I have gotten a good bit of feedback from the teaching on Sunday. Folks seem excited that we have a topic where there is some discussion. I know this book is bringing out some fairly radical ideas, that can be hard to swallow. This is the book that shook me and eventually led to me leaving the mega church I was working at. Lisa sent me an email and I responded. I thought I would share my response to her in case it might help calrify a bit.
I think this series we are teaching on Sunday does paint with very black and white strokes.
I think the reason is that the book is working against, and in some ways sharing a prophetic message, about
the ways the church is currently struggling with it’s relationship to culture.
I think the book is talking broadly about big concepts. It does name the characters in our current story. So the church is described as one reality, the world, culture, america. I think the authors are trying to restore a biblical way of looking at the church and its place in culture and society, hoping to redefine what the church’s ministry is. I believe at a basic level there are only two kingdoms, the kingdom of god, and the kingdom of darkness. The role of the church is to remain faithful to the God while living in the kingdom of darkness.
There are many temptations the church faces in this task. We have talked about a few. The temptation to work together with the kingdom of darkness to get results we want faster, the temptation to change who we are to be more relatable to the world. The temptation to fit in. But if we fit in to the kingdom of darkness then the church loses it’s ability to witness to the kingdom of God. I don’t define the kingdom of darkness only as satan and the demons, but the structures and organizations that help multiply brokenness and pain. Satan is partnering with human organizations and powers to bring about his dream. This is not to say that we reject the people that are under the oppression to the kingdom of darkness. It just seems like we need to get our heads on straight about who we are and how we are to be the church in the world. I would say that, following the example of Jesus, we must be able to see clearly what the world will not and cannot see clearly. Which means the church is always for the world, but in a unique way. We know what the world cannot know, that it is sick and needs saving. So witness, evangelism, discipleship are what the world needs. maybe instead or rallying for peace in Iraq, we should send 1,000 missionaries to witness to the gospel of Jesus and the peace that only He can bring. We should not be a church that will allow the world to define how we should be helpful. We cannot help the world do what it wants to do, in exchange for a few concession here and there. So ideas like peace, are not just common sense ideas, but a mandate about what one must do to follow Jesus. In some way it is the world who constantly rejects the church, when the church is true to its task. This is why, I think Jesus says we will share in his rejection and suffering. This does not happen to a church that is seen as relevant and helpful to the world. The church in America’s main struggle is not that we have become strange and challenge the normal ways people live in this culture, or that we are not very engaged with the world. I would say we are have been too engaged and familiar in the world, and wanting to run the world. We have been pretty awful at becoming a people capable of doing and saying the same things Jesus did. I think everyone at thirdway might not agree about this, and we can have some more good discussion.
Since we are not very far from the time when folks thought that everyone in America was basically Christian, I think right now we may need to do more work on the concept of a distinct visible church that is defined by obedience to the way of Christ. Besides our stances against abortion, sexuality, and the creation story, the church doesn’t have much of a quarrel with life in America. Eventually we may need to do more work on the other side. But as was the case in Nazi Germany, Bonhoffer had the same perspective on what was necessary to name a confessing church instead of a government run state religion. That’s probably enough for now!!
Seth