Are you a moralist? Are you a prolifigate? Here is a fascinating article, about Tullian Tchividjian (Billy Graham's grandson) and his church.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/fl-fv-tullian-tchividjian-book-20100628,0,7880549.story
If you have time and interest after reading the article above, I wrote a few comments below.
Article quote:
""Instead of the gospel, we've communicated moralism," the pastor of the Fort Lauderdale congregation says. "Somewhere along the way, Christians have communicated that Christianity is for good people, keeping rules, maintaining standards, doing what's right."
Is he correct?
It is interesting that he is not the only one to be preaching this message these days. Tim Keller is a well-known preacher in New York City who teaches similarly. Keller says there are three ways to live: irreligion (like the reckless brother of Luke 15), moralism (like the elder brother of Luke 15), or gospel.
Popular preachers are popping up all over the country with this the-gospel-is-not-moralism slant. Is this just a theological fad associated with postmodernism? Or are they are following in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul - "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." (Galatians 5:4)
Article quote:
The lesson for modern America, and Christian conservative activism, is the need for mercy, not just judgment, Tchividjian suggests.
"So much of the religious right over the last 25 years has done good things, but it's also done real damage to the reputation of the church. It's been more outspoken about what it's against than what it's for. Christians who genuinely understand God's grace always point a finger at themselves before pointing it at other people."
There is a lot packed into what he is saying. When he says "the religious right", he is referring to the self-conscious politically-active subgroup within the historical American fundamentalist evangelical movement which "became increasingly vocal and organized in reaction to a series of United States Supreme Court decisions (notably Bob Jones University v. Simon and Bob Jones University v. United States) and also engaged in battles over pornography, obscenity, abortion, state sanctioned prayer in public schools, textbook contents (concerning evolution vs. creationism), homosexuality, and sexual education." (Wikipedia, above link) And more.
But when the "religious right" is subtly denigrated as 'attacking', the question arises as to whether Christ's description of His disciples being "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matthew 5) might indeed have political ramifications. Is there anything wrong with seeking to help one's country enact good laws that promote decency? Is the only correct path to avoid all political involvement, sitting in a corner to avoid offending anyone?
Back to Tchividjian. He says that the religious right has caused damage to the church, presumably because it focused TOO MUCH on morality issues and not enough on the gospel. Political involvement is ok, we and Tchividjian might say, as long as it always remains secondary to the main thing, which is knowing Christ Jesus and making Him known... primarily by making more individual disciples of Christ. The problem with 'legislating morality' is not that it is always improper (some laws are indeed 'better' than others, and all laws are based upon some moral foundation), but that it treats the symptom, rather than the underlying heart cause. Both are necessary, but our great commission is primarily/specifically to make disciples, and only secondarily/along-the-way-while-fulfilling-the-great-commission to enact good laws.
But then Tchividjian says something slightly different. "It's been more outspoken about what it's against than what it's for. Christians who genuinely understand God's grace always point a finger at themselves before pointing it at other people."
In one sense he's attacking a bit of a straw man here. But there is an important grain of truth I think...
The church in every age has had to defend the gospel. Some opponents have been doctrinal/philosophical (Athanasius, etc), others moralistic/ascetic, and others licentious. In Martin Luther's age the opponent was the Roman Catholic Church and its works-salvation and other dogmas. Luther emphasized that justification was by faith alone, not faith plus works. (Romans 3-4).
In the early 1900s the modernist-fundamentalist controversy saw true followers of Christ opposed by those who believed that the miracles in the New Testament did not actually happen and that the important take-home points were merely the 'spiritual lessons' from the miracle stories. Machen and others emphasized that one had to believe in the fundamentals of the gospel (such as the actual/literal/physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead), or else one was believing a false gospel (1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 1).
In the 1960s and following, the American culture was moving very fast toward 'immorality and lawlessness'. It was the era of Woodstock, hippies, drugs, and free love. Movies were becoming more raunchy, colleges were being shut down by armed students protesting regulations, Vietnam protests were everywhere, and the Cold War with the USSR threatened nuclear annihilation. The Bible and prayer were removed from public schools during these decades.
The churches of this time had to take a "firm stance" on Christ's call to purity (Matthew 5, and many more places in the New Testament, echoing God's earlier calls throughout the Old Testament). Unfortunately, as always tends to happen, moralism and pharasaicalism sometimes developed, with more and more spoken and unspoken rules set in place to try to hold the immoral culture of the day out of the church and the family.
Hence Tchividjian and the current generation of American Christians, reacting somewhat painfully to the previous generation's legalistic and political excesses, as the pendulum swings back again. There is a genuine need to reiterate the gospel these days as being all about the grace of Christ. As Keller says, true followers of Christ have a sense of wonder permeating their lives, because they know how wicked their hearts are and are amazed that God would love THEM. (me!!)
This is one side of the true gospel. One might call it the 'Grace' side. And it is definitely extremely important to preach.
Article quote:
Tchividjian believes they left because he preached that church people build "idols" and need grace as much as those outside. Such idols include pride, self-righteousness, even tradition and patriotism, according to the minister.
Ouch! Respectable, good, clean-talking, moral, nice, kind, patriotic, Bible-believing, Bible-memorizing, upstanding Christian men and women who regularly attend church "need grace as much as" nonChristian sinners? As much as fornicators and adulterers and murderers and homosexuals and smokers and drug addicts and drunks? How can this be?
Yet if one reads Jesus' teachings, surely Tchividjian is right about this! (John 9:39-41, Luke 11:37-42, Luke 18:9-14, Luke 7:29-48, ETC!) We who have been born into Christian families and set on an 'outwardly more moral' course of life by our parents have the same wicked hearts as those whose actions are more visibly 'bad'. Even when we have had more help in training our thoughts toward righteousness, the inner 'principle of sin living in me' is just as hideous and just as needful of God's power and grace in putting it to death and living in 'the freedom of the glory of the children of God' (Romans 8:21, 7:21). As Paul said, "The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after." (1 Timothy 5:24)
YET, for all of Tchividjian's correctness about grace, there is another side of the gospel. Jesus commanded his disciples: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt 28:19-20)
One might call this the "Effects of Grace" side of the gospel. If a person claims to have "faith" in Jesus but their "faith" does not produce a changed life of obedience and continual repentance and a heart eager to 'observe all that Jesus commanded us', that "faith" is worthless. It is not true, gospel, saving faith. (James 2, 1 John 1-5, Romans 1:5, 16:26, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 7:17/context, Matthew 13, 2 Corinthians 13:5, Isaiah 66:2, ETC).
We must believe, live, and preach BOTH sides of the gospel! Not one or the other. "It's not either-or, it's both-and," as Jerry Newcombe was quoted in the article. What we need is not less doctrinal teaching, but more love.
What are your thoughts?
Recent Comments