Jay posted a thoughtful response to my previous post on the irrelevancy of mainline Christianity. In particular he addresses my use of the term "Christ crucified" as a measure of the unique calling that only the Christian church offers among all of the functions in society. He points out that the church is often the only means for social gathering in many communities and that there are differences in what we mean when we preach the centrality of Christ in the church. I encourage you to read his post at length for additional comments. I want to address where I think we actually might disagree, although I am not sure that we really do. I started posting his as a comment, but then it got long enough to merit a follow-up post. I hope others might entertain and join in this conversation as well.
The central issue I raise is when the church attempts to supply social function prior to its calling as the institution that supplies salvation. Part of the problem is the very notion therapeutic of a personal savior. By salvation I am looking at it as a macro-scale. We all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it. What seems to be the case in the liberal churches is a focus on the macro issues without making it clear that it is the unique event of Christ that makes the desire to change social structures. However, this desire often dissolves into reinforcing therapeutic belonging for which the notion of Christ is simply unnecessary. The source of tension is thus missing and that source of tension is in the uniqueness of why we join this community rather than another. In other words, conversion is missing from the discussion – to be a different person and community for the sake of Christ which comes with demands of discipleship. I would argue that even if the church is the only palpable source of social community-building that the call of discipleship still remain at the fore.
For evangelicals, the therapeutic alone tends to be the source of tension. "Come to us, so that you may be changed." Romans 12:1-2 are often quoted over and over again. But then there has been little or no demand outside the walls of the community other than to ask people to assimilate to that community which is where the rest of Romans 12 goes to expand on that notion of individual transformation. They understand reinforcing social tension through the uniqueness of what Christ does "for me" (which is why retention is better), but the way they do it has tended to be socially anemic outside the walls of the community. It is a follow-through to the legacy of American individualism in religion from the Great Awakening onward.
I am looking for a medium here. Liberalism that demands that people become something different for the sake of Christ. The Gospel is that the world needs a savior (not just indivuduals) and we are a misguided bunch of humans on this speck of a planet we call home. I think liberals are uncomfortable with the prophetic message that the world would indeed fall to pieces but for the grace of God, although I have seen changes occurring in recent years. There are evangelicals more and more concerned about the macro-social issues and liberals more and more concerd about the micro-social importance of personal accountability and discipleship as outcomes of conversion. Buit it is not enough. I want to see if liberals can be clear in their language and accompanied actions that the church is unique because it demands conversion and discipleship of people rather than because it offers social and psychological comforts through crock pots and concerts.
As far as attracting people, the church has been asking that question too long and without any success. Insanity is when one continues to do something repeatedly when it results in the same lack of reward (whatever that reward is). It would be better if we can help the people we have understand why they persist in church as opposed to some other social organization. The United States is not becoming more secular, but it is increasingly pluralist religiously, socially, etc. Hence the need to express clarity of purpose and uniqueness of identity in the religious marketplace.
The clarity of this purpose is to change the world for Christ''s sake and to do so even at the expense of our current congregational structures. If that makes people uncomfortable, it should. Jesus never asks us for our comfort, yet American Christians are guilty of social, material, and psychological comfort over-ruling a discipleship that mirrors Jesus" works in the world.
Related posts:
