The Moral Dimension
April 30, 2012
Reading both Doug Sweeney's post and Bill Evans' comments, I find much with which I agree. One thing, however, perturbs me slightly and that is what was not said. Of course, no-one can say everything on a subject so this is not a criticism of either Doug or Bill; it is, however, a criticism of the broader discussion of Christian education within the church at large which rarely seems to touch on the matter I want to raise.
So much of the discussion of church life today is technical in nature. By that, I do not mean it is complicated or dominated by the jargonauts, to borrow a Private Eye phrase. What I mean is that the discussion seeks to solve problems by technique. That is fine as far as it goes: technique is important. For example, the technique of speaking in a language people can understand is a basic part of communication. If nobody in my class learns from me because I speak to them in Latin rather than English (or the American equivalent thereof), the problem is a technical one.
I agree with Doug and Bill that there is a problem of Christian knowledge/education in the church. I prefer "problem" to "crisis" as it is not clear to me that the problem we face is so unique to our age that it requires such dramatic terminology; like "defining moments", "crises" are such common currency today that they are not what they used to be. Yet, having agreed that a problem exists, I believe it to be moral in origin rather than technical.
Here is my question: could it be that the indifference to and ignorance of the basic elements of the Christian faith are themselves functions of a widespread belief that these things are not important? And if they are not deemed important by Christians, then we must ask ourselves why they are not deemed important. Could it be because the church and her preachers and teachers are not stressing the reasons why these things, these basic elements of faith are important -- that human beings are dead in sin, possess no righteousness in themselves and live in imminent danger of falling into the hands of a God who is a consuming fire?
It has always struck me as fascinating that we today lament the biblical ignorance of people in the pews while at the same time we behave in ways likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem. We reduce the number of Sunday services from two to one, thus halving the amount of preaching people hear; we look to stand-up comics as providing the key to successful communication of a serious message; we warble on endlessly about cultural transformation and about what the world will and will not find plausible in our confession; and, most crucial of all, we soft-pedal on preaching for conviction of sin.
The man or woman who has been told they have cancer will hang on every word their specialist speaks to them. They will not go into the consulting room looking for entertainment; their situation is too serious to waste time on trivia. And in their spare time they will probably read as much about their illness as they can, becoming as conversant as possible with its nature and its cure. They may well alter their diets, their sleep patterns and fundamental aspects of their behaviour in a way that reflects the life-and-death nature of the position in which they find themselves. Indeed, the fact of their illness and the content of the cure will dominate everything they think and say and do.
This weekend I was re-reading the first volume of Iain Murray's biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I was struck by the chapter on his preaching at Sandfields in his early ministry. One of the hallmarks of this was the emphasis he placed on the holiness of God and the sinfulness of human beings. The results were stunning: many were converted and, most significantly, many took a serious interest in serious theology (and remember, these were not well-to-do or bookish people but among the poorest and least educated members of society). Even an illiterate man in late middle age begged Mrs Lloyd-Jones to teach him to read so that he could read the Bible for himself. Why? Because there he knew he would find the words of life and not simply advice on how to improve his condition here on earth or help him put his marriage back together. He knew who and what he was before God and that gave him a seriousness of purpose and a narrowness of focus. As Dr. Johnson once quipped, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." So it is with those who really know about spiritual death too.
As Doug and Bill have clearly shown, there is a big discussion to be had about the technical aspects of how we solve the problem of the lack of knowledge of basic Christianity among Christian people. But we also need to look at the ultimate cause of such ignorance. It is a deeply moral, theological one. Those who know what their real state is before God will need little or no encouragement to immerse themselves in God's truth as much and as often as they can. They will want to see Jesus and to know as much about him as they can. It is absolutely basic that we must first preach for conviction of sin if ever we want to see an improvement in the Christian knowledge of believers.
So much of the discussion of church life today is technical in nature. By that, I do not mean it is complicated or dominated by the jargonauts, to borrow a Private Eye phrase. What I mean is that the discussion seeks to solve problems by technique. That is fine as far as it goes: technique is important. For example, the technique of speaking in a language people can understand is a basic part of communication. If nobody in my class learns from me because I speak to them in Latin rather than English (or the American equivalent thereof), the problem is a technical one.
I agree with Doug and Bill that there is a problem of Christian knowledge/education in the church. I prefer "problem" to "crisis" as it is not clear to me that the problem we face is so unique to our age that it requires such dramatic terminology; like "defining moments", "crises" are such common currency today that they are not what they used to be. Yet, having agreed that a problem exists, I believe it to be moral in origin rather than technical.
Here is my question: could it be that the indifference to and ignorance of the basic elements of the Christian faith are themselves functions of a widespread belief that these things are not important? And if they are not deemed important by Christians, then we must ask ourselves why they are not deemed important. Could it be because the church and her preachers and teachers are not stressing the reasons why these things, these basic elements of faith are important -- that human beings are dead in sin, possess no righteousness in themselves and live in imminent danger of falling into the hands of a God who is a consuming fire?
It has always struck me as fascinating that we today lament the biblical ignorance of people in the pews while at the same time we behave in ways likely to exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem. We reduce the number of Sunday services from two to one, thus halving the amount of preaching people hear; we look to stand-up comics as providing the key to successful communication of a serious message; we warble on endlessly about cultural transformation and about what the world will and will not find plausible in our confession; and, most crucial of all, we soft-pedal on preaching for conviction of sin.
The man or woman who has been told they have cancer will hang on every word their specialist speaks to them. They will not go into the consulting room looking for entertainment; their situation is too serious to waste time on trivia. And in their spare time they will probably read as much about their illness as they can, becoming as conversant as possible with its nature and its cure. They may well alter their diets, their sleep patterns and fundamental aspects of their behaviour in a way that reflects the life-and-death nature of the position in which they find themselves. Indeed, the fact of their illness and the content of the cure will dominate everything they think and say and do.
This weekend I was re-reading the first volume of Iain Murray's biography of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I was struck by the chapter on his preaching at Sandfields in his early ministry. One of the hallmarks of this was the emphasis he placed on the holiness of God and the sinfulness of human beings. The results were stunning: many were converted and, most significantly, many took a serious interest in serious theology (and remember, these were not well-to-do or bookish people but among the poorest and least educated members of society). Even an illiterate man in late middle age begged Mrs Lloyd-Jones to teach him to read so that he could read the Bible for himself. Why? Because there he knew he would find the words of life and not simply advice on how to improve his condition here on earth or help him put his marriage back together. He knew who and what he was before God and that gave him a seriousness of purpose and a narrowness of focus. As Dr. Johnson once quipped, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." So it is with those who really know about spiritual death too.
As Doug and Bill have clearly shown, there is a big discussion to be had about the technical aspects of how we solve the problem of the lack of knowledge of basic Christianity among Christian people. But we also need to look at the ultimate cause of such ignorance. It is a deeply moral, theological one. Those who know what their real state is before God will need little or no encouragement to immerse themselves in God's truth as much and as often as they can. They will want to see Jesus and to know as much about him as they can. It is absolutely basic that we must first preach for conviction of sin if ever we want to see an improvement in the Christian knowledge of believers.
