It’s admittedly a dangerous title, but I chose it, not for shock value or to gain attention (although I hope it does gain attention).
I hope to open productive conversation, not start a fight.
In a fight there is a winner and a loser. Any time I do a conflict resolution
consultation, whether between troubled marital partners, a parent/child conflict,
or in an organizational setting, I always begin by asking, “Do you truly want
to resolve the issues between you, or do you just want to win the fight?”
Nobody wins a fight. The only thing a fight accomplishes is
the establishment of one’s power over another--and resentment on the part of the loser. Relationships—indeed,
civilizations—cannot thrive indefinitely in a power relationship.
Thus, I attempt here to open a conversation. Agreement is
neither necessary nor truthfully expected. Mutual understanding, I think, is a
reasonable expectation. Respectful conversation teamed with earnest seeking
might lead to some common ground upon which to build “a more excellent” way than
the way that has produced four generations of decline in the Body of Christ.
These thoughts were stimulated by a paragraph from
evangelical author, Philip Yancey. In Vanishing Grace. He writes:
“I decided to write this book after I saw the results of
surveys by the George Barna group. A few telling statistics jumped off the
page. In 1996, 85 percent of Americans who had no religious commitment still
viewed Christianity favorably. Thirteen years later, in 2009, only 16 percent
of young “outsiders” had a favorable impression of Christianity, and just 3
percent had a good impression of evangelicals. I wanted to explore what caused
that dramatic plunge in such a relatively short time. Why do Christians stir up
hostile feelings—and what, if anything, should we do about it?”[1]
I haven’t read beyond those words. My mind was stimulated
to distraction, and I was compelled to put my thoughts on paper. I look forward
to finishing Yancy’s book.
One of my greatest frustrations in ministry is what Thomas Bandy
Calls the largest and fastest growing spiritual population in North America, viz.
“the spiritually yearning, institutionally alienated public;[2]
a population that calls itself, “spiritual but not religious.” Yancey notes in
his book the phenomenon of the “nones:” those who, when polled about religious
preference, respond by checking “none.” They now constitute one-third of all Americans
under the age of thirty.
My frustration is that virtually two generations have
abandoned, not just that part of “religion” (specifically Christianity) that
offends them but essentially all organized religion, and in the process have
thrown out the proverbial baby with the bath water!
My read is (and has been for a couple of decades), that
they really don’t disagree with the theological content or the essential
purpose and ministry of the denomination in which I serve. My impression
(again, biased and unsupported by data) is that they experienced, either
personally or vicariously, something in a relatively narrow religious context
that offended or hurt them and have generalized from that isolated experience
to justify their judgment about all religion.
The truth is that I agree with the two most frequently
identified offenders: hypocrisy and judgmentalism. And while no discipline or
community has a lock on hypocrisy, it would be difficult to deny a distinct
aura of judgment as a definitive characteristic of evangelicalism.
As a recovering evangelical, here is what I remember: the
first premise is the basic Calvinist dogma of the total depravity of man.
Already, we’ve lost the “nones,” but hang with me; I think I can get us out of
this mess. I learned the “Roman Road to Salvation” as the basic “plan of
salvation,” and it begins with Romans 3:23, “All have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God.” The basic approach in this doctrine of salvation is to assume that
that all are lost and bound for hell.
The trouble is, some people—probably a large majority of
people—don’t “feel” lost. I’ve heard in more than one discussion group or
conversation, “But, I’m not a sinner.” People generally associate “sin” with
gross crimes and harmful behavior (especially sexual in nature), and most people don’t
fall into either category; therefore, we have to create that sense of being lost for
them. It is manipulative and dehumanizing and the origin of a lot of the impression of judgmentalism.
Here's the thing: one thing I’ve always loved and admired
about evangelicals is that they’re sincere in their concern for the salvation
of all humans. Who can fault that? But the Kennedy approach: “If you were to
die today, where would your soul be tomorrow?” and the basic assumption that everyone
is lost and bound for hell—right or wrong—is dehumanizing, and has become increasingly ineffective;
indeed, it has become increasingly counterproductive since the middle of the last century!
The results are available on basically any related survey or poll.
WHAT
IF…
Instead of the Pauline “Roman Road” (which has been
proof-texted and tailored to fit the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of all
humans), WHAT IF we began with Jesus? Most who identify as “spiritual but not
religious,” and even many who are classified as “none” affirm an admiration and/or
devotion to Jesus. But, like Gandhi, “I love your Jesus; but your Christians
are so unlike him.”
Still, why not begin on common ground? Jesus said, “If I am
lifted up…” WHAT IF we simply lift up Jesus, rather than create a need? WHAT IF
we quit preaching hell and “lift up Jesus?” Does one absolutely need to recite
the “good confession” or pray the “sinner’s prayer” to enter an eternal
relationship with God through Jesus Christ? Is it the recitation of the words,
or would the act of following Jesus by following his
example accomplish that same relationship? Would not the action indicate the
acceptance of Jesus as Lord?
Yes, I memorized this, too: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me
before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but
whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33 NRSV). Is the good confession and/or the sinner’s prayer the only
way to acknowledge Jesus before others? Or do actions truly speak louder
than words, especially when a “spiritual but not religious” public points vociferously
at religious hypocrisy? Would not actions that are consistent with our words
remove any impression (or reality) of hypocrisy?
The truth is, while the overall trend of American church is
downward, there are those entrepreneurial churches that attract large flocks.
And—right or wrong—those growing
churches put out a message that is clear of judgment or condemnation, offering
instead a prosperity gospel or the Prayer of Jabez. No, Jesus is not the core
of that message. BUT NEITHER IS HELL OR CONDEMNATION! Misguided or not, the
offering is hope!
WHAT IF there is yet another approach: an approach that
lifts up Jesus only? Could that be a valid starting place—common ground
upon which to begin?
Stay tuned. I’ll continue this conversation with some
specific applications.
That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my
world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim
[1] Phllip Yancy,
Vanishing Grace, Page 15, as quoted in Artman, David. Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian
Universalism (p. 103). Wipf and Stock, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock
Publishers. Kindle Edition.
|
[2] Tom Bandy, Talisman: Global Positioning for the Soul (p. 6) Wipf and Stock, an
Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. [Bandy identifies
this population in several other books, including Christian Chaos, Kicking
Habits: Welcome Relief for Addicted Churches, et.al.] |
