Two heavyweight proponents of gospel, grace, and godliness – Michael Horton and Tim Keller – discuss suffering, forgiveness, Justification through Faith, Evangelicalism (and Fundamentalism), along with a number of other topics in this thoughtful conversation between old friends. (According to Horton, this conversation was his last with Tim Keller, before Keller’s death in Spring of 2023.)
Much to chew on here. I think I’ll be watching this one again, and maybe again and again.
It seems that Micah 6.8 is quite clear and straight-forward in its summary of living as God’s People in this world:
He has shown you, O man, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To do justice, and to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God.
Yet, for some reason, many Christians, and too many churches, operate as if doing justice and mercy are components of some sort of optional deluxe Christianity plan – something for those who want to enlist in a branch of the spiritual special forces, but not something expected of every ordinary follower of Christ.
Tim Keller, in his textbook-like Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City, offers up some thoughts about the missional and evangelistic benefits of being faithful to what God “has shown us … is good”:
“Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders and inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than our words in gaining plausibility (Acts 4:32–33). Leaders in most places see “word-only” churches as net costs to their community, organizations of relatively little value. But effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “We cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community that if it were to leave the neighborhood, we would have to raise taxes.” Evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and celebrate by the giving of reports, testimonies, and prayers. It is best that offerings for mercy ministries are received separately from the regular offering; they can be attached (as is traditional) to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. This connection brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (i.e., the gospel makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.”
In March 2019, noted church leader Tim Keller delivered this keynote address at The Hendricks Center Gala. In this address Keller identifies some of the ways that ministering in our present cultural context may be different from ministering in the past. Whether one agrees with Keller’s assessments or not, all would be wise to at least consider the issues he raises, while considering the particular contexts in which we each live and serve.
Paul, the Apostle, wrote to the Church in Corinth:
The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ… (2 Corinthians 10.5)
Taking our thoughts “captive” simply means to be aware of what we are thinking, and exercising control over our thoughts by subordinating them to what God says; it is forming our opinions and convictions upon Scripture above any other sources of information. Even over our own experiences.
To the Romans Paul wrote similarly:
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12.2)
Again, Paul is asserting the importance of thinking biblically.
As a culture, we are thinking and talking politically and sociologically about justice, but not theologically or Biblically. Perhaps this is what we ought to expect of the culture. But it is also true of the American Church. It is true of the Church, largely, because we are not, and we have not been, talking about the issues in our churches. Consequently, church members, Christians who are inundated with the socio-politcal perspective from the daily news and common rhetoric don’t have a biblcial framework through which to filter, and talk about, these issues.
This panel discussion, from The Gospel Coalition 2015 Conference, consisting of panelists Tim Keller, Voddie Baucham, Thabiti Anyabwile, John Piper, and Miguel Núñez, is five years old, but it is compellingly applicable to our current cultural discussion.
More than 200 names for God are recorded in the Bible. All of them are important. Each of them reveals and affirms certain characteristics of God. While God is incomprehensible – we will never exhaust what there is to know about Him – He is nevertheless knowable. He has revealed himself to us. To know God is to recognize what He is like – and what He is not like. As J.I. Packer once said:
“Those who know God have great thoughts of God.”
So what is God like?
This is not an academic question. Though certainly there are some Academics in the news recently who may have been well served to have given a little more thought to the question before holding a press conference only to display syncretistic ignorance. But even in that instance the question is not merely academic. It is personal.
When asked: “What is the greatest commandment?”, Jesus unhesitatingly declared: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22.36-40; Deuteronomy 6.1-7) So let me ask a somewhat rhetorical question: “How can one love God if little to nothing is known about God? Further, even if it is possible to love a god one knows little about, (and I suspect that it may be possible,) how can we claim to be keeping the command to “Love God with all your mind” if we do not engage our minds to learn more and more about him?
Now let me be clear about something: If you are reading this post, and you feel you are less knowledgeable theologically than you think you ought to be, I am not trying to shame you. Truth is this: I am fairly theologically educated. If you have any knowledge of God at all, the difference between your little knowledge and my educated knowledge is so minimal when compared to what knowledge there is to be known about God, that any sense of haughtiness I might be inclined to project would be laughable, if such pomposity would not be so pathetic. My concern is not who knows more than who, but rather whether we know God, and whether, in keeping with the greatest command, we are engaging our minds to be continually growing in our knowledge of God.
If you have a desire to love the Lord with all your mind, let me offer a handful of suggested books about God with which to feed your mind. None of these are technical, but all are excellent. (To my mind, these are actually better than most of the technical theological books I have read.)
This list is far from exhaustive. There are many excellent books on this subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to add to this list to do so in the comment section. Sadly, there are many, many, bad books under this heading as well. Some of the better books I left off this list are Knowing God by J.I. Packer and Reason for God by Timothy Keller. While I enjoyed and highly commend both of these, the list above reflects a thorough introduction and/or reflection, yet easy reads. Keller’s is excellent for those asking the question: Is There a God? Packer’s would be on my list for next steps.
I will end with this: Earlier this year I heard a statement, attributed to John Piper (though I have been unable to confirm it is his), that stuck with me, resonates, and is appropriate to ponder:
“The mind provides kindling for the heart.”
Being part of one of the relatively few denominations that still ordains to church office only those who meet the Biblical criteria, I sometimes resonate with whoever the comedian or cartoon character was who was noted for saying: “Nobody understands me.” While that is a bit of an overstatement, as I do not stand alone, I do often find that there is need to explain myself; to defend the basis of our practice. This is especially true as it applies to restriction of the office of Elder to men only.
I am not a sexist. So I understand the raised eyebrows implicitly questioning if my church and I are somehow stuck in a time warp. I understand the perplexity when I have the audacity to declare that I believe, and our church believes, in the equality of men and women. If we truly believe in “equality” how can we continue with our traditional practices? I will get to that in a moment.
Compounding the misunderstanding, I am afraid, are those who share our same practice, but have an entirely different attitude behind it. Some even within our denomination. Those to whom I refer are those who embrace a position of patriarchy. (I often refer to these folks as the “He Men Women Haters Club”.) Often such people refer to their position as “Biblical Patriarchy”, but aside from a few anecdotal illustrations they find in the Bible (usually devoid of appropriate context) I would suggest there is little to nothing Biblical about their position. Nevertheless, I find that, because of our practices, many people see little difference between our views and and the patriarchy proponents.
Part of the reason for this misunderstanding is that many people seem to have bought into the premise that there are only two views on the subject: Patriarchal or Egalitarian. In short, Patriarchy is the view that men are created to and commanded to rule. Egalitarianism is the view that not only are men and women equal, they are essentially the same, and therefore interchangeable. While in no way endorsing patriarchy, I suspect the egalitarian view has contributed to the rise of gender confusion, though that is an entirely different subject, and outside the scope of my intent for this post. Nevertheless, if it were true that there are really only these two theoretical options, then it would be reasonable to judge someone on this issue bases upon how close to which he or she stands, or how close church practices stand, in proximity to either of these two poles.
In the present sermon series in our church I am working through Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Rather I should say “we” are working through the book of Galatians, as while I am preaching the bulk of the messages I am sharing the teaching with my Associate, Camper Mundy, and a couple of other pastors who are part of our church. But in my preparations for each message there are a few non-technical resources I am uising that would also be beneficial for anyone who is studying Galatians – whether a seminary graduate or a typical church member wanting simply to deepen his/her understanding of this letter.
One of these resources is Tim Keller’s Galatians For You. In the video above Tim introduces his intent in developing this book, and offers some suggestions of how it might be used beneficailly. And though perhaps to those hearing my message may assume seeming little of Keller’s words may be overtly expressed my messages, without question the depth of Keller’s insights has helped shaped my understanding of this book and how the message applies to us today.
Below is a short list of some of the non-technical resources I am reading (or re-reading) during this series, Freedom: A Study of Galatians.
No matter how many times I have seen them, my bemusement has never seemed to wane. I appreciate the zeal, yet marvel at the naivete’. Signs and banners adorning church doors and properties: “Revival Tonight!” “Revival This Week!”
Don’t get me wrong, I long to experience revival – a genuine work of God, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in ways that bring widespread renewal. But whenever I see such signs I am reminded of something I heard long ago: “Just because you put up a sign does not mean there is a revival; and if there is a true revival, you won’t need to put up a sign.”
Again, while I appreciate the zeal, I suspect many people are confused about what a revival is and is not. A genuine revival is beyond human control. It is a work of God. A Reformation, on the other hand, is something that we – the Church – should continually labor toward. A Reformation is the conforming of our practices to the ways of God expressed in the Word. There is always need for us to be at work to this end, since we are prone to drift toward fads and to our own devices. But where we work toward Reformation, we can only – and must! – pray for Revival.
As we embark on a new year, a time when many of us pause and press the mental reset button, I am praying that perhaps in this coming year I might see and experience a genuine revival. But I wonder if what I pray for is the same as what those who place signs on their doors are hoping to see. As I consider the possible differences of opinion I may have from others on this subject, I appreciate the insights of Tim Keller describing one of the points of confusion – the difference between Seasons of Revival and mere Revivalism:
How do seasons of revival come? One set of answers comes from Charles Finney, who turned revivals into a “science.” Finney insisted that any group could have a revival any time or place, as long as they applied the right methods in the right way. Finney’s distortions, I think, led to much of the weakness in modern evangelicalism today, as has been well argued by Michael Horton over the years. Especially under Finney’s influence, revivalism undermined the more traditional way of doing Christian formation. That traditional way of Christian growth was gradual – whole family catechetical instruction – and church-centric. Revivalism under Finney, however, shifted the emphasis to seasons of crisis. Preaching became less oriented to long-term teaching and more directed to stirring up the affections of the heart toward decision. Not surprisingly, these emphases demoted the importance of the church in general and of careful, sound doctrine and put all the weight on an individual’s personal, subjective experience. And this is one of the reasons (though not the only reason) that we have the highly individualistic, consumerist evangelicalism of today.
Read the rest of Keller’s article: Revival: Ways & Means
by Tim Keller
THE WORSHIP WARS
One of the basic features of church life in the U.S. today is the proliferation of worship and music forms. This in turn has caused many severe conflicts both within individual congregations and whole denominations. Most books and articles about recent worship trends tend to fall into one of two broad categories.
Contemporary Worship: Plugging In?
One CW advocate writes vividly that we must ‘plug in’ our worship in to three power sources: “the sound system, the Holy Spirit, and contemporary culture.” But several problems attend the promotion of strictly contemporary worship.
First, some popular music does have severe limitations for worship. Critics of popular culture argue that much of it is the product of mass-produced commercial interests. As such, it is often marked by sentimentality, a lack of artistry, sameness, and individualism in a way that traditional folk art was not.
Second, when we ignore historic tradition we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people. An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community. Nor is it a thoughtful response to the post-modern rootlessness which now leads so many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.
Finally, any worship that is strictly contemporary will become ‘dated’ very, very quickly. Also, it will necessarily be gauged to a very narrow ‘market niche.’ When Peter Wagner says we should ‘plug in’ to contemporary culture, which contemporary culture does he mean? White, black, Latin, urban, suburban, ‘Boomer,’ or ‘GenX’ contemporary culture? Just ten years ago, Willow Creek’s contemporary services were considered to be ‘cutting edge.’ Today, most younger adults find them dated and ‘hokey.’
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of contemporary worship enthusiasts is the assumption that culture is basically neutral. Thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adapt our worship to any particular cultural form. But worship that is not rooted in any particular historic tradition will often lack the critical distance to critique and avoid the excesses and distorted sinful elements of the particular surrounding, present culture. For example, how can we harness contemporary Western culture’s accessibility and frankness, but not its individualism and psychologizing of moral problems?
Historic Worship: Pulling Out?
HW advocates, on the other hand, are strictly ‘high culture’ promoters, who defend themselves from charges of elitism by arguing that modern pop music is inferior to traditional folk art. But problems also attend the promotion of strictly traditional, historic worship.
First, HW advocates cannot really dodge the charge of cultural elitism. A realistic look at the Christian music arising from the grassroots folk cultures of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (not commercially produced pop music centers) reveals many of the characteristics of contemporary praise and worship music–simple and accessible tunes, driving beat, repetitive words, and emphasis on experience. In the U.S., an emphasis on strictly high culture music and art will probably only appeal to college educated elites.
Second, any proponent of ‘historic’ worship will have to answer the question – ‘whose’ history? Much of what is called ‘traditional’ worship is rooted in northern European culture. While strict CW advocates bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict HW advocates bind it too heavily to a past culture. Do we really believe that the 16th century Northern European approach to emotional expression and music (incarnate in the Reformation tradition) was completely Biblically informed and must be preserved?
Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of traditional worship advocates is the assumption that certain historic forms are more pure, Biblical, and untainted by human cultural accretions. Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember the essential relativity of all traditions. Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the ‘noetic’ effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture’s way of doing worship. A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus’ condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7.8-9) While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.
Bible, Tradition, and Culture
At this point, the reader will anticipate that I am about to unveil some grand ‘Third Way’ between two extremes. Indeed, many posit a third approach called “Blended” worship. But it is not so simple as that. My major complaint is that both sides are equally simplistic in the process by which they shape their worship.
CW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) contemporary culture, while HW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) historic tradition. But we forge worship best when we consult a) the Bible, b) the cultural context of our community, and c) the historic tradition of our church. 10 The result of this more complex process will not be simply a single, third “middle way.” There are at least nine worship traditions in Protestantism alone. 11 That is why the book you are reading provides examples of culturally relevant worship that nonetheless deeply appreciates and reflects its historic tradition.
This more complex approach is extremely important to follow. The Bible simply does not give us enough details to shape an entire worship service. When the Bible calls us to sing God’s praises, we are not given the tunes nor the rhythm. We are not told how repetitive the lyrics are to be or not to be, nor how emotionally intense the singing should be. When we are commanded to do corporate prayer, we are not told whether those prayers should be written, unison prayers or extemporary prayers. 12 So to give any concrete form to our worship, we must “fill in the blanks” that the Bible leaves open. When we do so, we will have to draw on a) tradition, b) the needs, capacities and cultural sensibilities of our people, and c) our own personal preferences. Though we cannot avoid drawing on our own preferences, this should never be the driving force. (cf. Romans 15.1-3) Thus, if we fail to do the hard work of consulting both tradition and culture, we will – wittingly or unwittingly – just tailor music to please ourselves.
THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE WORSHIP MOVEMENT
Sally Morgenthaler’s interview with young pastors (Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, Ron Johnson, Doug Pagitt, Clark Crebar) in Worship Leader (May/June 1998) “Authentic Worship in a Postmodern Culture” and Fernando Ortega’s interview in Prism in Nov/Dec 1997 are indications of some major cracks in the foundation of evangelical assumptions about what kind of services will reach ‘secular’ people.
The crisis (that is here? coming?) in the church growth movement due to the fact that the attack on seeker-sensitive worship is coming from inside, that is, from the pastors of fast growing ‘mega-churches’ (though the name and category is eschewed) filled with under-30’s. These pastors claim that the Willow Creek inspired services supposedly adapted for the unchurched were calibrated for a very narrow and transitory kind of unchurched person: namely, college educated, white, Baby Boomers, suburbanites. The increasingly multi-ethnic, less rational/word-oriented, urban oriented and more secular generations under the age of 35 are not the same kind of ‘unchurched’ people. The critique is that Willow Creek ‘over-adapted’ to the rational, a-historical ‘high modern’ world-view.
The younger pastors say that Willow Creek services do several things that alienate the seekers of their generations:
a) It removed transcendence from its services by utilizing light, happy music and tone, complete accessibility of voice, using dramatic sketches that create a nightclub or TV-show atmosphere. But their generations hunger for awe.
b) It ditched connection to history and tradition and went completely contemporary in all cultural references, from sermon illustrations to decoration to antiseptic ‘suburban mall/office building’ setting.But their generations hunger for rootedness, and love a pastiche of ancient and modern.
c) It emphasized polish and technical excellence and slick professionalism and management technique, while their generations hunger for authenticity and community rather than programs.
d) It emphasizes rationality and practical ‘how-to’ maps, while their generations hunger for narrative and the personal.
A SOLUTION: EVANGELISTIC WORSHIP
Two models, with problems
The most thoughtful members of the Seeker Friendly Service movement agree that the straight “seeker service” is not really worship, and therefore new believers are brought out of the seeker service into a weekly worship service for believers. The critics, on the other hand, generally see the worship service as the place for renewing and edifying believers who then go out into the world to do evangelism. The two models then, seem to be:
There are pragmatic problems with both models. The SFC model is financially very expensive, it is hard to assimilate new Christians out of seeker services into real worship services. And if the main worship service is very oriented toward seekers, the Christians often feel under-fed. On the other hand the critics cannot avoid the charge that they are not proposing any alternative to the current evangelistically ineffective church. One critic is very typical when he writes: “”While we [the seeker-friendly church] try to entice the world to come to church to hear the Gospel, the New Testament proclaims a powerful church worshipping God going out into the world in order to reach the lost (cf. The book of Acts.) True revivals have historically proved…that a revived and healthy church reaches a dying and lost world through its own awakened people.” This view says, “evangelism will take care of itself as long as we have great worship”. But the history of revivals also shows us innovations in outreach.
The Great Awakening was marked by two men who were remarkable innovators – George Whitefield in evangelism and John Wesley in organization. Many criticize seeker services because they are “not worship” and contain many elements of “entertainment”. Often they call us to look, instead at the revivals of the past. But they do not criticize George Whitefield for attracting huge crowds to his own “seeker programs”. He drew people into open air meetings with a kind of preaching that was unparalleled at the time in its popular appeal – his humor, his stories, his dramatically acted-out illustrations, and his astounding oratorical gifts drew tens of thousands. At the time he was labeled an “entertainer”. His meetings were not worship nor did they replace worship, but they were certainly critical to the revival. They provided Christians with a remarkable place to do friendship evangelism. His meetings were all over the city on virtually every day of the week. Whitefield’s evangelism was enormously aggressive and passionate. His preaching was racy and popular yet pointed toward the transcendent and holy God. Yet his public meetings shared many of the characteristics (and criticisms) of seeker services today.
Whitefield and Wesley did not become instruments of revival by simply being great expository preachers and renewing historic worship.
My main problem with the two models, however, is theological. They both assume that worship cannot be highly evangelistic. I want to show that this is a false premise. Churches would do best to make their “main course” an evangelistic worship service, supplemented by both a) numerous, variegated, creative, even daily (but not weekly) seeker-focused events, and b) intense meetings for Bible study and corporate prayer for revival and renewal.
Theological basis
God commanded Israel to invite the nations to join in declaring his glory. Zion is to be the center of world-winning worship. (Isaiah 2.2-4; 56.6-8) “Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord…so the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord”. (Psalm 102.18) Psalm 105 is a direct command to believers engage in evangelistic worship. The Psalmist challenges them to “make known among the nations what he has done” (v.1.) How? “Sing to him, sing praise to him; tell of his wonderful acts” (v.2) Thus believers are continually told to sing and praise God before the unbelieving nations. (See also Psalm 47.1; 100.1-5.) God is to be praised before all the nations, and as he is praised by his people, the nations are summoned and called to join in song.
Peter tells a Gentile church, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2.9) This shows us that the church is challenged to the same witness that Israel was called to – evangelistic worship. A key difference: in the Old Testament, the center of world-winning worship was Mt. Zion, but now, wherever we worship Jesus in spirit and in truth (John 4.21-26) we have come to the heavenly Zion. (Hebrews 12.18-24) In other words, the risen Lord now sends his people out singing his praises in mission, calling the nations to join both saints and angels in heavenly doxology. Jesus himself stands in the midst of the redeemed and leads us in the singing of God’s praises (Hebrews 2.12), even as God stands over his redeemed and sings over us in joy. (Zephaniah 3.17)
Biblical cases
Paul is addressing the misuse of the gift of tongues. He complains that tongues speaking will cause unbelievers to say they are out of their minds (v.23.) He insists that the worship service must be comprehensible to them. He says that if an unbeliever ” or unlearned one” (an uninitiated inquirer) comes in, and worship is being done “unto edification” , “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all” (v.24.) Of what does this conviction consist? “The secrets of his heart will be laid bare” (v.25.) It may mean he realizes that the worshippers around him are finding in God what his heart had been secretly searching for, but in the wrong ways. It may mean the worship shows him how his heart works. The result: “so falling on his face, he will worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you’” (v.25.)
When the Spirit falls on those in the upper room, a crowd gathers (v.5) because a) they are hearing the disciples praising God (“we hear them declaring the wonders of God” v.11), an d b) and also because this worship is “in our own tongues” (v.11.) As a result, they are first made very interested (“amazed and perplexed they asked one another, ‘what does this mean’” v.11), and later they are convicted deeply (“they were cut to the heart and said…’Brethren, what shall we do?’” v.37.)
Comparison
There are obvious differences between the two situations. 1 Corinthians 14 pictures conversion happening on the spot (which is certainly possible.) In Acts 2 the non-believers are shaken out of their indifference (v.12), but the actual conversions (v.37-41) occurred at the end of an “after meeting” in which Peter explained the gospel (v.14-36) and showed them how to individually receive Christ (v.38-39.) It is often pointed out that the tongues in the two situations are different. But students usually are looking so carefully at what the two passages teach about tongues and prophecy that they fail to note what they teach about worship and evangelism. We can learn this:
1. Non-believers are expected to be present in Christian worship. In Acts 2 it happens by word-of-mouth excitement. In 1 Corinthians 14 it is probably the result of personal invitation by Christian friends. But Paul in 14.23 expects both “unbelievers” and “the unlearned” (literally “a seeker”– “one who does not understand”) to be present in worship.
2. Non-believers must find the praise of Christians to be comprehensible. In Acts 2 it happens by miraculous divine intervention. In I Corinthians 14 it happens by human design and effort. But it cannot be missed that Paul directly tells a local congregation to adapt its worship because of the presence of unbelievers. It is a false dichotomy to insist that if we are seeking to please God we must not ask what the un-churched feel or think about our worship.
3. Non-believers can fall under conviction and be converted through comprehensible worship. In 1 Cor 14 it happens during the service, but in Acts 2 it is supplemented by “after meetings” and follow-up evangelism. God wants the world to overhear us worshipping him. God directs his people not to simply worship, but to sing his praises “before the nations.” We are not to simply communicate the gospel to them, but celebrate the gospel before them.
Three practical tasks
2. Getting unbelievers into worship.
The numbering is not a mistake. This task is actually comes second, but nearly everyone thinks it come first! It is natural to believe that they must get non-Christians into worship before they can begin “doxological evangelism”. But the reverse is the case. Non-Christians do not get invited into worship unless the worship is already evangelistic. The only way they will have non-Christians in attendance is through personal invitation by Christians. Just as in the Psalms, the “nations” must be directly asked to come. But the main stimulus to building bridges and invitation is the comprehensibility and quality of the worship experience.
Christians will instantly sense if a worship experience will be attractive to their non-Christian friends. They may find a particular service wonderfully edifying for them, and yet know that their non-believing neighbors would react negatively. Therefore, a vicious cycle persists. Pastors see only Christians present, so they lack incentive to make their worship comprehensible to outsiders. But since they fail to make the adaptations, Christians who are there (though perhaps edified themselves) do not think to bring their skeptical and non-Christian friends to church. They do not think they will be impressed. So no outsiders come. And so the pastors respond only to the Christian audience. And so on and on. Therefore, the best way to get Christians to bring non-Christians is to worship as if there are dozens and hundreds of skeptical onlookers. And if you worship as if, eventually they will be there in reality.
1. Making worship comprehensible to unbelievers.
Our purpose is not to make the unbeliever “comfortable”. (In 1 Corinthians. 14.24-25 or Acts 2:12 and 37 – they are cut to the heart!) We aim to be intelligible to them. We must address their “heart secrets” (1 Corinthians 14.25) That means we must remember what it is like to not believe; we must remember what an unbelieving heart is like. How do we do that?
a) Worship and preaching in the “vernacular”. It is hard to overstate how ghetto-ized our preaching is. It is normal to make all kinds of statements that appear persuasive to us but are based upon all sorts of premises that the secular person does not hold. It is normal to make all sorts of references using terms and phrases that mean nothing outside or our Christian sub-group. So avoid unnecessary theological or evangelical sub-culture “jargon”, and explain carefully the basic theological concepts, such as confession of sin, praise, thanksgiving, and so on. In the preaching, showing continual willingness to address the questions that the unbelieving heart will ask. Speak respectfully and sympathetically to people who have difficulty with Christianity. As you write the sermon, imagine an particular skeptical non-Christian in the chair listening to you. Add the asides, the qualifiers, the extra explanations necessary. Listen to everything said in the worship service with the ears of someone who has doubts or troubles with belief.
b) Explain the service as you go along. Though there is danger of pastoral verbosity, learn to give 1 or 2 sentence, non-jargony explanations of each new part of the service. “When we confess our sins, we are not groveling in guilt, but dealing with our guilt. If you deny your sins you will never get free from them.” It is good to begin worship services as the Black church often does, with a “devotional”– a brief talk that explains the meaning of worship. This way you continually instruct newcomers in worship.
c) Directly address and welcome them. Talk regularly to “those of you who aren’t sure you believe this, or who aren’t sure just what you believe.” Give them many asides, even expressing the language of their hearts. Articulate their objections to Christian living and belief better than they can do it themselves. Express sincere sympathy for their difficulties, even when challenging them severely for their selfishness and unbelief. Admonish with tears (literally or figuratively.) Always grant whatever degree of merit their objections have. It is extremely important that the unbeliever feel you understand them. “I’ve tried it before and it did not work.” “I don’t see how my life could be the result of the plan of a loving God.” “Christianity is a straightjacket.” “It can’t be wrong if it feels so right.” “I could never keep it up.” “I don’t feel worthy; I am too bad.” “I just can’t believe.”
d) Quality aesthetics. The power of art draws people to behold it. Good art and its message enters the soul through the imagination and begins to appeal to the reason, for art makes ideas plausible. The quality of music and speech in worship will have a major impact on its evangelistic power. In many churches, the quality of the music is mediocre or poor, but it does not disturb the faithful. Why? Their faith makes the words of the hymn or the song meaningful despite its artistically poor expression, and further, they usually have a personal relationship with the music-presenter. But any outsider who comes in, who is not convinced of the truth and who does not have any relationship to the presenter, will be bored or irritated by the poor offering. In other words, excellent aesthetics includes outsiders, while mediocre or poor aesthetics exclude. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come. For the non-Christian, the attraction of good art will have a major part in drawing them in.
e) Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders or inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than words in gaining plausibility. The leaders of most towns see “word-only” churches as costs to their community, not a value. Effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “we cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community through its services to people that if it went out of business, we’d have to raise everybody’s taxes.” Mercy deeds give the gospel words plausibility (Acts 4.32 followed by v.33.) Therefore, evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and should celebrate through reports and testimonies and prayer what is being done. It is best that offerings for mercy ministry be separate, attached (as traditional) to the Lord’s Supper. This brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (it makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.
f) Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear. Baptism, and especially adult baptism, should be made a much more significant event if worship is to be evangelistic. There may need to be opportunity for the baptized to offer personal testimony as well as assent to questions. The meaning of baptism should be made clear. A moving, joyous, personal charge to the baptized (and to all baptized Christians present) should be made. In addition, the Lord’s Supper can become a converting ordinance. If it is explained properly, the unbeliever will have a very specific and visible way to see the difference between walking with Christ and living for oneself. The Lord’s Supper will confront every individual with the question: “are you right with God today? now?” There is no more effective way to help a person to do a spiritual inventory. Many seekers in U.S. churches will only realize they are not Christians during the fencing of the table after an effective sermon on the meaning of the gospel. (See below for more on addressing unbelievers during communion.)
g) Preach grace. The one message that both believers and unbelievers need to hear is that salvation and adoption are by grace alone. A worship service that focuses too much and too often on educating Christians in the details of theology will simply bore or confuse the unbelievers present. For example, a sermon on abortion will generally assume the listener believes in the authority of the word and the authority of Jesus, and does not believe in individual moral autonomy. In other words, abortion is “doctrine D”, and it is based on “doctrines A, B, and C.” Therefore, people who don’t believe or understand doctrines ABC will find such a sermon un-convicting and even alienating. This does not mean we should not preach the whole counsel of God, but we must major on the “ABC’s” of the Christian faith. If the response to this is “then Christians will be bored”, it shows a misunderstanding of the gospel. The gospel of free, gracious justification and adoption is not just the way we enter the kingdom, but also the way we grow into the likeness of Christ. Titus 2.11-13 tells us how it is the original, saving message of “grace alone” that consequently leads us to sanctified living: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ.” Many Christians are “defeated” and stagnant in their growth because they try to be holy for wrong motives. They say “no” to temptation by telling themselves “God will get me” or “people will find out” or “I’ll hate myself in the morning” or “it will hurt my self-esteem” or “it will hurt other people” or “it’s against the law – I’ll be caught” or “it’s against my principles” or “I will look bad”. Some or all of these may be true, but Titus tells us they are inadequate. Only the grace of God, the logic of the gospel will work. Titus says it “teaches” us, it argues with us.
Therefore, the one basic message that both Christians and unbelievers need to hear is the gospel of grace. It can then be applied to both groups, right on the spot and directly. Sermons which are basically moralistic will only be applicable to either Christians OR non-Christians. But Christo-centric preaching, preaching the gospel both grows believers and challenges non-believers. If the Sunday service and sermon aim primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints. If they aim primarily at education, they’ll bore and confuse unbelievers. If they aim at praising the God who saves by grace they’ll both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders.
3. Leading to commitment
We have seen that unbelievers in worship actually “close with Christ” in two basic ways. Some may come to Christ during the service itself. (1 Corinthians 14.24-25) Others must be “followed up” very specifically.
a) During the service. One major way to invite people to receive Christ during the service is as the Lord’s Supper is distributed. We say: “if you are not in a saving relationship with God through Christ today, do NOT take the bread and the cup, but, as they come around, take Christ. Receive him in your heart as those around you receive the food. Then immediately afterwards, come up here and tell an officer or a pastor about what you’ve done, so we can get you ready to receive the Supper the next time as a child of God.” Another way to invite commitment during the service is to give people a time of silence after the sermon. A “prayer of belief” could be prayed by the pastor (or printed in the bulletin at that juncture in the order of worship) to help people reach out to Christ. Sometimes it may be good to put a musical interlude or an offering after the sermon but before the final hymn. This affords people time to think and process what they have heard and offer themselves to God in prayer. If, however, the preacher ends his sermon, prays very briefly, and moves immediately into the final hymn, no time is given to people who are under conviction for offering up their hearts.
b) After meetings. Acts 2 seems to show us an “after meeting.” In v.12 and 13 we are told that some folks mocked upon hearing the apostles praise and preach, but others were disturbed and asked “what does this mean?” Then Peter very specifically explained the gospel, and, in response to a second question “what shall we do?” (v.37), explained very specifically how to become Christians. Historically, it has been found very effective to offer such meetings to unbelievers and seekers immediately after evangelistic worship. Convicted seekers have just come from being in the presence of God, and they are often most teachable and open. To seek to “get them into a small group” or even to merely return next Sunday is asking a lot of them. They may be also “amazed and perplexed” (Acts 2.12), and it is best to “strike while the iron is hot”. This is not to doubt that God is infallibly drawing his elect! That knowledge helps us to 16 relax as we do evangelism, knowing that conversions are not dependent on our eloquence. But the Westminster Confession tells us that God ordinarily works through secondary causes, normal social and psychological processes. Therefore, to invite people into a follow-up meeting immediately is usually more conducive to “conserving the fruit of the Word.”
After meetings may consist first of one or more persons who wait at the front of the auditorium to pray with and talk with any seekers who come forward to make inquiries right on the spot. A second after meeting can consist of a simple question-and-answer session with the preacher in some room near the main auditorium or even in the auditorium (after the postlude.) Third, after meetings should also consist of one or two classes or small group experiences targeted to specific questions non-Christians ask about the content, relevance, and credibility of the Christian faith. After meetings should be attended by skilled lay evangelists who can come alongside of newcomers and answer spiritual questions and provide guidance as to their next steps.
***
To download this paper in .pdf form, including footnotes: Click: Evangelistic Worship-Keller
A true, vibrant Christian faith is someting akin to a balancing act.
In a post this morning, Tim Keller suggested:
If we are going to grow in grace, we must stay aware of being both sinners and also loved children in Christ.
Keller’s paradigm reminded me of something Edward Payson – “Praying Payson of Portland” – wrote long ago:
True Christianity consists of a proper mixture of fear of God, and of hope in his mercy; and wherever either of these is entirely wanting, there can be no true Faith. God has joined these things, and we ought by no means to put them asunder.
He cannot take pleasure in those who fear him with a slavish fear, without hoping in his mercy, because they seem to consider him a cruel and tyrannical being, who has no mercy or goodness in his nature. And, besides, they implicitly charge him with falsehood, by refusing to believe and hope in his invitations and offers of mercy.
On the other hand, he cannot be pleased with those who pretend to hope in his mercy without fearing him. For they insult him by supposing there is nothing in him which ought to be feared. And in addition to this, they make him a liar, by disbelieving his awful threatenings denounced against sinners, and call in question his authority, by refusing to obey him.
Those only who both fear him and hope in his mercy, give him the honor that is due to his name.
Both Payson and Keller give credence to thw wisdom of Puritan Thomas Watson:
The two great graces essential to a saint in this life are faith and repentance. These are the two wings by which he flies to heaven.
Here are a handful of recommended readings about Marriage:
In this brief video, Tim Keller shows us how Jesus can be seen throughout the familiar narratives of the Old Testament. This is not an exercise like Where’s Waldo? , where you scour a picture to see if you can find the hidden face. Nor is this mere metaphor. This is God’s intended revelation of his grace that was to come. Each instance is a typology in which, through real life historical figures and events, there is a foreshadowing of the life, work, and/or character of the promised Messiah. This is why Jesus said to his disciples along the Emmaus Road: “All the Scriptures speak of me.” (See Luke 24.25-27)
Remembering 9-11. Remembering God’s Grace even more.
Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, with 9-11 in sight, reminds us:
Why does God allow evil and suffering? Look at the Cross of Jesus. It can’t be that he does not love us. It can’t be that he is indifferent.
Listen to Tim’s powerful & poignant post 9-11 message: Truth, Tears, Anger & Grace
I picked up Tim Keller‘s newest book, Center Church. It hit the bookstore shelves this morning. I have as yet read only a few chapters. But as expected it is an excellent expression of holistic gospel-centered ministry. In short it is a book about forming a Theological Vision for ministry, and living out that vision faithfully in whatever context one may live and serve in such a way as to be fruitful.
In particular I appreciate how from the outset Keller explains the difference and navigates between the two common ministry measuring sticks, success & faithfulness. It seems to me that too many act as if we should assume these are mutually exclusive – as if either is a sufficient goal or gauge. Keller instead prefers fruitfulness, seeing both benefits and limitations of success and faithfulness as the simple objectives. Fruitfulness is the end result of the complex web of faithfulness, competence, and the work of God’s Spirit. Success, whatever that really is, is not eschewed, but seen in light of the components of fruitfulness within a particular social context.
Now while I have not read the entire book, I did have one criticism from the outset. While the book is less than 400 pages, and the chapters are easily readable (in other words, one need not be a theological scholar to follow along), the size of the book has the odd dimensions of a textbook. This will look strange among most of the other books on my shelf. But, I guess, if that remains my chief gripe, there is not much to complain about.
Previewing Ross Douthat’s new book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, which hit bookstore shelves yesterday, Tim Keller draws five observations about the causes of decline in the American Church.
As Keller notes:
In his second chapter, Douthat attributes the change to five major social catalysts that have gained steam since the 1960s…
Here are the five factors:
I find these observations significant. As God’s missional people, it is important that Christians recognize not only the reality of the decline of our influence within our culture, but the specific contributing factors. Simply wishing things were the way they used to be won’t accomplish anything. It is akin to sticking our heads in the sand. But when we discern what is going on in the world around us, a number of signs direct us toward ways we may address the causes, both directly and indirectly.
Read Keller’s entire article: Redeemer City to City
GRACE & PEACE 