Is your “personal relationship” with God destroying your spiritual vitality?

The other day Bruce Ellingson (an elder at my church) explained to me his understanding of the origins of the term "personal relationship" with God. He believed that the term was a response to theological liberalism from the first half of the 20th century. The issue as he explained it was that the liberal church of the early 1900's was creeping towards a universalism (the belief that all people will be justified through Jesus). The evangelical/fundamentalists countered this belief by saying that a person must believe that Jesus Christ died for them personally. In other words, by using the term "personal relationship" they were implying that a person must actually understand Christ's death and resurrection in a real way. They must have personal faith and exhibit personal repentance. The phrase seems to have been popularized by 20th century evangelists like Billy Graham and others.

Well that sounds good to me but 80 years later; What does the term "personal relationship" with Jesus mean today? I never use the term because I sense a poverty in it. My mentor once said that he believed that when people use the term "personal relationship" today, they are thinking they are somehow doing what is right merely because they use the term. They somehow believe that using the term is the proper way to witness Christ to people because that is what they have been taught. Their belief, as he understands it, is that the use of the term "personal relationship" will awaken people to a need for Christ they never knew existed. In other words, they use it without any regards for its origin, implications, or propensity for misuse.

In 1948 a great writer named Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences (can't figure out how to underline). In the introduction Weaver points out the philosophy's of 19th and 20th century destroyed the intellectual vitality of the western world. He identified philosophy's like nominalism (no truth independent of man), materialism (only what is seen is real), psychological behavioralism, had left man in a state of "abysmality". One of his conclusions was that 20th century man was "in the deep and dark abysm, and he has nothing with which to raise himself. His life is practice without theory." Weaver described 20th century man as one who had a practice but no underlying theory to uphold him. He groped around for words and behaviors but nothing gave meaning to what he had done.

The same could be said about the church's practice today. We have our catch phrases like "personal relationship" and I am convinced that we are following a practice that has no current theoretical underpinning. We're wasting words but we believe that we are saying something poignant, life changing, and meaningful.
In part 2 I'd like examine the consequences that the idea of "personal relationship" with God has had on us and how we are spiritually poorer because of it.

Why must I be committed to my local Church in membership? Part 2

I must be a member of my local church because....

1. the Scriptures imply that every believer must be committed to a local church. The epistles were written to churches/groups of churches. The epistle writers were utterly focused on the function of the local church. They believed that the church was instituted to represent Christ and display His glory to the world. They believed the church was the fullness of God. The writers of the New Testament had no thought of church hopping. They would have been disgusted by the idea of a "Christian" who had loose affiliations with a number of churches. They viewed the local church as the absolute center of the spiritual experience of the Christian. They viewed the local church as the physical representation of Christ on earth and separation from the local body meant separation from Jesus.
2. the Scriptures teach that the early congregations knew who was in and out of their particular fellowship. The first century church was an organized church. Sometimes they are painted to be a group of Neanderthals who were making up church life as they went along. No, even the Corinthian church knew who was in and out of their congregation beyond attendance and baptism. Paul commands the church in the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians to "expel" from the congregation a man who is living in unrepentant sexual sin with his step mother. I don't believe that Paul was commanding that the man be shunned from every interaction with believers but rather that He be removed from the life of the church. In 2 Corinthians 2 a man is restored to the life of the church who had previously been removed. Many commentators believe this is the same man. 1 and 2 Corinthians give a grand picture of how restoration can take place in a Christian's life if individuals are committed to membership and repentance and their church is committed to follow the Scriptures directives on membership and discipline. (other pertinent Scriptures on membership Matt 18, Hebrew 10)
3. If I'm not a church member the leaders of my church have (most likely) never formally stated that they believe I am a Christian. It is possible that you have been examined by church leaders prior to your baptism but many churches (traditional and non) are less than aggressive when it comes to examination prior to baptism. At its core church membership is the leaders of your church examining your beliefs and your life and judging whether or not they believe that you evidence faith which is accompanied by new life by the grace of God.
4. if not I've never given anyone permission to lovingly discipline me. Elders are given a Scriptural mandate to "keep watch over (the) souls" of their people as those who will give and account. Church members are given the Scriptural mandate to "obey their leaders and submit to them" (Heb 13:17). I sense that these things are impossible to do without church membership. Without church membership elders cannot know who's souls they will give an account for. Will they give an account for every person who visits their church? Will they give an account for every person who calls themselves a believer? Will they give an account for those that they've decided to give an account for? No, they will give an account for those who have committed themselves to membership/commitment/accountability in the local church. Church members will give an account for how they have obeyed their leaders and leaders will give an account for the way in which they led their people. Were they faithful to the Scriptures in their leadership or did they allow the fear of man and the predominant culture to consume their leadership style?
5. those who don't practice church membership deny the sinful propensity of their own hearts. Without church membership we are convincing ourselves that we would probably never get off track spiritually. We're basically saying 'I'll never have need to be confronted by the members/leaders of my congregation.' 'I can't see myself going down a sinful track.' By forsaking church membership we may be setting ourselves up to never be corrected, disciplined, or truly loved by anyone. Real discipline is conducted out of love. "The Lord disciplines those He loves as a father the son he delights in."

Why are we so offended all the time?

Because it's a busy week. I'll be finishing last week's post on
'Why we must be church members' in the next week or so.
In the meantime enjoy this post from a great author/pastor named Kevin DeYoung.
Sincerely,
Mark Evans

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/author/kevin-deyoung/

Why must I be committed to my local church in membership?

Are you put off by the title of this post? Does the word 'must' bother you? Must you be baptized? Must you not cheat on your wife? Must you tell the truth? Must you not get drunk? There are many clear musts in life and church commitment/membership is one of them. Yet the current Christian generation is, quite possibly, the only generation in the 2000 year history of the church that believes that you can be committed to Christ and not be connected to His Body. Our generation is claiming faithfulness and obedience to Jesus yet is increasingly distanced from their local church. How many people have you met over the years who have told you, unequivocally, that they are believers but have no church affiliation? Many of the young people that I meet tell me that they are Christians and when asked about what church they attend usually respond that they are looking for a church or in between churches or haven't found the right church. Sometimes this is legitimate but many times it is symptomatic of our generations inability to commit to anything, besides what we get paid to do. The thinking seems to be that commitment to the local church is for old people. 'I'm young, now is the time for me to spread my wings, bounce from church to church, sleep in on Sunday's if I've had a long weekend, travel as much as possible on weekends, consume as many different Bible studies as I can, committed to none.' We assume that at some point we'll just snap out of our perpetual adolescence and be committed. Maybe when we get married, maybe when we have kids, maybe, maybe maybe... Is that not the way our generation thinks? All the while we've missed the point of the Body of Christ. The point is not my happiness, my fulfillment, or even my spiritual growth. The point is the glory of God. I choose my church and commit to it in membership because it is the place that I corporately glorify God with other believers. It is the place where Christ is best represented in me and to my community. The church of Jesus Christ is looking to destroy the individuality that we find so much pride it. The church is not looking to make you a clone or destroy your unique personality but it is an autonomy, control, destroying organism. Which is why if you are a control person, you probably don't have much time/energy for the church.

When the church forsakes the study of ecclesiology (the doctrines of the church) our thoughts and our study becomes increasingly individualized and self focused. When we forsake the uniqueness of the Body of Christ we have become individuals trying to be good. When we are individuals trying to be good...we're not Christians. Christians are individuals who have been called/chosen/elected by Christ into a unique gathering of people known as the Church. This unique gathering emphasizes a commitment to baptism, communion, the preached Word of God, prayer, fellowship, and repentance (Acts 2). These things are the evidences that someone is a member of Christ's Body (1 Cor 12). "Membership in a church is the church's corporate testimony to the individual member's salvation."(Mark Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church)
Part 2 will talk about why, if you're a Christian, you must be committed to your local congregation in membership.

If you have friends that may enjoy the blog, please email the link to them and encourage them register and receive the post on their email.

Certainty is a Closed Door?? Part 3

Is certainty the ultimate closed door? Do I end all conversations if I'm convinced that I'm right? Now that we as a western society are embracing doubt and are doing away with certainty, are there more conversations happening? Are people experiencing a greater exchange of ideas in conversational America?

Of course there are many people, even Christians, who are uncomfortable with conversation. They are uncomfortable with an exchange of ideas with people who have differing worldviews. Christians and non-Christians are susceptible to ending conversations before they ever begin through their unwillingness to engage diverse people. But the mere fact that individuals have certain viewpoints is not the primary closer of doors. I sense that most individuals love when people are plainly up front and honest about what it is that they believe. If American's hate certainty then why is it that Rush Limbaugh has the highest rated AM radio show in the history of radio? If we hate certainty so much then why do we love Dr. Phil and Dr. Laura? If we hate certainty then why do we evangelicals love John Piper and Mark Driscoll? Why was Al Franken elected? Why does Keith Olberman have a popular cable TV show? Why do we keep score at sporting events? If we hate certainty why do we love playing board games and declaring a winner? The simple truth is that we don't, on the whole, hate certainty but what we fear is certainty creeping into our daily lives and infringing on our highly personalized way of thinking.

Certainty is a Closed Door?? Part 2

I want to point out that I'm not attacking JP Shanley but rather a world view that is prevalent in our day. The world view says that mystery, doubt, and unanswered questions are always virtuous. To be ignorant is beautiful but to be certain about anything is a mortal sin. To be certain is to be full of hubris and the truly humble person is the one who is certain that nothing can be truly known.

Second of all I want to point out one fatal flaw of most post modern worldviews. Shanley says that it is wrong to embrace certainty. In other words, most post moderns are absolutely certainly convinced that certainty is wrong. I hope you see the flaw in this thinking. We are all embracing some sort of certainty (thoughts on the war, politics, education, doubt, art, economics etc...) The offense to others does not come when we embrace certainty but offense comes when it is revealed what we are certain about.

It would be important to point out that for the Christians who are reading, they can be assured that doubt is not completely incompatible with faith. Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 14 " O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" In one sentence He points out that doubts can run alongside faith. At some point or multiple points, in their lives, every thinking Christian will struggle with doubt. For the Christian, doubts come when we measure God's revelation against our experience. We struggle with doubt when we read in God's Word that "our paths will be made straight" but our paths seem out of balance. We struggle with doubt when we read in God's Word that "my God shall supply all thy needs" and then we can't pay our credit card bill. We immediately doubt God's promises rather than carefully examining our lives to see if we've been faithful to the conditions of the promises. Just like our existential forefathers, we believe Truth lies in our experience. It doesn't, our experiences and our sin nature betray us and cast us into doubt. Jesus never celebrates doubt, in fact He tells Thomas in John 20 "do not disbelieve but believe." The clear command of Jesus is to believe and to believe in depth. In John 10 He states that He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him (v14-15) just as I know the Father. He says that His people are enabled to know Him in a manner that is patterned around His knowledge of His Father. Jesus is not focusing His ministry on the mystery, He focused His ministry on the revealed. His desire for believers was for them to focus on what had clearly been revealed about God in Christ.

There is a sort of Christian agnosticism that is prevalent in the Church today. This pseudo spiritual agnosticism says that Jesus was focused on mystery and that true spirituality rests in the mysterious. It celebrates doubt and people who are certain are arrogant and evil. Well, some people who are certain are arrogant and evil and certainty does have a tendency to drive us towards arrogance but I want to point out the fact that the thinking that celebrates uncertainty does not come out of the Scriptures but comes out of the culture. Deuteronomy 29:29 says that "the secret things belong to the Lord (we can't be certain about all things) but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever that we may do all the words of the Law." That was written 3000 years before the Enlightenment.

Have you been thinking like JP Shanley? Have you been loving mystery at the expense of what God has clearly revealed in Christ? Are you asking a lot of questions (rapid fire) but don't have time to listen to the answers from wise, trustworthy people who know God's Word? Have you had a laissez faire attitude towards doctrine because you've been more influenced by a culture than by Moses or the Apostle Paul? Do you think that Truth is really two sides of a coin? Have you convinced yourself that two opposing truths can both be right?

Obviously, certainty can be misused but it isn't a closed door. Jesus says that He is a door and a gate and that if men do not enter through Him, with certainty (a faith based on evidence), then they are lost forever to hell. What Jesus seems to say is that it is only through acknowledging that He is the ultimate certainty that true life begins. The certainty found in Christ is not only a certainty about His death on the Cross and His resurrection but it is a growing certainty about His character, His purposes, His plan, His will for our lives, His Church, and how He calls His church to Himself. In other words, maturity in Christ is a growing certainty. This is not a certainty that bludgeons people over the head and leaves them bloody. It is not an abusive certainty but a certainty that cares enough to engage others, on their turf, in the arena of ideas.

Part 3 coming next week.

Certainty is a Closed Door??

I recently re-watched a great film from 2008 entitled Doubt.  The film is set in an Irish Catholic neighborhood in New York City.  The year is 1964 and the entire film centers around a Catholic Parish that houses a primary school.  The main characters are a young 'relevant' priest, the old 'grizzled' principal of the school (a nun), and a young 'idealistic' teacher (also a nun).  The conflict of the story centers around the principals belief that the priest is a child predator.  She sets out to have him removed from his post and he sets out to defend himself.  The writer/director, John Patrick Shanley, has a masterful way of keeping the audience off balance and instilling doubt in any film watchers mind, as to whether or not they really understand what has taken place.  In a diverse room at the end of the film the audience, on some level, will be divided as to who's story they believe.  When interviewed, John Patrick Shanley, has said that this was his intention with the film.  He was not concerned that the audience draw conclusions about the guilt or innocence of the priest but rather that they embrace the notion of doubt.  Shanley was not only speaking about how to observe films but in interviews has gone on to espouse that to envelope yourself in doubt is an enlightened way to live.        

John Patrick Shanley, said on NPR's Morning Edition NPR 12-12-08;   "I think that certainty is a closed door, it's the end of the conversation.  Doubt is an open door, it's a dynamic process and I think that this discomfort that many people have with doubt is not something to be overcome as so much as to enjoy."  He went on in the interview to decry what he called "blind certainty."   In Christianity Today 12-9-08

Shanley says it's fine to embrace doubt, and even more, he says it's wrong to embrace any sort of certainty, "because it ends the conversation." 

Is this true?  Does certainty close doors?  Does certainty end the conversation?  Is doubt, about the most important aspects of life, something that we should enjoy?  Is real joy found in doubt?

My next post will address these questions.  Cliffhanger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!