 |
| Dr. Rick Flanders |
1.
“Emperor-ism”—neglecting
of the role of the Spirit in the churches often led them into an exaggerated
dependence on human authority. Although this was not true in all of the
independent Baptist churches, a number of them have suffered under
authoritarian pastors, and my friend sees the source of this problem in the
neglect of the Holy Spirit in the churches.
2.
“Traditionalism”—not
walking in the Spirit is blamed for leading some independent Baptists into
living by traditions without biblical warrant. Although this accusation is used
by some to criticize the commendable practice of following and preaching high
standards of living, there is some truth in the charge that some believers live
strictly and exclusively by the rules handed down to them, and seek to keep
them in the strength of their own character and determination. The Holy Spirit
is the secret to holy living, and not rule-keeping, although guidelines for
life that rise out of Bible teaching and do not contradict Spirit-led living
can help. But ignorance of the Spirit’s ministry has left many in many
floundering in defeat within the confines of a fleshly legalism. They maintain
the standards handed down to them, but fail to experience the reality of the
Spirit-filled life.
3.
“Lack
of Love”—the fruit of the Spirit, of course, is first “love.” Therefore carnal
Christians (who live according to the lusts of their flesh), even if they
profess to be committed to Christian living, will lack love. And this lack of
real love for people will readily be detected in churches. Unfortunately, many
independent Baptist churches have been plagued with a cold, harsh, and uncaring
atmosphere, due undoubtedly to their neglect of the Spirit.
4.
“Pride”—Since
Christians who strive to live the Christian life and to serve the Lord Jesus
without depending on the Holy Spirit sometimes see a measure of outward
“success,” their tendency is to take credit for it. This is the reason for the
pride in carnal preachers. And independent Baptists have had a number of them.
The Lord Jesus warned His followers to beware of pride (as in Matthew 18:1-4),
and thus we can expect it to be a problem in every group of Christians. And so
it is. But it cannot be denied that neglect of the ministry of the Spirit has
left independent Baptists especially open to the sin of pride.
My
evangelist friend concludes correctly that while emphasizing the Holy Spirit
without emphasizing the Word of God leads to delusion, emphasizing the Word
without emphasizing the Spirit produces deadness. Deadness has been a problem
for many independent Baptist churches in recent years, and it is because so
many of us have neglected the Holy Spirit. It is as if Pentecostalism made us
afraid of Him. Of course, such an observation is a generalization with many
exceptions, as are all four of my friend’s observations about the effects
de-emphasizing the Spirit. Every group of Christians has trouble with all four
of these problems, and certainly independent Baptists have experienced them in
recent decades. But let us, as we discern that these problems come from our
neglect of the Spirit, let us also recognize a fifth significant problem experienced
by independent Baptists which has also been created by neglecting the ministry
of the Spirit. That fifth problem plaguing us today is the attraction in
Baptist churches to making unwise changes based on what is called “cultural
relevance.”
Because
they learned over the years to depend on the flesh rather than upon the Spirit,
pastors who want their churches to grow are particularly susceptible to the
enticement of cultural relevance. Anyone who has paid attention to the
conversation among pastors in the past ten to fifteen years is aware of the
emphasis that has been given to “cultural relevance.” It has been a subject of
real importance in many minds ever since students of church growth began to
adopt business methods to build churches. “Cultural relevance” is seen as
essential to the business of growing churches, especially since Southern
Baptist pastor Rick Warren began producing his “purpose-driven” books. A church
that is serious about growing in our time must make sure that their approach to
growth and to church itself is culturally relevant, we are constantly told.
What
is “cultural relevance?” Actually it is
a pedagogic term emphasizing the importance
of a teacher’s “cultural competence” in his efforts to
educate effectively students with different backgrounds. In the context of
reaching people for Christ, the term indicates that Christians must make
themselves aware of the demands and prejudices of the culture in which the
people live they are seeking to evangelize. What the culture dictates will also
dictate how the churches must evangelize, is the basis of the theory. Because
they are fundamentalists, with a conservative point of view, we would expect
independent Baptists to take offense at appeals to cultural relevance, but
these appeals are having a remarkable influence on them. Maybe our problem in
reaching people, they reason, has been that our lifestyle and church-style have
ceased having cultural relevance to those we invite to church. Who we are, how
we live, and what we do at church tend to give them a negative impression, the
experts on church growth are telling us, and they present an obstacle to those
we are commissioned to evangelize. So if we change our ways to be more culturally
relevant, we can win more souls and build bigger churches.
This
approach is especially appealing because so many independent Baptist churches
have been evangelizing and building churches based on fleshly methods and
appeals for years. In the hey-day, the thinking implies, we reached a lot of
people without much help from the Holy Spirit. Our congregations became very
large because of our effective methods, hard work, smart plans, and appealing
events. But the times and the culture have changed. This has made our old
methods ineffective. What we did in the ‘70s doesn’t work anymore. The Baptists
never say it this way, but they do think this way. So when the old flesh-based
methods quit working, it is asserted that we need simply to adopt new methods
based on the changes in our culture. What appeals to people these days? What
turns them off? Why don’t they like our churches anymore? What can we do to
make church more appealing to the unchurched? You can’t expect to succeed if
you are not willing to change, it is said. And our flesh-dependence has opened
our minds to this approach.
However,
the preachers and the people who have kept their noses in the Bible are much
less often seduced by appeals to cultural relevance. They are instead persuaded
by scripture that the way the world is to be reached is through the power of
God, and not the energy of the flesh.
“Repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning
at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the
promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye
be endued with power from on high.”
(Luke 24:47-49)
“Ye shall
receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be
witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and
unto the uttermost part of the earth.”
(Acts 1:8)
Let
Christians in the twenty-first century see how insignificant cultural relevance
is in God’s plan for evangelizing our cities, our country, and our world. The
secret to spreading the gospel effectively in any generation is partnering with
God the Holy Spirit. In comparison with the supernatural biblical means, every
natural means for evangelism based on human methodology must appear weak and
ineffective. Consider four biblical facts about cultural relevance:
1.
The first Christians did not consider cultural relevance when they set out to
evangelize their world. The book of Acts begins with the command of Jesus that
His followers spread the gospel in Jerusalem, to the surrounding area, to the
next country, and then finally to the “uttermost part of the earth” (1:8).
Then, as we continue reading, we follow them as they do it. What did they do,
and how did they do it? They prayed and were filled with the Spirit (1:12-2:4).
Then they simply worked at telling people in the city that Jesus had risen from
the dead. He ascended to the right hand of the Father, sent the Holy Spirit,
and is both Lord and Christ (2:5-47). They were bold and aggressive as they
preached the gospel to everyone, but really they just preached the gospel of
Jesus Christ. There wasn’t really any method to their work; they just worked at
it, depending on the Lord for power, boldness, and wisdom. We have no hint that
the leaders of the Jerusalem church held strategy meetings before Pentecost to
determine the most appealing approach to telling the news that the One they had
crucified at Passover arose from the dead and is the Savior of the world! It
would be hard to take the sting out of this message, and they never tried to do
it. Peter rose and made his announcement and then told the multitudes who
listened in rapt attention that they must repent. Was the cultural relevance of
the message or the delivering of it even considered? Apparently not. Was the
preaching of the gospel effective? Apparently so. The first-century world was
turned upside down through the simple obedience of Christians to the Great
Commission.
One
influential writer in the evangelical world of our day, who has expressed
concern about this focus on cultural relevance, is Karl Vaters. He is the
pastor of an Assemblies-of-God church in California who is gaining a hearing by
opposing the emphasis on cultural relevance in building churches. In the
magazine Christianity Today, he said, “Forget being culturally relevant;
the church needs to be contextually real!” The church of Jesus Christ needs to
be true to its Lord and to its mission if it is to have an effect on the world.
Conformity to the world does not go with winning the world to Christ. “Chasing
cultural relevance makes our churches look the same in ways we should be
different…from the world,” he said. “I don’t care if the church is culturally
relevant…cultural relevance is not the answer…I want the church to be better
than relevant. I want us to lead…Trying to be culturally relevant is turning
the church into followers instead of leaders.” On this issue, Mr. Vaters is
dead right. When we try to fit the culture, we cease trying to persuade
sinners. It’s as simple as that.
2.
The Holy Spirit does not seem concerned about cultural relevance in His work to
convert the lost. Of His work through Christians, Jesus said (read His words in
John 16:7-14), “He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment.” Reproof doesn’t take into account cultural relevance, and the
reproof of the Spirit is absolutely essential to the conversion of a sinner.
They were “pricked in their hearts” on the day of Pentecost before three
thousand Jews were converted to Christ (Acts 2:37). You cannot be saved until
you know you are lost, justly condemned before the law of God. The Holy Spirit
is not approaching sinners based on the principles of public relations or
cultural relevance. He is reproving them based on the Word of God we are sharing
with them. He shows them that they are in trouble, and that their only hope is
in Jesus Christ. His work through us as witnesses brings people from death unto
life. And cultural relevance has absolutely nothing to do with it.
3.
Concern about cultural relevance seems to contradict the passion for holiness.
Ephesians 5 is one of many chapters in the New Testament that calls on
Christians to live holy lives (See also John 8, First Thessalonians 4, and
First Peter 1). It tells us not to live like unbelievers (verses 1-7). It tells
us not to endorse what they do (read verses 8-11). It even says that as
children of light, we should not talk about the way wicked people live (verse
12). We are to be separate from the world. The Hebrew and Greek words for
“holy” imply separation. Those who have an obligation to separate from the sins
of the world around them cannot afford to be draw into an attraction to
cultural relevance. Can we? Shall those who have left the world behind to
follow Jesus keep looking back in the interest of maintaining some kind of
cultural relevance?
4.
Culture is based on religion. Acts 17 says that in one generation the first
Christians “turned the world upside down.” It is a fact of history that the
spread of Christianity changed the Roman Empire into “Christian civilization,”
which is the foundation of Western culture today. Culture is not morally or
religiously neutral. It is based on certain beliefs and standards. The paganism
of the Greek and Roman worlds gave the Roman Empire its culture, and the people
their way of life. The gospel of Christ changed all that. Great numbers of the
people “turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God” (First
Thessalonians 1:5-10) in just a few decades, and the culture changed. So it has
been with every great awakening. Thus conforming to the culture as a strategy
for evangelism is in reality a form of betrayal. When the churches fail to
recognize the false ideas and moral perversions behind the culture in which we
live, they adopt ways of doing things that betray the truth they claim to
represent and fail to win the people to the true God. When we preach the gospel
without apology we are actually laying the groundwork for a new culture as a
by-product of our mission. To adopt pagan culture as a way of winning pagans is
counter-productive and a form of denying Jesus. Of course, some misinterpret
and misapply the words of Paul in First Corinthians 9 about becoming as a Jew
in order to win Jews and becoming as weak in order to win the weak and becoming
all things to all men, to justify conforming to the culture for the cause of
evangelism. But if you study the whole chapter, you will find that just the
opposite is taught. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 argue that Christians ought to
refrain from eating meat sacrificed to false gods in the temples of the idols
for several good reasons, although to eat something dedicated in a ritual to an
imaginary deity cannot be proven to be inherently sinful. The idea is that
through the self-denial of the Christian life, a believer will be stricter in
his life on himself than technically he might be required to be. He will do
this out of love for others (Chapter 8), for the cause of evangelism (Chapter
9), and out of loyalty to the true God. Study it. Paul was not justifying dropping
his standards in order to please the pagans, but rather he was advocating the
raising of our standards so as to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy in order to
give credibility to our evangelism. Read it.
Making
reasonable changes in the way we do things to improve our effectiveness can
make sense, but becoming enamored with cultural relevance is dangerous. Let
independent Baptists keep their noses in the Bible, their eyes upon Jesus, and
their dependence on His Holy Spirit, as we move forward to reach our world with
the truth about the love of God and the salvation that is in His Son!
Revival Ministries