That's the title of Paul Williams's column in the September issue of Christian Standard. But that wasn't what a reader was reacting against in an e-mail I found in my "in" box today. That dear gentleman was reacting to a headline on a spring issue of Christian Standard that was extolling the progress of churches that were making changes. After a long rehearsal of his conversion and decision to go to Bible college in the late 1940s and a litany of his ministry since then, he got to the point of his complaint. I quote:
We hear it said, in the more recent "Church Growth" decades, that "we must change our methods, but not our message." I do not believe that! I don't think it is possible to change our methods without changing our messge. I believe the great commisison is the message and the method, which will work, or can successfully work, in any society anywhere in the world in every age until time ends. I beleive it is a discredit to God to think that he gave a world-wide commission, without a world-wide method, for accomplishing it until the judgment day. We do not need to create new methods, only carry out the divine method, which is not being taught or very well obeyed! Am I beside myself? Am I way off the track? If so, I would like to have it explained. As you can see, I don't think modern day thinking is on track. I know this is lengthy, but I am "dead serious."Frankly, I knew that some people think this way, but I had never heard it so articulately expressed before. I was nice to him, but in the middle of thanking him for his note and congratulating him for his long ministry and having raised children who are serving the Lord faithfully, I did say this:
In short, you're saying that the methods used in the 1950's were straight from the Bible, without any influence of culture or geography or history on them, right? Would you include Sunday evening evangelistic services in that list? Or Sunday school? Or Children's Day? Or Vacation Bible School? Or revivals? Or hymn sings? Or gospel quartets? Or chalk talks? Or puppet ministry? Or printed curriculum for Bible study and teaching? Or the Christian Standard?So how do you think I did? And what have you decided about what shouldn't change, and what must, as we do the Lord's work.
Each age has adapted methods and created new ones to reach a new generation, it seems to me. I stand with you in fear when I see ancient truths discarded in favor of new ideas. But I can't believe that my grandchildren won't be reaching folks with the timeless gospel in ways that never occurred to me.
I think your balanced response was appropriate and helpful. It certainly brings up an important set of questions.
ReplyDeleteThe culture we are least able to see is our own. Later generations will see it, and smile at our assumptions. I sympathize with what he is saying. Writers like Hauerwas and others, interestingly, express the same perspective. We are not free to repackage the gospel to make it relevant. One example he gave: The Lord is my shepherd. We don't have shepherds. So, to make it relevant, it becomes, the Lord is my cowboy. He says we need to tell people what shepherds are, not rewrite the language.
I do wonder how far we will go to be successful. Nathan Hatch, in "The Democratization of American Christianity" has a chapter called "The Sovereign Audience." It is pretty much right on target and, at the same time, pretty disturbing. Churches that refuse to grow can't be held up as somehow better. But, we are surrounded by a lot of examples that tell us growth, alone, is not an endorsement by God that a church is doing things rights.
Tom Lawson