Hi All,
I have a rather complicated question I’d appreciate some advice on. In short, the church has moved increasingly in the seeker-sensitive direction. The pastor is rightly concerned about the lack of “follow-through” he sees in the congregation. His solution has been to preach “follow-through” almost exclusively. We’ve been studying one of the gospels for a year (with some other series thrown in). I hate to sound this harsh, but I don’t think I learned a single thing about what this gospel actually says. And I have plenty I know I could learn. We’ll get to a spot where Jesus was tempted, and we’ll talk about temptation for a few Sundays. We get to a part where Jesus was rejected, and we talk about rejection for a few Sundays. There is virtually no interaction with the text. I’m pretty sure the sermons are adapted from either a contemporary book on the subject, or a sermon series resembling one. It isn’t that any of the material presented is wrong, but the connection to the text is often loose or imaginary.
The direction the church is headed has certainly changed for the worse over the past few years. At the same time, I’ve been learning a ton from broadly reformed teachers, and one thing I’m increasingly seeing is how the American church broadly is falling for the error my church is. That said, there is a lot I really like about the church. There are some excellent believers there and my family has made good friendships through the church. I do believe the church leadership sincerely loves God and is committed to doing its best for the congregation. My pastor is right about the weak amount of “follow-through” (I believe he means sanctification), but I believe he is pursuing it incorrectly. My understanding is that sanctification should not be primarily by our efforts, and especially not through better principles to live not explicitly taught in scripture, but through a deeper knowledge of who God is, how He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and what he has done for us as revealed in the gospel. Removing solid Biblical teaching and replacing it with just Biblical principles may lead to some improvements in “follow-through” (Mormons are good at accomplishing this), but isn’t particularly helpful into pushing people into a deeper, transformative relationship with God.
Let me say the same thing another way for clarity. Romans 1-11 is perhaps the clearest and deepest presentation of the gospel in the Bible. Rom. 12-15 is our logical response to what God has done. Our church has moved into teaching “Rom. 12-15” material almost exclusively and barely touching “Rom. 1-11” material. Not only is this clearly imbalanced, I believe it has reached the point of being dangerously close to becoming a “moral improvement program.”
I recently shared this concern with the pastor by email, and he thought I brought up good points and seems to mostly agree with me. I’m meeting with him in several days and would appreciate some advice on the following questions:
1) Any ideas on how I can best convince him of the errors of this direction the church is broadly taking? I think you can see I understand the problem, but perhaps there are other directions that might be easier for someone in my pastor’s position to see.
2) There is a great deal my pastor and I agree on. Really, I see the key difference as how to balance teaching doctrine vs. follow-through. How should I best present my concerns in a way that is most constructive to the body of Christ overall? I do not want to tear my pastor or church down, but do feel I should do what I can to offer a course correction.
3) At what point do I leave the church? I take the clear calls for unity in the Bible very seriously. However, I’m reaching the conclusion that the teaching is sufficiently imbalanced I can no longer support a church where the gospel is this far from central.
I have a rather complicated question I’d appreciate some advice on. In short, the church has moved increasingly in the seeker-sensitive direction. The pastor is rightly concerned about the lack of “follow-through” he sees in the congregation. His solution has been to preach “follow-through” almost exclusively. We’ve been studying one of the gospels for a year (with some other series thrown in). I hate to sound this harsh, but I don’t think I learned a single thing about what this gospel actually says. And I have plenty I know I could learn. We’ll get to a spot where Jesus was tempted, and we’ll talk about temptation for a few Sundays. We get to a part where Jesus was rejected, and we talk about rejection for a few Sundays. There is virtually no interaction with the text. I’m pretty sure the sermons are adapted from either a contemporary book on the subject, or a sermon series resembling one. It isn’t that any of the material presented is wrong, but the connection to the text is often loose or imaginary.
The direction the church is headed has certainly changed for the worse over the past few years. At the same time, I’ve been learning a ton from broadly reformed teachers, and one thing I’m increasingly seeing is how the American church broadly is falling for the error my church is. That said, there is a lot I really like about the church. There are some excellent believers there and my family has made good friendships through the church. I do believe the church leadership sincerely loves God and is committed to doing its best for the congregation. My pastor is right about the weak amount of “follow-through” (I believe he means sanctification), but I believe he is pursuing it incorrectly. My understanding is that sanctification should not be primarily by our efforts, and especially not through better principles to live not explicitly taught in scripture, but through a deeper knowledge of who God is, how He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and what he has done for us as revealed in the gospel. Removing solid Biblical teaching and replacing it with just Biblical principles may lead to some improvements in “follow-through” (Mormons are good at accomplishing this), but isn’t particularly helpful into pushing people into a deeper, transformative relationship with God.
Let me say the same thing another way for clarity. Romans 1-11 is perhaps the clearest and deepest presentation of the gospel in the Bible. Rom. 12-15 is our logical response to what God has done. Our church has moved into teaching “Rom. 12-15” material almost exclusively and barely touching “Rom. 1-11” material. Not only is this clearly imbalanced, I believe it has reached the point of being dangerously close to becoming a “moral improvement program.”
I recently shared this concern with the pastor by email, and he thought I brought up good points and seems to mostly agree with me. I’m meeting with him in several days and would appreciate some advice on the following questions:
1) Any ideas on how I can best convince him of the errors of this direction the church is broadly taking? I think you can see I understand the problem, but perhaps there are other directions that might be easier for someone in my pastor’s position to see.
2) There is a great deal my pastor and I agree on. Really, I see the key difference as how to balance teaching doctrine vs. follow-through. How should I best present my concerns in a way that is most constructive to the body of Christ overall? I do not want to tear my pastor or church down, but do feel I should do what I can to offer a course correction.
3) At what point do I leave the church? I take the clear calls for unity in the Bible very seriously. However, I’m reaching the conclusion that the teaching is sufficiently imbalanced I can no longer support a church where the gospel is this far from central.