“The ‘ultimate concern’ of most church members is not the worship and service of Christ in evangelistic mission and social compassion, but rather survival and success in their secular vocation. The church is a spoke on the wheel of life connected to the secular hub. It is a departmental sub-concern, not the organizing center of all other concerns. Church members who have been conditioned all their lives to devote themselves to building their own kingdom and whose flesh naturally gravitates in that direction anyway find it hard to invest much energy in the kingdom of God. They go to church once or twice a week and punch the clock, so to speak, fulfilling their ‘church obligation’ by sitting passively and listening critically or approvingly to the pastor’s teaching.
“Sometimes with great effort they can be maneuvered into some active role in the church’s program, like a trained seal in a circus act, but their hearts are not fully in it. They may repeat the catchwords of the theology of grace, but many have little deep awareness they and other Christians are ‘accepted in the beloved.’ Since their understanding of justification is marginal or unreal – anchored not to Christ but to some conversion experience in the past or to an imagined present state of goodness in their lives – they know little of the dynamic of justification. Their understanding of sin focuses upon behavioral externals which they can eliminate from their lives by a little will power and ignores the great submerged continents of pride, covetousness and hostility beneath the surface. Thus their pharisaism defends them both against full involvement in the church’s mission and against full subjection of their inner lives to the authority of Christ.” (Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life p.204-5)
As I read the post, and thanks Steve, I had a nagging sense that this is a multi-layered, and at times an inside out issue. Meaning, “is that me?” Do I develop my “church work”, goals, teaching series, vocabulary, persona and such out of the same impulse that the author describes? Is my life and “churching” tied to my ego, my capitulation to societal trends and thought, or simply the result of being “anchored to Christ”, as it says above? So again, I sense that the author’s observation has to be intentionally connected with, on some level, leaders among the church, even me. Thus, the inside out reference.
It is undoubtably directly connected to us as leaders… so yes to all you said! I know little of the dynamic of justification – little awe in God’s rescue of me, little amazement at his grace. It is the bane of the church in America, and it starts with me.
I’m reminded of Jesus’ talk with Nic in Jn 3….I think most of his talks that include this tone and content, were primarily with leaders.
Diagnosis is part of gospel…seeing and turning from something but…I think the church has been weak in offering what to turn towards. We are good at seeing us….but not at seeing Christ.
I’m curious what the author offers as the practicals, towards answering the problem he exposes?
I’m curious what the author offers as practicals as answer to the state he describes.
At risk of a) too big a quote, and b) giving an answer that is much more nuanced and layered in the book itself, here is Lovelace’s response to Eric:
“Only a fraction of the present body of professing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God’s holiness and of the extent and guilt of their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface of their lives they are deeply guilt-ridden and insecure. Many others have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day-to-day existence they rely on their sanctification for their justification… drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience. Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand upon Luther’s platform: you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in that quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude. In order for a pure and lasting work of spiritual renewal to take place within the church, multitudes within it must be led to build their lives on this foundation. This means the they must be conducted into the light of a full conscious awareness of God’s holiness, the depth of their sin and the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ for their acceptance with God, not just at the outset of their Christian lives but every succeeding day. A conscience which is not fully enlightened both to the seriousness of its condition before God, and to the grandeur of God’s merciful provision of redemption, will inevitably fall prey to anxiety, pride, sensuality and all the other expressions of that unconscious despair which Kierkegaard called ‘the sickness unto death.’”
Oh, that’s rich….that’s worth the price of the book. Im going to pick that one up for sure.
I’m not quite sure, practically, what this means or how one accomplished this though:
“This means the they must be conducted into the light of a full conscious awareness of God’s holiness, the depth of their sin and the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ for their acceptance with God, not just at the outset of their Christian lives but every succeeding day”
Does he elaborate?
he elaborates in the whole book on this and other aspects of renewal. it is a great book and maybe one we could read together and discuss?