Hi I’ve been reading “Church History in Plain Language” by Bruce L. Shelley and I didn’t realise how much we can learn from what has happened in the past. Consider Clement as you may already know as the first Christian scholar around the second to third century. He entered the pagan world and taught at a Christian Gnostic school, preaching to the intellectual philosophers of the day. The school asked the same questions as the heretical Gnostics would, but he answered them with solid Christian theology.

One great piece from the book: “Clement had to enter their world, disentangle their conceptions, and lead them slowly from error to the true knowledge of Christianity. He lived and taught like a philosopher and used the forms and the language of the Gnostics of the time… Clement’s purpose was clear. He seized not only the external garb and expressions of the contemporary pagan philosphers, but also their problems. If, for example, he discussed the universe and its meaning (cosmology), so loved by Gnostics, he did not do it with the intention of proving these ideas wrong offhandedly and then discarding them quickly, but instead he pointed out how the fundamental religious questions about the creation of the world, the existence of evil in this life, and the salvation through the Word, Jesus Christ, found their last and deepest answer in Christian revelation.”

This highlights the importance of finding the questions and problems non-Christians deal with today, and then answering these with the Gospel. It’s fine to preach the Gospel but what part is going to particularly appeal and show relevance to their life? We’re living in an image based and “me” culture. Perhaps there are some out there who are tired of putting on an act for the sake of image and outward acceptance, and they’d rather just be accepted for who they are on the inside. That’s what I loved about Christianity when I became a Christian, I left a superficial culture and found the joy in discovering the deepness of character and true Christ love.

I think part of the success of the extreme pentecostal church lies with the prosperity teaching appealing to today’s “me” culture. I don’t agree with prosperity teaching but it shows the success of a church when it considers what people are looking for. Perhaps in this case a more fruitful path would involve appealing to the “me” culture in some truthful way (e.g. benefits of obeying the law), but then leading them into the depths of Christianity so they release that true love is all about putting other people first and expecting nothing in return.

Today it seems non-Christians are increasingly asking “why” in regards to the Gospel, as their way of thinking does not search for what they cannot see. People seek to make their lives better in this life and want evidence in order to make decisions.

After Clement challenged the intellectuals Christianity found more credibility and spread more rapidly, it set the scene for Christianity to be accepted into mainstream culture. What are we doing today to challenge the secular intellectuals? I would say that the intellectuals are scientists, psychologists, politicians etc. As the Age of Reason/Evidience gained strength a few hundred years ago, Christianity has steadily lost ground in mainstream culture. One of the causes can be attributed to our lack of effort/success in spreading the Gospel through the language and way of thought of non believers in our current culture.

I was reading an article that explains a chemical is released in our body when we do something for others, producing a good feeling. We’ve been designed by God to put others first, just as it says in the Gospel. I think we need to get more of these findings out into the media and to church congregations. Perhaps a group of Christian intellectuals could be established, and they would pass on relevant findings to NCCA or NCLS, who would in turn forward the results to the Christian media (e.g. The Briefing) as well as secular media.

Something new needs to be done, we need to explore new avenues to reach society and present the Gospel in a way they can understand (e.g. with evidence of the Gospel matching how God created us). For many years we’ve pretty much remained stagnant in church growth, in the past 2000 years they’ve been plenty of revivals, how confident are we today of a revival with our current practices?

Its a good book, isn’t it (Chruch History in Plain Language)? I remember that I quite enjoyed it as well.

[quote author="Simon Rose"]
Perhaps a group of Christian intellectuals could be established, and they would pass on relevant findings to NCCA or NCLS, who would in turn forward the results to the Christian media (e.g. The Briefing) as well as secular media.

Your talking abuot apologetics here. There are such organisations, even in Sydney, (CASE for example) but (I believe unfortunately) the church has largely given up on apologetics. We are often trained to be “relevant” to our culture and we seek to present the gospel in a way that “speaks to our generation”. Thats all well and good but I dont think it works that way. I believe that people dont come to church because they dont believe that Christianity is true.

I mean, of course the gospel will never be relevant to anyones natural life - people will never see their own need for God. It is only once we become convinced of the truth of Christ that we discover his relevance.

In this way I think what you are talking about is quite good… there is a great need for intellectual Christians who will stand against intellectuals in their own generation in order to show that what the Bible claims is actually true. Christianity has a remarkable history of doing exactly this - from Absalom to Schaeffer. But where are the Christians today illuminating the lies of the modern world? There are plenty of lies to go around - postmodern secularism to evolution! But instead of showing the truth of our faith, and instead of showing the lies of the modern worldview, we are all too busy “engaging” with it.

When people believe that it is true, then Christianity will be relevant - but not before.

Yes it’s one of the best books I’ve ever read, makes me think about alot of issues today.

You’ve made some good points and it is Christ that chooses us to come to him. He also instructed us to go out into the world, and to be in the world but not of the world. I think it’s the classic conflict that’s started right from the NT beginning with Peter and Paul. Peter wanted to keep the Jewish customs and expected the non believers to change according to his ways, however Paul engaged the world and became like one of them and adapted to the secular culture. Both ways have their advantages, Peter’s way ensures stability within the church but Paul’s way is most effective for converting non believers. Also keeping in mind it was Paul who was remembered for bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles and ensuring the expansion of the church to many different types of people.

I’ve been largely influenced by a great pastor in Whistler of Canada on my working holiday. He’s aims to make his preaching relevant so the congregation can relate to what he’s saying. He points out the flaws of an image based culture and the benefits of character and vulnerability in relationships that God encourages, but this world tends not to care for. He was rated number one out of ten guest speakers at a Bible College in Hawaii.

I find the best preachers not only give commentaries on the Gospel, but also talk about relationships and how culture affects our life. This can be taken in God’s context e.g. Christ talks about the heart and inner beauty as opposed to the man’s tendency towards outer beauty.

In terms of group pyschology we tend to hang out with those people who are like minded, and hence the importance of making the Gosepl relevant. This I believe is the first step, and the second step is leading them into the depths of Christianity. I believe we need to address their misconceptions (cultural thinking) as much as we need to present the Gospel, as both will help point them towards Christ.

I think showing the truth of Christianity and showing the lies of humanity is engaging and both need to go together. Making it relevant is exposing the flaws in human thinking and presenting a solution is preaching the word of Christ.

G’day,

Nathan said:

Your talking abuot apologetics here. There are such organisations, even in Sydney, (CASE for example) but (I believe unfortunately) the church has largely given up on apologetics.

Would you care to give any examples Nathan? Just because one does not agree with YECS views doesn’t mean that one doesn’t engage in apologetics (if this is where you were coming from).

At Moore College, I spent 2 semesters (one in 1st year and one in 4th year) doing Apologetics. As you are going to Moore Nathan I assume that you will have the opportunity to do the same.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Hey Mark,

I think you might have misunderstood. I was saying that there were some parts of the church still doing apologetics, just not many. I gave CASE as an example of an organisation that is still doing apologetics. I believe that there are many approaches to apologetics, of which YECS is one. I dont believe that you have to be a YECS person to be practicing apologetics.

For example, Francis Scheffer is one of the most amazing, forward thinking men that I think I have ever read. He approached apologetics from an art-history/philosopy perspective and I think that he did a fantastic job. Although he certianly defended the historicity of genesis (as in his book “in the beginning"), I dont believe that he was YECS.

I was not attemting to marry the two things. Sorry for the confusion. I was meerly lamenting that there do not seem to be too many Christians around who study apologetics anymore. To me, it seems like the church has largly chosen a different path.

G’day,

Thanks for the clarification Nathan.

Yours in Christ,
Mark

Hi Simon
I really love your introduction to this topic and the issues raised.  The issue you identify is THE issue for evangelism in our time, particularly because we have convinced ourselves that the gospel is above culture and needs no contextualisation.

The gospel does address life (not just what happens when I die) and addresses many of the issues that people face.

For example, in the Evangelism Forum, I gave an outline of a course I am developing that addresses those who are exhausted by our consumer culture - people to whom Jesus says “Come to me all you who labor and are heavy laden...”

You are also right in what you say about Hillsong/Pentecostals.  They have done what we (Anglicans in the ‘burbs) did in the 1950s; namely, aligned themselves with the aspirational values of their culture.  The problem is that they don’t let the gospel critique their aspirations (showing how they have taken what is good and made it god), they only show where they align.

Is the problem that people don’t believe? Not by any means.  The problem is that they don’t know how the gospel is relevant (especially since we present it as if it is all about what happens when you die).

Is the gospel relevant to people’s ‘natural life’? If only we knew just how deeply it is relevant.

Tim