The Church of Madison Avenue
Feb 6, 2017 15:57:03 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Feb 6, 2017 15:57:03 GMT -6
I will start this thread with an excerpt from a letter I wrote several years ago. It is a brief history lesson. It will be followed with material explaining why I feel that today’s Church not only never fully recovered from the 60s, but seems likely to have grown ever weaker, fully believing and dependent upon the Madison Avenue denomination of Christianity, and the half truths that have been foisted off on her by various voices.
“If you will not hear the law and the prophets, neither will you hear one who is risen from the dead.” (Luke 16:19 – 31)
“You must be born-again . . .” (John3:3-7)
“Because it is impossible for those having once and for all been enlightened – having both tasted of the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the good word of God and the power of the coming age – 6 and then having turned away, to be restored again to repentance, who are thus crucifying [again] for themselves and exposing to a public shame, the Son of God.” Hebrews 6:4-6 (my translation).
“Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” (James 4:4)
Hard sayings? Difficult lessons? Perhaps. But shall we not listen? By analogy, applying such a principle to medical problems would mean that we should find a doctor who will tell us we are fine; that the chronic cough and the growing lumps in our breasts “are nothing to worry about.”
“If I or an angel from heaven shall preach to you a gospel other than you have received, let him be damned to hell.” (Galatians 1:6 –10)
Does that sound like fun? What “other gospel” might Paul be referring to? How would you know? There is one way to come to grips with these questions and the truths they contain – that is to pretend that God is asking you these questions at the last judgment, and you don’t know the answer. Answers such as “that’s not what my church taught,” “everyone else was doing things this way,” and the “Bible can be interpreted lots of different ways,” will not cut it with God. The way to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but the mile markers are numbered with such excuses.
I think it is fair and reasonable to expect Christians to read the Bible – all of it, not just the sweet sounding little “devotional” passages. But many, many Christians today continue to nurture their friendship with the world. Worse yet, the Church now encourages (or at least permits) such “double mindedness.” Don’t Christians know what that means? I humbly suggest that they read their Bibles until they find out. They should not wait around for someone in church (or “Community”) to tell them, even the Pastor. Someone may never get around to it. Or Someone may be completely wrong. Now please do not consider this an attack on any particular church or any particular pastor, or any particular person. I am speaking in generalities about the contemporary American segment of the Church Universal and about what may be the “vomitous, lukewarm Christians” of Rev 3:16 too lazy or compromised to learn the truth.
From day one I have advocated the “Protestant Principle,” the notion that God’s word is open to all and he expects us to know it directly and intimately, without the intervention and bias of third parties. So why am I so concerned with our culture and the surrender of our churches? This will involve just a very short history lesson, but it is very important.
I have been in many churches over the last 35 years, and exposed in one way or another to many, many more. I’m sufficiently educated to recognize what is happening in “churchdom.” All the major denominations have either swallowed a lot of liberal nonsense, or have swallowed a correspondingly large dose of the Madison Avenue alternative, that in either case has changed their moral and spiritual stance. In broad terms, it happened like this:
A. Modern liberalism, or Secular Humanism, in the form of “liberal theology,” began creeping into the major denominations beginning in the mid-1890's. This resulted in a huge philosophical rift within Protestantism. Harvard, Princeton and Yale were publicly engaged in huge internal battles over these issues. Nowhere was the battle more bitter than at Princeton. A split occurred at Princeton, bitter and rancorous, which resulted in Princeton, joining Harvard and Yale in going the way of liberalism. But the conservative element of Princeton Seminary split off, choosing to keep its honor rather than its name. This became Westminster Theological Seminary. Needless to say, the churches supported by these universities suffered the same fate as the universities, as unthinking liberal pastors were churned out by the hundreds at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, changing the nature of their teaching, stance, and membership. Westminster Theological Seminary alone stood its ground.
B) The growing popularity of secularism among the “intelligentsia” over the next 50 years resulted in a questioning of all Christianity, but particularly and most pointedly of conservative or fundamental Christianity. With the hippie syndrome and the emergence into the popular awareness of Secular Humanism, church attendance began to decline dramatically; the more conservative the church, the more dramatic the decline. The decline did not hit the liberal churches so soon, or so hard as it did the conservative ones; they had already been imbibing toxic amounts of Secular Humanism for decades. But the decline in numbers in conservative churches was actually Good. It got the fellow travelers and back–pew–nay–sayers out of the conservative churches, leaving them to the believers. This was as it was supposed to be. Church, as the New Testament establishes it, is uniquely and only for Christians.
However, many churches could no longer pay for missionary and staff support to say nothing of making the payments on their new fleet of buses, their building expansions or other heavy-duty financial obligations. Something had to be done. By the mid-1970s, conservative churches were hurting financially, and seeing that the liberal churches were not losing ground (and that some were actually gaining the parishioners the conservatives lost) there began to be more talk about numbers than about truth. Soon, churches were recruiting parishioners left and right, and were willingly making concessions to whomever showed up on Sunday morning. Soon “Sin,” as a principle and major sermon topic, was dropped. So were other topics that were unpopular, such as the need for a blood sacrifice for atonement, and anything at all having to do with Hell. Pastors found that the fewer the offensive topics about which they preached, the more people filled their pews – and many were more than willing to sacrifice hard truths for full collection plates. By the thousands, Protestant pastors across the land sold out – and their churches again began to fill with those who did not belong there.
During the 60s and 70s, another similar phenomenon was gripping Christianity: Charismania. The Charismatics began very quietly in the early years of the 20th century, but literally exploded when mainstream Protestantism failed. This was for two reasons. First there was still a semblance of conservatism in charismatic circles, although it was frequently ignorant and fueled by tradition, rather than by sound Biblical exposition. But its quasi conservatism attracted those of a more conservative background, especially those who were emotionally motivated. (The Anabaptist tradition (Amish, Mennonite etc.), which began the same sort of climb from obscurity in the early 1900s, also relies more heavily on tradition than on Biblical exposition.) Second, the charismatics were able to jump denominational lines, because they offered the emotional equivalent of smoking dope: speaking in tongues and other ecstasies.
`By the 80s most Protestant churches were either 1) Liberal, 2) Charismatic, or 3) dying. There were a few independent churches, and a few “nondenominational” churches. They were, almost without exception, small, conservative, fiscally responsible and Biblical. These factors guaranteed they would remain small, a fact that bothered them not at all.
By the 90s, however, a couple of guys who were bothered by smallness, who perhaps did not fully understand the mission of the Church, and thought they could get Christianity “back on its feet,” developed strategies that have resulted in what is called “the mega-church” syndrome. Please do not think of this as an attack on either man. Those conversant with the Bible will know exactly where the potential problems lie. Those not conversant with the Bible will not.
But there are several phenomena, some doctrinal, and some practical, that ought to raise red flags, or at least demonstrate the need for thoughtful Biblical analysis. Generally speaking, the mega-churches (and mega-church wannabes) deliberately cut out anything that sounds threatening or unhappy from sermons, they play rock music or “modern gospel,” or “Christian Rock” as part of the service, and some of them allow dancing in the aisles. Coffee, donuts and socializing (loosely called “Fellowship”) are encouraged. Drinks are brought into the sanctuary during what passes for the worship service. Decency in dress is no longer required, and “praise” (the postmodern equivalent of “worship”) is deemed to be whatever anyone wants it to be. Their Madison Avenue approach required them to poll potential “unchurched” parishioner to discover what they didn’t like about attending church, and then to provide what they wanted, ignoring completely some aspects of what they needed. It is not difficult to see why these “country club” churches are “mega.” They appeal precisely to the people who should not be in church at all, i.e., the unconverted, or as the Madison Avenue church calls them the “unchurched.” In short, those who find church “boring,” or “unexciting,” and don’t want to take the time to read their Bibles, are dictating how we structure the Church service, what we talk about, and how we operate. Other than the fact that we didn’t vote on it, I never understood what was wrong with the Biblical model.
But the contrast grows stronger, for in the old conservative churches, members read their Bibles, and could discus critically the Biblical merits of any given sermon. Today’s “community” Christians trust in their community, not the Bible. They glorify community and vilify “Lone Ranger” Christians, all the while staying as ignorant of the Bible as they can. This is a picture of a democratic version of Roman Catholicism. Again, I am not saying that all churches are this way. I am not saying that every mega church is guilty of all the same infractions, or to the same degree. Nor am I attacking mega-Church founders or pastors. But I want it understood that they have let the Genie out of the bottle and we can’t seem to get him back in. And the trouble with the mega-church Genie is that thereby huge churches indoctrinate huge numbers of people, who go on their unquestioning way, assuming the truth of what they have been taught, unable to critically assess the Biblical merits of any given sermon. There has been a death of critical and Biblical thinking that can only be described as Democratic Catholicism. The sheep pretty much believe whatever the shepherd says, and accept what they are told.
Pastors should encourage, indeed, require (if they can) Bible study. I do not want anyone to believe what I believe, because I believe it. I want people to find out what God expects them to believe and believe it. Then, happily, we will all believe pretty much the same thing. This is the Divine shortcut to Christian Unity.
So the situation today is this: while God has not changed his decrees and the requirements of righteousness haven’t changed, and the percentage of genuine, born-again believers probably hasn’t changed, the number of churches serving God in the way He has revealed that He wants to be served is small. And some of them are so small they cannot afford a listing in the Yellow Pages!
What makes all this interesting, is that the situation that produced this sad state of affairs is prophesied in the New Testament. Furthermore, in the mid-1960s and into the 70s, Francis Schaeffer was predicting with fearless disregard of the consequences and with pinpoint accuracy, exactly what our culture would look like if Secular Humanism and Relativism, unchallenged and unchanged, entered the Church.
The phenomenon outlined above is interesting in another respect. The churches that lost so many of their members were conservative, Bible believing churches with some people who might not have belonged there, and some who were not completely committed. When these left, the remaining Church was actually stronger spiritually, but faced financial problems and temptations. Falling to their temptations, some of them bowed to the Dollar. Compromising the truth, they used the Madison Avenue methods to compete for parishioners the same way car companies compete for customers (more “happiness and excitement” for your Dollar). And those churches that out-marketed the others, that seemingly “won,” that saw their numbers increase, and their coffers fill – lost. For those new members as well as those who “came back,” did so because they realized that they now piped the tune. They probably constituted the majority in many, if not most, of these churches. And by the Twenty First Century, seminary graduates were learning the lessons of marketing just as they learned homiletics.
I have argued that some of the parishioners in the Church did not belong there, and left either for liberal churches, Charismatic churches, or for no church at all. I have also argued that the Church of Madison Avenue, the Mega Church, the Church of the “unchurched,” is more democratic than the earlier church. The demographics and the nature of the parishioners now dictate what is going to be preached. They will not accept detailed or hurtful teachings. In both cases, the churches in question had what may be called a “mixed multitude,” i.e., worldly leaven in the holy flour. In the first church, the mixed multitude was smaller, in the present church, the mixed multitude constitutes either the majority, or the vocal minority. In the first they did not call the shots – so they became uncomfortable enough to leave. In the latter they would never consider leaving – they run the show!
What is this “mixed multitude?” In Exodus 12 we read the story of the establishment of the Passover, literally the definition of life as His people. But in verse 38 we find that the Israel that followed Moses out of Egypt was a “mixed multitude.” In numbers 11:4-6 we find that the “mixed multitude” began “lusting.” The voice of the weak, the uncommitted, the peripheral and the uncommitted hangers-on infected the whole people to the point of apostasy. They wanted what they wanted, not what God was providing for them. They wanted the food of Egypt, not the Manna of God. They doubtless, too, wanted the things that sat easier on their minds than the harsh truth God had revealed to them. Hence their lust. It was too bad that the impure of the mixed multitude did not have another (liberal) place to retreat. It was too bad for them, and it was certainly too bad for those who might have remained faithful and committed to God but for the continued presence and influence of the “mixed multitude.” For they all became guilty of apostasy.
In Nehemiah 13:3 we are told that when the law was read to the people, the ones not belonging to the Congregation of Israel, those called the “mixed multitude” were expelled. The dynamics here are instructive. When the Law was read, especially the “hurtful” parts, the dedicated took action and purified the congregation. The Word caused the Hebrew faithful to take action. The Church will have a slightly different dynamic.
The Church has been so watered-down by popular culture and the presence of nominal believers that it is now seemingly in danger of extinction. Before anyone will show any interest in purifying the church we must first show the need for it. This will be found in the word – especially the “hurtful” parts. But if we want to purify the Church, we need take no action ourselves. If we want to purify the church, all that is required is that we preach the “offensive” parts of the gospel. The people will pretty much self-sort and only the true Christians and the few very talented but obtuse pretenders will remain.
If any of this historical background sounds funny, or it is hard to believe to anyone (i.e., to those not old enough to have attended church in the fifties or sixties), I recommend that you talk to the “old Timers” in your congregation before they are gone. They will affirm the basic outline of what I have said here. But hurry! After they are gone, you will have no living witness to these facts, and no link with your Protestant past; all you will have is the Church of Madison Avenue.
- Todd
“If you will not hear the law and the prophets, neither will you hear one who is risen from the dead.” (Luke 16:19 – 31)
“You must be born-again . . .” (John3:3-7)
“Because it is impossible for those having once and for all been enlightened – having both tasted of the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and having tasted the good word of God and the power of the coming age – 6 and then having turned away, to be restored again to repentance, who are thus crucifying [again] for themselves and exposing to a public shame, the Son of God.” Hebrews 6:4-6 (my translation).
“Friendship with the world is enmity with God.” (James 4:4)
Hard sayings? Difficult lessons? Perhaps. But shall we not listen? By analogy, applying such a principle to medical problems would mean that we should find a doctor who will tell us we are fine; that the chronic cough and the growing lumps in our breasts “are nothing to worry about.”
“If I or an angel from heaven shall preach to you a gospel other than you have received, let him be damned to hell.” (Galatians 1:6 –10)
Does that sound like fun? What “other gospel” might Paul be referring to? How would you know? There is one way to come to grips with these questions and the truths they contain – that is to pretend that God is asking you these questions at the last judgment, and you don’t know the answer. Answers such as “that’s not what my church taught,” “everyone else was doing things this way,” and the “Bible can be interpreted lots of different ways,” will not cut it with God. The way to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but the mile markers are numbered with such excuses.
I think it is fair and reasonable to expect Christians to read the Bible – all of it, not just the sweet sounding little “devotional” passages. But many, many Christians today continue to nurture their friendship with the world. Worse yet, the Church now encourages (or at least permits) such “double mindedness.” Don’t Christians know what that means? I humbly suggest that they read their Bibles until they find out. They should not wait around for someone in church (or “Community”) to tell them, even the Pastor. Someone may never get around to it. Or Someone may be completely wrong. Now please do not consider this an attack on any particular church or any particular pastor, or any particular person. I am speaking in generalities about the contemporary American segment of the Church Universal and about what may be the “vomitous, lukewarm Christians” of Rev 3:16 too lazy or compromised to learn the truth.
From day one I have advocated the “Protestant Principle,” the notion that God’s word is open to all and he expects us to know it directly and intimately, without the intervention and bias of third parties. So why am I so concerned with our culture and the surrender of our churches? This will involve just a very short history lesson, but it is very important.
I have been in many churches over the last 35 years, and exposed in one way or another to many, many more. I’m sufficiently educated to recognize what is happening in “churchdom.” All the major denominations have either swallowed a lot of liberal nonsense, or have swallowed a correspondingly large dose of the Madison Avenue alternative, that in either case has changed their moral and spiritual stance. In broad terms, it happened like this:
A. Modern liberalism, or Secular Humanism, in the form of “liberal theology,” began creeping into the major denominations beginning in the mid-1890's. This resulted in a huge philosophical rift within Protestantism. Harvard, Princeton and Yale were publicly engaged in huge internal battles over these issues. Nowhere was the battle more bitter than at Princeton. A split occurred at Princeton, bitter and rancorous, which resulted in Princeton, joining Harvard and Yale in going the way of liberalism. But the conservative element of Princeton Seminary split off, choosing to keep its honor rather than its name. This became Westminster Theological Seminary. Needless to say, the churches supported by these universities suffered the same fate as the universities, as unthinking liberal pastors were churned out by the hundreds at Harvard, Yale and Princeton, changing the nature of their teaching, stance, and membership. Westminster Theological Seminary alone stood its ground.
B) The growing popularity of secularism among the “intelligentsia” over the next 50 years resulted in a questioning of all Christianity, but particularly and most pointedly of conservative or fundamental Christianity. With the hippie syndrome and the emergence into the popular awareness of Secular Humanism, church attendance began to decline dramatically; the more conservative the church, the more dramatic the decline. The decline did not hit the liberal churches so soon, or so hard as it did the conservative ones; they had already been imbibing toxic amounts of Secular Humanism for decades. But the decline in numbers in conservative churches was actually Good. It got the fellow travelers and back–pew–nay–sayers out of the conservative churches, leaving them to the believers. This was as it was supposed to be. Church, as the New Testament establishes it, is uniquely and only for Christians.
However, many churches could no longer pay for missionary and staff support to say nothing of making the payments on their new fleet of buses, their building expansions or other heavy-duty financial obligations. Something had to be done. By the mid-1970s, conservative churches were hurting financially, and seeing that the liberal churches were not losing ground (and that some were actually gaining the parishioners the conservatives lost) there began to be more talk about numbers than about truth. Soon, churches were recruiting parishioners left and right, and were willingly making concessions to whomever showed up on Sunday morning. Soon “Sin,” as a principle and major sermon topic, was dropped. So were other topics that were unpopular, such as the need for a blood sacrifice for atonement, and anything at all having to do with Hell. Pastors found that the fewer the offensive topics about which they preached, the more people filled their pews – and many were more than willing to sacrifice hard truths for full collection plates. By the thousands, Protestant pastors across the land sold out – and their churches again began to fill with those who did not belong there.
During the 60s and 70s, another similar phenomenon was gripping Christianity: Charismania. The Charismatics began very quietly in the early years of the 20th century, but literally exploded when mainstream Protestantism failed. This was for two reasons. First there was still a semblance of conservatism in charismatic circles, although it was frequently ignorant and fueled by tradition, rather than by sound Biblical exposition. But its quasi conservatism attracted those of a more conservative background, especially those who were emotionally motivated. (The Anabaptist tradition (Amish, Mennonite etc.), which began the same sort of climb from obscurity in the early 1900s, also relies more heavily on tradition than on Biblical exposition.) Second, the charismatics were able to jump denominational lines, because they offered the emotional equivalent of smoking dope: speaking in tongues and other ecstasies.
`By the 80s most Protestant churches were either 1) Liberal, 2) Charismatic, or 3) dying. There were a few independent churches, and a few “nondenominational” churches. They were, almost without exception, small, conservative, fiscally responsible and Biblical. These factors guaranteed they would remain small, a fact that bothered them not at all.
By the 90s, however, a couple of guys who were bothered by smallness, who perhaps did not fully understand the mission of the Church, and thought they could get Christianity “back on its feet,” developed strategies that have resulted in what is called “the mega-church” syndrome. Please do not think of this as an attack on either man. Those conversant with the Bible will know exactly where the potential problems lie. Those not conversant with the Bible will not.
But there are several phenomena, some doctrinal, and some practical, that ought to raise red flags, or at least demonstrate the need for thoughtful Biblical analysis. Generally speaking, the mega-churches (and mega-church wannabes) deliberately cut out anything that sounds threatening or unhappy from sermons, they play rock music or “modern gospel,” or “Christian Rock” as part of the service, and some of them allow dancing in the aisles. Coffee, donuts and socializing (loosely called “Fellowship”) are encouraged. Drinks are brought into the sanctuary during what passes for the worship service. Decency in dress is no longer required, and “praise” (the postmodern equivalent of “worship”) is deemed to be whatever anyone wants it to be. Their Madison Avenue approach required them to poll potential “unchurched” parishioner to discover what they didn’t like about attending church, and then to provide what they wanted, ignoring completely some aspects of what they needed. It is not difficult to see why these “country club” churches are “mega.” They appeal precisely to the people who should not be in church at all, i.e., the unconverted, or as the Madison Avenue church calls them the “unchurched.” In short, those who find church “boring,” or “unexciting,” and don’t want to take the time to read their Bibles, are dictating how we structure the Church service, what we talk about, and how we operate. Other than the fact that we didn’t vote on it, I never understood what was wrong with the Biblical model.
But the contrast grows stronger, for in the old conservative churches, members read their Bibles, and could discus critically the Biblical merits of any given sermon. Today’s “community” Christians trust in their community, not the Bible. They glorify community and vilify “Lone Ranger” Christians, all the while staying as ignorant of the Bible as they can. This is a picture of a democratic version of Roman Catholicism. Again, I am not saying that all churches are this way. I am not saying that every mega church is guilty of all the same infractions, or to the same degree. Nor am I attacking mega-Church founders or pastors. But I want it understood that they have let the Genie out of the bottle and we can’t seem to get him back in. And the trouble with the mega-church Genie is that thereby huge churches indoctrinate huge numbers of people, who go on their unquestioning way, assuming the truth of what they have been taught, unable to critically assess the Biblical merits of any given sermon. There has been a death of critical and Biblical thinking that can only be described as Democratic Catholicism. The sheep pretty much believe whatever the shepherd says, and accept what they are told.
Pastors should encourage, indeed, require (if they can) Bible study. I do not want anyone to believe what I believe, because I believe it. I want people to find out what God expects them to believe and believe it. Then, happily, we will all believe pretty much the same thing. This is the Divine shortcut to Christian Unity.
So the situation today is this: while God has not changed his decrees and the requirements of righteousness haven’t changed, and the percentage of genuine, born-again believers probably hasn’t changed, the number of churches serving God in the way He has revealed that He wants to be served is small. And some of them are so small they cannot afford a listing in the Yellow Pages!
What makes all this interesting, is that the situation that produced this sad state of affairs is prophesied in the New Testament. Furthermore, in the mid-1960s and into the 70s, Francis Schaeffer was predicting with fearless disregard of the consequences and with pinpoint accuracy, exactly what our culture would look like if Secular Humanism and Relativism, unchallenged and unchanged, entered the Church.
The phenomenon outlined above is interesting in another respect. The churches that lost so many of their members were conservative, Bible believing churches with some people who might not have belonged there, and some who were not completely committed. When these left, the remaining Church was actually stronger spiritually, but faced financial problems and temptations. Falling to their temptations, some of them bowed to the Dollar. Compromising the truth, they used the Madison Avenue methods to compete for parishioners the same way car companies compete for customers (more “happiness and excitement” for your Dollar). And those churches that out-marketed the others, that seemingly “won,” that saw their numbers increase, and their coffers fill – lost. For those new members as well as those who “came back,” did so because they realized that they now piped the tune. They probably constituted the majority in many, if not most, of these churches. And by the Twenty First Century, seminary graduates were learning the lessons of marketing just as they learned homiletics.
I have argued that some of the parishioners in the Church did not belong there, and left either for liberal churches, Charismatic churches, or for no church at all. I have also argued that the Church of Madison Avenue, the Mega Church, the Church of the “unchurched,” is more democratic than the earlier church. The demographics and the nature of the parishioners now dictate what is going to be preached. They will not accept detailed or hurtful teachings. In both cases, the churches in question had what may be called a “mixed multitude,” i.e., worldly leaven in the holy flour. In the first church, the mixed multitude was smaller, in the present church, the mixed multitude constitutes either the majority, or the vocal minority. In the first they did not call the shots – so they became uncomfortable enough to leave. In the latter they would never consider leaving – they run the show!
What is this “mixed multitude?” In Exodus 12 we read the story of the establishment of the Passover, literally the definition of life as His people. But in verse 38 we find that the Israel that followed Moses out of Egypt was a “mixed multitude.” In numbers 11:4-6 we find that the “mixed multitude” began “lusting.” The voice of the weak, the uncommitted, the peripheral and the uncommitted hangers-on infected the whole people to the point of apostasy. They wanted what they wanted, not what God was providing for them. They wanted the food of Egypt, not the Manna of God. They doubtless, too, wanted the things that sat easier on their minds than the harsh truth God had revealed to them. Hence their lust. It was too bad that the impure of the mixed multitude did not have another (liberal) place to retreat. It was too bad for them, and it was certainly too bad for those who might have remained faithful and committed to God but for the continued presence and influence of the “mixed multitude.” For they all became guilty of apostasy.
In Nehemiah 13:3 we are told that when the law was read to the people, the ones not belonging to the Congregation of Israel, those called the “mixed multitude” were expelled. The dynamics here are instructive. When the Law was read, especially the “hurtful” parts, the dedicated took action and purified the congregation. The Word caused the Hebrew faithful to take action. The Church will have a slightly different dynamic.
The Church has been so watered-down by popular culture and the presence of nominal believers that it is now seemingly in danger of extinction. Before anyone will show any interest in purifying the church we must first show the need for it. This will be found in the word – especially the “hurtful” parts. But if we want to purify the Church, we need take no action ourselves. If we want to purify the church, all that is required is that we preach the “offensive” parts of the gospel. The people will pretty much self-sort and only the true Christians and the few very talented but obtuse pretenders will remain.
If any of this historical background sounds funny, or it is hard to believe to anyone (i.e., to those not old enough to have attended church in the fifties or sixties), I recommend that you talk to the “old Timers” in your congregation before they are gone. They will affirm the basic outline of what I have said here. But hurry! After they are gone, you will have no living witness to these facts, and no link with your Protestant past; all you will have is the Church of Madison Avenue.
- Todd
