UnGodly Holiness: Part One - Deconstructing the Church

Have you ever stopped to think about how much of what we do in the way of corporate worship and ministry as a church is actually spelled out in scripture? Does scripture mandate three-four songs, an offering, a special music, a 30-45 minute sermon, an invitation and dinner on the grounds? Are youth programs found in scripture? What about associations?

You may have thought about these things, and you may have concluded that even though there is no scripture to mandate reducing most hymns to three verses, God has given us the freedom to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. God has mandated our worship, our assembling, and our mission, and given us the freedom to do so as He calls us and as He has given us the ability.

Your conclusion on Biblical mandates for youth programs may very well come from verses such as "train up a child in the way he should go." Your conclusion that church associations are scriptural may come from the Jerusalem Council. Many have asked themselves these questions, and many have come to the conclusion that what we as Baptists do is well and good in the eyes of God. One of our members at Grace Pointe once told me (we were discussing whether or not scripture mandates that we vote to receive members) that if a practice has been around long enough in the Lord's churches, it may very well be the way God wants it.

Others have asked these questions, however, and come to a different conclusion. They have concluded that since there is no Biblical mandate for church buildings, it is sin to spend so many resources on acquiring and maintaining worship facilities. Since there is no Biblical mandate for the traditional format for worship, perhaps we should dump our worship traditions and start over. Since there is no Biblical mandate for church associations the way we use them (three messengers per church and a missions program, plus a publishing house) then we should just dump that and get back to basics. These have rejected the church the way most Baptists have come to understand the church. They claim that the younger generation is turned off by the church, views the church as irrelevant, and to reach the younger generation, we must shirk the "unnecessary burdens of the Pharisaical mindset of the church and get back to what Christianity was meant to be." There is no formal church organization. If you gather, you are part of the church. Baptism is de-emphasized, and even structure is a thing of the past. Two Christians sit next together at an airport terminal waiting for their flight, there's a church.

Popular Christian writers have also latched onto this trend, claiming that the post-Modern culture (watch that term, it is very popular among the Emergent Church movement) has rejected all of our traditional values, and to reach them, we have to leave behind our traditions and start anew. Otherwise, we'll miss the younger generation and God's church will die off as it's members age and pass away.

I have weighed these arguments, I have measured them, and I find them wanting. There are those who constantly scream out "change!" Should we find ourselves blindly following these calls, we will find ourselves just as disillusioned as the American electorate in 2008-2009.

My arguments against the Emergent belief system and the "post-modern" Christianity belief system is based on the fact that we have seen these arguments all before. (Well, maybe you did, I wasn't born yet). Didn't we hear all this back in the 60s when the Baby Boomers were coming of age? Didn't we hear about how the younger generation was dumping the traditional values of their parents and we would have to change and get back to basics to reach them? Didn't we hear that if we didn't change, the Baby Boomer generation would be a lost generation and the churches would die without them? Who makes up the majority of the membership today? Baby Boomers. Mega churches have flourished, false religion has abounded, but the Lord's churches continue on today. Today, we hear that the church will die with the last Baby Boomer if we don't dump all of our traditions to reach the younger generation. See the irony?

Furthermore, the idea that all church activities that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible is sin is flawed thinking. Read the book of Acts the way it was meant to be read. The Emergent Christian will read the book of Acts looking for the absence of the things we do to point out the sinfulness of doing what we do... like singing hymns, supporting our clergy, sending out missionaries, and gathering at the associational meeting to raise funds for missionaries.

The Book of Acts, popularly referred to as a how-to book for churches, is in fact historical record written by Luke under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to show how God can spread His Gospel if the churches are obedient to Him. A closer reading of Acts shows a church that gathers... often. This church sat under preaching, sometimes for hours (to the point that men were falling asleep and falling out of windows.) Imagine how your average Emergent would react to that?

Furthermore, the Bible clearly mandates singing hymns, spiritual songs, and Psalms. I & II Corinthians clearly gives instruction for orderly worship and formal membership. If a church deems it orderly to purchase or build a worship facility, sing four hymns every Sunday, have a special or two, and learn from a 30-90 minute sermon, then that is no more sinful than if an emergent church decided to go all vegetarian for their post-Bible study meal.

While some who follow the Emergent theology ignorantly, earnestly seeking God's will, the fact is those who propagate this theology are truly seeking to deconstruct the institution of the church, God's institution, the one He bought and established, the one through whom the Gospel would be preached to all nations. This attempt to deconstruct the church is veiled in a pseudo-holiness, a holiness that says "we are so holy that we no longer need the church." This holiness, which has a form of Godliness but denies the power thereof, is in fact, unGodly.

The intent of the Emergent church to deconstruct God's church is clearly spelled out here. Wikipedia describes the Emergent church as "...disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community."

They seek to deconstruct modern Christian worship, because for some reason these "holy" Emergents can not worship God to the words of Amazing Grace (unless it is cleverly rearranged to sound like "The House of the Rising Sun.") They can not worship in an environment that is decent and in order. They seek to deconstruct modern evangelism (door-knocking and witnessing to strangers in public) because they don't want to be offensive. After all, Jesus wouldn't be offensive, would He? (The Gospel is by nature offensive, because it is through scriptural preaching and teaching of the cross that man becomes convicted of his sin. When a man is brought face-to-face with his sin, he in his natural state becomes offended because his sin-nature sends him into self-justification mode).

They seek to deconstruct the modern Christian community... which contrary to popular belief does in fact center around the church. There are worship services, Bible studies, Bible schools, Sunday schools, Awanas and Discovery, youth programs, choir programs, and we haven't even gotten into the heart of the church, missions and ministry. Do those who seek to deconstruct the Christian community really seek to deconstruct the mission efforts of that community? Do they seek to deconstruct the benevolent efforts of that community? Can a loose-nit band of friends calling themselves an Emergent church really spread the Gospel with the same resources and God's power as an organized church?

Jesus told His disciples, "Upon This Rock will I build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." He also promised His church that "Lo, I am with you alway, even until the end of the world." Could these promises have been kept true had the church been nothing more than an aposthetic brand of phariseeism, even if just for a few decades? No. If the true church ever ceased to exist, then these promises could not have been kept, which means that the premise of the Emergent movement is flawed from the beginning. Church is Biblically mandated. True churches have existed continually since Christ was on earth. Those churches follow God's direction, meaning the things they do are not empty traditionalism, and carry far more weight with God than the Emergent's unGodly holiness, a holiness that is by definition man-centered.

The Emergent latches on to that which he likes, that which he finds pleasurable and comfortable, and rejects that which he does not. That is a self-centered, a man-centered way of thinking, not a God centered way of thinking. So their practice, mindset and perceived holiness is done apart from God, and thus, is an unGodly holiness.