Updating Sin

According to the Associated Press, the Roman Catholic Church has recently updated its 'list of sins' (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-vatican-sins,0,3514069.story). A careful reading of the Vatican's position, however, indicates that there's nothing new when it comes to a definition of 'sin' itself. Any change results from the necessity of the Church having to address contemporary problems and issues. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, believes it is now necessary to address issues such as genetic manipulation, mind-altering drugs, the imbalance between rich and poor, and environmental concerns. Monsignor Girotti, a Vatican spokesman, suggests the current emphasis '...has a weight, a resonance, that's especially social, rather than individual.'
In light of the Future Watch Group's intention to track trends in mass & church culture, this has me wondering...
- Has the evangelical marriage with the Republican party caused us to ignore the poor? A dialogue with a prominent African-American Christian leader provided me some insight concerning the tendency of African-Americans to support the Democratic party. In short, the policies of the Republican party do not help the poor. My own opinion: This is more than perception. Much of mainstream evangelical practice borders on health & wealth platitudes. So why is this a Future Watch concern? It is my observation that younger generations of evangelicals are increasingly less passionate about addressing the sins of our fathers (homosexual marriage, for example) and are more fired-up about issues such as social justice and environmental concerns. Admittedly, this is purely anecdotal and not the result of any formal survey of attitudes. However, I know of one group of teens that has stopped attending a prominent church because the church spent more on hiding exterior speakers in fake rocks than in helping the poor. (Granted, a little hypocrisy is present since the same group shops at a mall that does the same thing...but thankfully, the teens still expect more from church.) But, given the weight of biblical concern for the poor, perhaps the younger generation is on to something.
- Is the current discussion concerning "Question #7" about sin, tradition, or holiness? If it's about sin, it would seem to have a pre-determined end: A biblically-defined sinful act does not become 'un-sinful,' does it? If this concerns tradition, it's a different question: 'Time to change our tradition?' If this is about holiness, and I think it is, it becomes a slightly more difficult question. Do standards of 'holiness' change with cultural shifts? For example, having read about the roaring '20s, I understand why the holiness movement frowned on dancing. Dance halls were not nice places... far from it, in fact. Dancing at my high school prom, my wedding, or a friend's anniversary is a world apart. It seems that standards of holiness adjusted. In the context in which I pastor, I find myself having to sometimes explain 'Question #7' to an increasingly stymied church. At a post-Christmas caroling event two years ago, the host had a cooler of beer beside the cooler of Coke. As the men gravitated to the basement to peruse hunting trophies, the host casually handed beer to each guy headed downstairs. In the brief discussion which resulted, about the only comment that resulted from my explanation was, "Wow, I didn't know anyone believed that,' as he sipped his beer. Certainly, a discussion about sexual purity on-line would have generated much more serious, and relevant, concern.
Understand, I'm not suggesting that definitions of biblically-defined sinful behavior can change. Simply, does the application of holiness to life adjust ... particularly if we're asking questions about future trends?
Bud Daneker

I Like My Jesus Not Yours

It is common now to hear and read that people really like Jesus but not the church, or even , they like Jesus but not Christians. In an interview with Rev. Bill Hybels, Irish rocker Bono says, “I never had any problem with Christ but Christians were always a bit of a problem with me. . . . Christians can be very judgmental. . . . I grew up very suspicious of Christians but determined to know more of Christ.”
This is the same perspective the emerging church is hearing and the need they are trying to meet in our postmodern world. Karen Ward of Church of the Apostles in Seattle says that a poll taken in her area “found that 95 percent of the nonchurched have a favorable view of Jesus . . . . It is the church they dislike.”
Barry Taylor of Sanctuary in Santa Monica says his church “focused on the humanity of Jesus and lost all the categories of church history.” Sanctuary adopted the Jesus of popular culture, not the church. Taylor says, “I needed to stop reading Paul for awhile and start focusing on Jesus.”
One can understand disappointment with Christians as we are often disappointed with ourselves. We can also understand the interest in Jesus. However, there is a problem in letting the culture interpret Jesus for us. The 95 percent of the nonchurched who have a favorable view of Jesus, have a favorable view of their understanding of Jesus. Is their understanding correct? Should we stop reading Paul and focus on Jesus? Who do we think Paul was focusing on?
It is true that the Gospels have their own themes and Jesus was all about the Kingdom entering the world, while Paul was more interested in interpreting the cross and resurrection. But, to see the two as mutually exclusive is to ignore the continuities in New Testament theology and to give a very selective, incomplete, skewed or false understanding of who Jesus is . The apostles were all about interpreting Jesus.
We do have to start where people are but staying there is not discipleship. Building a ministry on an incomplete view of Jesus is not fair to those who find an initial attraction to our Savior.

Ravi on Postmodernism

Ravi Zacharias recently spoke at the Evangelical School of Theology on the subject of postmodernism. In his address he pointed out the growing "stridency of the willingness to live with the ramifications" of atheism. I've observed this as well. An atheist friend regularly sends links to Youtube videos wanting my response. (Check out this example, if you can handle the regular use of the "f" word: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=gyILS5RL3M8 .) You're familiar, I'm sure, with the growing number of popular books promoting atheism. What I've discovered in my dialogue with my atheist friends is that logic alone no longer wins debates. Zacharias suggested the Church needs to enter the debate with a 3-pronged approach: 1) We need an apologetic that's not merely heard but also seen. Our faith must be visible. 2) We need an apologetic that's not just argued but also felt. And 3) We need an apologetic that is conscious of the ends as well as the means. It's worth using these 3 criteria to evaluate our/your church's missional agenda.

Oops! I Was Wrong

It's not often you hear a well known leader suggest that he or she may have been wrong. In a recently published article in Rev. magazine, Sally Morgenthaler suggests such a thing. Sally, as you know, published the influential book, Worship Evangelism, and suggested that worship could reach the unchurched. Following an extensive and painful evaluation of how worship-driven churches have been doing, Sally has had to admit it's just not working. Her candid review of what's happening in churches is a frank admission that we just are not missional. Pollsters for decades have suggested that church attendance hovers around 40% of the population in America. More thorough research suggests that if you actually count occupied seats on Sunday morning, church attendance is at an all-time low: 17.4% (down from 20.4% in 1990). Sally talks honestly about the churched and unchurched cultures and suggests that we should be paying much more attention to what the unchurched are saying about us. For example, rather than getting our britches in a bunch over movies like Saved, maybe we should be paying attention to what's being said about us. Sally's article is well worth reading. It's time we get dead serious about being truly missional... before we just get dead. Read her article at the following link: http://www.willowcreek.com/events/arts/2007/Morgenthaler.pdf

Terms of De-construction

Part of the cultural divide/idealogical wars involve defining or re-defining terms. Terms become blurred with repeated advocacy efforts. It works both ways with commitment being a larger determinate factor. It is important to recognize when the term no longer connotes what it once did culturally. The MOVEMENT may better recognize the language of the culture and be more agile to adapt to the shifts than the institution. If we aren't willing to fight for the language we must also recognize when the relevance has moved on.
Paul Chesser addresses several current trends in this link: "...For a long time there were names that differentiated groups within Christianity, with Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, and Fundamentalist being a few.Another category of Christian, however, is rapidly losing its traditional identity in our culture: Evangelical..."
http://www.examiner.com/a-651481~Paul_Chesser__Defining_evangelicals_down_and_to_the_Left.html