The Litmus Test

I have been doing some reading in the area of Post-modernism and ministry in a changing culture. This has taken me into the advocates of the Emergent Church. Much of my thinking here is a result of conversations with friends and hearing the lectures at the Desiring God Conference 2006 (Conference mp3's).  I cannot recommend this source more enthusiastically.  The issues are large.  I had thought of offering a point by point evaluation of what I read -- but I think I would like to suggest some litmus tests that are sufficient to cover the secondary issues.

My reading has taken me in many directions.  I do not doubt that every generation must ask Scripture the questions that press on them.  I do not think that we have a final form for all theology for all time.  The questions of our day with its radical secularism and a shift to a new worldview require thoughtful discussion. As I prepared to be a missionary years ago we knew that if we landed in a very foreign country, we would be faced with issues that did not arise in the West.  Missionaries think differently!  And we now live in the mission field.  But the Scripture must be supreme in this discussion. 

I think we have to learn how to speak the Gospel to people of our day. People do not live like citizens of 16th century Europe.  They are not aware of the demands of the law nor do they live under a cloud of guilt before God.  They do, however, see and experience sin.  I must speak to what they do experience in order to help them see what God sees. I also think the story of the Bible is glorious and helpful to people to grasp what Christianity is all about. I think good communication means doing all we can to make the Gospel clear.

As I have read the more radical advocates of new forms for ministry and new theologizing I have been struck by two observations and/or questions.

First, it does not matter how one reads the New Testament -- it is dominated by the cross (and I mean the cross and the empty tomb when I say that). Remove anticipation of the cross from the Gospels, and they lose their meaning.  Remove the cross from the Acts and the epistles and there is very little data left.  The entire NT is cross-dominated -- anticipating it and then working out its implications.

Add to this the unquestionable fact that to the first century hearer the "cross" and "crucifixion" were deeply offensive, vulgar, demeaning, insulting, and degrading.  Martin Hengel has ended all debate on this point (SEE The Crucifixion). 

This means there was no may to proclaim the central act of the Son of God without it bringing deep offense and scandal.  And there was no way to avoid this proclamation without altering Christianity into something entirely different than it is.

But as I read the radical advocates of the Emergent church I do not find the cross dominates. And I do not find it offensive in the least. 

So, I suggest a simple litmus test for all thinking about new models and new theologizing . . .  does the cross dominate?  and does it have power and clarity to offend?  Or have we centered the Gospel around something else?  and have we removed the scandal of the cross?

And that brings me to my second observation -- whatever thinking we may do about how modernity has shaped our theological categories -- we must have the humility to recognize that the first centuries of the church were in non-modern culture.  And in the midst of that culture, the Christians and their pastors made the truth so clear that they were martyred for the faith.  A commitment to theological vagueness is a dishonor to those whose clarity brought their death.

And if we travel to places in the world where our Western modern world-view is utterly foreign (let's go to the heart of Hinduism in India or Buddhism in Sri Lanka) -- what do we find?  We find brothers and sisters hated and persecuted and put to death because they bear clear testimony to the Gospel.

I get the impression from my reading that this kind of clarity is outmoded for our new day. I don't think so.  Yes, we need to speak clearly and connect the dots of people's lives to the Gospel -- and we need to critique their world-view and show that it really finds its true hope in Jesus. But I don't think the problem is merely that we need to rethink the Gospel for a post modern time, I think the problem may be we need to renew our courage for the Gospel.  Is there a fear of being clear enough to bring offense?  What truth will we die for?

This means the second litmus test is this: am I prepared to die for the truth of the Gospel?

Comments

[james]

This is more than just a post proposing a litmus test, If we as the body of Christ applied this thinking more of those who pervert the true Gospel and the Cross of Christ would be brought to accountability.

I am fortunate to attend a church that does not hesitate to preach the Cross or the Gospel, in fact every sermon works it's way back to that very thought. There have been many who have criticized my pastor for doing so, but the Gospel is the power to change lives and I am grateful it is preached.

As a lead worshiper I have a great heart for the younger generation or the generation x but just as my church does not compromise the Gospel preaching to make people "feel good" I will not play just any old music in the worship for the same reason.

The power to change peoples lives does not lay in changing the Gospel or the Word of God, it lays in the willingness, as you have said, to proclaim it as truth regardless of the consequences.

[Robert Greene]

"I think the problem may be we need to renew our courage for the Gospel. Is there a fear of being clear enough to bring offense? What truth will we die for?"
What a great reminder! As a pastor at a church in the heart of 3 universities(1 elite private, 1 large public, 1 historical black university)where diversity in opinion and background reign, my heart is assaulted daily by the temptation to shrink from being clear enough to bring offense. I wrestle evryday with people who are in the midst of discerning what truth they are willing to die for and I am reminded again of the need for clarity, conviction, and courage.
This, more than clear proposition, is what young people give their ear to. It's what the influential professors provide for them, not just information, but courage to seek transformation.

Thnaks for the reminder and encouragement.

[Ann]

Great post!! Most of the difficulty we had as we were searching for a Christ-centered church was to find a church that was not moralistic. We live in the South and everyone is “nice” here. Ha, ha One church we liked because it suited our tastes… they sing old hymns set to updated music, serve communion weekly, the preaching was interesting and thought provoking. But, we realized that it wasn’t anything we saw or heard that was wrong… it was what we didn’t hear. I believe if we spoke to the pastor, we would find that he believes in the right creeds and more importantly the Christ-centered, cross-focused message of the gospel. But, we didn’t hear that. Nor did we read the gospel in their literature or on their web page. They stated in writing that they believe in the gospel of the Bible, but they never defined it. Theological vagueness… We would probably have heard (I want to believe the best) the gospel in small group settings. But, it just did not seem right. And, you have “hit the nail on the head.” We are surely not ready to die for the gospel, if we are not even willing to proclaim the Christ centered, cross-focused gospel in the main worship service of the church. I think I understand the theory behind veiling the gospel. That is the wrong idea…especially for the younger generation. They want truth. They are willing to have theological discussions that didn’t even interest their parents.

[Dani Norris]

Outstanding!

[Mark Moore]

Excellent post!

Spurgeon said, "We must throw all our strength of judgment, memory, imagination, and eloquence into the delivery of the gospel; and do not give to the preaching of the cross our random thoughts while wayside topics engross our deeper meditation."

[Justin Buzzard]

Right on.
That's a right on litmus test Mark. Is the cross made clear and real, offensive to the flesh? Is the Savior lifted high, abolishing all facades of self salvation? Is THE Substitute proclaimed, without substitute?