A quarterly magazine for the proclamation and defense of the Gospel
|
A quarterly magazine for the proclamation and defense of the Gospel |
|
Vol. 4, Issue 1 | Spring 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Primum Mobile is a quarterly web magazine. This issue and all its contents are © Copyright 2004-2010 by the editors. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers.
by Paul Lytle
And the LORD said to Job: “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty? He who argues with God, let him answer it.”-Job 40:1-2
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.-Colossians 2:8
Am I the only one sick of getting messages from people who want me to read their blog posts?
When I first got the internet, you didn’t have any of that, of course. Mainly because there was no such thing as blogs. You had to know something about HTML just to get a website running.
But Web 2.0 has done something amazing — it allows anyone and everyone to publish any whim for all to see, and to publish it easily. And those same people seem to always write me to tell me that they published something.
It’s not all bad. I have a blog myself and a Facebook page. There is something about the new style of the internet that works. There’s also something that doesn’t work as well.
I bring it up because I’m starting to see the same trends (and problems) in the Church.
Let’s start at the beginning if we could. If you’re not familiar with the term “Web 2.0,” I’ll try to explain if I can. In the past, websites were set up by persons or companies as a destination for people to read/listen/watch for information or entertainment. These websites were essentially static, not really changing unless its author changed it. Perhaps there was a guestbook or a way to rate something or leave comments, but the rest remained the same.
The concept of Web 2.0 is that the person or company would build a framework of a website, and then the user would add content. To use an example, the basic site for YouTube is built, but it’s built without really any videos to watch. Instead, it is built to allow the site member to upload videos and let other people watch them. It is not the owner of the site that is building the content at all, but the user. The same concept is behind the social networking sites, auction sites, encyclopedias, and even (to a degree) online role-playing games.
Now, this may be obvious, but it should be stated — this approach works only because there are a lot of people out there who will contribute. There are a lot of people out there who want to be heard. There happens to be quite a few people who want to be heard.
In today’s culture, we would see this as a good thing. We sort of see Freedom of Speech as the ultimate good in society. I sometimes wish our culture was better at listening, but Freedom of Speech is a good thing.
And having a bunch of people talking is not really a problem if you have some discernment about what to read or watch, and also some discernment on what to believe. The problem comes in when you have people (a lot of them) who don’t have that sort of discernment.
A couple of examples could be brought up briefly. The Onion ran an article that the Harry Potter books were causing children to experiment with witchcraft. Christian organizations took the article as a grave warning, not having the discernment to realize that The Onion is a satirical publication. The story was made up for a laugh.
In another example — when is the last time you went to a wedding where people threw rice? It’s been a decade at least for me. The reason is because someone started a rumor that birds would eat the rice, the rice would swell up in their stomachs, and the birds would die. It’s total nonsense, absolutely untrue, but weddings have generally moved away from throwing rice now.
It often feels like the Church is moving in the same direction as the Internet. I’m starting to hear, more than ever, talk about “changing church.” And the proposed changes are typically along the same lines as the changes from Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. What is being proposed is, in essence, Church 2.0.
Our church services were, at one time, a place where you went for worship, information, teaching, instruction, and maybe even entertainment (we would hope that the entertainment part of it goes along with the worship, instruction, etc, but often it seems to have nothing to do with worship at all).
Church 2.0, much like Web 2.0, is more a frame into which people bring their own opinions, thoughts, and questions rather than a source from which to draw understanding, worship, and direction.
This trend manifests itself in many ways. To the extreme, perhaps, are the churches that have abandoned preaching completely, favoring an informal discussion about the topic at hand. Even those churches that maintain preaching are still affected by the cultural shift. Many churches, instead of teaching expositional through a book of the Bible, or following a liturgical calendar for the text, have polled the local community to see what issues they are having, and preaching on those topics. Sermons have become increasingly based on personal testimony rather than doctrine. The service becomes a parade of people telling their life stories, the sermons a series of anecdotes from the pastor’s life.
Even the most conservative church is infected. Even if the pastor is faithfully expositing the Word, chances are the small groups or Sunday schools are discussion-based and are led by people whose only qualification is that they have a house and are willing to host people.
I think most people recognize this change, but have little problem with it. In fact, most people are excited about it. After all, there’s nothing wrong with having a little discussion. Discussion is good right? It gets people involved in the lesson and gets more ideas on the table. And there’s nothing wrong with people giving input as to the direction of the church.
To an extent, I agree. I really don’t see a problem with the church playing Rock music if the congregation likes it. If the congregation likes the old hymns, then I don’t see a problem with them either. I would certainly take a closer theological examination of the lyrics of these songs than most churches do (some of our praise songs today don’t even seem to be Christian, much less theologically sound), but there is no admonition in the Bible as far as style goes. Message, yes. Style, no.
So I am not saying we all need to go to church in suits and Sunday dresses and listen to a choir with an organ. Again – style is up for grabs biblically, and styles change. If our church looks like it’s 1950, that’s still over nineteen centuries removed from the church Jesus attended. He didn’t wear a suit to synagogue. He didn’t have a piano. He didn’t even have the same musical scales that our hymns employ. We’re not closer to God because we refuse to accept jeans in a service.
I also don’t have a problem in general with discussion. I have them quite a bit. But there is an aspect of this change that has me concerned.
The internet has easily been one of the most helpful inventions in decades, if not centuries. It has also been one of the most harmful. People have been seriously hurt because of things that happened online. Hate and lies have been spread at the blink of an eye.
This is the danger of it — not all opinions are equal in value. When Jesus, the Creator of all that is, told us that no one could have eternal life except through Him, He was making a statement of truth, one that cannot be truthfully contradicted. Anyone on the Internet can say that it isn’t true, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t.
In the same way, there are many people who are saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen. This is a statement of fact, not opinion, and should be treated as such. We should respond with more force when someone is making an untrue statement than when they are stating an opinion. If we disagree on music, that’s one thing. But if you think the world is flat then we need to talk.
The Bible is not made up of opinions. When Jesus tells us, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” we are not dealing with something that can be pushed aside as though it were someone talking about a musical style. It needs to be dealt with as something that is either true or not true.
In the same way, the Church should not be interested in opinion all that much. If someone who claims to follow Jesus denies such a clear and unambiguous statement as the one just quoted, then he’s not really a follower of Jesus.
This is an unpopular idea today, I know. In today’s culture, we like things to be ambiguous. We like things to be unclear. We think it’s more enlightened to think that all ideas are valid (except for the idea that not all ideas are valid, of course). We don’t like the idea of absolute truth.
Unless, of course, someone runs a stop sign and slams into your car. Then you’re all about the absolute nature of the stop sign.
We can think whatever we want, but we operate under absolutes all day long. We go to work on a certain schedule. We know what foods are good for us and what foods are not. When we are tired we go to sleep to rest. When we are thirsty we drink. When our stomachs grumble, we know we are hungry. If we have a hundred bucks, we assume that we can afford a five dollar meal.
The God who created the universe works under absolutes too. You can think what you want about Jesus’ statement that He is the only way to God. You can dismiss it as another opinion. But if God, on Judgment Day, considers it more than an opinion, but rather an objectively true fact, then you will have to answer according to it.
It ultimately does not matter what you think about it. He is holy, just, and good, and His decrees are holy, just, and good. You are none of those things, so your opinion about what He has declared as fact is not going to get you anywhere.
When we open a church to any opinion, we open it to falsehood. We open it up to the opinion that women should be able to preach, even though the Word clearly says they should not. We open it up to the acceptance of homosexuality, even though the Word clearly says it is wrong. We open it up to the idea that a Muslim who is a “good person” can get to heaven, even though the Word clearly says that there are no good people at all.
We can all express opinions on the news story last night, but the news does not claim to be infallible. If the New York Times ran a headline that stated, “Everything we publish is 100% right, all the time, without exception,” that would be a story that you would either have to accept or reject. The discussion would shift immediately to evidence rather than opinion. It would do no good to say, “That story doesn’t fit into my worldview.” That wouldn’t matter under such a claim of truth! No one would care about your worldview when discussing this, because your worldview has nothing to do with it.
But that’s what we too often do with the Bible. We are taking a book that claims to be infallible, that contains such claims as when Jesus tells us that no one, absolutely not a single person, can get to heaven without Him. This is the book we are discussing, and we’re talking about how we feel about it. If something claims such absolute truth, shouldn’t we be talking about whether it is right in that claim? And if it is right, shouldn’t we be conforming ourselves to it?
Our Bible studies have become, at best, a detailed study of some self-help book that claims to be Christian. At worst they become a pooling of ignorance about God. What good is it to have twenty people who know nothing about the Bible talk about a particular verse? Wouldn’t it be better to have one person take the time to properly exegete a passage while nineteen listen and learn?
The pastors aren’t helping, because they’re busy preaching on finances (because that poll they took in the neighborhood said there was a lot of concern about finances). They don’t give us direction on how to read the Bible properly. When they use the Bible, they quote a verse out of context (out of a paraphrase at that, so we still don’t know what the verse actually says), and we are left with the impression that the Bible is a handbook for life rather than a way to life.
And that’s only if there is a sermon at all. If that has been replaced by a discussion, then we start to get our understanding about God from a bunch of people who are only stating what they want God to be, not looking at His very Word to understand Him. The conversation moved to having women pastors, because we are very modern and enlightened, rather than looking to see whether God, the most enlightened one in the universe, wants women pastors.
If that isn’t exactly the definition of idolatry, I don’t know what is.
The Internet has a lot of great stuff on it. But if you don’t have any discernment as to what to believe, then you’re going to be bounced around like a ping-pong ball. You need to know what sites are trustworthy, and which ones need to be questioned. You need to know how to do your own research. If possible, you need an authority you can go to.
The church is the same way. We need to have some discernment. We need to examine what we are hearing. We need an authority.
Church 2.0 may be more fun, but only because it caters to the most prevalent sin of them all – pride. Church 2.0 tells us that we should be leading rather than following. It tells us that we should be teaching rather than learning. It tells us that we are an authority.
But God opposes the proud and shows grace to the humble. God tells us to submit to others, especially church leaders. God tells us that there is truth, and that truth is knowable.
It is part of our culture today to question. It is part of how we are wired in America. But when God speaks, it’s time to stop questioning. When someone who knows all, cannot lie, and is perfectly good tells you something, it is only damnable pride that causes us to answer back with questions. Job gave it a try, and the only answer he got was when God said, “Oh, Job, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that you created the universe. Oh, that wasn’t you? It was me? Then why don’t you quiet down and listen?”
It is good to question things. But when we question, we should be falling back on some sort of authority. If we’re just questioning to defy authority, then it’s just thoughtless rebellion. Questioning with an authority is healthy debate. Two people who have stats and sources can have a good conversation. But if one of the people doesn’t know anything, but just keeps saying, “Yeah, well, who says?” then it’s going to get old pretty quickly.
What I would suggest to the modern Christian is that if you think you have a higher authority than the Word of God, then you need to repent of your thoughtless rebellion against God. Our questioning of theology should go as far as checking in the Bible to see if the theology is true. And once that is established, it is for us to learn it and accept it. If the Bible says something else than what the preacher is saying, then you are to reject that teaching, no matter how much it appeals to you.
You are not the authority. No one in your small group should give a flip about what you think about a passage unless you have done the work to study and exegete the text.
It is the nature of church to seek something higher than ourselves. But in pride we have sought our own advancement in these same churches. We want everyone to know what we think. We want to hear our favorite songs, for the pastor to preach on something that has immediate application in our own lives, and for everyone to listen if we didn’t like what was said.
And what about God? Did He like it? Did He agree with it? If you don’t care about the answer to those questions, then you are your own god. You are worshiping the idol of yourself, and you are trying to convince the body of Christ to worship you instead of God.
There is no room in the Church for version 2.0. We don’t have room for people spouting their own opinions about everything. What we have room for is obedience and humility.
And I’m guilty of this. And so are you. We are all guilty of the pride that demands a religion that fits us rather than a Church that is the body of Christ. Thankfully, Christ died for this sin too. Amazingly, He forgives even those who try to steal His bride away from Him.
We don’t think much about it in those terms, but that is what we are doing. The Church is the bride of Christ, and we try to manhandle her to have her fit our desires and our pride. I am ashamed of the times when I left Church wanting more of me rather than more of Him. It is a terrible sin we have committed. Does it astonish you how deep is the love He has for us that He would forgive that? Does that awe you as it does me? In sin we have rebelled against Him, and when we try to turn the Church away from Him, we have tried to get His bride to rebel too, and that is forgiven in the Blood of Jesus. God died to forgive us when we try to corrupt His bride.
This is something of which I have had (and will have) to repent. I have struggled to submit as you have. But Christ is in charge of His Church. It is for us to follow. Speak when the Word of God backs you up (and have the passages ready). When the Word does not back you up, fall on your knees in repentance and faith. You will be forgiven.
