My latest column at Christian Week:
This summer I read Iain Murray's two-volume biography of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Welsh preacher who lived from 1899-1981. It caused me to reflect on the condition of the church in North America and our response.
When Lloyd-Jones pastored, churches then were in decline, and traditional approaches to ministry were considered outmoded. Churches responded with three different approaches that seem familiar.
1. Doing church better
Some tried to "popularize the church and make it appeal to people," offering "special inducements and attractions." Lloyd-Jones once listened patiently as church members in London suggested "more music, livelier music, special musical numbers, shorter sermons, sermons not so deep, more variety in the services, etc." in order to increase attendance. Churches adopted "the methods of big business and advertising" in an attempt to stem the tide.
But even then, doing church better did not lead to greater overall attendance. Lloyd-Jones said, "Our attempts are hopeless failures...The world today is laughing at the church, laughing at her attempts to be nice and to make people feel at home."
Many today are also concluding that doing church better is not the answer. "You can build the perfect church - and they still won't come," observes one recent author.
2. Adapting theology
Others argued that theology had to change. They believed that the old doctrines were too narrow, that human knowledge had progressed, and that preaching should focus less on conversion and more on following the example of Jesus and on political issues. The message of Christianity had to be recast for new times.
Some today argue that theology needs to change. I understand the desire to rethink what we believe. We should never mindlessly accept dogma. But I've become increasingly uncomfortable with theological innovation. In changing the message, it's easy to lose it.
"The more the Church has accommodated her message to suit the palate of the people," said Lloyd-Jones, "the greater has been the decline in attendance at places of worship."
3. Renewed focus on the Gospel
"The Church has never tried so hard to deal with the situation as she has tried in this century," said Lloyd-Jones. "We have never had so many organizations, we have never worked so hard, but we are not touching the situation."
"The trouble with us, I am afraid, is that we have not sufficiently diagnosed the situation," he said. "We are still confident in our methods. It seems to me that there is no hope until we shall have so realized the nature of the problem that we are driven to our knees, to wait upon God."
People found it hard to believe that Lloyd-Jones focused on preaching the Gospel and emphasizing the need for the Holy Spirit to empower the church. Many thought that this approach was hopelessly outdated. Yet the results of his ministry were profound, and its effects still continue to today.
As a pastor, I've dabbled in each of these approaches. The church growth movement has given us some valuable insights. I'm convinced, though, that people aren't staying away from the church because of the quality of the music or the inadequacy of the parking. The issues run deeper.
I've also built relationships with some who are rethinking theology. Rethinking our beliefs can be helpful, but I've sometimes cringed as I've heard careless statements and witnessed uncertainty and a willingness to put almost everything on the table for discussion. Scripture does not give us much room to dabble with its message.
I'm beginning to see more people take the approach that Lloyd-Jones advocated, even - especially - among younger people. Influential pastors like Tim Keller are emphasizing Gospel-centered ministry. Blogs, books, and groups like The Gospel Coalition are being formed around a renewed focus on the Gospel.
"We need to come back to what Jeremiah called 'the ancient Paths,'" one pastor wrote to me recently. "I have discovered that what we really need is to get back to the Gospel and make that central to all that we do." The way forward to effective ministry in a new day, it turns out, looks an awful lot like the path back to the Gospel.
Dear Darryl:
Nice post. I believe that the British church faced cultural changes a generation or two ago that Americans are facing now (Canada is somewhat in between, I think.) The options that a Lloyd-Jones faced--church re-engineering, theology re-engineering, and gospel reclamation--are roughly the same options that are in front of us now. I think it's insightful of you to see that.
To think that the main problem is church program or theology is a mistake. For example, many emergents hate the arrogance of the church and want more humility. So they have decided to re-formulate our epistemology and understanding of truth. That way we won't feel we are as 'certain.' But why handle it that way? There's all kinds of bad side-effects to that. What they are after is the humility that comes very practically through gospel renewal in the life.
However, I'd tweak your advice a bit. You seem to make it sound it's category #3--not #1 or #2 at all. I think you must lead with gospel reclamation, that if you do, it will definitely result in new ways of doing church and probably some enriched and even changes in the way we formulate our theology. The history of revivals--which were pre-eminently times of gospel reclamation--have always been also times of ministry innovation and theological re-formulation.
Tim
Tim,
I love your tweak. Thanks for the comment.
I like where you're going Darryl. You raise some very important questions and point out some critically important insights.
To your point, Our Savior Jesus Christ, Jeremiah, Moses and all the other prophets of the Old and New Testaments taught the same Gospel and doctrines and were firm in thier teachings. They didn't change the Gospel or its doctrines to make the people "happy" or "Easier" for them. God told them what to say and they said it, end of story.
The bigest problem we have with religion these days is that for the most part, what they teach doctrinally will change in a year or so to "keep up with the times". I feel it in my bones that this approach is wrong. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is what it is. If we change it to be "popular" then we are no better then the sadducees and pharisees of Jesus' time that destroyed the Law of Moses by adding to it to be "popular".
I don't want to compare, but the mormon church has done a great job of keeping their teachings consistant. My opinion is that this is where they derive their strength and unity because their teachings are straight from their scriptures and are the same as they were 100 years ago. I found this website that talks a bit about thier beliefs for your FYI.
http://mysite.verizon.net/resvvgeg/Index.htm
We need to teach the same teachings that Christ taught, or we are losing our foundation. I look at what the church was like when Jesus was on the Earth and then at modern religion and I wonder what happened to the Prophets, Apostles, Priesthood, raising people from the dead, etc, etc. This is the foundation that people are missing. They look at modern religion and don't see any similarities to what the Bible teaches.
I hope this helps. I pray that all of us can get back on track someday soon with that same gospel taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
Dan-
Dan:
Actually, the Mormon church has changed some of its teachings in some pretty substantial ways. Not to pick on Mormonism, but I don't think it's true that their beliefs are the same as they used to be in every respect.
There is an element of cultural adaptation that is valid, but the core of the message never changes. We can't lose our grip on the gospel.