The Old Cross & The New - A.W. Tozer

Unannounced and mostly undetected there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different: the likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental.

From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique-a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.

The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam's proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. It carried into effect the sentence imposed by the law of Sinai. The new cross is not opposed to the human race; rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged; he still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.

The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands; rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better.

The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner anal jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, "Come and assert yourself for Christ." To the egotist it says, "Come and do your boasting in the Lord." To the thrillseeker it says, "Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship." The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.

The philosophy back of this kind of thing may be sincere but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.

The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The race of Adam is under death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear or beautiful to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.

That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.

God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God's just sentence against him.

What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God's stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.

Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ.

To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul's day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The mystics, the reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God's approval.

Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us in the Mount? May God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power.

This was taken from "Man - the dwelling place of God" by A.W. Tozer - a man of God.

A Critique of the Emergent Church

The emergent church has gained traction over the past two decades.  I see it as a missional response to our post-modern society, where truth basically is said to be unknowable - aka postmodernism. Some churches have adapted to this culture in an attempt to be relevant.  Taking a non dogmatic relational approach they seek to engage with society.  To an extant, it works.  Crowds are drawn, mega churches are born and  preachers become celebrities.  I see the movements purpose, but I fear it over compensates one extreme to the detriment of the other.  My father always told me, wisdom is in the middle way - in balance, in moderation.  I really think that is Gods method.  An overemphasis on a truth or underemphasis is just as incorrect as a lie.  Its a distortion of the truth.  We should seek truth in its right proportions and to deliver that truth accordingly.
 

We can see two faces in the church.  One face is the traditional, those that sing hymns and focus on holiness, those who are conservative, who generally take scripture at face value.  The other face are the liberals,  those who think scripture is primarily a metaphor, who generally are more morally lax but more socially active - in the sense of social justice, such as ending poverty and the like. The liberals may deny the foundations of the faith, like Jesus' resurrection, virgin birth etc. At which point, it is safe to say they cease being 'christian' and begin being a person simply morally inspired by the bible.  Of course there are 20 thousand shades of grey between these two faces but that is the reality.

I see the emergent church as liberal leaning in ideology. Its focus is purposefully ambiguous so as to inspire but never confront or challenge.  This is something I struggle with comprehending.  Personally I feel like a judgmental stereotypical 'conservative' saying that. When I hear the names of emergent leaders anger kindles in my heart.  Why?  Because I feel the truth is being distorted and maligned.  People are taught that the bible wasn't addressed to you so there really is no way it is knowable to you personally. Most just wink at this though.  I sincerely ask myself - am I just conceited?  Am I just full of pride and want to feel superior so I critique?  I don't believe so.  I just value truth and see the movement as an enemy of the truth.  The aposlte warned of a time when people would heap teachers up for themselves to be taught what they wanted to be taught not truth.

I believe the church should be culturally relevant - with modern worship, understandable biblical translations (though still literal interpretations). I believe the theology taught and messages preached should not merely be biblically inspired but saturated with scripture - not cliche feel good motivational messages irrelevant to the text, but explanations of a chapter.  It seems as though its one or the other.  Either it is saturated with scripture, holiness is encouraged but the church is so bland and disconnected from society or the church is so blended with society you cant tell the difference between the church and the world.  Scripture is never quoted, but its a cool scene with nice friendly people seeking social justice. What I don't get with the latter is that you don't need to be a christian to do any of that.  Plenty of my secular friends are really cool, friendly and seek social justice too.  As I write this I am currently disillusioned with churches for the reasons listed and don't attend one.  I realize I should but its hard searching for a good one.  One that is both relevant and faithful to scripture.

So why can't I return to my old church?  I have many friends there.  I may have fought with a pastor but I've moved on.  That said I believe the reasons that I left - the root problems of many emergent churches are completely unaddressed and I believe I would just walk out every Sunday frustrated with the lack of scripture actually taught.  Here's a question...is it pivotal that a good amount of scripture is taught on a Sunday?  Am I just nitpicking at a minor problem?  Or is this reason enough to have left?  It is a very subjective question.  Personally I am of the opinion the primary purpose of an organized church is the proclamation of the gospel and teaching the word of God.  To others its 'being' the church and building relationships. Of course its both, and you cant have one without the other.  But if I believe the bible isn't proclaimed and the word is barely taught - what is the point of building relationships?  Some say to talk about scripture - and that happens sometimes yes, but the controversial issues people avoid.  The very issues that need to be talked about are frequently swept under the rug.  People want low key, entertainment oriented relationships - they don't want to be dragged into theological and philosophical discussion.  Politics and religion are the taboo subjects of our society - polite company will never bring these issues up to be discussed.  How ever so draining it is to be the token spiritual guy to constantly be bringing these topics up too.  That is why preaching these messages and addressing these topics from the pulpit is ideal.  People wont be surprised - its one of the prime reasons a pastor exists - to preach the word.

And there in lies the problem, the pulpit wont discuss issues and hard scriptures nor will friendships.  What about Jesus' prohibition on divorce and remarriage - that never is talked about nor ever will be, for fear of offending someone. Divorce occurred enough in Jesus' day too.  It was legal.  And Jesus raised the bar and said don't do it.  What about lust with the eyes - an even more common one.  Bringing these issues up sharpens us, warns us, rebukes us.  So many topics are taboo to discuss in churches and in society.  Why?  because social unity is valued above proclamation of the truth.  As someone once said to me when commenting on the emergent churches massive focus on social justice with minimal gospel preaching: "the emergent churches mission is to make people more comfortable on their way to hell".  Which is the truth.  What are riches when they turn to ash when you die and descend into hell not knowing Christ and never being taught the gospel?  Jesus said to some poor people "Do not work for the food that spoils [or perishes], but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (John 6:27 NIV).

The church exists to proclaim the way of salvation, our reconciliation with God through trusting in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus for our sins. In Him is our righteousness found, our hope for eternal life, the works we do here on earth profit nothing, law keeping, alms giving etc.  These we do for love for Him who gave His life for us.  Social justice is the fruit of salvation - it isn't salvation.  Nor is mere church membership.  That's for another post though.  To be in relationship with Christ is eternal life.

Seeker Sensitivity

In an effort not to offend and be politically correct, we often bypass explaining major truths of God like sin, the final judgment and even an eternal conscious hell.  I know I'm guilty of this. Like offering a medical cure to a sick person who thinks they're well, why would they take it? Christ is offered often as a life improver, or a relationship like you have never had. While this is true, this isn't why I came to Christ - and I never would have come had I not believed I was on my way to hell and life could pass at any moment.

The grace offered through Christ is savored to the extent that these harder truths are understood and felt personally: We are sinners, there will be a judgment after death where God requires perfection, there will be an eternal conscious hell where perfection hasn't been met (which is everyone) - yet Jesus died that whoever trusts in Him will have His perfection accredited to their account - that is grace, that is salvation, that is the gospel. Jesus said "He who is forgiven much loves much, he who is forgiven little, loves little." Likewise He who understands the severity of what he is saved from loves much.

The gospel isn't culturally relevant, its a constant. Preachers for centuries expounded these truths (the law to convict of sin, the fleeting nature of life, the final judgment and the eternal conscious torments of hell as the consequence of rejecting Christ) ushering in the gospel (trust in Christ crucified for salvation) as the life vest to cling onto in despair. A relational push is good, so long as truth isn't forsaken or subtracted from the message. The truth spoken in love, that's how Jesus did it. He spoke more on sin, judgment and hell than anyone but offered himself as the escape from them all. Paul also in his preaching in acts preached on the final judgment - preaching repentance and a turning to Christ to be saved. Seeker sensitivity and the fear of offending people or scaring them away is a hindrance to understanding the gospel in its entirety. It does a disservice in the long run both to the kingdom of God and the individual (who often doesn't realize their condition before God). The healthy don't see the need for a physician, and the public generally thinks they are good people on there way to heaven apart from Christ. They're not that bad, which may be true, but they aren't perfect, which is the standard God will measure us by.

The great revivals of the 17th-19th centuries were birthed out of prayer and frank, loving communication. "Here's mans problem, here's the solution:Christ"....Christ was savored so much because people soberly grasped the severity of what they had been saved from, making them cling to Christ even tighter. Too often only the solution is pushed: take Christ for a better new and improved life!. While that's true, when persecution and tribulation come, they are like the seed on shallow ground.The gospel is offensive somewhat, it says "you're not as good as you thought you were...you need Christ to get to heaven".  It shatters pride in people.  Jesus wasn't murdered because he went around preaching love and peace.  Who would find fault in that?  He was murdered because He proclaimed Himself as the only way to be saved from Hell...this angered people who wanted another path to God.

There are two extremes to avoid, one is the hell fire preaching that leaves people in despair, minimizing the gospel.  The Other is preaching "come to Jesus" with out an adequate explanation as to why, minimizing the aforementioned less pleasant truths of God.  Balance is everything.  The entire truth shared from a heart of love and care.