"...how likely is it, outside of the intervention of God through the Holy Spirit, that we will identify our needs as those arising from our rebellion against God? No, the product we will seek naturally will not be the gospel. It will be therapy of some kind, a technique for life, perhaps a way of connecting more deeply with our own spiritual selves on our own terms, terms that require no repentance and no redemption. It will not be the gospel. The gospel cannot be a product that the church sells because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers, we will find that what they are interested in in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel."- David Wells, The Courage To Be Protestant
(HT: Justin Buzzard)
5 comments:
Very interesting writing. Problem is, there are and always will be "consumers" as Wells describes coming into church - the problem is they don't know what they're looking for, or they "think" they know what they're looking for out of the church, God, Christianity, etc. - obviously with a consumer mindset which is not their fault - that's the world we live in, unfortunately and always has been. The church must not look down on these people. The church must fully embrace these people . . . these so called "consumers" every bit as much as those earnestly seeking the gospel, who are generally going to be very few really, as few people coming into church that are non-churched/seekers or spiritually all over the map know nothing or very little of the "gospel" or have a very distorted view of it. So they won't find it anywhere but church, or in and around the community surrounding the church. Thus the church must still embrace these people with so many "felt needs" and wishing to fix/help improve/heal/complete and reconcile their broken lives and along the way and through that, reach out to them with the true gospel. I think Christ modeled that for us - meeting the felt needs of people, healing, reconciling, leading them back on the straight and narrow path - and BEING Christ to them along the way and leading them to the gospel.
So I don't know . . . we seem to use "consumer" in such a negative way all the time, as seems to be the case in the last statement by Wells. I'm not sure what the end point is to what he's saying - is it to downplay this consumer mentality? Write off people who don't know what they're truly looking for? Where I would counter that if we write off people and label them "consumers" because what they're looking for is "not the gospel"] - well, of course they're not looking for the gospel. So I guess what I'm asking: (bare with me as I try to figure what that is!) - I guess I'm asking - is the church that could be accused in some circles as reaching out to a consumer mentality and by reaching out to meeting "felt needs" as I have heard some be accused of in negative ways, all the while genuinely preaching the gospel and providing ways for people to hear and find that, is that "making the gospel a product" that the church offers? Is that wrong and is that what Wells is saying here?
John C,
What David Wells is saying here is what the apostle Paul says, in Romans 3:10-11, about *all* people in their unconverted state (pre-salvation through Christ):
"As it is written,
none is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God."
Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 here, and he is applying the words to all people who do not have saving faith in Jesus Christ. The verdict is hard, but it is true.
Many non-Christians flatter themselves (and some Christians encourage them in this self-flattery) by saying that they are "seeking God." The Bible's verdict is far different.
According to the Bible, until God draws us toward faith in Him and His son, our hearts are at war with God. The whole Bible is clear on this matter, but it is especially clear throughout Paul's letter to the Romans.
This is why there are no "consumers" for the Gospel among people who do not know Christ. They will never "buy in," in and of themselves. God must draw them, and when churches focus on gimmicks and trends to attract supposed "seekers," these churches fail to focus on what God has appointed to draw people to Him: His Word, and the Law that convicts people of sin and the Gospel that offers forgiveness of sins, as found in that Word.
"Cool" music, "relevant" messages, and "fun" programs are what too many churches look to to bring people to church. God's Word, clearly and powerfully preached, is *always* relevant. In fact, it has the most relevant message imaginable-- the offer of salvation, through the Gospel, for people who, on their own, will never seek after God. That means everyone.
Well put Christopher. Curious, though - how did Jesus attract people to Him that in the end heard God's truth's from Him? Couldn't in some ways those be labeled "gimmicky" for the day? Someone just wanted to lay eyes on Him, some to touch Him, some to be healed of physical ailments for mere selfish sake? I could see where it could have appeared to be one big circus show - until Jesus spoke and set the people straight. People of the day were not educated nor versed in the Gospel or theology. Only "buzz" attracted them about Jesus. So something - word of mouth, buzz, etc. attracted people to Jesus, right?
Is a church that uses "devices" of various means to attract people through the doors - many that would never have graced the doors of any church in any manner what so ever - but also faithfully DOES preach and LIVE OUT a 100% gospel centric message and life from it's teachers, classes, faithful attenders, etc. - is that church automatically disqualified as failing to preach the gospel or using inappropriate means with which to do so?
Curious from what you write and the perspective you're speaking from and I know you mentioned some of your past beofre: When and how did you come to Christ? Or rather, how and when did Christ draw you to Him?
I come from exactly the model church you challenge - having grown up in traditional presbyterian church with devoted church going parents my whole life - but never hearing the true gospel. I then became a seeker after college far from Christ - who would have never entered the church had it not been a friend who 22 years ago invited me to a large church, now known as a "mega church" and I went because of his constant invitations, the character and faith I saw in his life that, even though I didn't want to admit - made an impression on me, and largely because of the "buzz" I heard about the church, the music, programming, etc. That was all well and good/great for it's time, but what knocked me for a loop was when I heard the true message of God spoke in such relevant ways that I finally understood and "got it" - and the gospel and God's plan for my life became crystal clear as never before. But all that came before that point - music, drama, art, media, production - softened and opened my heart - and I was exposed to my true sin and self centered nature and need for salvation as I had never heard or experienced ever before.
So it's really hard when I hear people speak out as that not being "valid" or something to that extent, as from personal experience, and seeing the fruit of countless others, I find exactly the opposite to be true.
John,
I should have added some clarifications in my original comment. I absolutely believe that the sermons in a church should be "relevant" to peoples' most pressing needs-- but the question is, what *are* those most pressing needs? Having a happier marriage (if they are married)? Experiencing less stress at work? Finding a "purpose" in life?
All of these things are good, but they are *by-products* of having a saving, healthy, and growing faith in Jesus Christ. When churches focus on the by-products of the Gospel, rather than on the Gospel itself, they lose their Biblical vision and confuse non-Christians as to the whole purpose of the Christian life (and church as a part of it).
It's even worse when churches try so hard to be "hip" or "cool." Many non-Christians see right through such an approach and find it terribly cheesy, and the ones who don't may very well be coming to church looking for the wrong things (i.e. not God).
I do believe that God *can* use all sorts of things to draw people to Himself, but what things has He specifically *commanded* churches to do, in His Word, in their official services? From what I can see, those things are singing, praying, preaching the Word, and administering baptism and the Lord's Supper (the preaching and administering of the sacraments to be done by recognized elders). When churches get deeply into gimmicks and even a sometimes good desire to meet peoples' "felt needs," they can get away from what God has commanded of churches in their services. (He has obviously commanded much more of Christians outside of their official church services, but that's another subject).
Also, again, people who don't know Christ may "feel" that they have all kinds of "needs," and some of those of those feelings and needs may be legitimate, but the local church must have a primary focus. Is the focus to be primarily on meeting what people "feel" are their needs, or on meeting what the Bible authoritatively *states* are their needs? Again, I'm speaking about a primary focus. A preacher can attempt to tell non-Christians about how to have happier marriages, or less stress, or more of a sense of "purpose" in life, but if he doesn't first tell them that they are currently at odds with God and under His wrath, outside of Christ, then secondary concerns have replaced primary, Biblical ones.
About how God drew me to Himself, He actually used a combination of a strong Christan woman whom I was interested in at the time and a local church. As for the woman, she radiated such a sense of purity and sweetness of spirit (combined with a keen intelligence) that I was attracted to her, even though I'm now not sure if I was even a true Christian at the time. In retrospect, I must say that we should not have been in a relationship until my faith in Christ was more certain and solidified.
As for the church, it was actually a somewhat "Purpose-Driven Life"-type church at the time-- but I think what God may have used to draw me to Himself, more than anything else in that church, was my training and participation in the Evangelism Explosion ministry. I don't remember if the Gospel was regularly clear in the sermons, but it definitely was in the EE ministry of the church! Similarly to my relationship with the aforementioned woman, I shudder to think that I might have been out sharing the Gospel with people before I had come to see my desperate need for Christ myself (!), but at some point in my training in EE, I know that I came to a much deeper understanding of the Gospel than I had previously had. I'm not sure when it happened, but somewhere along the way, what had once been probably mostly "head knowledge" became both head and heart knowledge. I was baptized soon after that point. I would not look to how things happened with me as the way things should go in a church though! People should be seriously questioned and examined for signs of salvation first and *then* trained to evangelize!
Great reply Christopher. I like how you explain things.
I came to faith probably much more with the "heart" end of things in strong order but not so much with the "head" knowledge to come with it! Which is typical of my make up to begin with, having never been much of an academic. However in exploring more of the academic/theological side of Christianity as I've been more exposed to in different circles in recent years, it seems to only make me generally more confused and brought up more questions than answers. I get to the point where all I seem to see and hear is more conflict and battles than anything else, and it only makes me honestly question my faith and church, more than be drawn closer to any of it. So I'm going through an interesting time in life of trying to figure that out all out and what I truly believe.
Well anyway . . . good discussing things with you!
Post a Comment