Click through to the Resurgence if you can't see the video.
Michael Horton explains moralistic therapeutic deism and how it shows up in our churches and literature.
In this interview series, Mars Hill PR Director Nick Bogardus interviews Dr. Michael Horton. For more information and resources from Dr. Horton, check out White Horse Inn.
Recently, there has been talk about spirituality and Christianity, which has made me wonder what fellow Christians mean when they use the words “spiritual” and “spirituality.” When discussing these topics, it is important to focus on the very heart of Christianity—that we are not “spiritual.”
We do not practice spirituality because we have climbed the ladder to God through human means. Rather, Christianity teaches that our alienation from God is remedied by Christ, who absorbs the sin that separates us from God. God came near to us in Christ, so that Christ could consume that which separates us from God, and thereby, draw us near to him.
Faulty Views
We are not “spiritual,” but Christ was “spiritual” for us. In other words, without God nothing is strong and nothing is holy. We are weak and unholy. Our natural inclination is to substitute anything for God. We repel the holy and opt for manageable and convenient versions of God.
We tend, by a secret law of the soul, to move toward our mental image of God. In his book, Your God Is Too Small, J. B. Phillips describes inadequate ideas of God. Just looking at the chapter titles can be helpful:
The Resident Policeman
The Parental Hangover
The Grand Old Man
Meek and Mild
Absolute Perfection
The Heavenly Bosom
God in a Box
The Managing Director
Second-hand God
Perennial Grievance
The Pale-Galilean
How many of these ideas have become prominent ways of understanding God both in the church today and in our contemporary culture?
Condescension
The incarnation eviscerates these faulty views of God. Through the incarnation, God disarms us our self-reliant spiritual efforts. As a result, we have a problem with God. God is morally and spiritually separated from us, and we are separated from God and from one another. Christian spirituality, then, is ultimately created not by reason or emotion, but by condescension.
John Calvin uses the notion of accommodation—“God accommodates to our human capacity.” God condescended and became a human. God condescended, spoke our language, and gave us a book so that we would remember the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus.
Spirituality Properly Understood
The most fundamental spiritual lesson we learn from this is a caution against the fetish of spirituality itself. Spirituality includes beliefs and practices, theology and rituals, ideas and activities. These are all things that contribute to a rich and vibrant Christian life, both individually and communally. But at the heart of Christian spirituality is a reminder that no spiritual practice or ritual alone can draw us near to God. God must come near to us. That “God-coming-near” is what has happened in the incarnation and that is what we celebrate as Christians. Christian spirituality ultimately rests in God’s condescension to us. It is not that we have risen to spiritual heights, but that heaven has come down to us.
To answer any significant question about where we come from, why we are here, what is right and wrong, who God is, and where we are going when we die requires doctrine. Subsequently, everyone has doctrine. The only question is whether it is truthful, biblical, and helpful.
Admittedly, in the name of being doctrinally vigorous, some people go too far and put secondary issues—those that are unworthy of battling over—in the closed hand of conviction. Conversely, some people do not go far enough and put in the open hand primary issues that are worthy of battling over. In writing Doctrine, my coauthor, Dr. Gerry Breshears, and I sought to follow the storyline of the Bible and focus on the major unifying, liberating, and life-changing doctrines of the Bible.
The timing of this book is incredibly significant. At the very least, evangelical Christians in general, and younger evangelical Christians in particular, seem incredibly confused on doctrine. One study revealing the incredible need for Doctrine is the third wave of the National Study of Youth and Religion (2008) (see note below). It reports the beliefs of the 13.5% of emerging adults (ages 18 to 23) in the United States today who self-identify as Protestant Christian and who attend an evangelical church at least “two to three times a month”:
97.2% believe in God.
96.6% believe that Jesus was/is the Son of God who was raised from the dead.
96.4% believe that God created the world.
89% “definitely” believe in angels.
76.2% “definitely” believe in demons.
82.5% “definitely” believe in any form of afterlife.
83.0% believe in astrology “not at all.”
83.2% believe in reincarnation “not at all.”
94.8% “definitely” believe in miracles.
95.0% believe in a coming judgment day, when God will reward some and punish others.
91.2% believe that God is a personal being who is still involved in the world today.
81.9% believe that only people whose sins are forgiven through faith in Jesus go to Heaven.
Corollary: 5.3% say that only good people go to Heaven; 2.5% say that all people go to Heaven; 4.9% believe “something else” about Heaven, and 2.2% “don’t really know or care” who goes to Heaven. 3.3% don’t believe in Heaven at all.
1.6% tries to include practices from Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen, or other Asian religions.
85.5% say that it is “okay for religious people to try to convert other people to their faith.”
71.8% say that Christians should only practice one religion.
24.6% say that it is okay for Christians to practice other religions as well. (Another 3.6% don’t know.)
Less than two-thirds (66.2%) say that “only one religion is true.”
70.8% say that it is not okay for Christians to “pick and choose their religious beliefs without having to accept the teachings of their religious faith as a whole.”
More than one-quarter (27.0%) thinks that it is okay to “pick and choose.”
89% say that they have “a lot of respect for organized religion in this country.”
Almost one-quarter (24.3%) agrees with or is still undecided about moral relativism.
36.0% “agree” or “strongly agree” that “we should adjust our views of what is morally right and wrong” to reflect changes in our world.
52.0% “agree” or “strongly agree” that people should not marry someone of a different religion.
REMEMBER: These statistics are from the 13.5% of emerging adults (ages 18 to 23) in the United States today who self-identify as Protestant Christian and who attend an evangelical church at least “two to three times a month.” In Doctrine we hit all these issues and many more in a readable manner.
Note: The National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR) is the most comprehensive and rigorous social scientific research ever conducted on the religious and spiritual lives of American youth. It is based out of the University of North Carolina and the University of Notre Dame. The wave 1 survey was conducted among American youth ages 13 to 17 between July 2002 and April 2003, and produced a total N = 3370. Most recently, a third wave of the survey was conducted from September 24, 2007 through April 21, 2008 with the same respondents—when they were between the ages of 18 and 23 years. (This is during the first half of what developmental psychologists call “emerging adulthood.”) The National Study of Youth and Religion was generously funded by Lilly Endowment Inc. and is under the direction of Christian Smith of the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame. For methodological details and related publications, visit: http://www.youthandreligion.org/.
In Martin Luther’s essay, “The Freedom of a Christian,” we read the following: “I believe that it has now become clear that it is not enough or in any sense ‘Christian’ to preach the works, life, and words of Christ as historical fact, as if the knowledge of these would suffice for the conduct of life.”
WWJD Is a Bad Question
Luther is claiming that asking “What Would Jesus Do?” is a bad question for your spiritual formation. Luther continues: “Yet, this is the fashion among those who today are regarded as our best preachers…and such teaching is childish and effeminate nonsense.” Luther’s 16th century words are still relevant today.
Thankfully, Luther explains why he considers WWJD a bad question:
There are some who have no understanding to hear the truth of liberty and insist upon their goodness as means for salvation. These people you must resist, do the very opposite, and offend them boldly lest by their impious views they drag many with them into error. For the sake of the liberty of the faith do other things which they regarded as the greatest of sins….Use your freedom constantly and consistently in the sight of and despite the tyrants and the stubborn so that they also may learn that they are impious, that their laws and works are of no avail for righteousness, and that they had no right to set them up.
Are You Offended by the Gospel?
Don’t get all excited because you now have a great theologian giving you a divine sanction on your favorite sins. Luther spends the rest of his essay talking about what it looks like to love God and your neighbor. He is no antinomian.
But do get angry if you’re offended by the gospel. That can be a good thing because it points you to some good news—that the remedy for guilt and condemnation is NOT your better law-keeping or adherence to your well-polished moral sense, but faith in the law-keeping of Jesus. Because of Christ, you are already vindicated in the eyes of God. God’s riches of forgiveness and freedom from guilt, condemnation, and shame are offered not on the basis of working or measuring up. Rather, you have a right standing before God because of the righteousness of Christ.
So, what would Luther do? In the face of suffocating religion and moralism, he would offend boldly and celebrate the liberty of faith for the sake of the gospel.
What is the difference between going to church and being the church? In a recent blog post for Boundless Webzine called Stop Going to Church, Jonathan Dodson talks about how his life was radically changed when he stopped simply going to church. Comparing some of today’s churches to fortresses, shopping malls, and cemeteries, Dodson calls us to remember that the church is intended to be a family.
More on Jonathan Dodson and his ministry can be found at his blog, Creation Project.
Part of the job description for a chaplain in the military is counseling troops. For the Christian chaplain, this is simply Matthew 28:19-20. Most counseling revolves around helping people change certain behaviors by dealing with particular issues. This is especially true in the military, where behavior and performance are heavily rewarded and extremely important for success. But chaplains can help their troops without getting them any closer to Christ and the cross, therefore not truly helping them at all.
Pastor James Noreiga recently led a training event for chaplains, teaching them how to emphasize the supremacy of Christ and his cross in counseling troops. Even though he is specifically speaking about the military chaplain, these are truths that all believers are called to live out.
Be sure to watch through to the end—you don’t want to miss the reasons why counseling is compromised when the cross of Christ is not at the front door.
Click through to the Resurgence if you can't see the video.
In a recent sermon Pastor Mark Driscoll called out young men for putting off manhood and extending their adolescence as “guys” rather than maturing into men. Watch this clip to see what he said:
Click through to the Resurgence if you can’t see the video.
If you care about ministering to emerging adults (18-24 year olds), or guys (16-26 year old males), then the following books should prove helpful to you in understanding their world. These books are filled with the best and newest sociological research on the topics. They are not “how to” books on ministering to young adults. Rather, they are descriptive and will give you the lay of the land.
This book is top-notch research that tells the definitive story of the religious and spiritual lives of emerging adults, ages 18 to 24, in the United States. It describes the major influences on their developing spiritual lives and reveals how the religious beliefs and practices of teenagers are strengthened, challenged, and often changed as they move into adulthood.
Many of their findings are surprising. First, parents are the single most important influence on the religious outcomes of young adults. Second, participation in evangelization, missions, and youth groups does not predict a high level of religious vitality just a few years later. Third, the common wisdom that religiosity declines sharply during the young adult years is shown to be greatly exaggerated.
What many will find particularly helpful is how Smith and Snell describe the broader cultural world of today's emerging adults, how that culture shapes their religious outlooks, and what the consequences are for religious faith and practice in America more generally.
This book is about “guys.” Guys are initiated into guyland sometime around high school and hopefully exit in their mid-20s. Kimmel paints a vivid picture of this depressing place populated by “almost-men.”
Young men are doing things very differently today than they have in the past. Guys are delaying the milestones of adulthood for a longer period of time, such as moving out of their parents’ home, getting jobs, buying homes, marrying, and having children. They are rejecting the traditional notions of mature masculinity by opting for vanity and narcissism. They follow Hugh Hefner's model of a life based on unrealistic and childish male wish fulfillment. Guyland celebrates and sustains guys’ failure to launch into the adult responsibilities of work and family.
Kimmel powerfully drives home the point that guyland defines “being a man” through consumption rather than production: video games, pornography, bars, parties, sports, the media, and other things. Guyland is filled with many of the most toxic elements of our culture: violence, hazing, drinking, drugs, pornography, emotionally detached intimacy, sexual harassment, and degradation of women.
It is clear why guyland is detrimental to both women and men. But Kimmel is hopeful. He discusses possibilities for change, addressing the importance of actively involved parents beyond their children’s high school years. He also provides stories of hope and bravery of individuals and institutions that have sought to address the problems associated with guyland.
Wuthnow offers a broad description of this demographic: “Young adults are marrying later, having fewer children and having them later, moving more often, going to college in higher numbers, living with more immigrant neighbors and therefore more ethnic and religious diversity, and living in the suburbs even more than their baby boomer parents.”
This plays out in the fact that 46 percent of those in their early forties attend church weekly while only 29 percent of people in their twenties do.
The biggest single social factor related to declining church attendance among younger adults is the postponement of marriage and children. Wuthnow explains: “Being married or unmarried has a stronger effect on church attendance than anything else. Children also make some difference. This means that the postponement of marriage and children continues to suppress church attendance at least until adults are in their early forties.”
While those in their early forties go to church more often, young adults in their twenties talk about religion with their friends more than any other demographic. Furthermore, Wuthnow reports that “core beliefs have remained remarkably pervasive and stable” over the past 30 years. This means younger adults are interested in spirituality and are sympathetic to essential Christian doctrine.
The missional church movement has been good and bad. On a positive note, let’s focus on the bad. I want to suggest three ways to not be a missional church. In continuation of the series, this post examines some of the defects of evangelism-driven mission.
Evangelism-Driven Mission
These churches focus almost exclusively on evangelism. Their view of the gospel leads them to see social action as optional. For them, mission is synonymous with evangelism, and evangelism is highly programmatic. They focus on training individuals through evangelism training programs, apologetics, and use of evangelistic tracts. What’s wrong with learning evangelistic presentations, memorizing apologetic defenses, and using tracts?
1. Evangelism-driven mission is often answer-based and heaven-centered.
These churches train individuals and teams “How to present the gospel” in a brief period of time. Typically, these programs look for the person being evangelized to offer a specific answer. For example, “If you died tonight and stood before God and he said: ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ What would you say?” Notice that the questions are answer-driven. The goal is to get someone to say the right answer and to believe the right facts, like “Jesus died for my sins.” What we need is less belief and more faith.
In his new book, The Future of Faith, Harvey Cox makes a helpful distinction between belief and faith. He writes: “We can believe something to be true without it making much difference to us, but we place our faith only in something that is vital for the way we live.” We can believe without it making a difference.
Many Americans believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but it makes very little difference in their lives. They possess mere belief. This mere belief undermines the gospel. What we need is faith. Moreover, mere belief in the right answer baits people, not with Christ, but with heaven. It is heaven-centered, not Christ-centered. In evangelism-driven mission, Christ is subordinated to the treasure of heaven, instead of heaven being subordinated to the treasure of Christ. The goal is heaven, not Jesus. Answer-driven and heaven-centered evangelism leads to nominalism and distorts the gospel. Evangelism-driven mission can undermine, not advance the gospel.
2. Evangelism-driven mission can be defensive and fact-oriented.
Training in apologetics has its place; however, when our approach to non-Christians is driven by apologetics, we very often reduce people to projects. Apologetic mission can foster too much defense and too much offense because it aims at the head to the exclusion of the heart, to change someone’s mind, but not their lives. Just because someone agrees with our facts and embraces our logic doesn’t guarantee true conversion. We need to be prepared, not only to defend the faith, but to love people intelligently. Most objections to the gospel have existential and personal roots. If we can get beyond the arguments to the idols of the heart, we can show just how tremendously superior and satisfying Jesus is to whatever they love, desire, and pursue most!
3. Evangelism-driven mission is often outdated and fails to contextualize.
The methods used are often prepackaged and outdated. Evangelistic programs falsely assume that our listeners still understand the meanings of sin, Christ, and faith. But very often, they hear something very different, like legalism, moral teacher, and mere belief. When we fail to express the gospel in context and vocabulary that our listeners can understand, we fail to share the gospel. Christ dated and contextualized himself to all kinds of people so that his message would make sense and connect with their deep needs for redemption. Using packaged illustrations and methods assumes a one-size-fits-all, but the Incarnation reminds us that the gospel is much more personal and dynamic.
4. Evangelism-driven mission is individualistic.
This approach to mission trains individuals, not communities. It reduces the gospel to a conversation between two people, without focusing on embodying the gospel in communities. Statistics have shown that individuals are consistently converted to communities before they are converted to doctrines. Our methods are often doctrine-driven and individualistic.
Jesus prescribed a kind of communal evangelism in John 17, where our community is so redemptive and rich that it points people to Jesus. Paul called for a distinctive discipleship in churches that set the community of faith forth as an example, as salt and light in their cities, attracting others to them. Individualistic evangelism doesn’t create community because it doesn’t convert people to the church. It aims at converting individuals to a set of answers and to heaven. Evangelism-driven mission has very little to do with the Jesus of the Church, the Head of the Body.
To be continued.
This series is based on Jonathan Dodson’s talks at the LEAD ’09 conference.
The missional church movement has been good and bad. On a positive note, let’s focus on the bad. Over the next few posts, I want to suggest three ways to not be a missional church. We’ll organize these reflections under three headings:
Event-Driven Mission
Evangelism-Driven Mission
Social Action-Driven Mission
Event-Driven Mission
These are churches that, in the name of mission, throw block parties, do Easter egg drops from helicopters, hand out water at intersections, do gas buy-downs, or even, as was recently suggested to me, do coffee buy-downs. What’s wrong with these approaches to missional church?
1. Event-driven mission is works-based.
It begins on the wrong foot, the foot of action instead of the foot of identity. It makes mission out to be an act of man, not a participation in an attribute of God. Mission is something we are before it’s something we do. Event-driven approaches to mission turn mission into an event, something that is optional for the super-spiritual, gets us points with God, and gets him on our good side. But God can’t be bribed by mission or anything else. Event-driven mission builds mission on works, not grace.
2. Event-driven mission is very often consumerist.
The event approach to being a missional church often appeals to consumerism, not to genuine social or spiritual needs. It aims at the consumer-in-want-of-stuff, not the sinner-in-need-of-grace. These attempts at mission appeal to the consumerist longing for a deal, instead of the sinner’s deep down longing for redemption. They try to buy people off: “I’ll give you an Xbox if you come to my church. I’ll pay for your gas if you visit on a Sunday.” If you have to pay people to come meet Christians, something is seriously wrong with your understanding of gospel and mission. Event-driven mission makes appeals based on idolatry, not grace.
3. Event-driven mission doesn’t work very well.
In urban contexts, people can smell a bait and switch a mile away, and that is exactly why they left the church (if they were in it in the first place). If we want to reach non-Christians in a post-Christian context, then we will have to prove to them that they cannot be bought off, that we are a real community, and that we care about them enough to live next door to them, eat with them, work with them, suffer with them, rock out with them, and be with them. Event-driven mission is a bait and switch.
To be continued.
This series is based on Jonathan Dodson’s talks at the LEAD ’09 conference.
Every dad is a pastor. The important thing is that he cares for his flock well. Pastor Mark Driscoll's new eBook offers spiritual insights on fatherhood. Get it here.
