The Church Cannot Die: Poetic Figures, Misunderstanding, and Reality
This is taken from A.W. Tozer’s book Man - The Dwelling Place of God.
Poetic Figures vs. Reality
The language of devotion has helped to create the impression that the church is supposed to be a band of warriors driving the enemy before them in plain sight and with plenty of color and drama to give a pleasing flourish to the whole thing. In our hymns and pulpit oratory we have commonly pictured the church as marching along to the sound of martial music and the plaudits of the multitude.
Of course this is but a poetic figure. The individual Christian may be likened to a soldier, but the picture of the church on earth as a conquering army is not realistic. Her true situation is more accurately portrayed as a flock of sheep in the midst of wolves, or as a company of despised pilgrims plodding toward home, or as a peculiar nation protected by the Passover blood waiting for the sound of the trumpet, or as a bride looking for the coming of her bridegroom.
Misunderstanding The Church’s Role: Wincing & Sanctioning
The world is constantly lashing the church because she has no solution for the problems of society, and the religious leaders who do not know the score wince under the lash. Every once in a while some churchman in an acute attack of conscience does penance in public for Christianity’s failure to furnish bold leadership for the world in this time of crisis. “We have sinned,” cries the frustrated prophet. “The world looked to us for help and we have failed it.”
Well, I am all for repentance if it is genuine, and I think the church has failed, not by neglecting to provide leadership but by living too much like the world. That, however, is not what the muddled churchman means when he bares his soul in public. Rather, he erroneously assumes that the church of God has been left on earth to minister good hope and cheer to the world in such quantities that it can ignore God, reject Christ, glorify fallen human flesh and pursue its selfish ends in peace. The world wants the church to add a dainty spiritual touch to its carnal schemes, and to be there to help it to its feet and put it to bed when it comes home drunk with fleshly pleasures.
Speaking In It’s True Prophetic Voice
In the first place the church has received no such commission from her Lord, and in the second place the world has never shown much disposition to listen to the church when she speaks in her true prophetic voice. The attitude of the world toward the true child of God is precisely the same as that of the citizens of Vanity Fair toward Christian and his companion. “Therefore they took them and beat them, and besmeared them with dirt, and put them into the cage, that they might be made a spectacle to all men.” Christian’s duty was not to “provide leadership” for Vanity Fair but to keep clean from its pollution and get out of it as fast as possible. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
The Church Cannot Die
We are in real need of a reformation that will lead to revival among the churches, but the church is not dead, neither is it dying. The church cannot die.
A local church can die. This happens when all the old saints in a given place fall asleep and no young saints arise to take their place. Sometimes under these circumstances the congregation ceases to be a church, or there is no congregation left and the doors of the chapel are nailed shut. But such a condition, however deplorable, should not discourage us. The true church is the repository of the life of God among men, and if in one place the frail vessels fail, that life will break out somewhere else. Of this we may be sure.
Missional: Is it a good word?
Reflection & Influence
Christians love catch-phrases and keywords. Making fun of or lamenting “Christianese” or the Christian subculture is a relatively easy and lazy thing to do. The more fruitful approach - the one that would hopefully build up the church rather than armchair quarterback it - is to lovingly critique it.
How we use language is something that really interests me. It’s something that’s important to see and think about because, while I’m not a linguist, I can see that language carries with it two big factors. First, language is a reflection of what we think, believe, and value. Secondly, language influences what we think, believe, and value.
-
Blurred Definitions
Which brings me to the word I want to bring up in this blog article: missional. “Being missional” or “to be missional” has been a descriptive or imperative catch phrase for about the last five years, particularly among younger Emerging churches. It’s a word that I’ve always felt a little uncomfortable with because of it’s relative ambiguity (but that’s another article).
A recent Q&A video from John Piper helped me see more clearly the restlessness I felt about the word. In this clip he makes a very good distinction between “evangelism” and “missions”.
-
Cause & Effect?
I’m left with a couple questions:
1) Do churches and Christians use the word “missional” because they are afraid of the word “evangelism”?
2) Though it claims to do otherwise, will this North American emphasis on being “missional” negatively effect global missions and the global Church by affirming (instead of challenging) our culture’s narcissism and producing culturally insular Christians?
“The point I am making is quite offensive to us today. It is that God hides himself from us, that he cannot be had on our terms, and that he cannot be accessed from “below” through natural revelation. In the malls, and in much of life, we encounter nothing like this. We expect access. We expect to be able to get what we want, when we want it, and on our terms.
Here this is not the case. Here we have to be admitted to God’s presence, on his terms, in his way … or not at all. We cannot simply walk into his presence. Here nature does not itself yield grace. God’s grace comes from the outside, not the inside, from above and not from within. It is not natural to fallen human life. We enter the presence of God as those who have been estranged, not as those who have been in continuity with the sacred simply because we are human. We are brought into a saving relationship through Christ; we do not put this together from within ourselves.”
David Wells, The Courage to be Protestant, pg 190
Thanks to Of First Importance.
A Conversation About Faith & Works
I recently wrote a blog over at Conversantlife with some blanket concerns about blanket praises for N.T. Wright. It resulted in a good comment so I wrote a follow up response that broadly discusses faith, works, and justification. If you’re curious about those kinds of things, please hop on over there and join in the discussion. :)
Why We’re Not Emergent: A Gift To The Church
I’m a little late posting about this book (it came out last year) because, well, Amazon doesn’t ship to M*ngolia. For all of 2008 I kept a running list of books I wanted to get when we came back to the States and Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck was near the top. I finally picked it up after Christmas and read it in about two weeks.
I really could not recommend a book more highly for my generation at this moment than this one. Like Phil Johnson, I found myself saying “Wow.Wow.Wow.” in every chapter.
The book is written by a young pastor and one of his congregants (who happens to be a sports writer) who, as the title says, should both be ‘emergent’. The book is a wonderful combination of entertaining, thoughtful, concise, profound, analytical, encouraging, humble, and corrective all at once. I sincerely believe this should be required reading for Christians between the ages of 18-35 or for anyone interested in the current state of the Church. It is a book that goes against the prevailing wind of our culture and against many of the loudest voices in Christianity and, in doing so, it challenges what you (as a Christian!) believe in a way that is both prophetic and pastoral. I say prophetic because the book challenges and corrects current errors in The Church with clarity and vigor in a way that points people to Jesus; and I use pastoral because it is done with a deep care and love for God’s people.
As a bit of a teaser, here is a sample of some of my favorite quotes:
—
“[Regarding the emergent church’s emphasis ‘the journey’] Because the journey is an experience more than a destination, the Christian life requires less doctrinal reflection and more personal introspection. The postmodern infatuation with journey feeds on and into a preoccupation with our own stories. If my parent’s generation could be a little stoic and not terrible reflective, my generation is introspective at a level somewhat between self-absorption and narcissism. We are so in-tuned with our dysfunctions, hurts, and idiosyncrasies that it often prevents us from growing up, because maturity is tantamount to hypocrisy in a world that prizes brokenness more than health” (34).
“Young people will give their lives for an exclamation point, but they will not give their lives for a question mark, not for very long anyway. Once the protest runs out and the emerging church has its own blogdom, and conferences, and church networks, and book deals, there will be no exclamation point, and all that’s left will be ethical intentions and passionate appeals for kingdom living. This will not sustain a movement - the protest will for a while, but once that’s gone there will be no great vision of God, no urgent proclamation of salvation, no eternal judgment or reward at stake, just a call to live rightly and love one another. That message will sell on Oprah, Larry King, and at the Oscars, but it won’t sustain and propel a gospel-driven church, because it isn’t the gospel.” (127-28)
“The main problem in the universe, according to many emergent writers, seems to be human suffering and brokenness. Make no mistake, suffering and brokenness are a result of the fall, but the main problem that needs to be dealt with is human sin and rebellion… Christians don’t get killed for telling people that God believes in them and suffers like them and can heal their brokenness. They get killed for calling sinners to repentance and proclaiming faith in the crucified Son of God as the only means by which we who were enemies might be reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10).” (194-95)
“[Regarding all the angst and shame about the church’s track record when it comes to the arts:] I’m still a little unclear as to the reason. Is it because churches aren’t displaying art on their walls? Neither are insurance companies, but nobody is up in arms about that. My hunch is that there is this feeling that churches aren’t adequately “supporting” artists (musicians, writers, visual artists) in their midst. However, I don’t exactly see churches “supporting” software designers, salesmen, or farmers either. That’s not the church’s purpose. And it seems that the artists who are making the most noise about “not being supported” are the ones who may not have the talent to really cut it in the marketplace anyway. I don’t know of any working artists (musicians, actors, writers, painters) who complain that their church doesn’t “support” their efforts. Art is tough. Making a living at art is tough. It’s tough on families and marriages. That’s simply the nature of the game.” (143)
—
You can buy it new, buy it used, download a chapter online.
I’m curious if you’ve read the book as well. What did you think? What did you gain from it or disagree with?
Video courtesy of The Gospel Coalition.
I read something today that AW Tozer wrote in the early 1960’s that is on topic.
“How long do you think it will be, if Jesus tarries, before some of the amazing new churches like those in the primitive Baliem Valley of Iraian Jaya, Indonesia, will be sending gospel missionaries to Canada and the United States?
If that upsets you, you desperately need to read this chapter.
I have a reason for suggesting this as a possibility at some time in the future. In Chicago, I was introduced to a deeply serious Christian brother who had come from his native India with a stirring and grateful testimony of the grace of God in his life.
I asked him about his church background, of course. He was not Pentecostal. He was neither Anglican nor Baptist. He was neither Presbyterian nor Methodist.
He did not even know what we mean by the label, “interdenominational”. He was simply a brother in Christ.
