It used to be that a “confessing church” was a church known for its adherence to the great theological confessions from church history. Not any more. Kensington Community Church in Troy, Michigan is bringing a whole new meaning to “confessing church” by joining the bandwagon of churches who think it is long past time for the church to apologize to the culture for being the church. On Sunday, October 19, 2008 this church began a weekend message series titled, “Confessions of a Sinful Church.”
The very idea of a “sinful church” is oxymoronic. Christ gave Himself for the church so that He might cleanse it with the Word of God and present it to Himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27). The marketing groups who come up with these creative catch-phrases should spend a little more time with their Bibles. You can bring your concepts into form, but if they go against Scripture, they’re not creative—they’re misleading.
It should be noted that this idea of begging the cultures’ pardon didn’t originate with Kensington Church. Google that phrase and you’ll be introduced to a dozen or more churches across the country that have discovered the latest fad sure to increase your worship attendance created by the psychologically driven church growth movement: be sorry – be very sorry – for preaching a gospel that rubs the culture the wrong way.
Just how HAS the church so offended the culture it warrants a public apology? Well, it seems there are a variation of seven or eight sins the church is guilty of, but never more than five are ever presented by any of the churches confessing them. Evidently the attention span of today’s seeker isn’t longer than five weekends on any one subject.
In February and March of this year Rolling Hills Community Church in Danville, CA confessed that the church has been self-righteous and hypocritical, supported racial segregation, mistreated homosexuals, fought bloody crusades, and argued that the earth is flat.
At the end of September, Tillman Road Church of God in Fort Wayne, Indiana began a series confessing the church’s sins of being hypocritical, too focused on getting converts, being anti-homosexual, being sheltered, being too political, and being judgmental.
As for Kensington, their five confessions focus on being sorry for being self-righteous hypocrites, for judging others, for despising homosexuality, and for caring only about converting people.
Whoever created this package of confessions missed the point that all of these so-called “sins” are nothing more than liberal media stereotypes of conservative, evangelical, gospel preaching churches whose real sin is offending the sensitivities of the culture by maintaining their faithfulness to the Word of God.
I’m not arguing that people who profess to be followers of Jesus have never been self-righteous, hypocritical, and judgmental. There may be pockets of such behavior and a minority of local churches who fit that description. But the media has taken these exceptions and made them the standard by which all churches are defined. Kensington, along with these other churches, is encouraging you and me to apologize for that stereotype.
The fact that “research says the majority of people now view Christianity as hypocritical, intolerant and even hateful,” only proves how effective mass media is in creating perceptions. Since when do we shape our ministries in response to the latest survey of pagans by Barna Research rather than by divine revelation as revealed in sacred Scripture?
Any church which takes a stand in defense of the unborn and for traditional marriage will be accused of being “too political.” Any church which classifies homosexuals with thieves, alcoholics, and adulterers (as the word of God does – 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) will be accused of mistreating homosexuals. Any church that teaches a literal six-day creation and a young earth will be viewed as archaic and out of touch with the mainstream of scientific research (read: evolutionary theory).
And while I personally don’t know any Christians in any church who do not believe the slave trade was cruel and hideous, I feel no personal responsibility for it, though I am rightly ashamed of any part my ancestors may have played in propagating it. No amount of remorse on my part for their crimes against humanity will erase the history, no matter how politically correct an apology may be.
As for the church being focused on getting converts, I thought that was the whole point (see Matthew 28:19-20).
Truth be told, NONE of these “confessing” churches believe that they themselves are guilty of these sins. They believe YOUR church is guilty of these sins. This pre-packaged series of sermons is designed to help YOU and YOUR CHURCH see the error of YOUR WAYS while keeping THEIR CHURCH from ever being as offensive to sinners as YOUR CHURCH, because from the perspective of these churches, the one sin to be avoided at all costs is the failure to be liked by the culture. And the culture likes them a lot when they point out the speck of dust in your eye.
When the church IS the Church, living out her character and calling as mandated by God’s word rather than the whims of a secular culture, it will offend. The gospel we proclaim has its origin in divine revelation. It is foolishness to Gentiles. It is a stumbling block to Jews. The Founder of the Church, the Author and Finisher of our faith, warned that, because of Him, the world would persecute us (John 15:20-21) and hate us (John 15:18) because it hates Him.
The church will more often than not find itself at odds with the prevailing culture on any number of issues. They can ignore the hard truth we preach by writing us off as judgmental, causing us to ask self-reflectively, “Who, after all, are we to judge?”
I’ll tell you who we are: we are the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. This church is defined not by the failure of some to live up to this high calling. We have been eternally defined by the infallible, inerrant, and perfect Word of God personified in the Word made flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our mandate is to preach the Word, not waste our time apologizing for it to a self-obsessed culture under the guise of “humble orthodoxy.”
Jeff,
Arthur IS responding with grace and respect. Unlike you, he has never resorted to name-calling or foul language to make his points. He has displayed nothing BUT grace to you and others who push your points to the breaking point.
YOU have been the recipient of my grace, but you are nearing the line in the sand once again.
So if you don’t mind, let me be the moderator of my own blog. Take your own advice and learn to respond with respect.
Arthur,
Do you have any idea how to respond to someone that you disagree with, with grace and respect? I mean, are you trying to get the “world” to hate you to validate scripture? Please bring it back and try to learn to respond to folks with some amount of respect my brother…..
Luk 6:22 “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!
So B/bo, you disregard out of hand what I said and call me a meanie, and that passes for an argument? Your cavalier dismissal of Calvinism/Reformed theology on the one hand and your inability to address the doctrinal position on the other indicates to me not that you have seriously investigated Calvinism and found it wanting but have instead rejected a caricature of it. That is true of an awful lot of Christians who have bought into some teacher kicking over a strawman he calls Calvinism and declaring victory. Statements like “Christians who are content to let the world go to hell so long as they get raptured out of it” are demonstrative of your ignorance as most people who are reformed reject the rapture. Some of the greatest evangelists and missionaries of the church were also Calvinists. I am sure you find that argument unconvincing since you refuse to address the arguments being presented here at all. Pointing out alleged personality flaws is no substitute for substantive argumentation.
I don’t know if I agree with you on the whole predestination thingy, but hey, I’ll take it. 🙂
Pix,
“I might follow that advice, thanks”
How did I know you would say this? Your always much more charitable then me, I think God predestined you to teach me patience and gentleness ;). That isn’t completely snarky either, I mean it :).
“When did I mention John McCain? It seems as if your purely reactionary perspective on the church is the real perspective which is incapable of separating politics and Christianity.”
Not all my comments in the post were directed to you, some of it was from the soapbox……
“You are completely unaware of what reformed theology is”
Colin, I think Paul Edwards can vouche for the fact that b/Bo is not completely unaware of what reformed theology is. While I never took any formal religious schooling and admit I am not a biblical scholar I do know through personal encounters and much conversation that Bob is very well versed in scripture and reformed theology.
“Maybe YOU should read books by Michael Horton, or R. Scott Clark’s “Recovering the Reformed Confession” to find out what a truly historic reformed view is.”
I might follow that advice, thanks
Jeff,
Let me begin by responding to a few of your comments
“The church is more political than transformational.”
Where do you read in the Bible that the church is to be transformational? It seems that you are agreeing with the right-wing political Christians in your presuppositions, but you simply have a different “form” of what the church should be doing. Last I checked the church is the place where the gospel is preached, the sacraments are administered, and discipline and shepherding occurs. Of course ChristTIANS can be involved in their community betterment projects, and the church can participate in general acts of mercy through its deaconal ministry, but we do not judge the faithfulness or success of the church based upon how they are “transforming” culture. This is to confuse the kingdoms.
“You are willing to consider not listening to a perspective because of a picture and something you heard about statements in his book.”
The picture in light of what McClaren beleives is either snarky, creepy, or a revelation of whose side he is on. I’ll assume I miscommunicated and that’s why you are saying I base my judgment on what I simply “heard”. I actually work in a Christian bookstore and spend down time at work looking through these guy’s drivel. I have read enough to know its heresy. McClaren certainly denies the reality of hell as God’s just judgment upon sin, and I never brought up the issue of whether the flames are metaphorical or not (I think you can be completely orthodox and hold to either). He actually recently came to Baker bookhouse here in Grand Rapids and spoke. One of my friends asked him based upon what he was alluding to in his talk, what hope do we have if there is no heaven and no hell. He simply responded by saying “I think there is an afterlife”. Ok, that lands him in the same camp as Oprah with that vague statement. Another person there asked if he believed that Jesus is returning in wrath to judge the world, he said “I don’t know”. So either my friend is lying to me as he is part of the giant anti-emergent conspiracy, or McClaren can be classified as dangerous at best and a heretic at worst.
“Much of this points back to Calvinism and it’s worldview. When you think that God chose you and nothing that you do good or bad can do anything about you status in the next life then you will (by default) start to look at the world in a way that no wrong can be done.”
First of all who said that man in his fallen state can do REAL good along with real bad? That’s not scriptural… If God was some arbritrary deity condemning people who were HONESTLY and from a pure heart trying, He would be corrupt. But you begin with the wrong human anthropology which throws off your ability to understand the Calvinist system. God tells me to make my calling and election sure, and to work our my salvation with fear and trembling because it is HIM who works in me. As a regenerate person and a reformed believer I feel much urgency in my life to produce fruit in line with the scriptures. I also see God graciously working in my life in spite of my resistance so I can be assured I am one of His. If these fruits weren’t there, and I wasn’t concerned, then I should be concerned!
“Therefore, so long as the Bible is preached the church is doing everything it should be doing, this personal salvation concept has created a church that cares more about paying the bills and salaries of it employees than impacting society in a positive way. ”
Again this is a problem that you, b/Bo and all others who are sympathetic to the emergent movement have. You are completely unaware of what reformed theology is, and what it is historically. The “neo-reformed” movement is only slightly reformed as many have pointed out. They are simply conservative evangelicals who dig the TULIP but not the reformed confessions, or the reformed doctrine of the covenant and the church. This constant blurring of lines between pop-evangelicals and reformed theology which both you and b/Bo engage in, shows that you have not considered reformed theology or truly understood it. The fact is, reformed folk have been criticizing evangelicalism for centures in a much more intense and biblical way, which provides orthodox solutions rather than this rebellious “the church is corrupt so lets become snarky heretics” mentality that we see today. Maybe YOU should read books by Michael Horton, or R. Scott Clark’s “Recovering the Reformed Confession” to find out what a truly historic reformed view is.
“And you actually think that McCain will do that?”
When did I mention John McCain? It seems as if your purely reactionary perspective on the church is the real perspective which is incapable of seperating politics and Christianity.
Colin,
Have you ever once considered that the things that you have been told all your life could be wrong? Have you ever considered that the scriptures used to backup all your theological claims could mean something completely different in a 1st century context? Have you ever considered that questioning the status quo is a good thing?
Let’s unpack a little bit of what was said on comment #39, unlike other people when challenged I like to response.
CS: “they like Jesus but they don’t like the church”
JB: It was nonsense a while back but not now, read what I said in comment #3, also the book UnChristian is a great resource for this concept. The church is more political than transformational.
CS: “sorry but when Brian McClaren writes a book which features a half eaten apple and a serpent on the cover, and begins by denying the doctrine of hell and questioning God’s justice I need not read any further”
JB: You said much with this statement. You are willing to consider not listening to a perspective because of a picture and something you heard about statements in his book. Colin, I was with you on this 3 years ago, however, once I actually read his books they made a lot of sense. You realize that when McLaren says that the doctrine of hell is misused (BTW he never denies it) and actually read what he says about it you understand. Let me summarize, the doctrine of Hell is eternal (literal) flames for those who are not in Christ’s favor on judgment day. However, how much does metaphor play into comments that Jesus made? The bible speaks of torment (which is internal) as opposed to torture (which is external). The fact of the matter is none of us know what Hell is like, but the church proclaims that is knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it knows. Second point, the doctrine of hell is built on fear, (Ex. do this, think this or else) anyone who has been paying attention to politics knows that fear is a great way to get people to do what you want them to, we do not have a spirit of fear, right? I encourage you to actually read what Bell, McLaren and the rest are saying and not what others quote mine from them.
Much of this points back to Calvinism and it’s worldview. When you think that God chose you and nothing that you do good or bad can do anything about you status in the next life then you will (by default) start to look at the world in a way that no wrong can be done. Therefore, so long as the Bible is preached the church is doing everything it should be doing, this personal salvation concept has created a church that cares more about paying the bills and salaries of it employees than impacting society in a positive way. Instead of actually following Jesus and impacting society from bottom up, we use the top down method. We think that politicians will do our bidding only if we get this or that person in office. How well is that working? 35 years of Roe v Wade. Gay Marriage? How is all that working? We only need one more judge? Right? And you actually think that McCain will do that? Seriously, after his distain for the social conservatives all these years? Get a clue, you are being used for your vote. When we plant our flag on one side of the political spectrum it naturally creates enemies that we otherwise would not have. The church needs to disengage from politics without compromising it’s positions and what value they bring to a healthy society. The political involvement has hurt not only the church but a once solid conservative party in this country. Our positions are very harsh to be implemented by law in a secular democracy; however, we can still make an impact on all the social issues without being political and actually bringing forth the Kingdom of God.
b/Bo… You’re the one kicking the dust off your shoes? I didn’t realize you were preaching the gospel and it has been rejected…
Man, I shouldn’t have checked back – more of Colin’s ________.
Matt, I’m with you – you sound like someone I’d enjoy having an actual conversation with. But don’t hope for a conversation here, you’ll just spin your wheels.
Pix, peace out – see you on Facebook, but I’m really done with this site.
(I can almost hear Arthur, Colin, etc. cheer as I kick the dust off my shoes…)
Matt,
Truly, it’s not about people being “self-righteous” at all. It’s about bringing the Gospel of Christ to a condemned world. The Gospel message stands on its own. We only need to be obedient and preach it – God does the rest. We can’t save anybody with our apologies to the world. I think that is the focal point of much of this discussion. My conviction is that we (the church) need to stay on point with evangelism instead. It worked for Peter & Paul…
Can each of us do better in regards to our conduct? Absolutely. Should we individually repent of things that we have done wrong? No doubt about it. But let’s not make the church’s shortcomings into the message. We have a better and more important Message to deliver. There are people seeking Christ that need to hear about Him – not about how Christians have failed.
If you don’t hear anything else I’m saying, please hear this: If you want to truly repair the reputation (integrity) of the church, there’s only one way to do it – the people that make up the church must individually decide to begin living like they are emissaries of Christ, the whole package. No more games, no more secret (or not so secret) sins, no more praising God on Sunday and living like Hell the rest of the week. I’m not talking legalism here. This is discipleship. It is the will of God that we all become disciples of Christ. As more individuals in the church do this, our reputation will take care of itself. But guess what – the world will STILL hate you. Why? Because if you are doing your job, you’re shining a light on the evil in this world – just by your obedience to God. The world system will never accept the church, because it can’t – unless we dilute the Message.
When people come to your church – or any church – Biblical salvation MUST be readily and openly available to them. Otherwise, what’s the point? In my recent experience (posts #11,12 above), this was not the case for my daughter’s college roommate that went as a guest. That is where my criticism (constructive I hope) began. I believe that the “first things” of our faith should never take a back seat to some “new and improved” idea that comes along. I realize and accept that this is just my opinion, but I believe it is consistent with the New Testament doctrine of Christ and of the Apostles.
Not knowing how this sounds in your ears as you read this, please realize and believe that I have nothing but love for the body of Christ. I too have not attained perfection. But Christ sustains me each day as I endeavor to live a life that pleases Him. It’s the greatest life that can be lived. God bless you and your church.
Tim
Matt,
So are you basically cutting off the Christian’s ability to engage in any discernment whatsoever? Last time I checked it was the “non-judgmental” types who constantly refer to us as Pharisees because we happen to think that things like the doctrine of God, salvation, and the church are important. Atheists and unbelievers don’t have a clue who Jesus was, as the Bible clearly teaches that they cannot without the Spirit. This whole “they like Jesus but they don’t like the church” nonsense is unbiblical, and starts from a man centered viewpoint in agreement with the enlightenment folk, which denies the doctrine of depravity and assumes man is ok in his thinking and is the “measure of all things”. I’m also getting sick of post-conservatives and emergents saying that in order for us to have any right to criticize what they say we have to absolutely indulge in (buy) their books and listen to every detail of every nuance of what they say. I’m sorry but when Brian McClaren writes a book which features a half eaten apple and a serpent on the cover, and begins by denying the doctrine of hell and questioning God’s justice I need not read any further. This again breaks down to a basic epistemological point, that it assumes man is the measure of all things and therefore we all have to take our own journey and consider all persectives and weight between them all. I’m sorry but the Bible is where I stand, and how it has been faithfully interpreted by the catholic (note the little c) throughout history (don’t even bring up the diversity of church history from an emergent/postevanglical perspective as they have been known to overinflate history to serve their ends and have been dealt with thoroughly). Therefore the emergents endorse a enlightenment/modernist perspective on knowledge, the very thing which emergents claim they are against! So when Kensington has an ATHEIST preach to their “flock” and all the pastor does is coddle him and this is considered a normal event there isn’t much more I need to know.
Christianity is a congruent worldview, and when certain major points with what someone is teaching or preaching conflict it only takes a little research to realize they are POISON.
Does anyone else find it ironic that some are here speaking negatively about this church as they teach a message in the first two weeks of this series about the importance of not judging others and being a self-righteous hypocrite? Wow…and the “Church” isn’t sinful and in need of confession? Right. This judgmental, self-righteous attitude is exactly what’s wrong with so many churches today and why atheists and unbelievers say they are impressed by Jesus but can’t stand Christians. Perhaps we should all pull the planks out of our own eyes before going after the specks in others?
Just my $0.02. Interesting read…
Might I suggest listening to the messages in this series before judging it the way you do? Check it out at kensingtonchurch.org on the main page under audio/video or on iTunes.
Do not think Church needs to confess anything to World. But there are some church leaders who need to confess their sin to their congregation. These churches have leadership harboring unconfessed sin–reason they are suffering.
NancyP
Paul, the proponents of “grace” (in my opinion and experience) have tended to be the ones who least demonstrate it. I’m guilty of responding in kind today, and dangerously close to doing so to Colin right now… but I’ll refrain.
You have your audience and they love to hear you say the things they agree with; I just no longer agree with much of any of this being true to the intent of the scriptures referenced, nor do I think it’s being presented in the spirit of the kingdom of God. I think the logical absurdity of it all that I now see just adds weight to it.
There are simply other ways of understanding the same scriptures that everyone here quotes and still remain faithful to God and perhaps more faithful to the original intent. No one here wants to discuss that, so it’s best that I take my guitar and play elsewhere. Thanks for enduring me so long.
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked,………………….. ..
“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
They replied,
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God ……. And this is the judgment:
B/bo,
Explain how your rejection of Calvinism is not simply a logical extension of the humanist philosophy of pragmatism, rather than a sound exegesis of scripture? I can’t think of another system beyond arminianism which would cause someone to react as a jerk to the unsaved anyways. If I am simply better than them because I made a “decision” for Christ, then those who reject the gospel are “bad” people wereas I am one of the “good” people who because a Christian. Besides if it does depend upon him who runs and him who wills in contradiction to John 1 and Romans 9, we may as well help out their fleshly “new” birth by yelling at them, scaring them, soothing them, playing amazing grace to the tune of stairway to heaven for them, or give them a free gas card.
Bob,
I will, however, say that you really have mischaracterized reformed theology in your responses. But seeing as I did the same thing for years before God in his grace opened my eyes to the truth of His word (not the truth of a theological system, but HIS WORD) I’ll just paitenly wait for Him to do the same for you.
Not sure what a pentecostal, Moose-hunting VP has to do with reformed theology though. 🙂
Thanks Bob. I just deleted my diatribe written in response to your response to Arthur. Not necessary after your last post. 🙂
There’s a likelihood that my prior post will be seen as the pot calling the kettle black. To that I say “touche” and “sorry” – there are probably people here who think that I’m being a jerk with my posts and wish I’d go somewhere where I’m more in agreement with the general blog populace. I very well may.
Though in the past many months I’ve tried hard to engage here from an alternative viewpoint with grace seasoned with salt, there are times when I have responded too quickly and have come across with more heat and smoke than light. True to the topic at hand, I repent of that.
Arthur, I’ve been far more deeply into Calvinism than you could ever imagine. I know all those verses and I simply reject the Calvinist application of them as largely out of context and off-the-mark. As I am willing to try to fairly consider both sides of the argument, I would say that I’m far from naive and uninformed, and in fact in a more circumspect place than you to provide input.
Sure, I did not state things as precisely as I could have, but I doubt it would really matter because it seems as though you’ve got it figured out, you’ve got your system, you’ve built your walls, and there’s no penetrating that. That’s your choice (or was that pre-determined? ).
The thing I’m struck by most, though, is your often condescending, contemptuous replies to people who don’t agree with you. It’s one thing take a firm stand; it’s another to be a jerk. But since being a jerk doesn’t logically matter within your theological system, you’re free to do so and let others go to hell because they weren’t chosen in the first place so why bother having any compassion, courtesy, kindness, or grace. They simply weren’t chosen – bad luck for them – but at least you’ve got your fire insurance…
It’s that kind of attitude – so far from what I see in Jesus and his disciples in scripture – that causes me to reject this whole Neo-Reformed movement. It’s similar to the old Fundamentalism with its spirit of fear. It comes across to the world as a bunch of self-assured, cocky, mean-spirited, hateful, cynical Christians who are content to let the world go to hell so long as they get raptured out of it and maybe take a few folks along with them for the ride. That is NOT the good news of the kingdom of God.
Sure b/Bo, ever read the history of the crusades? Not the PC version you get today, but the real history that shows that far from minding their own business, Muslims were invading western europe? You seriously think that if we grovel in front of Islam, it’s proponents will listen to the Gospel? You are more naive and ill-informed than I thought.
It IS the cross that offends people. Muslims reject Christ because the cross exposes the foolishness of their self-righteousness. and it exposes the idol of their false god Allah. Atheists reject God because the natural man is an enemy of God, hates God and hates His Word.
But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.
(Galatians 5:11)
You clearly haven’t a clue what Calvinism teaches or for that matter what the Bible teaches about the state of the unregenerate human heart and the division that the Gospel causes. Sinners don’t choose Christ, Christ chooses sinners. Instead you aare content to parrot the postmodern canards about the idol of God we have fashioned after our own desires.
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
You can kick against those goads all you like, but the Scripture is clear that outside of the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, no one will come to Christ because the Word is foolishness to them.
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (John 10:25-27)
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)
Ponder these words from Paul in Ephesians. Paul didn’t apoligize for the Gospel, he was not ashamed of the Gospel, and he didn’t seek ecumenical discussions with pagan religions. He declared the truth and humbly left the rest to God. Maybe we should apologize to the Egyptians for all of those plagues?
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:1-7)
Dead men don’t choose Christ even if you give them an engraven apology and a Starbucks coffee.
To take your position to its logical extreme, Arthur, we Christians can do whatever the hell we want and don’t have to worry about being wise as serpents and harmless as doves while practicing good missiology; all we have to do is wait around for the Holy Ghost to do his regenerating work… that’s why I reject Calvinism as a system – it’s totally absurd.
Yeah right, Muslims are offended by the cross and not by the Crusades – sure… if you buy that, boy have I got a moose-hunting VP candidate for you…
Kierkegaard was on the mark when he wrote:”Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”
b/Bo,
“Many evils have been perpetrated by many sects of Christianity over many years. If we can be open and honest about that with the world, we may gain a fresh hearing for the good news of the kingdom of God. Humility and honesty – those are good things. ”
The world doesn’t reject the Gospel because of the Inquisition or bogus claims of misogyny or homophobia. The world rejects the Gospel because it hates God, and thereby hates His Son and His sheep. We can never apologize enough to win the world unless we apologize for the cross. It is the cross that offends people, not the Crusades. That is the problem with much of the emergent/seeker-sensitive/church growth movement. It is prescribing a solution for the wrong problem. It is a heart problem the world has, and until and unless the Holy Spirit regenerates a person and changes their heart of stone, they will NEVER come to Christ no matter how many tearful apologies they hear or how many lattes they get served.
Tim, thanks for your thoughts. I just think of the passages I referred Paul to earlier where individuals in Israel confessed on behalf of the entire nation as to sins that the nation in general (not the individual praying) had committed. That’s pretty all-encompassing.
And while I don’t care what the world thinks about me when I haven’t done wrong (because of course they’ll revile and persecute and say all many of evil against you falsely), when we are NOT blameless it’s a whole different thing.
Many evils have been perpetrated by many sects of Christianity over many years. If we can be open and honest about that with the world, we may gain a fresh hearing for the good news of the kingdom of God. Humility and honesty – those are good things.
OK, I’ve said my peace.
B,
I don’t have a problem with mass sin confession if, in fact, every member of a given church had engaged in a particular sin or sins. In that case, it would be accurate to say, “We have been guilty of thus and such sin, and we’re sorry.” As an example, if the entire Westboro Church suddenly felt convicted by the Holy Spirit that their actions toward people at funerals were wrong, I think a corporate apology would probably be appropriate.
But does that mean that I have to apologize for Westboro’s actions and choices (sins)? I don’t think so. Should I apologize for the sins of others during the Inquisition? No. Should my church apologize to the public if I find out that three people in my congregation stole a car? No. Why should I sully the reputation of the church as a whole for the actions of a few? Those who have done the wrong need to apologize for their sin, repent, and ask forgiveness from God (they should also give the car back – and there may be some jail time waiting for them also :-).
I don’t have a problem with the church proclaiming publicly that although we may be against abortion, we don’t condone murdering abortion doctors. But we should not accept responsibility (apologize) for those who do. Same thing with homosexuals. I can equate homosexuality and adultery with sin, but I don’t condone commiting violence angainst these people. The church should not accept responsibility for those who do.
But what I DO have a duty before the Lord to do is to judge actions and the consequences of those actions as either good or bad according to Scripture, and then try to persuade people to change their ways, and to ask God’s forgiveness (especially when it’s my own sin). It’s called making disciples of all men (see “the Great Commission”).
I can rightly judge and therefore proclaim publicly that the Inquisition was wrong. Jesus did not command us to preach the Gospel, and then torture and murder people who did not accept Him. I can call sin what it is, as defined in Scripture, but if I apologize for someone else’s actions, my apology is hollow and disengenuous. That’s why Christ calls each one of us, individually, to repentance. You can’t apologize for me, repent for me, or accept Christ for me. You can only apologize for what YOU do.
Even if you don’t accept my viewpoint on this, that’s OK – I can handle it. But for one moment, let’s follow corporate, all encompassing public apology by the greater church to its logical conclusion: Once you start down that road, it will never end. Because the sins of people in churches will never be completely eradicated, the church will be forever mired in a neverending flow of “apologies to the world” for the actions of its imperfect, sometimes off-base, human beings that make up the worldwide church. You would need countless webmasters just to keep the multiple websites current with the apologies that would be endlessly rolling in. As extreme (and comical) as this is, you get my point. Where does it end? It doesn’t.
For the record, I DON’T have the authority to judge the destination of a person’s eternal soul, I’m not qualified – that is for God alone (only He sees the heart). But we are expected to discern good actions from bad.
Disjointed and longwinded as this is (apologies), I will conclude by saying that the church as a whole is made up of some of the greatest people on Earth – because Christ is molding us and making us more into His image every day, as we yield to Him. As time goes by, the disciple of Christ DOES improve, and take on more and more of the character of Christ. We learn about God as we go. If you want to talk about the church publicly, talk about that.
Regarding what you termed as “our poor reputation in the world”…as long as I’m following Christ, I couldn’t care less about how the world views me. In fact, I expect them to revile me. It comes with the territory.
After listening to the clips Paul was playing online, the only thing Kensington needs to confess about is their tolerance for that tripe being “preached”. I hope the world doesn’t like what they hear from pulpits, because if it starts to get too comfy for sinners it is worthless for salvation.
The church is not for social work, or warm fuzzies, or social justice, or any of that garbage. The church exists to exalt and glorify God by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that Gospel is offensive to the world.
So Tim, if Jesus had warnings for those churches then and since those same things seem to apply to our times as well (fallen human nature being what it is), why is it such a strange thing for a church to confess its sins and repent of it and to try to make restoration publicly?
Why is so offensive to say that we’ve blown it as the body of Christ in general in a number of ways that have caused us to deserve a lot of the caricaturization that we get? Sure, some of it is unfair from people who already have something against the church or Jesus or God, but a lot of it is indeed deserved.
Humility is a virtue; condemnation is not. Jesus loved sinners enough to spend time with them, do good to them, even heal them whether or not they repented; should we not show similar love and goodness to the world around us, thereby causing God’s grace to rain upon the unjust as well as the just? Why is this thought so foreign?
I don’t say this to point the finger at other churches or other Christians – I have my own share in the blame here, and plenty of it indeed. But I sincerely DO want to repent of this and show God’s love to the world, and I’d love for my brothers and sisters to do the same. But nothing will change until we humble ourselves, confess the truth, and take responsibility for our poor reputation in the world, and commit ourselves to doing and being ALL that Jesus commanded.
Mel,
I agree.
As a matter of practice, I revisit the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation from time to time – just to make sure I have Christ’s perspective on the church in the forefront of my mind. I’ll tell you what, if His admonishments and rebukes in those passages don’t shiver your timbers, I don’t know what will. Those words are directed to His church – that’s us.
If anyone is wondering what Jesus expects from His church, just take a little trip to the first few chapters of Revelation. It’s amazing how Christ’s warnings are as relevant today as they were then. We would all do well to heed those words. I know that I am still an imperfect sinner, but it is important that I STRIVE to be pleasing to God in this world, and honor Him with my best effort – yielding to the Holy Spirit, and relying on Him to help me. In this way, I am obedient, yet free of the bondage of the law. Even though I may fall from time to time, in no way am I to give in to, or promote, a lifestyle that is an affront to God. It is expected of us, by the Lord, that we repent from those things that are not pleasing to Him. We cannot afford to be in denial regarding our responsibilities as members of the body of Christ.
I am praying for His soon return.
The Virginia Slims commercial of old seems appropriate here;
“You’ve come a long way baby” In my humble opinion, the wrong way.
How any one can think we are on a path to any form of righteous, or that we represent the message of Christ with this behavior, is beyond my comprehension. However, we are not without a warning concerning this trend.
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? … Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
Is there anything considered “sacred” anymore? It would appear that in some circles, its not the local church.
Here is a good idea for a “confessing church”
This would work well with the emergent variety and their brand new “green bible”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUDEmMjC-c
Chris,
What you describe is not news to me, and it’s not unique to Kensington. With respect to youth / college / singles programs, there seems to be two schools of thought, in some churches, about what kind of behavior (or morals) should be commonly practiced.
One school of thought says that the church should encourage anyone – regardless of behavior or beliefs about Christian conduct – to participate in these functions, because we are all sinners in need of repentance. To “frown” on the type of behavior you described would tend to make people feel unwelcomed in the body of Christ. Over time, they will conform more and more into the image of Christ. In the mean time, just tolerate it and pray for them and it will all work out. Of course, left to itself, spiritual corruption tends to spread – not heal.
The other school of thought says that the church should be a haven for those (especially the young) seeking Godly fellowship with other Christians, free of the baggage that comes with the behavior and state of moral decay that is accepted in the world. This type of environment allows the Christian to strengthen and prepare himself for the daily spiritual battles that await all of us out in the world. As great as this idea sounds, it does seem to shoot church outreach programs in the foot.
I think the solution lies along the lines of what Paul the apostle talked about in regards to the conflict between the Jewish Christans’ observance of the Old Testament Law as opposed to the non-Jewish Christians and their complete lack of knowledge of the old law. Boiled down, Paul said that the Jews were not to put every jot and tittle of the law on the backs of these “Greeks” because Christ fulfilled the law. Yet he also set a benchmark of sorts for the general behavior of the non-Jews (no fornication, etc., etc.). They did not have “carte blanche” to conduct themselves any way they saw fit. Their behavior was expected to be as one who highly regarded Christ – without being in bondage. That’s what I think. We all know God does not condone the church fornicating and being drunk. Neither, then, should we condone it. But we also cannot expect unsaved people to be perfect before they walk through the door of the church. However, I suspect that if any person who does not know Christ decides to attend church meetings, singles meetings, etc., they probably expect (or they should anyway) that open drunkenness and orgies are not allowed. My point is: A certain level of moral behavior must be expected in order to protect those who have already come to Christ, but not so burdensome as to keep most people away from Christ (we don’t want people to think that they must first be perfect in order to be received by Christ into the family of God).
That’s just my take on it. It comes from personal experience with my own kids at a few churches. Good luck. It gets sticky.
Tim
Tim,
The experience you describe is so sad. I happen to know a few people who have attended Kensington for its singles program and, upon returning to our church, they’ve sounded so shocked. Many of those in the program, they said, have bragged about church singles functions where they’ve went out, gotten drunk and hooked up with someone.
I want to know whether Kensington plans on confessing those sins. After all, if they’re going to be confessing, then shouldn’t they also confess the sins committed by the congregation every day? If they’re confessing sins that–sometimes–aren’t even sins, then are they going to be big enough to confess drunkeness, fornication and other sins committed by those in the congregation? And if they’re confessing these sins, why aren’t they stressing the importance of confession AND repentance and urging others in the audience to confess and repent to the Lord?
Thanks Nancy. I had been grieving about this for almost a week when – lo and behold – Paul was talking about it on the radio. I am glad to have the opportunity to unload this.
Paul, keep up the good work.
Tim
I agree Ben, and thank you Tim, for confirming with an actual example of the fruit of this type of error.
“Casting doubt on Christ tends to lead people away from Him, not towards Him. It’s that simple.”
Paul,
Thank you for the post and warning about this trend in Evangelical churches. So many churches are missing the point of the church, both in our main purposes- to fulfill the Commission as you mention (Matt 28) and to be the “church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). We are a people of a revealed religion who are responsible to follow and proclaim the Scriptures.
I would like to encourage some to consider a conservative perspective on “Culture, Contextualization and the Church” by listening to free downloads of the recent Mid-America Conference on Preaching at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary at http://www.dbts.edu/5-1/5-12.asp.
Paul, this is such a sad story …
Apostle Paul said: “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes”
I would like to visit some of the churches that Jeff and Bob keep mentioning in their posts. I have been to plenty of local churches and there’s nothing remotely close to the stereotype churches they and churches like Kensington are describing.
One of the most common logic fallacy is hasty generalization and we’re all prone to do it. If we want to make any claims, then we should make them specific like Paul does it here in this post, not generalize it.
Paul,
I forgot to say that the church does not need to be giving an atheist (literally one who is anti Christ) a platform to speak in the church. They have the whole world as a platform. If they wanted to invite an atheist to a debate – and bill it as such – that’s one thing. But when unsaved people, who are seeking God, show up to a meeting where the Truth is slammed all night – with no rebuttal – an opportunity for salvation is lost. Casting doubt on Christ tends to lead people away from Him, not towards Him. It’s that simple.
Tim
Paul,
Mt daughter took her unsaved college roommate to Kensington on Sunday. This girl left in a total state of confusion. Instead of hearing Christ proclaimed – and our need for his redemptive work in our lives – she heard how bad the church was. The girl asked my daughter what it was that WE were doing wrong. So here we are trying to lead people to Christ – the only Hope – yet they leave the church meeting lost and confused. Something is wrong here.
The previous Wednesday featured an atheist at the podium, trashing Christianity and belief in God, with no rebuttal – only an apology from the pastor for how Christians have presented themselves. Truly, what in God’s name do they think they’re doing?? Needless to say, my daughter will be taking her friend to a different church where she can hear the actual gospel message.
This is what you get when you found a church on consensus, opinion, and surveys, instead of New Testament. Itching ears, I guess.
I could write more…
Tim
A “good confession” leads to LIFE!
We’ll Be Faithful
Forgetting what lies behind
Setting our hearts on the prize
Always keeping our eyes on our Lord Jesus
We’re running the race to win
All the way to the end
Laying down every sin
That would seek to hinder us
And we’ll be faithful to our calling
For You are able to keep us from falling
For in Your promise we will trust
You’ll be faithful to finish
The work You began in us
Don Harris and Martin J. Nystrom, 1993
Paul, I didn’t condemn you, I merely pointed out the appearance of a condemning attitude on your part (one which you don’t deny and don’t seem very convicted about).
You ignored the scripture passages I cited and yet you say I’m unable to see a “scriptural view” on this. You’re sounding more and more like the Pharisees of old, my friend, and I am deeply concerned for you. This is not the way to life and joy and peace…
Mel, are you just d/Do/Don with yet another new name? If so, it would make a lot of sense…
Chris,
“But I’ve always maintained that your theology is rock solid even if I disagree with you politically (and the theological agreement is what matters most, isn’t it?)”
Remember tho, if you disagree with Paul politically then essentially you disagree with him theologially because you are a sinner if you vote for Obama and he is not for supporting McCain.. 😉
The problem;
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
The solution;
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God
The peace;
This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
I don’t doubt that Kensington’s staff and congregation have anything but the best of intentions here. Unfortunately, we all know what the road to hell is paved with…
As I think more about this, I find this to be a fascinating conversation if only because I think it highlights how far churches have gone from the Gospel in their efforts to make people comfortable. And I’m someone who has enjoyed several books and statements by Emerging pastors, even as I’ve disagreed with others.
The idea of the church publically confessing is not, per se, bad. I personally think that many churches need to publically confess that they’ve hidden the Gospel behind comfort and entertainment, that they’ve been so afraid of appearing “elitist” that they’ve forgotten that the Gospel IS exclusive and that they’re more concerned with conforming the Church to our culture than in conforming the Church to the Gospel.
To confess for the stereotype that many have of the church is not only baffling but insulting the the many loving brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ who are truly caring, kind and compassionate and yet must speak to the truth. Yes, some Christians have been homophobic and some churches have preached hatred–but the majority of Christians in the Church are loving and kind…but their ultimate allegiance is the the Word of God and the Gospel and so they must call sin as it is. You can love a person who is gay and be their friend and STILL tell them that their lifestyle is wrong. My response when people say “do you think someone’s going to hell because they’re gay” is to say “No. No one’s going to hell because they’re gay. People are going to hell because they are sinners. Homesexuality is just one symptom of sin.”
But even more worrisome is that this whole confession thing seems to turn the Gospel upside down. If the people at Kensington truly feel that they have something to confess and repent of and that they need to do it as a congregation, I’m perfectly fine with that. But I would expect that, in doing that, they would call the unsaved who listen to this congregation to confess of their sins and admit their need for a savior. But something tells me that’s not going to happen, as Kensington has been on the forefront of “guilt-free sermons”. And if they’re just doing this as a way to attract people to their church, then doesn’t it turn the concept of sin and repentance into a marketing tool, robbing it of its seriousness?
Glad to finally have a post where I wholeheartedly agree with you, Paul. But I’ve always maintained that your theology is rock solid even if I disagree with you politically (and the theological agreement is what matters most, isn’t it?)
b/Bo,
I wouldn’t expect anything less from you than to condemn me for being condemning. Unfortunately you have bought into much too much of the emergent “humble orthodoxy” to see a Scriptural view on this issue.
There is no “benefit of the doubt” to give and not to call these “churches” on their false humility would be less than loving. I suppose when Paul withstood Peter to the face some considered it harsh. With Luther I say, “My conscience is bound by the word of God. Here I stand. I can do no other.”
I think the collective confession is in keeping with how Israel was encouraged to confess and humble themselves before God (Lev. 26; 1 Kings 8; 2 Chronicles 6; Neh. 1) to restore their national relationship God. I don’t think the world is stupid or deceived by the media – I think the church at large is quite guilty and deserving of it’s poor reputation.
We have failed at judging – by that I mean we have not learned how to analyze and make a distinction (which is one kind of judgment humans can’t exist without) without also condemning (which is the other kind of judgment reserved for God alone to make). We skip right over the first few verses of Matt 7 and try to judge who the pigs are so we don’t squander our precious pearls, not understanding that pearls are useless to a pig and the pig is not to be looked down upon for that.
There are other reasons than what you have stated for Kensington and these other churches to do what they are doing; it appears that you are quick to condemn, but not as quick to give them the benefit of the doubt (1 Cor 13). That’s a harsh way to treat your brothers, my brother.
I am beginning to sound like a broken record here, but I think much of the distain for the church started when we married a political party. In doing so, we put moral values as we interpret them in the public arena. Does that mean that we stay out of the public arena and keep all our values out of the discussion? no. It just means that when you put it in the public area and use a corrupt political entity achieve our social means then it ends up delegitimizing our concerns. Why tell a person who is prolife but votes democrat because of financial reasons that he needs to vote Republican in order to be prolife? Until, the religious right learns that using politics to accomplish social good will never work, these issues will continue to get worse. Thus you will have churches apologizing for the ugly image that we as a group have. When we are know for what we are for and not what we are against nothing will change.
Perfect sense. You express the point I’m trying to make.
I first heard the idea of a church confession in Donald Miller’s “Blue Like Jazz,” which I actually think is a book that gets a bit too much flack as it’s more of a memoir than a theological tome.
I understand the idea, in that there are some things where I look at the church and say “this does not represent me.” For instance, I shake my head in embarrassment whenever Pat Robertson speaks, at most of James Dobson’s boycotts (Spongebob gay? Really?) and much of the late Jerry Falwell’s speaking. I’m embarrassed that people think that something like Westboro Church with Fred Phelps is actually a real Christian community. And while the Bible is clear on its teaching that homosexuality is a sin, I believe that many in the Church have not spoken the Truth with gentleness and love, making friendships with sinners while letting them know the Truth about their sin.
But theologically, the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is not a building or even just a local gathering of people (some people in a church are not part of The Church). And the Church is made up of people who have confessed their sin and are being made perfect by Christ. So while certain bodies claiming to be the Church may in need of confession, the true Church itself–the body of Christ around the globe–is being perfected.
But, of course, the people in the Church are not perfect. And so yes, when they sin they need to confess that. But blaming their sin on being part of the Body is a cop-out; they don’t sin because “that’s what the church does”. We sin because we’re sinners and we need to constantly being confessing our sins to God and to others in order to remember our great need and Christ’s great solution.
The Church as a body doesn’t need to confess. It’s the individual members who need to be confessing, and it should be an everday affair focused on their personal sins, not focusing on the sins of another as a way to avoid the plank in their own eye.
Did I make any sense?