The critique of the church that is the most broad in scope is that it has embraced a modern world view, divorcing itself from the way church has been done in the past. This critique goes beyond the idea that the church should minister to those in the culture around it by being relevant to that culture. It’s argument is that a large part of the North American church today has become to identify the church of modernity with the way church must be, and there can be no other.
An example may be helpful here. Someone may argue that, given the modern culture around us, the church should produce apologetic arguments based on science and rationality as that is the language and world view that the world around us understands. This would be a way of making the church relevant to the current culture. Another person however may go further and say that the only apologetic arguments that the church can use is those grounded on science and rationality and begin to read, understand, and identify only with a Christianity that fits within the rational and scientific understanding of Christianity. That would be identifying “The Church” as a modern church.
Often the line between the two practices is blurred. A practice may be adopted by a church because it best ministers to the community around them, but as the generation which adopted it begins to die out and the next generation takes over the church, the practice is maintained simply because that is what they have always understood church to be.
It is important, therefore, to look critically at the practices of local evangelical churches. Worship bands, alter calls, baby dedications, greeting time (the list could go on)…are all ways that various churches have sought to put biblical teachings into a specific cultural and philosophical world view; the modern world view. Arguments can be made for how biblical or unbiblical these practices are, however, that is not the point here. We must first recognize that these practices are a way that the church has sought to be relevant to a particular culture; the church should not hold these practices as the only way to do church.
As I noted in the first entry in this series, one of the ways advocated by some in the church to counter this identification with modernity is to revive practices from the pre-modern church. There is certainly some merit to this position. Reviving such practices will encourage the church to understand itself as neither pre-modern, modern, or post-modern, but as a universal object with different instantiations in different times. However, caution must be exercised not to begin to identify the church only with historical practices and rejected the modern church as it has done to the historical church.
“Another person however may go further and say that the only apologetic arguments that the church can use is those grounded on science and rationality and begin to read, understand, and identify only with a Christianity that fits within the rational and scientific understanding of Christianity.”
I have seen that happen, and I don’t think it’s a good thing. There’s the type of apologists who say we have evidence so we don’t need faith (or that it take more faith to be an atheist). I think that makes reason the highest authority instead of God, and it damages Christianity by dismissing faith.
To some extent, the Bible says that itself. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
That is not to say that one can “prove” the existence of God, at least in a modern scientific or empirical manner. But it does seem to imply that God is so obvious, one has to be willfully blind (faithful to atheism) to not acknowledge His existence.
“Divine power” has been seen from nature, but that could easily lead you to Deism, or Islam, or something else.
yes, but not atheism. So, to some extent at least, it does take “faith” to be an atheist.
Arguments can be made for how biblical or unbiblical these practices are, however, that is not the point here. We must first recognize that these practices are a way that the church has sought to be relevant to a particular culture; the church should not hold these practices as the only way to do church.
I think the ideal church has to always be our goal, while at the same time realizing that goal will likely never be fully attained: a church that is theologically true to scripture and a church where churchgoers can readily see and apply that truth. That pretty much means a church has to be “culturally relevant” if anyone is going to understand the message being put forth there. (The language used in church comes first to mind–for example, not too many folks understand Latin so the Vatican finally opted for local languages–that’s being culturally relevant.)
The trick comes when the group of churchgoers themselves is not homogeneous, so one culturally relevant expression in a given church doesn’t work for all attenders. That’s one reason we have internal church squabbles and one reason why we have so many churches to choose from. We need to be wise and mature enough to tell the difference between the form–which can change–and the meaning which shouldn’t change.
Darius, that’s a major objection of mine to such quotes. It’s a very poor definition of faith.
I’m not using it in the same definition as Christian faith, thus I put it in parentheses.
I don’t like saying atheism requires faith becasue the scriptures always speak of faith as being something good, a gift from God. What atheism requires is a suppression of faith. Romans 1 has already been quoted here; atheists on some level know the truth about God, but they repress it. This repression doesn’t require faith, it mocks it.
Ok, it requires the suppression of the obvious. If you don’t want to term that “faith,” fine by me. I am not saying it is faith as described in the Bible, but as defined in the dictionary: “belief that is not based on proof.” Atheists actually takes this a step further, they believe in something that goes against the obvious or against proof (not in the scientific sense).
The faith that we as Christians are to have is not so much that there is a God (since that is obvious) but that that God is Yahweh and Christ is His Son and our Savior.