Modern Christianity
The April 22nd cartoon by Garry Trudeau discussed on the preceding page ("The State of the Denominational Church") was intended to be humorous, but unfortunately, despite the exaggerations, it highlights some fundamental problems of modern "Christianity." What do people see when they read the Bible, and what do they see when they view religion practiced in the 21st century? Because we live in a different culture, people are going to see a few differences.
It may be that in the first century, brethren walked to worship. Some still do—but usually only those who live within a few blocks of the meeting place. Most of us drive a car or ride with someone who owns a car because this is the common method of transportation. Our meeting places are usually functional while others are ornately designed. In the first century brethren often met in homes and larger places as well. If the meeting location were that important, clearer statements would be found in the New Testament.
Our culture is such that we have a variety of teaching tools that were not available 2,000 years ago. We still use overheads to produce visual aids; we use PowerPoint for sermons. Classrooms still have chalk boards or white boards or maybe a television to show a video clip, and we use copy machines for a variety of purposes including this weekly publication, classroom materials, and so on. The first-century got by without all these things, but we find them extremely helpful; the technology is wonderful.
But none of these things change the gospel message. Whether we are viewing the lilies of the field in an outdoor setting, following a sermon written on a bedsheet, or keeping up with a PowerPoint presentation, the substance of the message remains the same. Trudeau was not knocking technology, however; his criticism involved the changing of moral Christian principles. If religious leaders alter these, then it doesn't matter where we meet—by a riverside, in a park, a school building, or our own facility.
At one time, many denominational leaders were opposed to alcohol. How else do we think prohibition was made an amendment? People could see the devastating effects of alcohol, and religious leaders, along with a courageous woman named Carrie A. Nation, convinced enough people that our country would be better off without the curse of alcohol. And it did help in many ways, lowering the percentage of drinkers to 30%. Current estimates reveal a 70% rate. However, that was more than a hundred years ago. How many religious leaders today object to alcohol? When was the last time an article was published decrying it? There may be a handful scattered around, but most opposition comes from preachers of the true gospel. When was the last movie or television character who refused to take at least an occasional drink?
Most of our society has accepted the concept of divorce, and therefore few religious leaders have any qualms against the practice. Again, exceptions do exist. A few even deny divorce for any cause whatsoever. However, Jesus was clear in Matthew 19:9 as to their being one cause (but only one) for divorce—infidelity on the part of a mate. When people just give up a marriage in order to form another union, they are living in adultery. Few agree with the Lord on this subject, and therefore they do what they want—and, unfortunately, they find those who will tell them that what they are doing is all right.
Many religious groups have tried to take a stand against the acceptance of homosexuality, but with each passing year, their councils and synods have found more and more support for the practice in general and for the ordination of such individuals in particular. Another battle already lost is that of cohabitation. Is anyone still foursquare against people living together outside of marriage? If so, few are listening.
Of note is that Trudeau, in his condemnation of the modern church, did not mention any of these things except adultery, which is interesting. "Is he personally opposed to any of those?" one wonders. The Scriptures are (Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Rom. 1:21-32, et al.). He does mention lewdness and sexual assault, which can be part of what we listed previously. The former could refer to pornography, strip clubs, indecent bodily movements, and so on.
Those who love watching the Comedy Channel will appreciate the newly-acceptable sins of vulgarity and profanity. One cannot even turn on the radio without hearing crude language—either on Talk Radio or stations that are primarily for music. Frivolous topics of discussion of explicit sexual content would never have been allowed in decades past; now there are few words or concepts that are off limits.
Pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth—all of which are listed by Trudeau (except lust)—comprise the seven deadly sins. Historically, these were all to be avoided. By including these as now acceptable, the producer of this comic strip is implying that a radical shift has occurred in Christianity. He added bullying to the list, which has been considered a modern problem. Boasting relates to pride, and one wonders if it includes the end zone celebrations in football. Why lying was not included in the list of seven deadly sins is unfathomable—especially in light of Revelation 21:8. Maybe whoever composed this list thought lying was too universal of a practice.
Are modern churches really willing to overlook these sins? Most of them would probably never admit it, even if they don't say anything against it. But what about the other, shorter list Trudeau included?
Biblical Illiteracy
Nowhere is this more clearly seen than on the syndicated show, Jeopardy. It is amazing to see contestants answer questions about people or places most of us have never heard of. Occasionally, few have even heard of the category, let alone any specifics from it. But when the Bible is a category, quite often a simple clue will be given, and all three "would-be champions" stand there, silently saying, "Duuuhhhh." Recently, the clue was something like, "He was a famous songwriter in the Old Testament." The person could not come up with David. Many people are growing up and entering into adulthood with little or no knowledge of the Bible. And Jeopardy's question writers are just as bad. They have had Peter being the first pope several times. Apparently, they do not know that neither the word pope nor the concept behind it finds any approval in the Scriptures. [If he is "the man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2, it is not with God's approval.]
Trudeau has the "pastor" say that the church is willing to overlook Biblical illiteracy. That very much approximates the philosophy of the megachurches of today. While it is true that some religious groups still champion Bible study, the majority don't really care what the Bible teaches. Some of them were built on the foundation of, "What do people want when they come to worship, and the answer is (for many), "Musical programs, dramas, and a good time." Many people have nothing but disdain for the concept of sin. For them worship is about feeling good and entertainment. Therefore, why not disregard the Scriptures, since they are always dredging up old, tired subjects.
Sin is old—as old as the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3). However, there is no subject more relevant to modern society. If we do not comprehend sin, how will we ever have an appreciation for the redemption procured and made available to us by Jesus on the cross? Everyone needs to know Bible facts, but we also need to know the overall outline of the Bible, as well as the important messages regarding salvation and acceptable behavior.
Church Non-Attendance
It is interesting that attendance is no longer deemed necessary by many religious groups. This true story happened back in the '70s. A greeter began a conversation with some visitors, asking, "Are you new to the area?" The woman glowered at him and said, "I'll have you know we're members here." It was the first—and last—time he had ever seen them in the six years he had been a member. If a person's feet, ears, or eyes only showed up once every six years, his body would be in sorry shape.
What kind of member is it that makes such a poor showing? Most lukewarm members (as we sometimes refer to them) are not so flagrant, but they can scarcely be considered members when they come once or twice a month. Not only can their attendance not be counted on, but neither can their contribution. They cannot teach or be part of any ongoing program because they are not involved enough to participate. This is not what Jesus had in mind when He built His church, nor was it what the Holy Spirit had in mind when He inspired the writer of Hebrews to warn against "the forsaking of the assembling of ourselves together" (Heb. 10:25).
But perhaps the current philosophy is, "Don't alienate anyone. Leave them on the roll. We'll get their attendance sometimes—and a little money, too. So let's not rock the boat by telling them they're not fulfilling their responsibilities. Besides, the more people they can tell in the community that they belong to our group, the more people will hear our name."
"No Credible Sign of Faith"
What does Trudeau want to see as an example of faith? Could it be someone who lives his convictions? Someone who will stand up against smoking, drinking, lewdness, vulgarity, and so on down the line? Maybe he sees few examples of people who are devout—who are constantly meeting with and working with a local congregation. They may not be as rare as he might imagine, but those who lack devotion do seem to be in the majority.
We all could call out the names of some of the spiritual heroes of the past and present—those who took their Christianity seriously, and everybody knew it. We now live in different times. Many churches are losing both their members and their message. It is not unusual to see buildings formerly used as meeting places for Christians closed and for sale. Sometimes it might be due to older members dying off, but it could also be due to a lack of evangelism.
Neighbors and friends know who is involved with a local congregation and who just attends worship when it's convenient. It might not be uncommon for someone to ask, "Got any plans for Sunday?" "Oh, I'll be going fishing." They know when someone is not serious about their faith. No one needs to ask faithful Christians where they will be on the Lord's Day. They already know the answer to that question.
They also know that a Christian weathers the cruel situations that life sometimes hands one—whether it is the loss of a mate or the loss of a job. They know that, whatever the problem, the Christian will overcome because he or she is a person of faith. They also know to whom they can safely and confidently talk.
The Modern Church, with its loosening of morals and its acceptance of sin, is gaining adherents in some cases, but what are they worth? If the worship must be "me-oriented," what have they gained? Narcissism never saved a soul or comforted someone enduring hard times. Words such as sacrifice and duty need to be restored to our vocabularies. Loving God and our neighbors are still the two greatest commandments; they deserve our full attention.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: