Comments on: The Biblical Paradigm but Upside Down http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/163 ThoughtPaths with Ken Wilson et al Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:39:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: cnaphan http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/163#comment-89 Sun, 06 May 2007 21:45:35 +0000 http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/163#comment-89 I think the main problem lies in the definition that passes for "conversion" and "evangelism" these days. It seems universally agreed upon that the point of "church" is to induce an intense, emotional state, which hopefully lasts until death. The saccharine hymns, the sermon, the altar call, all designed to produce an effect of dubious value. This trend, which seems to be carried to its extreme in older forms of Methodism and Revivalism, and modern Pentacostalism, seems to be assumed uncritically even in denominations which are traditionally known as resisting such trends, like Baptists. I'm not too familiar with Reformed history, outside of books and some anecdotal experience, but I don't think it's been that long since hymns were frowned upon, no? Anyways, in that milieu, it's easy to see why A) church growth is viewed as important and B) doctrine is distasteful. Firstly, if your services are less emotionally potent than other denominations, you're perceived as being "dead", "not Spirit-filled". Who wants that? People want to go to "lively" services, they want "good music". If there's hands waving and maybe some tears, all the better. Secondly, doctrine is bound to have less of an emotionally powerful effect, due to its nature. Who wants to put a crimp on people's mirth with dusty old confessions, creeds, councils, etc...? Anyways, my conclusion is not so much that emotionalism is bad, but that we've lost our faculty to criticize that side, because it's become so universal that we can't conceive of actually doing things differently. I think the main problem lies in the definition that passes for “conversion” and “evangelism” these days. It seems universally agreed upon that the point of “church” is to induce an intense, emotional state, which hopefully lasts until death. The saccharine hymns, the sermon, the altar call, all designed to produce an effect of dubious value. This trend, which seems to be carried to its extreme in older forms of Methodism and Revivalism, and modern Pentacostalism, seems to be assumed uncritically even in denominations which are traditionally known as resisting such trends, like Baptists. I’m not too familiar with Reformed history, outside of books and some anecdotal experience, but I don’t think it’s been that long since hymns were frowned upon, no?

Anyways, in that milieu, it’s easy to see why A) church growth is viewed as important and B) doctrine is distasteful. Firstly, if your services are less emotionally potent than other denominations, you’re perceived as being “dead”, “not Spirit-filled”. Who wants that? People want to go to “lively” services, they want “good music”. If there’s hands waving and maybe some tears, all the better. Secondly, doctrine is bound to have less of an emotionally powerful effect, due to its nature. Who wants to put a crimp on people’s mirth with dusty old confessions, creeds, councils, etc…?

Anyways, my conclusion is not so much that emotionalism is bad, but that we’ve lost our faculty to criticize that side, because it’s become so universal that we can’t conceive of actually doing things differently.

]]>