Faith comes by hearing...

I was surfing the web the other day and I ran across this on the homepage of a church's website:

We learn and teach through television, music, movies and other mediums of communiction; so, why not use the same popular and effective mediums to communicate the message of Jesus Christ in church?

If that sounds like a unique, exciting and creative alternative to traditional church, then ##### might just be the place for you.

The Apostle Paul implored early Christians to be all things to all people. To fulfill our mission: "To reach unchurched people and help them become fully devoted followers of Jesus and fully participating members of Christ's church," our approach at ##### is to make use of every available contemporary medium to teach God's eternal truths and apply them to our daily lives. Sometimes doing so means using live drama, video, or clips from popular movies that leave us laughing, crying, or deep in thought.

Ultimately, we are willing to do whatever it takes to communicate the message of Jesus Christ—even if that means laughing out loud, clapping to the music, or shedding a heartfelt tear or two. We hope to see you this Sunday.

My heart sank when I read this, and it has disturbed me ever since. I have been struggling over where to even begin discussing the problems with this statement.

I will begin by saying how much I have taken for granted growing up and attending confessional Reformed churches my whole life. My church is part of something larger than itself, not only with other churches in the present time (those of the URC federation or in my past CRC denomination, but also those in NAPARC), but more importantly with all Reformed churches of the past 500 years. The Reformation was not only about recovering the doctrine of Justification (a huge deal) and other Biblical truths, it was also a return to Biblical worship and exposing the errors both in doctrine and practice of the Roman Church.

When it comes to a statement such as is given above, my local church cannot do whatever it feels is right in the elements of worship (e.g. Prayers, Preaching, Confession, etc.). The circumstances of worship (e.g. starting time, carpet color, etc.) yes. Why can my church not mess with those things? Because of two things: 1) The Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW), which applies to all churches, and 2) our confessions.

I do not want to get into the whole discussion of the RPW, but essentially it says, "We are only to do in worship what God commands in his Word." Namely, then, the preaching of the Word (Law and Gospel), prayers, confession of sins, and the sacraments. These are the things that are to define the worship of a church. Ecclesiastical Confessions help hold us in check and guide us as well:

Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answer 96
Q. What is God's will for us in the second commandment?
A. That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his Word.

Q&A 98
Q. But may not images be permitted in the churches as teaching aids for the unlearned?
A. No, we shouldn't try to be wiser than God. He wants his people instructed by the living preaching of his Word -- not by idols that cannot even talk.

Did you notice the RPW stated in Q&A 96? One thing that I find interesting is that in Q&A 98 it says "idols that cannot even talk", but now we do have idols that can talk!

There are many things that I have a problem with concerning this church's statement, but I might have to make this a multipart blog entry and just tackle one issue at a time to keep the length down.

Word and Sacrament
Did you notice that the two things that Christ gave the church to edify and build up its members are totally absent from the statement above? The preached Word and the administration of the Sacraments. Granted, this is not an all-encompassing statement of this church's ecclesiology. There is such a statement on the website (although it doesn't even come close to the great language of The Belgic Confession articles 27-32), which does at least mention the sacraments, but "the preached Word" is still absent even from that statement. I guess why I am so worked up over this is because, even though this is just something on a church's homepage, it really does give a picture of how this church does not have confidence in the Preached Word of the Gospel of Christ. If it did then I might expect language such as:

We learn and teach through television, music, movies and other mediums of communiction; so, why not use the same popular and effective mediums to supplement or assist in the preaching of God's Word and to communicate the message of Jesus Christ in church?

Granted, that is still a wrong statement, but it would at least show some willingness to actually preach Christ. But there is absolutely no mention of the primary method of learning throughout all of human history, let alone still today, and that is by hearing ordinary speech! According to the first line of this statement, all these other means have totally usurped that method, therefore, the church must follow with no questions asked!

There is a reason why the Scriptures call the preached Word "foolishness" and why God chose those means to work faith in his people. Read 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16 and notice how much is said about how preaching is foolishness to the world, how the world's wisdom is viewed, and how the power of God is manifested in preaching.

Now read that church's statement again, do you notice how these things don't line up with Scripture's teaching? Honestly, does this statement show that the church is following God's wisdom or the wisdom of men to communicate the Gospel of Christ? Are they really trusting in the Holy Spirit to effect faith in the simple preaching of the Word?

The Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 65 explains where faith comes from, "The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments". That is how the Spirit works, and how the Scriptures tell us he will work! Not by showing clips from movies, not by a drama, not by anything this world thinks is better than the preached word.

But I have heard it said, "Paul didn't have this technology and if he did he would certainly use it." Oh really? Remember "do not confrom to the patterns of this world?" The Greco-Roman culture was very visual as well. There were idols for everthing and Greek drama was definitely a means Paul or the Apostles could have used to communicate the Gospel. But they didn't. They preached the Word. You want something visual to communicate the gospel? We do have two things that are ordained by God to help us understand - baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are signs for us to see the things signified. That is why some have called the sacraments, the "visible Gospel." Why try to be wiser than God and do other crazy, idolatrous stuff to communicate the Gospel when we have the preached word and Sacraments?

Read this from Romans 10:

14But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Faith comes from hearing the preached Word, so why not let the Holy Spirit work through that foolish means?

One last thing for now. The use of 1 Cor 9:22 above (become all things to all people) is taken totally out of context and improperly used. But I am not going to get into that right that now!

Finally, this church claims to be a "New Testament Church" and that is what they want to be. However, by "making use of every available contemporary medium" (their words) kind of contradicts that "church of the NT" statement doesn't it? It is humbling to think that my pastor will take the pulpit this morning and give to us the same thing that Paul would have - the preached Word and the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. Not something that this 21st century world thinks is better.

My usual disclaimer to these types of posts is that I have probably overreacted and read too much into this church's informal statement. But I have read everything else on their website and nothing really contradicts that simple statement of how they view the communication of God's Word. I might have used this statement to springboard into to other things, so disagree with me if you must, but be prepared to debate me! When it comes to the proper use of the means of grace, especially the communication of the Gospel, I can get pretty defensive when people try to screw with that!

Soli Deo Gloria