Salvation, Gospel, and Evangelism Without Repentance

When people talk about salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism, repentance is almost always central. Along the lines of the morality discussions from the last couple of days, repentance is a good thing. We need to recognize where we've screwed up so we can rectify that and grow.

However, I'm coming to realize that one can evangelize without emphasizing repentance. As I have discussed over the last couple of days, the Christian life is not about repenting of sin and becoming "holy" (i.e. pure). Rather it is about becoming holy by coming close to God through Christ.

That includes repentance and morality, but does not necessarily start nor end with it. It starts and ends with desire and love for Christ. Yet so often salvation, the Gospel, and evangelism begin and end with "Repent!" and give a cursory nod to love of and for God.

The problem is that most people I know already know how and that they have screwed up. They don't need to be reminded of that. Having God shame us and beat us up even more is not helpful. (No, I don't believe God does this, but that is the message I always get from the message people discuss of repentance.)

I thought I was not big on evangelism because I'm not big on shaming people more. And the centrality of repentance has never felt right to me. These were thoughts I had while listening to an audiobook version of Blue Like Jazz (review forthcoming).

Then I read a Celtic prayer book my wife got me for my birthday. And I realized that I actually am quite passionate about evangelism. My passion is for emphasizing the journey of faith. It's about telling people about transformation that is possible in relationship. It's about finding Truth through struggle. If I didn't have that passion, I would not be maintaining this blog or doing many other things I do.

I believe a lot of other people have a passion for evangelism but have been shamed into believing they are not evangelists because they are not telling people they suck but God loves them anyway. How different would the face of Christianity and the world be if we included repentance as a natural step in the path of faith rather than a shaming gate?

I think this is where repentance can be quite helpful: Not in telling people they suck (since most know that already), but that they need to rely on God to help with their suckiness. I think that's where a lot of us falter, even after our initial "repentance." Reliance on God and walking with him is central to the Christian faith journey. And trying to go it alone is where the central sin is, I think...

Cultural Christianity

Along the lines of yesterday's post about de-emphasizing morality, I've had some realizations recently about the reality of cultural Christianity.

By this, I don't mean the people who call themselves "Christians" and only go to church on Easter and Christmas. I mean the people who attend church on a weekly basis. The ones who are involved with the ministries. Sometimes they work for churches. They devote their lives to church. They talk about new programs they are doing or others are advocating. They love the number of people saved or baptized each week. They live pure, moral lives.

Yet God is rather absent in all of this. In Forgotten God, Francis Chan talked about the fact that a church could be run and draw people without God. I didn't realize the true reality of this until recently.

We often assume good, moral, church-attending Christians are really lovers of God. Some are. Some also don't necessarily know God at all. Again, morality can be and is a good thing. But it's not the end-all, be-all. The thing that differentiates true Christians from cultural Christians is not morality, but intimacy with God. Isaiah 58 seems to echo some of these concerns, too. At least that's some of what I think. What say you?

De-emphasizing Morality

A couple of weeks ago, a friend wrote a guest post on moralism. This weekend, I got the following email devotional from Ransomed Heart, which seems to reinforce what he said.

I think it's really important to remember that the point of Christianity is not purity, but living with and becoming closer to God. That includes morality, but more as a side-effect rather than the end-result.

An analogy that came to me recently about this is marriage. Should I be nice to my wife? Absolutely. But is the goal of marriage being nice to her? I sure hope not. The goal is intimacy. If we have an intimate relationship, I will probably have to be nice, and the more intimate we become, the nicer I will likely become. But if I just act nice all the time and think our marriage is great, I will be sorely disappointed. Yet many marriages are just like that--nice with no intimacy.

Many people's relationships with God are like that, too: They are nice to God and others, but there is no intimacy with God. Purity and morality is good, but I think we over-emphasize it as a sort of goal of Christianity rather than result of faith and relationship with God.

February 20, 2010 An Invitation to Desire This may come as a surprise to you: Christianity is not an invitation to become a moral person. It is not a program for getting us in line or for reforming society. It has a powerful effect upon our lives, but when transformation comes, it is always the aftereffect of something else, something at the level of our hearts. And so at its core, Christianity begins with an invitation to desire. Look again at the way Jesus relates to people. There is the Samaritan woman Jesus meets at the well. She has come alone in the heat of the day to draw water, and they both know why. By coming when the sun is high, she is less likely to run into anyone. You see, her sexual lifestyle has earned her a “reputation.” Back in those days, having one partner after another wasn’t looked so highly upon. She’s on her sixth lover, and so she’d rather bear the scorching rays of the sun than face the searing words of the “decent” women of the town who come at evening to draw water. She succeeds in avoiding the women, but runs into God instead. What does he choose to talk to her about—her immorality? No, he speaks to her about her thirst : “If you knew the generosity of God and who I am, you would be asking me for a drink, and I would give you fresh, living water” (John 4:10 The Message). Remarkable. He doesn’t give a little sermon about purity; he doesn’t even mention it, except to say that he knows what her life has been like: “You’ve had five husbands, and the man you’re living with now isn’t even your husband” (John 4:18 The Message). In other words, now that we both know it, let’s talk about your heart’s real thirst, since the life you’ve chosen obviously isn’t working. “The water I give will be an artesian spring within, gushing fountains of endless life” (John 4:14 The Message). (Desire , 35–36)

"Plain & Simple" Interpretation of Bible and Nature

A lot of my posts recently have been related to biblical interpretation. This first article is focused on the Bible and science, specifically in the context of evolution. I don't want to get into the evolution debate here, but the article discusses some excellent points. In particular, I like the following quotes:

Secondly, regarding Scripture itself, although Augustine and Calvin deeply trusted the Bible as a witness to Christ and the Gospel message, they did not feel any deep need for Scripture to provide dependable insights on everything in human experience.

And

Their temperament towards Scripture was very different from what prevails nowadays in pop Christian culture, where it is casually assumed that the Bible is a fool-proof guide for everything … not only for leading us to Christ and right living but also for elucidating the scholarly facts of astronomy, biology, chemistry, economics, psychology, and sociology as well as the practical facts of success in marriage, parenting, health, and personal finances.

This second article does an excellent job of exploring the idea of the "plain and simple" message of the Bible and our flawed approaches to a simple understanding. Specifically, I like this quote:

The Bible is written in plain and simple language to the common man – the common man of the ancient Near East, not the common man of the modern Far West. To put it plain and simple, my “plain and simple” is not the Bible’s “plain and simple.”

Fireproof Was Not Fireproof

This week, my wife and I received the movie Fireproof with Netflix. I'd heard a lot about it, so I was excited about seeing it for myself. It was better than I had expected.

There were a few pleasant surprises. This included the story not oversimplifying marital conflict nor the solution. So often, Christians (and secular people) argue for simple formulaic solutions--if you do such-and-such just right, then it will all work out. This film doesn't do that. Things don't work out perfectly right away or even on the "predicted" timeline. The film is rather predictable, but the predictable parts aren't as bad as I had expected.

Also, the "Love Dare" content was really quite good. They are simple suggestions that are solid in building relationships and trust. These can all-too-often be relied upon as perfect solutions, which was my fear in watching the film. However, again, it is not really approached that way.

Now for the negative. Most of the film puts the blame on the man in the relationship. Now there is a cute twist at the end that shows the relationship problems can be caused by the woman, too. The sense I got, though, was there the focus on repairing relationships was too much on only one partner instead of both working together. Sometimes both are not invested enough, and each needs to only take responsibility for themselves, but I wish there was some more reciprocity in responsibility by the end of the film. Even my wife said, "Is she going to apologize?"

The need for conversion put into the film seemed a bit artificial at times. I understand the role of God in the Love Dare, and I can't really disagree, but the way this was presented was frankly cheesy and a turn-off. My wife also said during the film, "I hope they don't imply that becoming a Christian will solve everything. And that only non-Christians have problems." I had the same concern. However, the film did not really imply that. It showed there would be problems. So I have to give the filmmakers credit.

Speaking of the cheese factor, a lot of the acting was that way. Several actors were church volunteers. However, the ones featured as volunteers were some of the better actors...

Back to the conversion point (mild spoiler here), Kirk Cameron's character becomes a Christian at one point with his father at the foot of an outdoor wooden cross. Just before the prayer, his dad asks, "Do you trust your life to God?" (or something like that). It's a fair question, but I found it ironic that it was in the middle of a movie that emphasized that trust is not just a single moment in time decision. Rather, it is a process of displaying trust and building trust, both in others and to others.

Sure, a decision needs to be made, but too often the single moment in time is overemphasized to the detriment of the journey and process. This is true for both faith and marriage, I think. We need to not rely on the moment in time decision to show we are good, but rather remember to continually live out that commitment.

Incarnational Attractionism

This is an excellent article discussing the differences and values of both missional/incarnational church and attractional church. One, I love the emphasis on incarnationalism. This has been something that has been getting more attention the last year or two.

I also particularly loved this paragraph:

Are the communities of faith that we build such homes? Do we represent the Father’s heart in such a way that, even in the face of rejection and exploitation, the prodigal would know that our churches would welcome them? Sadly, most people would characterize the church as a place where just the opposite is likely to occur. And yet, it is this kind of attractional nature that we must desperately seek to embody as His people. This is what we should endeavour to become so that people will be drawn to Christ and His Church. This is attractional ministry at it’s truest.

In continuing the discussion from yesterday's post on mainline and evangelical churches, the mainlines frankly do a better job of this in most cases. And that is what attracts me to them. Yet I have a strong attraction to evangelical churches, too, again in their affective attunement.

Liturgical v. Contemporary Church, Part 2

Three months ago, I wrote a post noting some observations I had about liturgical versus contemporary churches. I recently read this article, entitled The Living Emerging Movement. Many readers of this blog know that I do consider myself best described by the emerging movement. I appreciate it because (from my perspective and my version of it as it seems everyone's definition is different), the conversation is just that: A conversation. There is the ability to discuss life and theology and be critical thinkers in the search for Truth with the hope and belief that there is an ultimate Truth. I think the emerging movement has also reignited discussions and focus on lively worship.

There is a lot of talk of the emerging church being dead or almost dead. I hope it doesn't, in part because of what the above article mentions. McKnight guessed several years ago that emerging Christians each will go one of three ways: into the mainline denominations, back into old evangelicalism, or leading evangelicalism into a missional direction.

I personally can really feel the tension between these options. I'm not sure where I land, which is why I don't want the emerging church to die. It's something with which I can associate that is the best descriptor of me. And I know many people also feel like they are not accurately described by any movement, denomination, or label.

Anyway, one of the reasons I struggle with this is the feeling of worship and what the mainline versus evangelical churches emphasize. I realized this weekend that mainline churches do a very nice job of being critical thinkers. They nail the cognitive elements of Christianity, usually much better than the evangelical churches. I've been a member and a part of evangelicalism for many years, and I can say it often advocates much less than critical thinking.

However, the evangelical churches historically have done an excellent job of having more lively worship. By that I mean more affective, referring to emotion and the full range of emotion. While some people are very moved by the liturgical, traditional services (I went to a service like that for quite a while myself), these models do often have the implication of displaying less affect. Now, as one of my friends has said, evangelical churches have become rather stale recently, focusing more of inauthentic performance rather than real, affective worship. And that's one of the things the emerging movement has challenged.

So in many ways, it seems we have found ourselves in the age-old cognitive-affective, head-heart, thinking-emotion split. It's hard to integrate the two together (believe me--I've worked with many clients on that issue). Yet I long for a church community that can do just that. They exist, but they're hard to find in my experience. What about yours?