Marketing the Church

I'm currently reading David F Wells' book God in the Wasteland, in which Wells argues that the church has essentially sold out to modernism.

One area in which he says this has happened is the area of seeing what the Church is about as marketing - that of identifying a group to "sell" a "product" to, of marketing it and so on. In particular, he sees the danger as being the willingness to change or adapt the product to fit people's perceived needs rather than their actual needs, and of being faithless to God in order to be faithful to culture.

To my mind, however, he presents the issue as too black-and-white. We certainly should not sell out wholesale to the marketing philosophy. We should not change the God we proclaim or seek to worship him in ways which he has said are unacceptable. And it certainly seems to me that some churches, especially in the US, have gone too far in that regard. The whole Purpose Driven Church movement, for example, runs that risk because of the lack of clarity as to what the gospel actually is.

But neither does that mean that we should not be wise in the way that we seek to relate the unchanging truth about God to a changing society, or that there is some valuable wisdom which is used by marketers. Some marketing techniques imply a worldview opposed to that of the Bible. But not all do, and some can be co-opted for serving God.

Here's an extract.

Today, evangelicalism reverberates with worldliness. In first impressions, this worldliness does not appear ugly at all. Quite the opposite. It maintains a warm and friendly countenance, parading itself as successful entrepreneurship, organizational wizardry, and a package of slick public relations insights that are essential to the facilitation of evangelical business.

Now, there is nothing wrong with entrepreneurship or organizational wizardry or public relations or television images and glossy magazines per se. The problem is with the current evangelical inability to see how these things carry with them values which are hostile to Christian faith. The problem, furthermore, lies in the unwillingness of evangelicals to forsake the immediate and overwhelming benefits of modernity, even when corrupted values are part and parcel of those benefits. What is plainly missing, then, is discernment, and this has much to do with the dislocation of biblical truth from the life of the church today and much to do with the dying of its theological soul.

I agree. But I think that at times Wells overreacts. Maybe that's necessary in the kind of wake-up call he was intending to give though.

What we need is discernment.

Davis - Truth and Impressive Truth

Here's a great insight from Dale Ralph Davis (writing on 1 Samuel 22, which is a long poem David wrote):

Now David could have "studied brevity" here. Instead of the 69 Hebrew words or the 141 English words (NIV) in verses 8-16, he could simply have written "Yahweh intervened on my behalf." (five words). Why didn't he? ... Although such a statement would be factually true it would not be impressively true. David doesn't merely want you to tell you a fact about Yahweh, he wants you to see Yahweh in all his saving fury.

I think that's a big part of the difference between preaching and lecturing. It amazes me that it took me so long to realise (i.e. up until a few years ago) that the way things are said conveys as much information as what is said.

Davis again

This dilemma reminds me of the time someone, apparently in Philadelphia, asked George Whitfield if he might print his sermons. Whitfield replied "Well, I have no inherent objection, if you like, but you will never be able to put on the printed page the lightning and the thunder."

Quotes - David Wells on Emptiness

I'm currently reading (among other things), God in the Wasteland by David Wells. I'm still only partly convinced by his main point, but he has some very good quotes.

We may now have everything, but none of it means anything any more.

We have become TS Eliot's "hollow men," without weight, for whom appearance and image must suffice. Image and appearance assume the functions that character and morality once had. It is now considered better to look good than to be good. The facade is now more important than the substance - and, that being the case, the substance has largely disappeared.

God in the Wasteland, David F Wells

Preaching - Text Work

I recently reviewed a book which was good on lots of aspects of preaching, but not great on working on the actual text.

Here's a short piece by Ryan Gosling which is better than that that whole book on text work...

Checkpoint

I thought it would be worth stopping briefly before term starts and making a note of where I'm at with regards to various controversial issues in the Christian world.

Labelling: I don't like it, because labels tend to aid division rather than unity and because "insiders" and "outsiders" usually use the same label to mean different things. If I have to use labels other than "Christian", I tend to go for moderate conservative evangelical Anglican, which is sufficiently long that it gives people an idea of where I'm at without necessarily referring to a clearly defined group. I am aware that there are moderate charismatics and "open evangelicals" with whom I would agree almost 100%.

Uniqueness of Christ: Absolutely. He is both perfectly God and perfectly man; salvation is found only in him, and only through his life, death, resurrection and ascension.

Scripture and Revelation: Scripture is perfect, authoritative. My view comes very close to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I don't think there is subsequent revelation with the same authority, but I don't see that necessarily means there is no further revelation, but that further revelation is not binding in the same sense and would need to be tested against Scripture.

Ordination of women: I think by the time someone asks the question, they've already missed the point. In the Bible, the nearest equivalent to ordination is functional rather than ontological - it is ordination for a specific purpose rather than for being able to put Rev in front of your name. People were chosen as leaders of specific churches rather than just flying "church leaders" (with the exceptions of apostles, but the ordained ministry in the C of E is functionally much closer to the pastor / teacher / church leader than that of the apostle). The way the C of E sees ordination is generally at least partly ontological. Given that we've got this ontological status thingy, that women are clearly meant to be doing at least some of the jobs it covers and that the NT doesn't really address the question, I don't see any reason why women shouldn't be ordained. It could be argued that in Acts, Priscilla and Aquilla seem to act like an ordained couple would today; I think there's useful scope in that idea.

Women leading churches: This is closer to the real question on whether there is a gender-based difference as regards ideal roles within the church. To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't think either side's Biblical arguments are particularly persuasive; my instinct is therefore that we should treat it as an issue of conscience. I certainly don't see arguments for men refusing to submit to women who are in a position of authority in churches. There are however big questions of how marriage relationships work if the woman is a church leader and the man isn't...

Roman Catholicism: There's a regular commenter on here who I think is an evangelical charismatic Roman Catholic, and I don't have a problem with that. I think some of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic church are seriously flawed, but I also think the same of some of the official teachings of the Presbyterian Church and the Anglican Church (I might comment on those at a future date).

Cessationism: Seems to have no valid Scriptural support. But neither does the view that God follows our every whim.

Praying for the dead: Is good, pastoral and wise. The old doctrine of Purgatory is, however, complete tosh. That's a very bad reason for praying for the dead, but just because one reason is stupid, doesn't mean the rest are.

Glorious Contradiction - God's Promises to David via Nathan

The last post was of course a spin-off from one of Dale Ralph Davis's thoughts. This is a spin-off from that, which I don't think DRD picked up on.

God makes two promises to David through Nathan. The first is in 2 Samuel 7

Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning 11 and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies.

'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.'

2 Samuel 7:9-16

But after David commits adultery and murder, Nathan makes another promise to David from God.

Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.

This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'

2 Samuel 12:10-12

So God promises that David's line will reign forever, but also that the sword will never depart from his house - that there will always be one of his descendants ruling, but that they will always be killed violently.

Isn't that interesting? I wonder how those two fit together.... I wonder if the people who were expecting a Messiah who would be from David's family to come and conquer and be a military hero rather than to come and suffer and die remembered the promise in 2 Samuel 12.

David, Bathsheba and moral compromise in the Church

The story of David and Bathsheba from 2 Samuel 11 is fairly well known. Roughly speaking, David, military hero, awesome king of Israel and God's chosen and anointed leader takes a year off while his army is out fighting. He sees a woman - Bathsheba, who appropriately (or not) enough is taking a bath. David likes the look of her, has sex with her, she gets pregnant. Her husband, who isn't even an Israelite, is off fighting for David. David gets him back and tries to get him to sleep with his wife; he refuses as he's still mid-campaign, so David arranges for the tactics to go a little wonky to get Uriah killed.

The application of that story I hear second most often is that it's a bad idea to find yourself with lots of time on your hands and nothing to do, especially if you're a bloke with a fairly strong sex drive and opportunity to use it. That is a true and valid application. It's why 2 Samuel 11 comes right after 2 Samuel 10, which is about the war that David should have been fighting in instead of watching naked women. But I don't think it's the main point.

The application that I hear most often is that even the best human leaders mess up, but that doesn't stop God using them. That's kind of true, and it is definitely important to know and understand that there is such a thing as real forgiveness, but it is a) so not the point of the passage and b) like a surgeon, very dangerous when not qualified properly.

What is the main point? Well, in 2 Samuel 12, Nathan the prophet confronts David with his behaviour in quite a clever way, ending with this conclusion from God...

Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

2 Samuel 12:9-14, NIV

Yes, David repents, and that's what Psalm 51 is about, and there's a lot we can learn about repentance from that. Repentance saves David's life here, but it doesn't make it all alright. The next EIGHT CHAPTERS are all about the virtual collapse of the kingdom because of David's sons Absalom and Amnon and their lack of self control when it comes to having sex with the wrong women and killing people, which was exactly David's problem. Later, David's son and successor Solomon would have the same problem with women, which would lead to the kingdom splitting up. The start of the disastrous downward spiral in Israel's history from the high point of God's promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 and his victories in 2 Samuel 8-10 is often traced to Solomon's palace building, or to his very large number of foreign wives who introduced adultery, but actually I think it starts with David and Bathsheba. Yes, there's a kind of repeat of that with Solomon, but Solomon is just following in the footsteps of his father, only worse, as Solomon's son does after him.

The key message of 2 Samuel 11, David and Bathsheba, is that sin among the leaders of God's people is incredibly destructive. Yes, it can be forgiven if and when we repent, but that only means we don't go to hell immediately (and sinning more because we think we can be forgiven needs to be repented of itself). But it doesn't take away the awful temporal consequences of that sin for God's people.

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.
James 3:1-2, NIV

David was one of the best kings there was, but he was not good enough.

The lesson of this is that leaders need to be holy. And while that should be strived for, at the end of the day, it is unattainable. The only adequate leader of God's people, the only king who is good enough is Great David's Greater Son - Jesus.

TV v Church

I was on TV this morning. I'd much much rather have been at church. But I said yes to being in the audience of some BBC religious discussion program before checking to see whether it was on Sunday morning or not. "No-one could possibly be stupid enough to film a religious discussion programme on Sunday morning." I thought. "It would blatantly make for a biased audience."

I was sitting right behind the panel on a kind of tiered seating thing. That meant that I couldn't scratch my crotch or pick my nose at all for an hour or so. Not that I do that sort of thing much normally, but knowing that I can't makes it very difficult not to. Great evidence for the existence of original sin - we want to do exactly what we're forbidden from doing. But the prospect of having a decent fraction of the country knowing me as the guy who was adjusting his genitals on live TV while people around me were discussing murder stopped me in the end.

Anyway, I'd much rather have been at church, and wish I'd checked my diary first or said "no" or something. I'll go this evening, but I just felt as if I was getting settled into the morning congregation there...

Greg Haslam - Preach the Word

This book seems to be very highly regarded among charismatics, especially the more theologically conservative ones. It's a book of 52 talks-cum-essays on the subject of preaching, given by a range of preachers from moderate conservatives (John Stott, Chris Wright) to popular evangelists (J John, Jeff Lucas), to black Pentecostal pastors. Each takes a different angle (e.g. Narrative Preaching, How to Preach Old Testament Law, Preaching to Change Nations, ...)

As is inevitable with so many contributors and so many topics, there is a range of quality, and a range of different views on several topics (especially e.g. how much to prepare / script and the balance between Biblical exposition / thematic preaching / speaking into situations) but many of them really are very good. I've quoted it a fair few times on here.

What this book excels in is stuff about motivating people for preaching and stuff on the craft / art of actually preaching. What it is weak on, perhaps because it doesn't aim to cover it, is how to get the main point from a passage.

Or, to say the same thing in technical language, it's good for motivation to preach; it's probably the best book I've ever read on homiletics, especially from a charismatic perspective; don't expect it to cover much in the way of exegesis.

Breakdowns

Cars are odd things. My previous car was also my first car. It was a Fiat Punto. The guidebook to used cars said that Fiat Puntos were meant to be reliable. I didn't buy that guidebook again...

The first big problem was when the oil thingy malfunctioned. Then something made a hole in the side of the cylinder block, so I had that replaced. Then the head gasket blew in the replacement. So I got a different guidebook and bought a Toyota Yaris. Everyone agrees they are reliable.

The reliability has been great so far. I got it on an approved used car thing, so it's on warranty as well. First problem I had was a slow puncture. I took it to Kwik Fit, where they told me that the dodgy tyre was significantly older than the car. Had that replaced. Today I had a tyre blow, as in properly blow while driving down the M4.

If the steering suddenly goes both light and very difficult to control at the same time, the car starts tilting to the right and there's a huge amount of noise and smoke coming from a wheel, chances are you've blown a tyre.

That makes it three times inside a year I've had to get breakdown people out. And the only previous time in my life I've needed them was in 1982.

(Photo added 8th September, 1259 to show what a tyre looks like after such an event)