Last Tuesday, the BBC Wales current affairs programme Week In Week Out showed a short documentary entitled “Born Again Wales”. Using snapshots of three Christian communities in south Wales, it “examined” the rise of evangelical churches in the Principality. The upshot, if not surprising, was nonetheless disturbing.
What was the drawing power of these churches? In the first church, inflated claims about healing and a church-based school that teaches creationism. In the second church, the gospel of getting-to-heaven, the teen-legalism of just-say-no, and hip-hop dancing. And the third church, well, the jolly way the cheerful pastor expressed his church’s policies of exclusive male leadership and conditional welcome to homosexuals - forgive this pacifist that the expression “smash his face in” crossed his mind.
All these churches (which, I hasten to add, I take to be poor representatives of evangelicalism) are dedicated to making the gospel “relevant” in today’s world. My question, as ever, is which gospel – indeed which world? The personal, therapeutic gospel of these churches makes the crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the world’s powers inexplicable and unintelligible. Its reduction of cross-bearing to making some changes in one’s private moral behaviour - hardly radically counter-cultural, more a kind of sectarian-cool - is a parody of the social scandal of the via crucis. In fact, to call these vendors of religious services “churches” rather confirms the old quip that “evangelical ecclesiology” is an oxymoron (see Brad Harper and Paul Louis Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction [2009] for an attempt to render the quip a slander). Effectively, this is a cost-benefits gospel that delivers the goods in the marketplace of ideologies for those seeking something “alternative” and “spiritual” in communities of the like-minded.
In fact, there is an underlying cosmic nihilism to the whole project, for there is no suggestion whatsoever that the apocalypse of Jesus of Nazareth has actually defeated the powers of oppression and death and transformed the world. Instead of seeing the gospel as “the awful invading power of God’s unconditional grace, without a single if” (J. Louis Martyn), for these churches the world remains the same old same old; only brands may be plucked from the burning – with lots of ifs. And was there even the faintest hint that neither peripheral nor optional but absolutely central to following the crucified and risen One today is the politics of Jesus – see Matthew 5 and 25:31ff – on the public issues of economics, immigration, war, and the environment?
That’s the problem with “relevance”: it assumes that we know what the gospel is – it contains no real surprises, let alone shocks, least of all to the “true believer” – we need only apply it and market it. That’s the problem with “relevance”: it finally makes the gospel conform to our own felt needs and turns the living God into an idol of our own making. That’s the problem with “relevance”: it finally makes the gospel quite irrelevant.
{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }
Methodist Preacher 11.10.09 at 10:44 am
This wasn’t shown in England. Do you have an iplayer link?
Methodist Preacher 11.10.09 at 11:16 am
It is on iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nts66/Week_In_Week_Out_Born_Again_Wales/
Thanks for the tip. I’ll comment on my own blog as I think it tells a more positive story than you portray here.
Earl 11.10.09 at 12:57 pm
There is a very real immediate and effective answer for what you see as a problematic in the evangelical rebirth of Wales. Gas up your car, go to Wales and make the Gospel relevant. Do the work of organizing and evangelizing. Do the work of bringing lost men and women to Christ as Savior and Lord. Do the work of bringing personal and corporate faith in Christ to bear on the wider issues of society. Of course one can simply sit back and write about what one sees as the issues of this Welsh rebirth. But that will change nothing. And with reference to the Gospel, it really would be irrelevant.
tortoise 11.10.09 at 2:12 pm
To “make the Gospel relevant” - how arrogant! How Pelagian! As if the Gospel were the clay, and we the potters - tasked with fashioning something attractive out of a mundane and malleable raw material.
No - if anything, the shoe to be “made relevant” is on the other foot. For the call is by God’s grace to make of our lives, indeed all life, something that is “relevant” to the kerygma of Jesus… lest we hear him say, at the last, “Depart from me, I never knew you” (Matthew 7.23).
Earl 11.10.09 at 3:33 pm
If the choice is between the irrelevance of a keyboard contemplative gospel and a concrete practical real world living out of the Gospel in a way that changes lives for Christ, then one best slip on one’s sandals, step out the door and do something. In the eyes of the peanut crowd what you are doing may be considered inconsequential … like rebuilding broken walls around a ruined city. Some may see only waste in what others do out of love. In this instance, not everything that is being done is worthy of commendation. But regardless of what excuses might be offered, doing nothing is always worthy of nothing but condemnation. Pelagian arrogance? Hardly. Simply taking seriously the Christ who said, “Go thou and do likewise.” For all protest aside, when it comes to the judgment of our faith, he is the one who will ultimately judge the congruence of our profession and practice. As with those who once cast out demons in the name of Jesus, what really matters is not the objections of disciples but the opinion of the Master.
tortoise 11.10.09 at 3:53 pm
Earl -
You advocate “a concrete practical real world living out of the gospel in a way that changes lives for Christ”.
I think that means you are essentially agreeing with the second paragraph of my earlier comment. Jolly good.
For in case you missed it, my objection is not to evangelism or mission-shaped living. My objection is to the terminology of “making the Gospel relevant”. It’s a lazy turn of phrase that can lead to lazy thinking - for it implies ‘buffing up’ the Gospel to make it slot in more readily to the preferences and preoccupations of contemporary zeitgeist.
Earl 11.10.09 at 4:37 pm
No. I am not agreeing. I do not find any substantive reason for objection to the phrase, “making the Gospel relevant.”
Methodist Preacher 11.10.09 at 4:41 pm
Is there anything more “relevant” to any life than coming to the foot of the cross, accepting the gift Jesus offers and living a life serving God. That was the most moving thing about the programme to which Richard refers (please follow the iplayer link and see and hear for yourselves) - ordinary people were giving the same sort of witness that used to be common in Methodist and predecessor United Reform Churches.
It really is time that many in the established (and now largely failing) churches opened their eyes, ears and hearts to what can happen. It may not be perfect (early Methodism had its problems and still has) but at least these churches are proclaiming the gospel, they are talking to young people, they are encouraging prayer and Bible study. Most of today’s Methodist churches are pre-occupied with dry rot, decaying buildings and aging congregations.
It is time to be positive and that is exactly what this programme was. Richard’s post really doesn’t give a rounded picture of what these churches were actually doing.
Bob Gilston 11.10.09 at 5:30 pm
I understand that a lady once criticized D. L. Moody for his methods of evangelism in attempting to win people to the Lord. Moody’s reply was “I agree with you. I don’t like the way I do it either. Tell me, how do you do it?”
The lady replied, “I don’t do it.”
Moody retorted “I like my way of doing it better than your way of not doing it”
I had evangelicall leanings myself as a younger Methodist but I’m sorry to say that Methodism has somewhat knocked it out of me.
Whilst I had some missgivings about statements made in the programme by evangelicals I was more concerned by the Church in Wales Bishop who I thought was a bit in denial about what was happening to his church.
Notwithstanding that, I congratulate those churches who are attracting people to the Gospel and making it relevant to our age.
Kim 11.10.09 at 5:53 pm
1. This is Kim’s post, not Richard’s, MP, so the flak is all mine. (And no hard feelings about the United Reform [sic] Church.)
2. Kim doesn’t need to guzzle gas to get to Wales, Earl, he lives there.
3. And Earl, folks, is the guy who hawks the gospel of American exceptionalism, kick-ass patriotism and rapacious capitalism. Here is Wendell Berry on this perversion of the good news of Jesus Christ:
It is “the religion of the state and the economic status quo. Because it has been so exclusively dedicated to incanting anemic souls into Heaven, it has been made the tool of much earthly villainy. It has, for the most part, stood silently by while a predatory economy has ravaged the world, destroyed its natural beauty and health, divided and plundered its human communities and households. It has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of empire…. It has admired Caesar and comforted him in his depradations and faults. But in its de facto alliance with Caesar, [this] Christianity connives directly in the murder of creation.”
If that’s the gospel of revival, better stillborn than born-again.
Methodist Preacher 11.10.09 at 6:13 pm
Kim, Going on what I saw of the programme I can see no evidence that these churches were hawking “the gospel of American exceptionalism, kick-ass patriotism and rapacious capitalism”.
Kim, tell us a little about how you evangelise, give us an example of the last person you were used to lead to a lasting faith in our Lord Jesus. Tell us about how you are having to look at building an extension to cater for the many who are beating a path to the door of your church.
It would be really interesting to read how you and Richard promote the gospel in your respective ministries.
Incidentally, does your church run a furniture recycling project or a food bank to help those with financial difficulties?
Can you also tell us whether you regard Methodism as the “religion of the state and the economic status quo”? If so how do you explain the Tolpuddle Martyrs, five of whom were active Primitive Methodist preachers? How do you explain the large working class Methodist contribution to the British Labour andtrades union movement?
But first tell us about how you proclaim the Gospel, apart from coming on here and berating anyone who tries.
Mark Byron 11.10.09 at 6:50 pm
Kim, you’re in rare form. I don’t want to return snark with snark, but it seems that you’re longing to pastor in the Church of Old Labour (pre-Blair) which was up your alley “on the public issues of economics, immigration, war, and the environment[.]” I don’t know of any current British party that would fit your specs, but it probably isn’t the Methodist church.
“If that’s the gospel of revival, better stillborn than born-again.” Since you’re an universalist, IIRC, being born-again is a moot point, but you would really rather see someone dead than in those churches?
Earl 11.10.09 at 7:37 pm
To borrow a phrase, “What I have written I have written.” What wb has written is to me of no concern or consequence. I am unapologetically evangelical. I like the positive results of a genuinely missional living out of the Gospel. I find much joy in seeing lost men and women come to a saving life changing knowledge of Christ as Savior and Lord. I am thankful that the Gospel brings such positive change to the lives of lost men and women. I am thankful that men and women find in Christ that experience of new life which only begins as one is “born-again.” I am thankful for the Gospel of Jesus Christ in which one does not stand still stuck on being saved but rather grows in the grace, knowledge and love of Jesus. I find nothing attractive in the shuttered windows and doors of a faith that has lost not only its voice but its vitality.
Kim 11.10.09 at 11:38 pm
MP, who said that the Welsh churches are hawking Earl’s gospel (which alone I was addressing in my comment, and which, I submit, from comments of his going back some way on this blog, is an accurate description)? In fact I am happy to say that I know of no British evangelical who would sign up to Earl’s kind of American evangelicalism, which, Mark, strikes me as so idolatrous and pathological that if that were the only gospel on offer, better remain a non-believer. And Methodism as “the religion of the state and the economic status quo” - where did that come from, MP? You seem to be making it up as you go along. You too, Mark: economics, immigration, and war are not “Old Labour” issues, they are fundamentally issues about violence, which, one way or another, is the fundamental issue that the story of Israel and Jesus addresses. Nor, btw, has anyone addressed the fundamental criticisms I made in the original post (though thanks to tortoise for talking sense). It’s all straw men.
As for my evangelistic activities, MP, I witness. I tell the story, gesturing to the alternative reality the gospels call the kingdom of God. That’s about it. Never any Sinner’s Prayer I’m afraid. Though if the conversation proceeds far enough I do suggest that if my interlocutors, in pew or pub, want to live they’re going to have to die. Converts? I’m sure you win hands down (or is it up?)
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 7:40 am
Let me get this straight Kim: the comment about “the gospel of American exceptionalism, kick-ass patriotism and rapacious capitalism” was meant as a personal attack on Earl?
And you never implied that evangelistic movements (which would include much of British Methodism in the past) were not “the religion of the state and the economic status quo”.
And your evamgelistic activities, when it comes down to it, don’t really amount to very much. However that makes you an expert on other people’s efforts.
You complain “Nor, btw, has anyone addressed the fundamental criticisms I made in the original post”? I think the reason for that, is it one of the most confused posts you have ever written.
You seemed to be sounding off without having very much to say.
It took me a bit of time to find it on iplayer and when I did it was a very different programme to the one that you describe above. That’s why I posted seperately on my blog. You and I were clearly looking at different programmes.
Kim, I really think you have got to consider whether your knee-jerk anti-Evangelicalism has got to such a point that you can no longer see things clearly. In past years you would have been a fanatical anti-Methodist.
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 7:58 am
Incidentally one of the sentences you did use in your confused post was to refer to “the teen-legalism of just-say-no”.
I’m assuming that this is a reference to the young woman, aged about 18 or 19, who said that she intended to remain a virgin until she found the right person and got married. She clearly came from a family that had had its difficulties as her father also contributed to the programme.
Would you rather she was binge drinking and shagging around as many other young women of her age do?
Her family’s life has clearly been turned round. She and her Dad are just ordinary working class people.
Do you say to this girl and her father, as a well qualified and well respected clergyman, of their personal experience, “If that’s the gospel of revival, better stillborn than born-again”. I
Is that really the point that your knee jerk reaction has brought you, attacking comparitively powerless people who are trying to change their lives around?
But I suppose like many of the established clergy of Wesley’s day you see little point in trying to get the lower social orders into church?
Richard 11.11.09 at 8:59 am
Whoah! I turn my back for 5 minutes — I’ve been away from home — and come back to a full-blown spat between a Methodist Preacher and Kim. Just like old times. I’d be grateful if we could keep it civil, though.
I’ve not had time to do more than skim the post and comments. Haven’t seen the programme either, though I talked to a colleague about it last week (not a Methodist, incidentally) and her comments were in the same vein as Kim’s. MP, clearly Kim’s comment about exceptionalism (and the rest) was directed to Earl. That much was obvious from the comment. Whether it was a “personal attack” I’m not sure. Earl has commented here before and has made it clear that he does hold to US exceptionalism, patriotism and capitalism. However, I am clear that statements like “your evangelistic activities … don’t really amount to very much” are very much a personal attack. Double standards?
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 9:24 am
Richard, perhaps you ought to see the programme before you comment further…..
Now I’m awaiting your long promised post on church growth.
Richard 11.11.09 at 9:33 am
David - I’ll hold off from commenting about the programme until I’ve seen the programme. But my comment wasn’t about the programme, was it?
As for the “long promised” post about church growth, I think it was less than a week ago I mentioned it was on my list.
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 10:15 am
Richard, long ago I fully accepted that when it comes to personal abuse and double standards you and Kim are in a league in a league of your own.
I look forward to your post on Church growth and reading of the success of your various initiatives. It will be interesting to compare your’s and Kim’s experience with those of the Churches mentioned on the programme that Kim so despises.
Perhaps you both have something that the rest of the Methodist and URC churches have missed. We may learn something. Statistics would help, plus some case studies of individuals whose lives have been transformed.
Richard 11.11.09 at 10:57 am
David, i don’t have the energy. Blogging has always been an enjoyable pursuit for me. Congratulations on being the only person who has ever made me seriously consider giving up.
Kim 11.11.09 at 12:42 pm
Ahem. It’s no good, David. You do a good impression of bitter-and-twisted, but I’ll not rise to the bait because I know you really love me.
Earl 11.11.09 at 2:00 pm
American exceptionalism… unapologetic patriotism… entrepreneurial capitalism… Cool! Personal attack? Way Cool Indeed! After all, Jesus did say the servant is not above the Master. It is part of the joy of life that one has the opportunity to choose ones friends. It is also a fact of life that one has no control over those who choose to make themselves ones enemies. In this instance, I am so greatly concerned that I may not be able to sleep more than maybe 8 hours tonight.
With regard to evangelism, where is the fruit? Specifically who and how many have you helped to come to know Christ as Savior and Lord? How many people have you helped to grow in the grace, knowledge and love of Christ? Beyond mere verbal blowing, show the fruit.
Richard 11.11.09 at 3:00 pm
You’ve made my point, Earl. It isn’t an attack if the recipient is happy to own the words levelled at them. Of course, Kim doesn’t approve of “American exceptionalism” and the rest, and he points out those positions of yours to establish where you are coming from with, I suppose, the intention of undermining your recent comments with which he disagrees. You might do the same to an argument put by Methodist Preacher by pointing out that he is a socialist. You, I suppose, would see that as a fatal weakness in his foundations, whereas I’m sure that he would see it as a proud label. It’s all a matter of perspective, but it certainly doesn’t count as a “personal attack” in the way that it has been characterized.
I’m slightly puzzled by this demand for statistical evidence from you and David. You ask, “who and how many have you helped to come to know Christ?” The honest answer would be, I don’t know. Who does? I can think of dozens of people who have been important in shaping my faith, and only a very few would be aware of having been a significant influence. More important, suppose I were to give a “case history” — wouldn’t that be claiming for myself something that should only be credited to God? (In any case, I suspect that if either Kim or I were to respond in that way there’d be a sneering reply and I’ve got no intention of playing that game.)
For the record, though I don’t see you as any sort of enemy. We’ve established that we have profound disagreements, and I’m content to argue them for as long as you are.
Richard 11.11.09 at 4:09 pm
Sadly, Born again Wales has been taken off iPlayer (the BBC typically only keeps things on for a week), so you’ll have to forgo the benefit of my wisdom about its content.
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 4:19 pm
Richard, When it comes to church growth statistics can both tell a lot and tell a little. The one thing I have noticed is that churches which grow tend to have more members over a period of time, than churches that are declining or remaining static. I have met several Ministers and church members who speak of a vibrant church but then find very little evidence that it has actually grown.
The impression I get is that planting and building a church is hard work requiring a great deal of prayer and effort At the moment we are trying to replant our own church after five years of decline (I won’t go into details as to why that happened here). It is actually an uphill job. In fact I’ve just had meeting with someone involved in another church plant and realise that we are probably underestimating the effort involved.
Those that set up the three churches mentioned in the programme should be congratulated and admired. OK they may not get everything right but they are certainly doing the sort of thing that just two generations ago a good Methodist Church would have done. Just look at the near collapse of our youth work (and let’s pray for the Youth Conference at Durham this weekend), just note as you go round your circuit how few under fifties there are in any congregation.
It is quite clear that your blog (whether it was Kim or you doesn’t matter) feels it appropriate to sneer at anything to do with building up communities of believers. You are very close to saying that unless every church plant conforms to your own ecclesiastical and theological template there is no way that it can be valid. Now I know of many established churches today where your view would not be out of place. But when you look more closely at each church history you find that the sort of people who planted the church, often building with their bare hands, would have the same enthusiasm, the same faults, the same feet of clay, as those who planted the three churches featured in the programme.
Now what impressed me about those three churches was the willingness of new believers to talk about their faith. Now - inlike you, Kim and to a lesser extent me - they had no theological training. But they were still prepared to bear witness. I was immensely impressed by the father and daughter who had seen thier lives turned round. It took a lot of guts for that young woman to say that she wanted to remain a virgin until she got married. I don’t know if you have teenage children but you would understand if you did.
Regretably Connexions dismissed this brave woman’s statement as “the teen-legalism of just-say-no”. I hope the young woman never gets to hear of how a clergyman referred to her courage or commitment with so little respect. I raised this issue earlier in the thread and I note that neither you nor Kim have responded.
My suspicion - and I may be wrong - is that whilst you and Kim have a theology and idealogy that may maintain an existing church with a legacy congregation, for a comparitively short period, you don’t have the capacity to be part of a growing body of believers.
For you new believers would prove difficult - they would be enthusiastic, take the Bible at face value, want to worship in new ways, possibly be more radical than you would want.
Taking that further I can’t see you and Kim - and remember I’ve followed your blog for several years - having the theological capacity to actually plant a church. (At this point I step back and ask why we need to plant new churches when there seem to be plenty which are half used). If you were in a town where all the local churches were unaccpetable to you (ie Charismatic Catholic, Evangelical Methodist, Pentecostal).
I couldn’t see you and Kim starting from scratch and planting a church which embraced your rather distinctive theology. I don’t think such a church would get very far because you would not find a new and sustainable congregation. If you know of examples of church plants by people with your perspective, please mention them in future posts - you haven’t in the past.
Frankly I think your sneering at new initiatives, of which this post is sadly typical, is shared by a large number of those who hold leadership positions in the Methodist and URC churches. Fortunately within Methodism there is a growing realisation that things have to change - “fresh expressions” is the first and long overdue acknowledgement of that.
I have taken a little longer over the examination of this post than usual because I believe that you seriously distorted the film and largely misrepresented the people who spoke on behalf of the new churches.
A few days ago you said you would post about church growth. That is to be welcomed. It is always important to hear of what works and what doesn’t.
We are confronting these issues on a daily basis. Our church is located in one of the poorest areas of Birmingham. We have a large number of elderly people who need visiting. We have a crime and disorder problem. We have lost contact with the many girls who work the local streets ( a very difficult issue when numbers are down). Many of the bedsits are used as dumping grounds for mentally ill people and asylum seekers.
We see a hurting world passing the front door of our church. We are aware of just how puny our efforts are.
A congregation of four hundred enthusiastic young Christians able to set up food banks (which we already run on a limited basis) and a furniture recylcing scheme could make such a difference to the lives of those around us. New Christians, with all their issues, would be especially welcome as they would bring fresh perspectives and new enthusiasms
Don’t let yourselves get to the point where you are saying of new Christians “If that’s the gospel of revival, better stillborn than born-again”.
Bob Gilston 11.11.09 at 5:04 pm
I wish I had the eloquence to say what MP has just writeen because I believe evrything he is saying about growing new churches and mission is right.
But I also wish it wasn’t directed at Richard who I believe came into the post late and hasn’t seen the programme.
Kim God bless him accepted some while ago responsibility for the post and I have to say I’m not in agreement with much of what was said.
MP, you obviously know Richard through previous posts and have therefore formed your opinion of his stance. I will say as I have in an other post I do find the personal nature of some comments distasteful and presents are poor witness to Christ’s love for us.
Richard 11.11.09 at 5:07 pm
Lots of assumptions in there, David
That I don’t know anything about church planting and how hard it is. I do.
That I would sneer at new initiatives. Nope. If I was against what is new, why have I been given responsibility for implementing one of the Connexion’s new initiatives in Wales? In any case, I may not be the most controversial Methodist blogger, but I’m pretty sure I was the first (in Britain, at any rate). To suggest I’m against innovation is ludicrous.
That I’ve no experience of being along side those new to faith or welcoming those who would otherwise be outsiders. Sorry, but I’m not prepared to use others’ stories just to score points with you. You’ll have to take my word.
That I’m not interested in worshiping in new ways. Did I not run alt.worship regularly, then? Or start a music group? Or encourage the development of worhip leaders?
That I’ll only work with those I agree with. Which was why one of my churches partnered with a city-centre pentecostal church to support their work with the homeless. And why I was on the management board of the Swansea branch of Teen Challenge.
But none of this matters. But I fear it wouldn’t matter how comprehensive a list I came up with: your mind is made up and your hostility appears to be fixed.
PamBG 11.11.09 at 5:43 pm
Engaging in “theology wars” is counter-productive and a total waste of energy. Not to mention an incredibly lousy Christian witness.
For every perception of liberal telling a conservative that the latter is stupid and naive is a perceived conservative telling a liberal that they are not really a believer and are calling God a liar. Both perceived accusations are equally unproductive, guaranteed to get the blood boiling and a diversion from our God-given mission of spreading the Good News of Christ in both word and action.
I do not believe that the British Methodist Church as an institution is engaging in an internal liberal-conservative theology war. It is convenient to blame the decline of the denomination on any perceived “enemy”, but it’s incredible disheartening to try to engage in mission whilst being told by brothers and sisters “You’re never going to get anywhere because you belong to the wrong theological party”. The devil must be laughing that we haven’t caught on to his “divide and conquer” strategy even after 2000 years of the Church Universal professing our collective discipleship of Christ.
Richard 11.11.09 at 6:31 pm
Pam, I heartily agree that ‘theology wars’ are counter-productive. Which is not to say that I haven’t engaged in them, of course. But I truly believe it is possible for Christians to take opposing views about almost everything that qualifies the original creed of the Church (”Jesus is Lord!”) and still remain in close and cordial fellowship. Indeed that’s the essence of one of my favourite Wesley sermon’s “Catholic Spirit”. I might just re-blog that…
Bob - thanks for your contribution. I don’t agree with much of what Methodist preacher says, or at least I find it hard to get past the way in which he expresses himself. I remain convinced that we have much more in common than either of us would find it easy to admit, but our relationship (if it can be called that) got off to a bad start and we’ve never been able to get past that. That’s a matter of regret because, as you say, haranguing one another isn’t a good witness.
Kim 11.11.09 at 6:31 pm
MP, I could tell similar stories to Richard’s. (In fact, in Swansea at the moment I am working with two churches where the only other ministerial leaders involved are evangelicals, and despite - or perhaps even because of - our open theological differences, we work well together.) But I find this whole “put up or shut up” line of yours quite unseemly. So I’ll bow out now, and you can have whatever last word you like.
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 7:19 pm
When a comment thread gets beyond 31 contributions I know there is very little point in continuing. I’m delighted to hear that both Kim and Richard are busy working for the Lord in new and exciting ways. I just hope we spend less time talking down nineteen year old virgins and talking up the Good News.
Methodist Preacher 11.11.09 at 7:19 pm
sorry the last sentence should say “and more time talking up the Good News”
Richard 11.11.09 at 7:54 pm
Long threads can be worthwhile, just as short ones can be pointless. When all that needs to be said, has been said - that’s the right time to stop. I’m there if you are.
Earl 11.11.09 at 9:02 pm
Briefly… over the years I have dealt with people wielding a variety of weapons who did not have my best interest at heart. Some of them were deeply troubled persons who needed help. Some of them were persons who just simply did not seem happy unless they were involved in some sort of drama. In either case, it is a waste of time to be overly concerned with someone who can only use words to lash out.
Regarding MP, I only know him through his postings and the postings of others who have responded/referred to him. From what I can gather, he is an effective, evangelistically productive minister.
There is no good reason that anyone would be puzzled by a request for statistical support for effective ministry. It is not to much to think that one engaged in ministry would be able to give some account of such basic information as the number of persons making commitments to Christ over a year… two years, etc. It is reasonable to expect that as a minister would keep a record of baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. A minister is most wise to keep a record of the sermons he preaches and the Bible studies he presents. It is reasonable to expect that a minister would have some sort of record detailing his own efforts to locate and reach out to persons who are not Christians. How else could he be praying for those who were beginning to show a receptiveness to Christ? How would he be able to develop the personal relationship that is so much a part of effective evangelism? It is reasonable that a minister would have some idea of how many times he had intentionally sought to share the Gospel each week… each month… each year. At issue is not if one has influenced someone’s growth in Christ. At focus is how many persons one has successfully brought to a saving knowledge of Christ. Given that numbers of people reached were deemed significant in the New Testament, it would seem reasonable that a concern to reach people in a similar quantifiable manner would occupy the attention of any minister. It would be a real puzzle if such an intentional and consistent effort to reach lost people for Christ were not a regular part of a minister’s work. To be able to give such basic information would not be an act of self-glorification. To be able to give such information would simply provide concrete evidence by which to glorify God.
Richard 11.11.09 at 9:16 pm
I understand where you’re coming from a bit better now. Of course ministers need to collect that sort of information. It’s part of our accountability, at least in Methodism. (Can’t speak to the URC, but I imagine they collect stats from their ministers too) But it is inappropriate for you to demand of a minister that they give an account of themselves in that way, unless you happen to be part of the discipline structure for that minister (and even then, you wouldn’t demand on a public blog) In any case, that sort of information wouldn’t mean anything unless you knew something about the context, and you don’t. And, along with Kim, I very strongly object to the “put up or shut up” line. “Unseemly” is putting it very mildly by Kim’s standards.
PamBG 11.11.09 at 10:09 pm
Good news! Through the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God has given humanity the gift of new, eternal life. Because of the knowledge of resurrection, we are free to give up everything for God and for justice, for shalom, for self-giving love. We are free to give up our jobs, our homes and our lives, knowing that this life is a but a temporary gift from God over which we have no control.
It strikes me that the above message is not going to be a great vote-winner which is going to attract hordes of people in our culture and generation to the Church. And this message is nothing like the easy-self-help message that many people - Christian and non-Christian alike - think is “the Gospel message”. So I’m still skeptical that the real Gospel (as opposed to the pseudo-Gospel) is going to be a big attraction for most people. But you can certainly see why it would have been an attraction to a Jewish peasant in the first century; and why it attracts all sorts of “hopeless” people today.
David Bunce 11.11.09 at 11:57 pm
I’m going to (tentatively) dip my toe into the slightly stormy water here for my first comment. I should say I don’t know anyone here - I am a student studying Russian, German and Spanish in St Andrews who just happens to have found this blog on Google and like it. I also grew up a Baptist so I am not going to claim to be fully aware of Methodist theology.
I think one point from the original post that came out very strongly from the first post is how we do in many ways have a pseudo-gospel in the evangelical church (and I say this as an evangelical). It’s almost as if we’ve reduced things down to a personal fire-insurance get-out-of-jail-free card that then means we can worry about me and my salvation, me and my relationship with Jesus and me and my purity. And to a point, I think some of these things are good and right.
But I think also they miss the point entirely - I think one of my biggest criticisms of evangelicalisms is how safe we make the gospel. By focussing on the individualistic and the personal, we completely strip the gospel of any social or political power or threat - we make Jesus unthreatening. Whilst we have a Jesus who is interested in my sex life but not in whether I buy fairtrade coca-cola or whether or not I live a lifestyle that holds millions in the world to slavery, then we have a Jesus we can manage, that we can grasp and that we can live with.
Yet I get the impression from the gospels that Jesus was maybe every bit as interested in people’s social and political habits as he was in their beliefs about God - so many of the stories that seem to go around Jesus have to do with him challenging the political and social status quo of his day; so much of the early church was characterised by the fact that if Jesus was Lord than the world wasn’t and therefore there was a job to do in reshaping the world into a place where fairness and justice and mercy matter on a whole societal scope.
Such a process seems to be hard for us though as human beings - we can manage personal pioty and personal salvation and an experience of church that reflects that. But following in the way of a God who is transforming the entirety of creation and who therefore calls us to be transformed as part of this - in every part of our lives? That is a lot more challenging and requires a lot of sacrifice on our behalf. Maybe that’s why so many of the heresies of christology have to do with trying to negate Jesus’ humanity - a God who is intricately involved with the mess of humanity is not a God I can follow easily and be content with living a life in a world where superficial relationships, exploitation, oppression and injustice are daily experiences for people.
I think maybe Jesus kind of knew this would be hard for us - I think in some ways that’s what’s going on at the end of John 6.
Anyway, that’s just my $0.02 from my reading of the blog.
Richard 11.12.09 at 7:08 am
A welcome contribution, David - thank you.
Your point is well-made. However, I’m not convinced you’re being entirely fair to evangelicalism (though of course I accept you are reflecting on your own experience). 10 years ago I’d have agreed with you wholeheartedly, but over the last little while there has been a re-discovery of the call to social justice. A look at the Evangelical Alliance homepage, for example, reveals an engagement with social and political issues as well as personal piety. You’d never get any of this from GodTV, of course, which continues to promote the “it’s all about me” style of ‘gospel’, but I don’t think it is true of the whole of evangelicalism.
fat prophet 11.12.09 at 7:19 am
I have so far refrained from commenting on this particular post and subsequent threads as I have been busy marking assignments from trainee local preachers and didn’t feel I had the time to make a reasoned comment. Marking is now complete so I thought it might be an opportunity to come in on this.
Let me say quite clearly that I have not seen the TV programme that the original post was about but would probably have viewed it with some interest and taken some of it perhaps with a helping of salt! I suspect that if three churches were featured it may well be that in a thirty minute programme they had ten minutes each – hardly a great amount of time to be able to convey what any church is about! If you were to ask me to talk about my church and what I do personally for the extension of the kingdom of God I would need a much longer period than ten minutes and I suspect most of us would if we were totally honest. I do wonder too what line the programme makers intended to take with this and will in the next day or so try to watch to enable me to draw my own conclusions.
I have during my life attended a number of churches and with the exception of the first one have always believed I was where God wanted me to be at any given time. My first church was a Brethren Assembly which I preached at last Sunday and was the place I was sent to when a child. Much later in life I attended a Methodist Church where I made a commitment to God and became involved in a number of activities there. I then moved to an Elim Pentecostal Church and then to an Assemblies of God Pentecostal Church before coming back to Methodism.
As readers with any knowledge of denominational matters will know there are some incredible differences between these churches and a range of views from downright legalistic to what I would almost call airy fairy. My experiences in these different fellowships have not always been fantastic and I have to say I may not always have agreed with everything that a particular church believes or practices but I adopted the methodology of the Vicar in a song I learnt at Junior School. The song related to the changing religious outlook of the rulers of Britain at the time it was written and the man in the song said this ‘Whatsoever king shall reign, I’ll be the Vicar of Bray Sir!’
Even today as someone who holds a number of offices in the Methodist Church I would have to say I do not always agree with Methodist Policy or with some of the increasing infringements on our freedom through increased rules , regulations and those flaming schedules we have to complete each year. I am sad to say that we often seem to spend inordinate amounts of time discussing tap washers and window cleaning while missing out on discussing the important person related and spiritual stuff.
In general terms I would not comment on a topic I know nothing about or have no experience of but felt this topic seemed to me to have lost its way with demands being made for one contributor or another to prove what they are doing for the kingdom. Sadly I have to say that much of what I have seen and read in the past couple of days would not do anything for the kingdom in my eyes if I had stumbled across this topic by chance.
I know this is not my blog and it may be I am overstepping the mark but can I make an appeal that if we can’t agree with each other we at least agree to differ and make points without resorting to personal attacks on other contributors. I had an issue last year with one contributor who always seemed to read into anything what they thought I said rather than what I actually did say and I very nearly stopped posting and commenting because of this – it would be sad if other people were to reach this point because of the activities that have gone on in respect of this thread, and yes I realise I am leaving myself open for some abuse here but so be it if it at least restores some peace and tranquillity to the blogosphere – there are enough angry people in the world without us joining them.
I make no apology for the fact that this is almost an epistle and that I may be seeming like a Paul in writing it but come on folks ‘let brotherly love prevail’.
David Bunce 11.12.09 at 8:01 am
You are right, Richard, of course that evangelicalism is changing (which I guess is why people like me still just about find a home within its walls) - I guess things like Greenbelt and Brian McLaren too also show that it is a very diverse church. I guess a lot of my comments above are very much a reflection of my encounters with organisations like UCCF and other such groupings whereby Jesus is explicitly rejected as being a call to do something about the world but is solely about individual salvation (or at least it is up here in Scotland - I cannot speak for a nationwide experience at least).
Richard 11.12.09 at 9:35 am
FP - Amen to that. I can say hand on heart that nothing I’ve said in this thread has ever been intended as a personal attack. As I’ve said several times over the years, I prize spirited, robust discussion and strive for interpretive charity, an attitude I commend to others even as I fail in it myself. It is a feature of internet conversations of various sorts that they occasionally get ‘out of hand’, but I like to think that on this blog those occasions have been mercifully rare (though no less bitter when they have arisen). An appeal from others for charity will never be censured by me.
On Methodism and ‘red tape’ — I share your pain. As a minister and former superintendent I always felt burdened by the paperwork. The only way I ever managed to get my schedules in on time was to delegate the task to someone else. Isn’t that the key? They certainly shouldn’t be taking time up at meetings. A small group can be delegated to look after the property schedule, and this is one area where the Circuit might be able to help out smaller chapels. Unfortunately, we operate in a society of increasing government regulation: most of the recent changes in rules and regulations have been imposed upon us from outside.
David has opened up an interesting area of conversation, I think. I was at Greenbelt this year, and I’m sure it is true that not every card-carrying Evangelical would have been comfortable there. But evangelicalism (is there really such a thing?!
) has never been the solid politically conservative movement in Britain that it has become in the US. “Evangelical” and “socialist” are not regarded as polar opposites here in the way that they are in other places. For most of this blog’s life, the majority of its readership has been from the US and I’ve tended (I think) to address that context. The balance has shifted recently as blogging has taken off in Britain, but still the US has the dominance and I can’t ignore that.
For bloggers and commenters alike, the rule should be the same: ideas are fair game, people are not. But none of us is perfect, and we should all be as unwilling to take offense as we are to allow others to give it.
Earl 11.13.09 at 1:33 pm
In a discussion such as this, those who choose to express themselves tartly should not be surprised when they are responded to sharply.
Richard 11.13.09 at 4:59 pm
I didn’t notice that Kim expressed any surprise, Earl.
Earl 11.13.09 at 5:21 pm
I don’t recall using anyone’s name.
Richard 11.13.09 at 5:59 pm
No, that’s true. But since yours was the first “sharp” comment on the thread, I assumed you were responding to what you felt was Kim’s “tartness”. In any case, has anyone on this thread expressed any surprise?