path.
Salvation is very important, and the focal point of the Gospel, but it isn't the entirety of the Gospel. Discipleship is also important, as is learning about God in His entirety, including the Father and the Holy Spirit.
One interesting footnote on that front comes from Willow Creek, the home of seeker-friendly, moving towards a discipleship of mature believers format; Matthew Lee Anderson has this comment-
Fundamentally, seeker sensitive churches are built on the premise
that the mission of the church is to win new converts. By
subordinating all discipleship and church activity to this end,
seeker-sensitive churches fail to acknowledge the intrinsic goodness of
the fellowship of the people of God. In other words, they miss out on
the eschatological character of the Church–there is no “Church
triumphant” in the seeker-sensitive ecclesiology, as the Church exists
fundamentally to win converts rather than to encounter and worship the
Living God.
The difference is, I think, crucial. If the ultimate end of the
church is saving people, then the only adequate basis for those
activities that do not immediately result in salvation–and here I think
of the creation and promotion of art–is the salvation of lost souls.
However, if the goal of the church is to experience Holy Communion–that
is, to dwell in the presence of Jesus Christ, through his Spirit, as
His body–then art, music, dance, business, etc. need no further
justification for their existence. The church can engage in them
because they are human activities and intrinsically worthwhile.
This is, I think, the chief deficiency of a seeker-sensitive
ecclesiology, and many evangelical ecclesiologies. When non-believers
become Christians, what type of life have they been saved to?
A life of saving other non-believers is good, but ultimately
insufficient, for it is not the sort of life that one can–or will–live
in heaven.
That's not to say that Southern Baptists are "seeker-sensitive" but they are salvation-centric. If you don't work on what it means to be a Christian once your saved, you have a lot of loose cannons that are saved but have no clue how to interact with God and their fellow man other than to get folks to recite the same prayer they just went through.
Salvation is important, but it isn't the entirety of the Gospel. My mind goes to the euphemism "Full Gospel" that some Pentecostal types use to describe themselves, insinuating that garden-variety evangelicals avoid the parts of the Gospel that include the Holy Spirit as a hands-on day-to-day player in our lives today.
An overly-salvation-centric Gospel presentation (yes, there can be such) will underplay discipleship and learning about God as a whole. Most folks don't have that problem, since a salvation message isn't PC, requiring folks know both that they are sinners in need of a savior and that a Savior is there at the ready to accept them as-is. It's easy to sugar-coat that issue in a secular setting, but it's also easy to get off on a fire-and-brimestone tangent, where we focus on our sinfulness and our need of a risen Savior.
Recent Comments