# Don Miller's 'prediction' for 2011



## kvanlaan (Jan 1, 2011)

This is from a set of Religious Predictions for 2011:



> As religious tensions grow over the coming presidential election and domestic cultural issues involving perceived legislation of morality, the media will find more zealous Christians reacting to the issues of the day whose extreme positions will further divide the evangelical church into radical positions, and turn away seekers looking for a peaceful resolution to the churning in their own souls. In other words, the devil will play a trick on the church, and the church will, like sheep, lose their focus on the grace and love of Christ and wander astray. Those who seek peace, then, will turn to liberal ideologies.–Don Miller, Christian author whose books include "Blue Like Jazz"



Interesting (though not surprising) liberal slant on things, eh?


----------



## Wayne (Jan 1, 2011)

Who is Don Miller and why does he matter? 

(I see he has authored a book; so have others).


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 2, 2011)

Wayne said:


> Who is Don Miller and why does he matter?
> 
> (I see he has authored a book; so have others).


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

I think many younger Christians are leaning more "liberal" in areas of social justice, race, poverty, immigration, etc, because they are sick of the moral majority and the Religious Right.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 2, 2011)

Perg, you may be right. But, I think more younger Christians are leaning more liberal in those areas because it is congruent with the spirit of the age.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

LawrenceU: Not according to their own writings.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 2, 2011)

I know, Perg. I've read a good bit of their stuff. I know that is what they say, but I don't think they understand their own hearts and motives. They have no sound epistemology. That is a result of the modern/liberal philosophy which is rampant in the popular media and culture at large. They are like fish in water. They don't know they are being shaped by what is shaping them. They easily cast stones at easy targets.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

I think they've got a point about the failures of the Religious Right and the Moral Majority. 

Younger folks want to be socially active and don't trust folks like Pat Robertson any longer. They want to help the poor and the homeless and get involved... and the liberals are doing a better job of channeling that zeal and getting them invovled. 

My generation and the one younger then I am seem to be very activitistic and idealistic and greatly distrust, like I do, Pat Robertson and Newt Gingerich and the other adulterers that are still peddling "family values" - seemingly mainly for political expediency and not out of a real commitment to their own families.


We see this reflected in missions nowadays as well (worthy of another thread). Younger folks want teamwork and community and want to be involved in holistic ministries and social justice and ministries of mercy and ministries to the downcast. Older more traditional churches are not seen as valuing these things but are seen as more traditional, rigid, authoritarian, individualistic, judgmental, enforcing the status quo, monocultural and intolerant (even supporting racism and segregation in the past), preaching to people's spiritual state without doing anything for them spiritually, being overly-certain and preachy and pretending to know all the truth instead of being a fellow pilgrim on a truth-journey and not knowing all the answers (a position of intellectual humility instead of dogmatism), etc. 

Thus emergent churches are very appealing to many younger people.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------




Wayne said:


> Who is Don Miller and why does he matter?
> 
> (I see he has authored a book; so have others).


 
Miller has authored _Blue Like Jazz_, an immensely popular book among young people looking for answers but who are distrustful of church or old dogmatisms. 

I do not think it is just another book, but will be listed as one of the more influential christian books of this decade. 

I don't think we should turn our noses up at this book; many more people (outside of our reformed bubble) know about this book than about Joel Beeke and Al Mohler... 

It is written very personally and speaks of his faith-journey or faith-struggle and I think it is a quintessential book in understanding the spiritual lives of post-moderns and many of those who end up in Emergent churches.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is an interesting article on Miller from July of last year - Born-again rebel Don Miller reveals 'best sermon I ever heard' - CNN.com I think it captures the good and the bad of him.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 2, 2011)

Pergs, I agree that they have a point. Even though I am very conservative politically I have little room for the 'Moral Majority' and things like that. I also agree that there is a justifiable lament over the lack of holistic ministry in many aspects of the church. Having said all of that I believe very strongly that the vast majority of what is compelling the Emergent Movement is the very same root that propelled Liberalism in the church in the early 20th century: Liberal theology rooted in a non belief in the errancy of Scripture influenced by nihilistic philosophies and German Rationalism. That is why they can 'embrace' Scripture and at the same time accept sinful behaviours that are anathema in Scripture.

I find it highly ironic that many of the emergent folks are leaving churches that were birthed from the very same Social Gospel compulsions a couple of generations ago.


----------



## LeeJUk (Jan 2, 2011)

I would say that Liberalism in theological sense is of the spirit of the age but being more leftist on political issues isn't necessarily the spirit of the age. I think we have to make that distinction. Otherwise what we're saying being right wing is the only valid christian interpretation and frankly its not.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 2, 2011)

Lee, I would agree with you, but only if leftist is defined individually from anti-Scriptural positions; and it is most often not in the States. Leftist policies here are most often anti-family, anti-life sanctity, anti-individual property, and so on.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> Pergs, I agree that they have a point. Even though I am very conservative politically I have little room for the 'Moral Majority' and things like that. I also agree that there is a justifiable lament over the lack of holistic ministry in many aspects of the church. Having said all of that I believe very strongly that the vast majority of what is compelling the Emergent Movement is the very same root that propelled Liberalism in the church in the early 20th century: Liberal theology rooted in a non belief in the errancy of Scripture influenced by nihilistic philosophies and German Rationalism. That is why they can 'embrace' Scripture and at the same time accept sinful behaviours that are anathema in Scripture.
> 
> I find it highly ironic that many of the emergent folks are leaving churches that were birthed from the very same Social Gospel compulsions a couple of generations ago.


 
Yes, it seems the pendelum swings back and forth every couple of generations. I am hoping that one day very soon we can finally link theological orthodoxy with vigorous social concerns.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 2, 2011)

It is interesting that one of the most "conservative" statements on doctrine has come from former emergent Driscoll (Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Crossway Books. ISBN 9781433506253). He manages to navigate the treacherous waters of post-modernity without joining the Religious Right NOR ignoring the needs of cutting edge social engagement (e.g., Haiti relief).

While Driscoll is more Baxterian in his view of the atonement than most PB folks, I applaud his courageous stand against cultural norms (e.g., for complementarianism and contra egalitarianism) and the trappings of so many of the "Blue like Jazz" generation.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 2, 2011)

Pergs, the thing is that those disaffected youth are largely upset with the same things we are, but instead of purifying the church, they've just turned away from it. Look at "The Shack", and anything by Rob Bell. There is no seeking to a higher understanding of our Lord, there is a dumbing down, and cultural synthesis. As per Rob Bell, God now has 'faith' in us, which allows us to do amazing things as Christians. The Shack was a radical departure from orthodox Christianity that has taken much of the Christian youth by storm. Again, a dumbing down (and move away from) orthodox, Biblical, Christianity.

Tongue in cheek case in point: YouTube - Rob Bell - Oil

I definitely don't think that we should turn up our noses at this sort of nonsense, it is heresy, and it is leading people astray. But the answer is a pure gospel, not religious ritual (see, even I can sound like an emergent, but in doing so can say that they're not wrong about everything...)


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 2, 2011)

I recently read a very good little book, Amazon.com: Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (9780802458377): Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck: Books that addresses a lot of these issues in a very loving, enjoyable, and thoroughly Biblical manner. It is from the same men who wrote, Amazon.com: Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be (9780802458346): Kevin DeYoung, Ted Kluck, David F. Wells: Books, another very good book.


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 2, 2011)

I do not see anything wrong this quote? Carl Trueman has said similiar things and I do not think anyone would question his orthdoxy.


----------



## Skyler (Jan 2, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> This is from a set of Religious Predictions for 2011:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
That's a "prediction"?

Ooh, here's one! People will drive _cars_ in 2011! They'll actually type emails on their cell phones! Some of them might even be surfing the web and reading books on gadgets smaller than a paperback by the end of the year!

I mean, seriously. This has already happened, is happening right now, and probably will continue to happen for a while yet to come.

---------- Post added at 05:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

(Pardon my sarcasm.)


----------



## Wayne (Jan 2, 2011)

> I do not see anything wrong this quote? Carl Trueman has said similar things and I do not think anyone would question his orthodoxy.



Criticism of the statement does not equate to questioning the man's orthodoxy. More on that tomorrow. This is getting too political for the Lord's day.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 2, 2011)

jogri17 said:


> I do not see anything wrong this quote? Carl Trueman has said similiar things and I do not think anyone would question his orthdoxy.


 
But when Trueman describes "extreme positions" he is saying NOTHING like what Miller is saying in the quotation given in the OP. Those who hold to "extreme positions" for the emergent crowd often means insisting upon things like the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, the reality of a conscious eternity in hell, etc. Saying that Trueman "says such things" as a defense for what Miller says is an error of the same kind as arguing that we shouldn't criticize the Roman church for their position on justification since both they and we say that justification is "by faith".


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 2, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Younger folks want teamwork and community and want to be involved in holistic ministries and social justice and ministries of mercy and ministries to the downcast. Older more traditional churches are not seen as valuing these things but are seen as more traditional, rigid, authoritarian, individualistic, judgmental, enforcing the status quo, monocultural and intolerant (even supporting racism and segregation in the past), preaching to people's spiritual state without doing anything for them spiritually, being overly-certain and preachy and pretending to know all the truth instead of being a fellow pilgrim on a truth-journey and not knowing all the answers (a position of intellectual humility instead of dogmatism), etc.




Sounds like a very existentialist point of view.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jan 2, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Pergs, I agree that they have a point. Even though I am very conservative politically I have little room for the 'Moral Majority' and things like that. I also agree that there is a justifiable lament over the lack of holistic ministry in many aspects of the church. Having said all of that I believe very strongly that the vast majority of what is compelling the Emergent Movement is the very same root that propelled Liberalism in the church in the early 20th century: Liberal theology rooted in a non belief in the errancy of Scripture influenced by nihilistic philosophies and German Rationalism. That is why they can 'embrace' Scripture and at the same time accept sinful behaviours that are anathema in Scripture.
> ...


 
We need to make sure that we do not equate differences in how we address social concerns with a lack of caring for ones fellow man.


----------



## Philip (Jan 2, 2011)

I think there's something to this. As a member of the aforesaid generation, I quite understand the disaffection with the "moral majority" types. As Christians, we have to take seriously the fact that political power is not the avenue that Scripture recommends for either mitigating the effects of the fall or reforming society. Instead, we both as individuals and collectively as the Church are called to do so.

Scripturally, I think it's clear: we can't change the world, at least not in the sense normally meant. Instead what we are called to do is to be faithful stewards of what God has given to us, helping those whom God puts into our path. As Christians, we are called to be active in our local settings, helping our neighbors. We are not called to be Ronald Reagans, but George Baileys.

As an example, I've heard descriptions of Chattanooga (just down the mountain from Covenant) back in the of the 80s: the city was rated one of the worst in terms of pollution, crime rates, etc, and further, the population was declining because people just didn't want to live there. However, Christians in and around the city, both as churches and as individuals/businessmen have turned that around. Today, Chattanooga is a very nice place to live: crime is at a low, new businesses are doing very well, and people are staying around, and I think that the Church (particularly the reformed churches in the area) are to be commended for their part.

The trouble with the previous generation in this regard is its faith in politics, which is the wrong focus. If we want to change the world, we start locally. Frankly, the institutional church is slow to recognize this, which is why in many ways, emergent churches look attractive. Why? Because they focus on local community, whereas older churches are either denominations or mega-churches (or mega-church wannabes), which to the current generation looks like just another system of control.

That's my take on part of why many are disaffected.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

I do not agree with the emergents and postmoderns but I definitely understand where they are coming from and see why the emergent church is attractive to them. 

While disliking Rob Bell's doctrine, I think his packaging is very attractive to younger folks and I think Mark Driscoll and others who appear very transparent and honest with their feelings and emotions and even doubts is appealing. That is why Don Miller's Blue Like Jazz sold so well. I read it and liked it.

I think we can learn a bit from the emergent church regarding presentation of our beliefs, even as they learn from us regarding doctrine.

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 AM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > LawrenceU said:
> ...


 
Got it, thanks for the reminder.

---------- Post added at 02:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------




Brad said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Younger folks want teamwork and community and want to be involved in holistic ministries and social justice and ministries of mercy and ministries to the downcast. Older more traditional churches are not seen as valuing these things but are seen as more traditional, rigid, authoritarian, individualistic, judgmental, enforcing the status quo, monocultural and intolerant (even supporting racism and segregation in the past), preaching to people's spiritual state without doing anything for them spiritually, being overly-certain and preachy and pretending to know all the truth instead of being a fellow pilgrim on a truth-journey and not knowing all the answers (a position of intellectual humility instead of dogmatism), etc.
> ...


 
Yes, it does sound existential and postmodern. Remember, Kierkegaard the existentialist Christian was reacting against the cold dogmatism of the state Lutheran church. I think many emergents are reacting against traditional US churches in much the same manner.


----------



## Philip (Jan 2, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, it does sound existential and postmodern. Remember, Kierkegaard the existentialist Christian was reacting against the cold dogmatism of the state Lutheran church.



That's certainly the common perception. Actually, though, I realized while reading _Training in Christianity_ that Kierkegaard has no objection whatsoever to doctrine. The whole work is about the offense of the cross and of the doctrine of the incarnation and how the only two options should be rejection or faith. Kierkegaard isn't opposed to doctrine, but to lifeless, complacent, respectable Christianity. Kierkegaard is essentially arguing that the church should always be militant. The fact that emergents like Kierkegaard proves that they haven't read him carefully enough.

As for existentialism, I see far too much of it in the "just-me-and-Jesus" mentality so pervasive through evangelicalism today: instead of "meaning-that-I-create" it's "Jesus-as-I-see-Him." It amounts to the same thing.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 2, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it does sound existential and postmodern. Remember, Kierkegaard the existentialist Christian was reacting against the cold dogmatism of the state Lutheran church.
> ...


 
Yes, that is what I got from Kierkegaard too, which is why I love him. I think many emergents also believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are saying similar things, calling the church back to social action.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 2, 2011)

For what it's worth, a good friend of mine who was running well in the faith as a new Christian stopped attending church altogether and has probably apostasized after reading and being influenced by _Blue Like Jazz_. False doctrine is not a game; it hurts people's lives. There is good cause for warning strongly against it rather than thanking it for being almost a little right.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

Austin's statement is something that I can repeat many times over. I have seen more than one young person who was derailed into either a very liberal / universalist gospel or into the Roman Church after being influenced by emergent stuff. Doctrine is deadly serious business.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 3, 2011)

The Emerging Witness

A book review.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 3, 2011)

Even churches that are very solid doctrinally can widely miss the mark when it comes to living out the implications of the Gospel. It's somewhat common in our circles for churches to hit in some areas, like personal avoidance of certain sins, but miss loving their neighbors. On top of this, they sometimes take on a scolding attitude that's inappropriate for people saved by grace. This is the sort of "zealous Christian" Don Miller is talking about. We may not like his theology, his choice of words or his broad brush. But we must agree with him that such churches will cause seekers to turn away to liberal options. And those seekers are _right_ to turn away. The tragedy is that along with turning away from coldness they also turn away from good doctrine.

For us, the solution will never be found in contending that _they_ are the problem. _We_ are the problem. Our good doctrine is not lived out as fully as it should be, with energetic love for God _and_ for our neighbors.

The fact that liberal churches have majored on the "love your neighbor" thing should not be a reason for us to avoid such love for fear of becoming like them, or accused of such. Rather, we should be ashamed. After all, we have the comfort of the Gospel. We have the Spirit. We are far more able, and have far more reason, to love our neighbors: _"If there is any encouragement in Christ, and comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy... Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others" (Phil. 2:1, 4)._

Then Don Miller and his ilk will be proven wrong.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

Who has said that we should avoid loving folks? What we must avoid is replacing the gospel with a man centered view of good works.


----------



## Philip (Jan 3, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> Who has said that we should avoid loving folks? What we must avoid is replacing the gospel with a man centered view of good works.


 
Agreed, but part of the Gospel is that we have been saved _unto_ good works and a life of of righteousness rather than _by_ these things (Ephesians 2:8-10).


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Who has said that we should avoid loving folks? What we must avoid is replacing the gospel with a man centered view of good works.
> ...





I cannot believe that I am having to type this: OBVIOUSLY! NO one in this thread has said otherwise. As a matter of fact if you look back over the history of posts made by the folks who have taken the emergent position to task most directly in this thread and on other places in this forum I think you will find men who have repeatedly both stated and evidenced in their lives that they are thoroughly committed to works of righteousness precisely because of the doctrine that compels their lives. Some of them do more in their own families than many congregations do that sit and point fingers at those 'narrow minded Christians' who 'need to be enlightened to the holistic nature of the gospel'. I really tire of straw men. The only thing they are good for is lighting fires.


----------



## Philip (Jan 3, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I really tire of straw men. The only thing they are good for is lighting fires.



Agreed, but I think that the connection between salvation by grace and the freedom to do good works needs to be stressed as never before. Reformed theology has a wonderful opportunity here to re-emphasize the historic doctrine. Often our presentation of the gospel is incredibly good at showing what we have been saved from without a clear presentation of what we have been saved unto. We have been saved unto a life of humble service to God and our neighbor. Only in a grace-based soteriology is this good news.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 3, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> As a matter of fact if you look back over the history of posts made by the folks who have taken the emergent position to task most directly in this thread and on other places in this forum I think you will find men who have repeatedly both stated and evidenced in their lives that they are thoroughly committed to works of righteousness precisely because of the doctrine that compels their lives. Some of them do more in their own families than many congregations do that sit and point fingers at those 'narrow minded Christians' who 'need to be enlightened to the holistic nature of the gospel'. I really tire of straw men. The only thing they are good for is lighting fires.



My point is not that we shouldn't take emergent folks to task. We should, for sure. There are big problems with that movement. Nor is it the case that all churches espousing good doctrine fail to live that doctrine out. Far from it. Many, many churches do.

My point is just this: when someone observes that doctrinally sound churches are driving people away due to this or that failing, we have two options:
1. We can conclude that because the observer is not as doctrinally sound as we are his observations must be invalid.
2. We can be eager to learn even from imperfect men, quick to examine ourselves and determined to improve if we can.

I advocate the latter. And in this case, I happen to think Miller has touched on something we can learn from. The generation that's hungry to have their faith lead to holistic ministry may indeed have been shaped largely by secular lies. But then they ought to be finding in Christ an even better foundation for what they want, and flocking to faithful Reformed churches in droves. If that isn't happening, then why isn't it? We can best fix the part that's due to our own shortcomings.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

Jack, Phillip, et al,

I have not advocated ignoring what Miller, Bell, and whomever else the current emergent guru happens to be might say about what churches are doing. Often we get a glimpse into weaknesses by listening to critics. That is true in pretty much any area of life. There is a large difference in listening to what critics say and then saying that they have the epistemological basis for offering a solution. That is what usually happens, from my experience, when people begin to read / listen to Miller, Bell, et al. They have no sound basis for offering solutions. Their gospel is not The Gospel. I know this may sound harsh, but I would rather see someone going to an 'insular' church that actually gets the core of the gospel right than to see them go to a church that 'reaches' the world but tells people a gospel that leads them to apostasy.

Also, we should never shape our ministry philosophy on whether or not people are flocking to faithful churches. That is at the root of much of the problem with the church. Faithful ministry does not equal flocking folks. I know that some mean folks use that as a cover for not caring about the lost, the world, the downcast, etc. I'm not discussing them. They will get a reality check one day. I am pointing out the fact that the faithful proclamation of the gospel and the living out of all of its implications may not look very successful at all.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 3, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I know that some mean folks use that as a cover for not caring about the lost, the world, the downcast, etc. I'm not discussing them.


But that is the common caricature of Reformed believers, which is an entirely untrue stereotype. Libs and arminians like to portray us as such, methinks because it comports with their impression of our view of God's sovereignty, and often we listen to them as though their critiques are valid. But my experience has been that Reformed believers and their congregations are just as involved in works of neighborly love as libs and arminians, if not more. I just don't see as much horn-blowing about it. Libs don't have a Gospel, so it follows that their focus is on outward social works, since it gives them opportunity to pursue the main intent of their ministry - mutual admiration. But Reformed Churches tend to carry out a more full-orbed ministry, where works of neighborly love are one facet of many and not the sole function.

We are to preach and live the whole counsel of God. If that is not attractive to a majority of any group, why would we be surprised?


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 3, 2011)

There's the rub - there are issues in 'the church', the emergents got that much right. And then they say, 'here's the real thing on this table over here'. And it is garbage, absolute trash. They got the first part right, but then pulled a bait and switch while we were examining their tattoos and watching them light the candles. It's trash, and they may grow numerically, but it is going nowhere spiritually.

I love this clip (and have posted it many times before):

YouTube - Let's Talk Post-Modernism and the Emergent Church...

"When the tide is low, every shrimp has its own puddle."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2011)

I think it was Darryl Hart, but it may have been Mike Horton, who asks (pointedly) if it really appears to most observers that the main problem in the run-of-the-mill, conservative, Presbyterian church is... [wait for it] ...antinomianism? Really? There' all these people who are living licentious lives, notorious sinners, the churches are not doing discipline, the youth are all a nightmare.

Right, clearly there's just not enough LAW being preached in our churches. Sure. Well, I guess I would rather have the same antinomian accusation leveled at me as was at Paul, if I must be accused of something.

But I really don't think _antinomianism_ is our problem. I see that a typical, Reformed church is filled with folks who have had very good upbringings, catechism from childhood, *can recite the 10C*, conduct themselves religiously (not just one day a week). I see people for whom "righteous habits" from external discipline can very easily fall into the trap that their "good" behavior flows from a most indubitable rectitude, minds composed of the purest doctrine, lives filled with socially approved good-works.

It seems to me, that the answer to the question of the place of good works, or how we will see them, is simply: "good works are what humble Christians do." And other than asking for guidance from Scripture, I don't think we need to do much more than play-up the contrast between the deeds of the flesh, and the fruit of the Spirit.

I agree with the Harts and Hortons of the world, that the most significant problem we face in our churches is "the gospel assumed." The _saved unto_ part of the Christian's life is not really part-and-parcel of the gospel--it is distinctly an effect or product of the gospel. The gospel saved the thief on the cross. His salvation was "unto" nothing but an actual, agonizing death, only hastened by the "mercy" of having his tibiae shattered with a hammer, to bring about a faster death-by-drowning/suffocation. It wasn't an martyrdom either (not that martyrdoms are meritorious).

The point is: if the thief on the cross was saved by faith in the gospel, then _strictly speaking_ the gospel isn't "unto" anything other than fellowship with Christ, as he promised him to "be with me in paradise." If we spend more time, and put "equal" stress all the stuff, that Christians are supposed to "do," rather than emphasizing belief in what God has done and is doing to rectify my shortcomings, the "saved-from" nature of the gospel is *definitely* going to be eclipsed. Do we really need to beat this drum, "Show, show, show Jesus how MUCH you love him, just what you'll DO for him"?

The realities of sin and grace must repeatedly be stressed _for professing believers_, often to the exclusion of other things, precisely because without such overwhelming emphasis, the gospel (so antithetical to the natural mind) is quickly decentralized, assumed, and relegated to evangelistic Bible-studies and communicant's classes. If a church does more singing about the gospel (sin and grace) than preaching the gospel (sin and grace), the focus is drifting.

In the "Application" thread, one can see that preaching THE TEXT will bring, must bring, out the duty-implications of God's Word. But if it is not 1st believed, and 2nd internalized, it will not be 3rd exemplified. KNOW, BE, then DO.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 3, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> KNOW, BE, then DO.



Ooh! That sounds like something from the Army!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2011)

Did you ever find it interesting that someone "simplified" the philosophical categories (metaphysics, epistemology, & ethics) into the NCO development curriculum?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

Bang that drum, Brother Bruce! I love its timbre!!


----------



## Jack K (Jan 3, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> I know this may sound harsh, but I would rather see someone going to an 'insular' church that actually gets the core of the gospel right than to see them go to a church that 'reaches' the world but tells people a gospel that leads them to apostasy.



So would I. Absolutely. But it's still better for us not to be insular.



LawrenceU said:


> Also, we should never shape our ministry philosophy on whether or not people are flocking to faithful churches. That is at the root of much of the problem with the church. Faithful ministry does not equal flocking folks.



I generally agree here, too. Sometimes people don't come because of things we do right. But it's also true that sometimes people don't come because of things we do wrong. While we shouldn't design our ministry just to attract people, very often the way people react can help us see what we're doing right and doing wrong. I fear that sometimes we react so strongly against the seeker sensitive movement that we stop listening to people and miss helpful feedback that, as humble believers, we ought to value (and evaluate in light of God-given truth, of course).

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I think I just tend to gravitate toward different concerns. I have a particular distaste for dead orthodoxy and am quick to call us to be on guard against it. Others here will more quickly sound the alarm against other dangers, which is why this board is good for us all.




Contra_Mundum said:


> The realities of sin and grace must repeatedly be stressed for professing believers, often to the exclusion of other things, precisely because without such overwhelming emphasis, the gospel (so antithetical to the natural mind) is quickly decentralized, assumed, and relegated to evangelistic Bible-studies and communicant's classes.



Amen to that! The gospel preached faithfully is where we must start and end all that we do. All this other what-we-should-do stuff is secondary, and must flow from that gospel understanding or it will actually be counter-productive and ultimately unsatisfying. This, in fact, is why I say faithful Reformed churches that preach the gospel are actually in a great position to draw in the current generation. It's because our efforts are not cut off from the empowering gospel.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 3, 2011)

Well said, Jack. I, too, detest dead orthodoxy. I know what people mean by the phrase, but in truth orthodoxy can never become what we call dead orthodoxy. The Ephesianism that can take over a congregation is not orthodox.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 3, 2011)

> I generally agree here, too. Sometimes people don't come because of things we do right. But it's also true that sometimes people don't come because of things we do wrong. While we shouldn't design our ministry just to attract people, very often the way people react can help us see what we're doing right and doing wrong. I fear that sometimes we react so strongly against the seeker sensitive movement that we stop listening to people and miss helpful feedback that, as humble believers, we ought to value (and evaluate in light of God-given truth, of course).



Sorry Jack, but I still get the feeling that a lot of the argument hinges on that 'we should change church because of how the culture is reacting to us'. We don't 'do' church for the unbeliever, we feed believers when we 'do' church to go out and meet the unbeliever where we encounter them. Now, if THAT is not happening, there is a much larger problem. But we do church as we do because we believe it is the Biblical way to do it (hence things like the RPW, no?) In that way, when the seeker comes and says that our service is too stodgy and boring (why must it all be mournful 4/4 time?, says one in particular that I know), he is not seeking biblical truth, he merely wants to deconstruct because it doesn't fit what he likes. There's plenty that we do liturgically that is not specifically Bible verbatim and that can (and sometimes should) change without a hissy fit on our part. But we didn't have the Reformation for nothing...


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2011)

LawrenceU said:


> Well said, Jack. I, too, detest dead orthodoxy. I know what people mean by the phrase, but in truth orthodoxy can never become what we call dead orthodoxy. The Ephesianism that can take over a congregation is not orthodox.



Yeah, I realize the term technically doesn't work. But like you say, we understand what it means.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> > I generally agree here, too. Sometimes people don't come because of things we do right. But it's also true that sometimes people don't come because of things we do wrong. While we shouldn't design our ministry just to attract people, very often the way people react can help us see what we're doing right and doing wrong. I fear that sometimes we react so strongly against the seeker sensitive movement that we stop listening to people and miss helpful feedback that, as humble believers, we ought to value (and evaluate in light of God-given truth, of course).
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jack, but I still get the feeling that a lot of the argument hinges on that 'we should change church because of how the culture is reacting to us'. We don't 'do' church for the unbeliever, we feed believers when we 'do' church to go out and meet the unbeliever where we encounter them. Now, if THAT is not happening, there is a much larger problem. But we do church as we do because we believe it is the Biblical way to do it (hence things like the RPW, no?) In that way, when the seeker comes and says that our service is too stodgy and boring (why must it all be mournful 4/4 time?, says one in particular that I know), he is not seeking biblical truth, he merely wants to deconstruct because it doesn't fit what he likes. There's plenty that we do liturgically that is not specifically Bible verbatim and that can (and sometimes should) change without a hissy fit on our part. But we didn't have the Reformation for nothing...



I think you and I mean different stuff...

You're talking about the worship service. I'm talking about the church. They aren't the same thing. I'd agree that the worship service is for worshipers. But the entire work of the church is bigger than that, and the church absolutely _does_ exist for unbelievers as well as believers. We are the body of Christ in the world. And as such we have responsibilities to the world.

Nowhere am I suggesting we adjust our worship services to fit the world's sensibilities, thus attracting more people. That would be a grave error. But when people look at us and suggest we've forgotten that the church is bigger than having more correct services than those down the street, I think it's wise to pay attention and examine ourselves. Outsiders can sometimes see things we're blind to. Then we can go about finding a biblical way (not a worldly way) to address our shortcomings.

I worry for churches that get their sense of identity and worth from being more right than the other guys. Even if they _are_ more right (and that's a good thing), drawing an identity from that is dangerous. It makes for churches that are unteachable. It also makes them wholly unattractive. Again, _sometimes_ the reason seekers reject the church is due to things the church does wrong. Churches that deny this may be the case are, in my mind, the most suspect.


----------



## kvanlaan (Jan 4, 2011)

> You're talking about the worship service. I'm talking about the church. They aren't the same thing. I'd agree that the worship service is for worshipers. But the entire work of the church is bigger than that, and the church absolutely does exist for unbelievers as well as believers. We are the body of Christ in the world. And as such we have responsibilities to the world.



I am talking about the life of the church on the whole. Both the service and what issues forth from that. The emergent church soils all of it - they both twist the service and what the Christian life is to be. But yes, the church has issues, and always will, so long as sinful men exist. The answer is not to turn God's word into your own 'narrative'.



> That would be a grave error. But when people look at us and suggest we've forgotten that the church is bigger than having more correct services than those down the street, I think it's wise to pay attention and examine ourselves. Outsiders can sometimes see things we're blind to. Then we can go about finding a biblical way (not a worldly way) to address our shortcomings.



We must indeed examine ourselves. Our orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy in the Spirit or it is nothing.



> I worry for churches that get their sense of identity and worth from being more right than the other guys. Even if they are more right (and that's a good thing), drawing an identity from that is dangerous. It makes for churches that are unteachable. It also makes them wholly unattractive. Again, sometimes the reason seekers reject the church is due to things the church does wrong. Churches that deny this may be the case are, in my mind, the most suspect.



What is a 'seeker', in your definition?


----------



## Jack K (Jan 4, 2011)

kvanlaan said:


> > I worry for churches that get their sense of identity and worth from being more right than the other guys. Even if they are more right (and that's a good thing), drawing an identity from that is dangerous. It makes for churches that are unteachable. It also makes them wholly unattractive. Again, sometimes the reason seekers reject the church is due to things the church does wrong. Churches that deny this may be the case are, in my mind, the most suspect.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a 'seeker', in your definition?


 
I guess I have in mind someone who's interested in God and/or a particular church and wanting to check things out. Such a person could be coming from any of several backgrounds, although I have in mind mostly those who are probably unsaved, often unchurched altogether, rather than church shoppers. "Seeker" may not be the most helpful word, given the way it's been overused in recent decades.

And please note, I'm NOT advocating we become like the emergent church. I don't like their answers. Those are wrong! I'm merely saying that some who're attracted to that movement are asking good questions for which we need to be ready with our own, better answers. Does the fact that I disagree with the emergent movement mean I also must disregard every critique from anyone drawn to that movement, and assume nothing they say could ever possibly be even partly true?


----------

