9 Marks of an Unhealthy Church

“Think of the difference between ministering in a theistic culture vs. an atheistic culture. If you treat an atheistic culture as if they already believe in God and just need to believe in the right God, you will miss the boat. Yet in our American context, we rarely have to convince people that God exists. That would not be true in places like China, or India. But we don’t know that unless we take some cues from them.”

Again, this is all well and good. I have said nowhere, that we shouldn’t learn about the people we are trying to reach. But even that learning must always be subservient to the Scriptures. What I am saying is the church errs when it sees in the worldly culture a fountain of wisdom for how to do ministry, reach the lost, worship God, and live the Christian life.

Darrell, Thanks for that. As I said, I don’t want to be talking past you and maybe that is happening here.

Actually the Bible does tell us quite a bit about how sinners think and how they view the world,

Here’s one example of where we might be talking past each other. The Bible does tell us something about sinners in general, but I don’t know anywhere that the Bible will tell me how my neighbors specifically think about grief, or sexuality, or pain and suffering, or evil, etc. because unbelievers have a range of issues and responses. I can only know that by interacting with my neighbor. And until I know that, I might be answering questions they are not asking.

I don’t think recognizing that there is a particular need or question and then address that question is not letting the culture determine the church. I think it is just common sense ministry. I think it is, in a sense, preaching to the people in front of us.

What I am saying is the church errs when it sees in the worldly culture a fountain of wisdom for how to do ministry, reach the lost, worship God, and live the Christian life.

I certainly agree on this.

“I don’t think recognizing that there is a particular need or question and then address that question is not letting the culture determine the church.”

OK, and of course we should get to know our neighbors. I never argued otherwise. I am not sure what I said that would have made that suggestion, but at least now it seems we have understanding.

[TylerR]

I think what you described is exactly what DeYoung was warning about. That kind of thing is unbalanced.

On the other hand, I wonder how much time Reformed churches do spend on prophesy? Any Reformed folks out there want to chime in? Do you wish your Pastor could walk through Daniel’s 70 weeks with you, or have you never heard a sermon which explains it? Does your Pastor avoid prophetic passages? Does he sort of wave them away and make snide comments about the Left Behind series whenever the topic comes up, in an attempt to deflect?

In other words, does your Reformed pastor broad-brush Biblical prophesy and try to hurry past it the same way a dispensationalist deals with (1) whether (and how) the New Covenant is in effect today, or (2) why there will be sacrifices in Ezekiel’s temple in the Millennium?!

Having been a member of Reformed and Dispensational churches, I would say the emphasis on prophecy has varied in each camp and, at any given time, has been driven by a number of factors. I do not recall an unbalanced or unhealthy prominence given to it in either camp. (I am aware of those in each camp who would, in my opinion, afford it undue emphasis). In my experience in Reformed circles, prophecy has not been avoided. I am a member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and my pastor has been preaching through the Book of Zechariah on Sunday evenings. He has not shied away from prophecy when preaching from other texts either. I have also been a member of a reformed evangelical church where the pastor preached through the Book of Matthew and addressed prophecy as it arose in Scripture. I do not recall any “snide comments,” although references have been made in comparison and contrast to Dispensational views. Interestingly, these references have not been very frequent. (I did recently watch a Kevin Bauder lecture during which he made a gratuitous comment about the “bouncing ball” theory of the rapture held by post-tribulationists, who could retort that Dr. Bauder holds to a “boomerang” theory). Although I have not heard, in person, a Reformed sermon specifically on Daniel 9, I have listened to sermons by Martyn Lloyd-Jones, read a sermon by Charles Spurgeon, and read writings by John Calvin, Vern Poythress, G. K. Beale, Meredith Kline, and Sam Storms on the text. I believe I have at least a generally passable understanding of both the Dispensational and Reformed views of Daniel 9.

By the way, I do believe it unfortunate that Kevin DeYoung referenced Daniel’s 70 weeks under the following mark of an unhealthy church: The more peripheral the sermon topic, the more excited the people become. In Reformed theology, Daniel’s 70th week has everything to do with “the Trinity, the atonement, the new birth, [and] the resurrection.”