Staring into the deceptively bright eyes of my newborn baby girl, Wren Elizabeth, I cannot help but notice the stark contrast between her dependent helplessness and the new-found frenetic independence of my toddler, Grace Haven. Though cliche, it is no less true to say they grow up quickly. This is indisputably obvious. A thought occurred--what is the essence of maturity? I think my natural inclination is to answer, "progressive independence." In other words, the more a child (or adult) matures, the more independent they become; or to put it another way, maturity is synonymous with independence.
But my presupposition was challenged on this occasion by a curious interlocutor--the very beautiful blue eyes that elicited my thoughts in the first place. I say they are deceptively bright eyes because a newborn child cannot clearly see anything more than a foot from her face, and full color vision is not developed until three or four months of age. Even more striking than this is the total narcissism of a newborn, his utter inability to distinguish himself from his environment, to posit the existence of anything beyond the self. So my newborn sucks her wrist or any object placed within reach of her mouth as though she would be instantly nourished and satisfied by virtue of her desire alone. All things exist for her well being, if indeed she is cognizant of anything outside of herself. How does this threaten my assumption? Perhaps maturity is not primarily increased independence. Perhaps the essence of maturity is a growing knowledge or awareness of the "other."
As a child grows and develops, she becomes more aware of the objects and people around her. He learns more and more how to relate to others and the physical world. Where this development does not occur or is retarded in some way, there is immaturity. In childhood and adulthood we are perpetually learning to navigate the labyrinth of relationships that is life. The better we learn to relate to others, the more mature we are.
If we assume the doxological Christian worldview--that we were created to know God, glorify him and enjoy him forever--then to know God more (experimentally) is to grow up more fully (mature) into the purpose for which we were created. In redemptive history through the biblical narrative God has chosen to relate to us in myriad ways. He is Maker, Father, Shepherd, King, Husband, Gardener, Counselor, Master, Servant, Friend, Brother, etc. The inanimate and conceptual metaphors include Rock, Shield, Fortress, Light, Bread, Life, Way, Truth, etc. All believers understand that these metaphors teach us something of how God relates to us. But perhaps this is an understatement. What if these things and relationships all exist to point us to God? What if the narrative of our lives, the narrative of history is but the shadow, and God's metanarrative of Creation, Fall, Redemption and Consummation is the substance? What if life is the type and God's story the antitype? If this were so, then God doesn't just relate to us as a perfect Father; fathers exist to point us to the Father. God is not just our Solid Rock of immutable reliability; rocks exist so that we can know him. Sheep and shepherds exist to portray our reliance on the Good Shepherd. Marital intimacy exists to illustrate the incomparable intimacy of Christ and his Church, etc.
Those tiny bright eyes that still see so little remind me that maturity is not so much about gaining independence as it is about becoming aware of others, which in turn enables us to know the ultimate Other.
18 October 2010
28 May 2010
The Problem With Preaching Church Attendance
Among the cardinal doctrines of Christian fundamentalism is church attendance. Second only to Bible reading and prayer, and evangelizing the lost, church attendance is firmly ensconced on the shelf of fundamentalist virtue. The "Go to church" sermon is a favorite hot spot of the purely topical preacher, with Hebrews 10:25 getting almost as many hits as John 3:16 and Romans 3:23. But is the frequent call to attend church biblically balanced, logically necessary and gospel-centered?
Let me preface this by saying that I gather regularly (weekly) to worship with my church as a whole. I firmly believe that Hebrews 10:25 is true, inspired and authoritative. Believers should not forsake the assembly of themselves together (as the manner of some definitely is). An individual cannot be the church (or "do church" if you prefer) isolated from the church community and violates the "one another" commands of the New Testament if he/she does not regularly meet with brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor can this be accomplished by just meeting with one or two other believers because our spiritual gifts are given for "the building up of the body." My contention is not that church attendance is unnecessary (it is vital), but that preaching church attendance is a misplacement of emphasis. Here is why:
1. It is not biblically balanced.
I believe this is one of the greatest weaknesses of purely topical preaching. It imposes the preacher's biases on the text, so that certain themes are given greater emphasis, regardless of their actual emphasis on the pages of Scripture. One verse is the linchpin of attendanceology: Hebrews 10:25 "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Interestingly, Hebrews was not written to an individual church like many other epistles, but to Jewish Christians suffering persecution. One of the major themes is perseverance, "holding fast" to Christ, enduring suffering knowing we have a High Priest who can sympathize. This verse's command (a mini sermon in itself) makes complete sense in light of their persecution. Meeting together for worship in this context could carry serious, even deadly consequences. With this is mind, the call not to forsake gathering makes perfect sense. I note the historical context not to imply the command does not apply to today, but to make sense of why it is not repeated elsewhere in the New Testament. If we let the New Testament authors (and more importantly the New Testament Author) dictate the emphasis of preaching by their themes, then church attendance might get a casual mention once a year.
2. It is not logically necessary.
Speech 101 teaches us that one of the primary tasks of a communicator is to consider the audience. In the "go to church" topical sermon, who is the targeted audience? Is it committed growing, repentant, missional believers? Is it the lost? Is it the seeker? Is it the skeptic? Is it the backslidden? Is it immature believers or new Christians? It is easy to rule out the committed believer. We have all heard the cliche, "preaching to the choir." Why preach church attendance to those who are already regularly attending? (unless you are afraid they will stop attending) What about the skeptic? It seems unlikely that someone turned off to Christianity already would find "God wants you here" very compelling. How about the lost? The "go to church" sermon is a great way to reinforce American cultural Christianity--that all God wants is 1 hour a week and 10% of your income. Surely the "go to church" sermon is not for seekers. No one disputes that Hebrews 10:25 was written to believers. We would not want to get the cart before the horse. (Speaking of cliches). So what about those believers? Is the "go to church" sermon for new/immature believers or backsliders? If these people are not attending regularly, the most natural question is why? Is it because they have not been told God wants them to attend? Is it because the church is boring or irrelevant? Or is it because the gospel is not central in their lives? We've arrived at the crux of the matter (pun intended). How does preaching church attendance relate to the cross, to the gospel. This is the heart of the problem.
3. It is not gospel-centered.
If a believer must be cajoled to go to church, then there is a greater problem than absence. Preaching church attendance misses the point; because, if the gospel is preached in a compelling way through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gospel is taking root and growing in the lives of believers, they don't have to be told to attend. Preaching attendance focuses on behavior modification, whereas the gospel changes the heart, which changes patterns of behavior. Even if the "go to church" sermon achieves the desired end, that is believers attend more regularly, it has only succeeded in changing behavior, not changing the heart.
This, I believe, is why the New Testament authors only gave attendance a casual mention; the changed hearts that result from gospel preaching inevitably lead people to attend corporate worship, not out of obligation, but out of devotion.
Let me preface this by saying that I gather regularly (weekly) to worship with my church as a whole. I firmly believe that Hebrews 10:25 is true, inspired and authoritative. Believers should not forsake the assembly of themselves together (as the manner of some definitely is). An individual cannot be the church (or "do church" if you prefer) isolated from the church community and violates the "one another" commands of the New Testament if he/she does not regularly meet with brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor can this be accomplished by just meeting with one or two other believers because our spiritual gifts are given for "the building up of the body." My contention is not that church attendance is unnecessary (it is vital), but that preaching church attendance is a misplacement of emphasis. Here is why:
1. It is not biblically balanced.
I believe this is one of the greatest weaknesses of purely topical preaching. It imposes the preacher's biases on the text, so that certain themes are given greater emphasis, regardless of their actual emphasis on the pages of Scripture. One verse is the linchpin of attendanceology: Hebrews 10:25 "not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." Interestingly, Hebrews was not written to an individual church like many other epistles, but to Jewish Christians suffering persecution. One of the major themes is perseverance, "holding fast" to Christ, enduring suffering knowing we have a High Priest who can sympathize. This verse's command (a mini sermon in itself) makes complete sense in light of their persecution. Meeting together for worship in this context could carry serious, even deadly consequences. With this is mind, the call not to forsake gathering makes perfect sense. I note the historical context not to imply the command does not apply to today, but to make sense of why it is not repeated elsewhere in the New Testament. If we let the New Testament authors (and more importantly the New Testament Author) dictate the emphasis of preaching by their themes, then church attendance might get a casual mention once a year.
2. It is not logically necessary.
Speech 101 teaches us that one of the primary tasks of a communicator is to consider the audience. In the "go to church" topical sermon, who is the targeted audience? Is it committed growing, repentant, missional believers? Is it the lost? Is it the seeker? Is it the skeptic? Is it the backslidden? Is it immature believers or new Christians? It is easy to rule out the committed believer. We have all heard the cliche, "preaching to the choir." Why preach church attendance to those who are already regularly attending? (unless you are afraid they will stop attending) What about the skeptic? It seems unlikely that someone turned off to Christianity already would find "God wants you here" very compelling. How about the lost? The "go to church" sermon is a great way to reinforce American cultural Christianity--that all God wants is 1 hour a week and 10% of your income. Surely the "go to church" sermon is not for seekers. No one disputes that Hebrews 10:25 was written to believers. We would not want to get the cart before the horse. (Speaking of cliches). So what about those believers? Is the "go to church" sermon for new/immature believers or backsliders? If these people are not attending regularly, the most natural question is why? Is it because they have not been told God wants them to attend? Is it because the church is boring or irrelevant? Or is it because the gospel is not central in their lives? We've arrived at the crux of the matter (pun intended). How does preaching church attendance relate to the cross, to the gospel. This is the heart of the problem.
3. It is not gospel-centered.
If a believer must be cajoled to go to church, then there is a greater problem than absence. Preaching church attendance misses the point; because, if the gospel is preached in a compelling way through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the gospel is taking root and growing in the lives of believers, they don't have to be told to attend. Preaching attendance focuses on behavior modification, whereas the gospel changes the heart, which changes patterns of behavior. Even if the "go to church" sermon achieves the desired end, that is believers attend more regularly, it has only succeeded in changing behavior, not changing the heart.
This, I believe, is why the New Testament authors only gave attendance a casual mention; the changed hearts that result from gospel preaching inevitably lead people to attend corporate worship, not out of obligation, but out of devotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
