Several years ago, a mainline theologian told me of his experience at
an evangelical megachurch. He was visiting his children and
grandchildren during spring break and then Easter Sunday arrived.
Nothing visibly suggested that it was a Christian service, but this
distinguished theologian tried to reign in his judgments. There was no
greeting from God or sense that this was God's gathering. The songs
were almost exclusively about us, our feelings, and our intentions to
worship, obey, and love; but it was not clear whom they were talking
about or why. He concluded, "Well, evangelicals don't really have a
liturgy. They put all of the content into the sermon, so I'll wait."
His
patience, however, was not rewarded. Although it was Easter, the
message (with no clear text) was on how Jesus gives us the strength to
overcome our obstacles. Lacking even a benediction, this theologian
left discouraged. He had come to an evangelical church at Easter and
instead of meeting God and the announcement of a real victory over sin
and death by Jesus Christ, he encountered other Christians who were
being given fellowship and instructions for making their own "Easter"
come true in their life.
Pressed with leading questions by his
son-in-law as to his reaction to the service (like, "Did it touch your
heart?"), the theologian broke his silence: "I assume you're trying to
'evangelize' me right now," he said. "But there was no 'gospel'
anywhere in that service that might convert me if I were unconverted."
He concluded, "Not even in the most liberal churches I've been in was
the service so devoid of Christ and the gospel. It's like 'God who?'"
Since
then, a mainline Methodist theologian told me of an almost identical
experience-curiously also at Easter-in a conservative Presbyterian
church that was known around the university for its "Bible-believing"
and "Christ-centered" ministry. He too left disappointed (the sermon
was something about how Jesus overcame his setbacks and so can we),
further substantiating his appraisal that evangelicals are as likely as
mainliners today to talk pop-psychology, politics, or moralism instead
of the gospel.
Over a century ago, Princeton theologians Charles
Hodge and B. B. Warfield observed that according to the system of
revivalism associated especially with Charles Finney, God was not even
necessary. If conversion and revival are "simply the philosophical
result of the right use of means" rather than a miracle of God's grace,
all you have to do is find the right techniques, procedures, and methods
that work across the board: in business, politics, and religion. A lot
of the church growth literature of the past few decades assumes the
same outlook. Could evangelicalism grow and experience success even if
God didn't exist? Continue at Michael Horton
No comments:
Post a Comment