The Ineffective Church - Part 2

It has become a “given” in Christian theology that, though no one would openly question God’s complete and total sovereignty over the affairs and fates of men, that in some mysterious way God gives everyone a free will to choose or reject him.  The cornerstone of almost all evangelism is that each individual must decide whether to intellectually assent to the claims of Christ or not.  The competing doctrinal viewpoint is that God’s complete sovereignty includes his predetermination and election of those who are to be his for eternity. 

 

Without getting too deeply into the arguments for both viewpoints, I would like to discuss the effects of freewill theology on the current iteration of the American church and ask if what we’re doing could rationally be called biblical.  Before doing that, however, I need to address the two greatest arguments against the doctrine of sovereign election.  The first is that the concept of election necessarily precludes evangelism – the spreading of the Gospel.  That is known in theological circles as, “hyper-Calvinism” and is not in keeping with the dictates of Scripture.  We are called to give an account of our hope and live our faith before those who don’t believe as a clear testimony of what we believe.  Furthermore, Scottish Presbyterians, who hold to election as tightly as anyone, have historically been some of the most pioneering missionaries the modern church has ever known. 

 

The next argument is the fear that if God preordains who will be his, then there are those who might want to be his who would be excluded from his kingdom.  That is also an error.  The concept is that those who demonstrate a desire to know God in his fullness have already been drawn to him by the inexorable power of the Holy Spirit.  The desire to commune with a perfect, holy God cannot originate from sinful, corrupt man.  That desire can only be placed in him by God alone.  

 

However, even if you can’t stomach the concept of divine election over free will, please stay with me because the issue is not the doctrine but its effects on the church and how it impacts our culture.

 

If we hold to the idea that faith is a result of individual intellectual assent, then that means that I was presented with options and I chose to believe in the claims of Christ.  When I then look at my responsibilities to share the good news with others I look at how I came to believe (intellectual assent) and realize that I need to sell the Gospel to others.  If we look at the mainstream evangelical church in America today, I think we can see that we’ve taken freewill theology to its logical conclusion – marketing faith as if it were a commodity on the open economy.  I’m sure many of you have received mailings from churches in your areas that aren’t much different from ads for car dealers.  If you want to see just a terrible example, browse through the website for “reality church” in Virginia Beach at this link. 

 

Take a look at the popular TV preachers.  What do they preach?  It’s all “feel-good” ego-centric patter focused on individual “fulfillment,” as a person.  Being accused of preaching a “health & wealth” gospel is no longer a stigma among the clergy – it’s a badge of honor.  Go into your local Christian bookstore and just try to find a single book, let alone an entire section, on solid theology.  If you can you are in the great minority.  But you can find racks of books on how God wants to fulfill your dreams at the local grocery store. 

 

It’s all a sales job that we’ve convinced ourselves is part of how we need to evangelize.  It’s all hogwash.  What we think of as the “fine print” of the Christian life, you know, the passages where Jesus said things like, “Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me,” “Whoever wishes to save his life must lose it,” “Narrow is the path and straight is the way, and few are those that find it,” and, “In this world you will have trouble, but take heart, because I have overcome the world,” should actually be in bold print in the pages of Scripture because Jesus did not preach a life of ease to his disciples.  Instead we focus on the “positive” statements of Jesus, “I came that they may have life, and that more abundantly,” and ignore the tough parts that Jesus promised would be part of life lived in obedience to him. 

 

Even the idea of using modern marketing/sales techniques to get people into our churches should sound reprehensible.  The problem goes back to our theology, though.  Are we recruiters for Christ, with a quota to fill, or are we his ambassadors?  I have done both in my life – first as a military recruiter and then as a member of the diplomatic corps in a foreign land.  I will tell you that being a recruiter is miserable.  On the other hand, being an ambassador is completely different – especially in a place where people know that there is a better country and I represented it.  If I had had the privilege of handing out visas, I never would have been left alone.  Everyone from that country that found out that I represented the United States wanted me to help them get here.  It wasn’t my reputation; it was the reputation of our country.  We should be working to build up the reputation of Christ and his church to such a point that those outside the kingdom will be flocking to us asking how to get a visa. 

 

Next – Pre-millennial eschatology and the contradictions of apocalyptic faith

 

“Fly high & roar loudly”

 

dirk