When I was growing up, my mother was always looking for the best deals. This was no more obvious than when it was time to stock up on bread again. We didn’t purchase our bread from the grocery store, but picked it up at the day-old store. The bread may not have been as fresh as what was at the grocer, but it certainly was a lot less expensive. When you go to the day-old store, you know that the bread you are buying needs to be eaten or frozen in short order.
You don’t expect to leave it on the counter for any length of time. I honestly don’t know how long it can stay on the counter past the expiration date. We usually knew it was ready to be thrown away when we could see a certain discoloration of the bread. We knew all of this going into the deal. Nobody tried to switch the bread on us at the check-out. We understood that the bread we were purchasing would need to be consumed or preserved quickly and we accepted that for the sake of the less expensive bread.
Recently, Loki (our resident Thirsty Theologian), discussed the recent addition of Fad-Driven® Beans to his town. This was one post that I couldn’t pass up as it involved two topics that are important to me: the dignity of the church and the dignity of coffee. He discussed the ways that this church is willing to conform to whatever the wishes are of the local population to get as many people to attend as possible. Wanting to reach more people is not a bad thing on its own, but often this will result in the message being compromised.
According to the info on Loki’s post, this church offers different options for people who prefer different styles of worship. I have no problem with people who want to sing newer songs over traditional hymns or what have you, just as long as the singing is rightly directed toward the recipient of our praise and worship and not at ourselves. It is a fine line to walk, but one that we must be ever mindful of if we are to be worshiping in both spirit and truth. The messages delivered from these pulpits should also be consistent from one service to another. I would be interested to know how the preaching from the traditional sermon differs from the contemporary sermon. Does they preach one gospel between them or are there changes? Think before you comment on this.
The gospel message should be at the heart of the church. It should define every aspect of our worship. Worship itself comes from the term “worth-ship” where we ascribe to God His worthiness to receive our praise. Is it right that we divide the body of believers in the first place? And if we do, what should be the reason for this divide? If the church is a gathering of believers and if different messages are preached, could this actually be regarded as two churches? Is there one pastor over these two assemblies? And if so, could it be that we have one shepherd over two flocks? This raises many questions that need to be evaluated by any growing church.
I mentioned earlier the bread-buying practices I was raised with. The reason I did so was to make it a point that we knew what we were getting into when we bought the bread. There was no false advertising and we could see the pros and cons of such a purchase before making that commitment. My mother scanned the bread for the freshest loaf she could find, all so we could save a couple dollars. We worked for a pittance! How much effort does the average American believer put into the quality of the teaching they claim to adhere to? If we are willing to submit to the stipulations at the day-old bread store, can we rightly say that we are willing to submit to the stipulations laid out in the Bible, the book that defines evangelicalism? If we are not willing to do this, can we rightly call ourselves evangelicals?
The gospel laid out in many “seeker-sensitive” churches is one of personal fulfillment and comfort. We are given psychological answers to theological questions much of the time, and if a verse here and there can agree with these answers we’ll be sure to include them. If there is a subject such as… say… suffering, we take it from an angle of avoiding suffering at all cost and comforting those around us. I don’t enjoy tribulations any more than you do and I want to show the compassion of God to my fellow man as much as you, but who ever said that compassion should be shown with as little inconvenience as possible?
The Bible is very explicit about the nature of trials and tribulations and how we are to approach them. It is also made extremely clear that all who follow Christ will suffer for His name. In the US, we may hear of someone who lost money because their convictions wouldn’t let them go through with a business deal. Some people have even been heartbroken when they have lost a relationship because the other person would not follow Christ, and ultimately turned on their Christian friend. There are other examples to be found, but seldom do you hear of anyone who has lost everything for the name of Christ. Our tribulations are found in superficial places because we are taught a superficial gospel. But is that the gospel?
Galatians 1:6-10
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
The gospel is not just a way to meet our felt needs. We cannot rely on the stated desires of our hearts (Jeremiah 17:9), for they will not bring about any sort of message that we need to hear. Psychology has its place, but that place is not found in the teaching of a flock. We need to rise above the expressed need for comfort and entertainment that is so predominant in our culture. Our rest will come on God’s terms and in His way, and we don’t necessarily have to enjoy the journey. The path is not guaranteed to be comfortable. All that is guaranteed is that all who are called by God will get to the reward. The price for the reward is paid by Christ, and we will enter into that reward by daily denying ourselves, picking up our crosses, and following Him.
Only by becoming familiar with the revealed will of God can we be sure of this. There are many churches where the teaching includes such disclosure, but many others omit the less desirable aspects of Christianity in the hope of putting forth a more palatable product to the masses. A false gospel of naval gazing will not conform us into the image of Christ. It will not prepare us for the promised suffering that all Christians are called to endure. It will not train us to lean not on our own understandings but to lean on the everlasting promises of our redeemer. It will tell us to look inward for that spark of greatness, to find our own purpose so that we may enjoy our best life now. This gospel of comfort will deny the need for trials, and will sow seeds that will whither as soon as the sun beats down upon us.
Yes, there is more to the gospel than suffering. Much more. But to deny suffering through omission is to show a genuine lack of compassion to a flock. If the day-old bakery can maintain a message that is both consistent and honest, the very least that a market-driven church can do is follow the lead of the market-driven bakery.
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
While I totally agree that preaching a different gospel between the services or a “less complete” gospel is totally and utterly wrong, I can see times that the sermons would differ between a traditional service sermon and a contemporary service sermon.
Perhaps, or quite likely, the demographics of these two services will be distinct. The traditional service is likely to be 35-40 year olds and older. The contemporary is likely to be under 40 type folks. As such, I can potentially see the pastor preaching the same truths and/or same passage of Scripture in different ways. He might use different analogies more fitting for his audience. He might work into his point from a different angle–especially if his contemporary audience is postmodern and his traditional audience is modern (in general). He could do so and still clearly present the same truth to both groups.
In the one message, he might start from an experiential explanation (the experience of the Scripture writer or in a living person’s life) and work from there to the universal principles/teachings. For the modern audience, he might start with the teaching and work toward application.
There is value in stating the gospel from different angles, but I see many more pitfalls to having self-segregated services than enhancements. The older people of the church are to serve the younger as examples. This demographic split goes against that Biblical mandate.
Also, you will not find examples of the church segregating itself in the Bible. As a matter of fact, there were people of all ages meeting together, receiving the same teaching and the same spirit in the NT church. If a church is growing to the point where it is becoming two churches, it is time to evaluate the wisdom of a church plant rather than two services that bear little resemblance to one another.
Ultimately, I place this matter into the category of, “Who are we trying to please?”
By this train of thinking, age specific youth ministry is also inappropriate. While I would like to see youth ministry much more closely integrated into the general life of the church (and seem to stand alone in that position at the local level), I’m not ready to say that age specific ministry is wrong or about trying to please man.
Don’t get me wrong, Josiah. I’m not referring to youth groups, Sunday Schools, Awana programs, or any of the other great programs to be found where people of similar ages meet. I’m talking about the gathering of the congregation. The assembling of the body of Christ.
The original post I mentioned has two completely different gatherings, yet they call themselves one church. One gathering prides itself on offering a more traditional church experience and the other offers more of a celebration with a more modern style. This is the dual gathering/one church concept that I disagree with, not a youth group or other appropriate meetings of those in age specific youth ministry.
A dangerous trend I’ve noticed though is that those smaller groups start thinking that they are church meetings. For instance, in my gathering the people who do a ton of work in awana are scarcely at the prayer meeting. And the people who do a ton of teaching in Sunday School have stopped going to the Bible Study meeting. So much so that I’ve discussed with the elders cutting back on the Sunday School classes and incorporating them into the adult english class.
See Steve Camp’s recent post: Spurgeon’s Defense of Calvinism.
Spurgeon comments on what he believes the Gospel is and isn’t. Whether traditional or contemporary, I believe the Gospel is found in the content of the message. The content that Mr. Spurgeon suggests is lacking in most sermons. It’s a good read.
I think we should have scriptural warrant for the way in which we worship. There’s a way prescribed in Scripture that we are to praise (Eph 5:19, Col 3:16). In fact, the way it’s commanded is the ONLY way it should be done. The Church has fallen woefully short of this one. Unlike praise, however, preaching and prayer are different. They don’t have specific books of the Bible that are to be preached (other than the Scripture itself, of course). In other words, it’s clear we are to sing Psalms; but Paul, nor Christ, nor any of the Prophets have given a command in the Word to “Preach ’such and such’ book.” Paul, on the other hand did say, “Preach the Word. Be prepared in season and out of season.” In fact, in that same context, I believe, he talks about the itching ears, etc. Neither does Jesus, or anyone else, give a command like “Pray these exact words.” Rather, he does say, “Pray then like this…”, then proceeds to give them a model prayer, but not a prescribed prayer (as we’ve seen that other people pray different prayers, etc.)I believe we find ourselves on dangerous ground, especially in the individualstic culture of American Evangelicalism. We are prone to will-worship, preference-worship. Not worship that is prescribed by God. Who are we to divide the people of God up? That’s not a loaded question…just something that’s at the forefront of my mind. Anyway…just my 2 cents. Grace and Peace.
[...] their method of life on some contrived Godly requirement. (I love the Quakers by the way).Now, coffeeswirls says: "Thirsty Theologian, discussed the recent addition of Fad-Driven® Beans to his town. This [...]