Tim Challies on the Church
Jan 27th, 2008 by Michael Krahn
Tim Challies delivers this post of reflections on his readings of those who claim to know how to fix the church. “The standard book,” he says, “begins with a few chapters outlining all the ways the church has failed with the rest of the book providing the solution. If only we did this or that or the other thing, we would make the church what she was intended to be. I haven’t read too many books that give the church a pat on the back and said ‘good job!’ Maybe for good reason. Maybe not.”
We need to find a balance between pursuing change because of perceived failures and denying those failures exists at all. What he points out here is that a model of dissatisfaction is no more useful as an overarching philosophy than one that says that things are fine and nothing needs to change.
The negative/dissatisfaction model leads to all sorts of compromises (both theological and cultural) in the name of being relevant and attuned to culture. It is convenient for those who think the church has been a total failure to throw everything out and start again, pretending to have discovered something about the teachings of Jesus that no one else has seen for 2000 years.
On the other side, pretending that all is well and any perceived failing of the church in reaching the world is a problem with “the exceeding wickedness of this generation.” This both puts the church out of reach and makes it comfortable for it to stay there.
Challies summarizes: “So if you are part of this body, allow yourself a moment of gratitude and awe for what God has done in and through His body; thank God that you can be part of something so awesome, so glorious, so godly. And then put your hand to the plow and continue the work He has entrusted to us.”
subscribe
“The negative/dissatisfaction model leads to all sorts of compromises (both theological and cultural) in the name of being relevant and attuned to culture.”
It seems that compromise is not really a result of the “negative/dissatisfaction” model, but rather, the goal of being “relevant and attuned to culture.” A true commitment to The Church should, I think, include an acknowledgment of what is in error, and also the willingness to stamp it out. Such is the mentality that gave rise to the creeds. Being negative toward error is often equated to negativity toward the church… however, there is nothing further from the truth.
I agree. Reformers are often seen as heretics, no? Traitors?
The question is, are our more extreme Emergent friends reformers or heretics - or both? I’m thinking here of Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren.
Change within the church is such a fine line. I’m often reminded of Graham Greene’s “Monsignor Quixote,” which is the epitomy of satire on the church’s stalwart, age old positions but undercurrent of change. Good post.
Sarah,
Thanks for the book title. I’ll track that down.