Why the evangelical church is losing the battle on homosexuality

The speed at which homosexuality has been publicly accepted and endorsed by society is remarkable; in the generation since homosexual activity has been legalised it has moved from a position of ridicule and contempt, to one of acceptance, and ultimately on to a position of high esteem. The media is replete with LGBT related news items, homosexual storylines pervade most television programmes, and pride parades throughout the country are attended by tens of thousands of people, with children and infants bedecked in the colours of the pride flag. What is evident in all of this is that the evangelical church is losing the battle on the issue of homosexuality. The apostate denominations have long given up the battle and, in many cases, have become active promoters of the homosexual lifestyle. Yet conservative denominations and churches, which continue to oppose homosexuality, and denounce it as sin, are failing to impact society on this matter. I believe that the reason for this is that our response to homosexuality has been lacking in numerous areas. 

Do Christians impose their views?

How many times have we heard the complaint that Christians are guilty of imposing their views on non-believers. When Christians refuse to support same sex marriage we are accused of imposing our views, likewise when we oppose Sunday opening, and even when we seek to carry out public evangelism. Every time a Christian speaks out against unbiblical laws and practices they are met with the accusation that they are forcing their religious views on the rest of the population. Is this accusation true; are Christians really guilty of forcing their beliefs on other people? Is same sex marriage prohibited in Northern Ireland because Christians impose their views on others? Are people in the United Kingdom being forced to accept the views of a minority of Christians?

The Lord's Supper: This neglect?

In the late 1630's the religious liberty of Presbyterians in Ireland was so restricted that it was often necessary for them to travel to Scotland in order to receive communion. Rev John Livingstone, then minister at Stranraer, recorded that on one occasion 'over five hundred persons from County Down crossed the sea to receive the sacrament at Stranraer'. What an example that is of the spiritual desire of God's people, that they were prepared to take a boat trip across the Irish Sea for the sole purpose of a communion service. There is no doubt that today the situation has changed dramatically. Whilst there is freedom to worship according to conscience and to remember the Lord's death in a scriptural manner, the Lord's table is neglected by many believers. The attendance at most communion services is but a fraction of the attendence at the preceeding or subsequent Sunday service.

When the church becomes rich

The generation in which we live enjoys luxury and wealth on a scale only dreamt of by those before us. Whilst we are certainly not all rich, most of the western world lives in previously unknown comfort, with an abundance of possessions far beyond our basic needs. Most of us are not living on the breadline but can afford to eat well and dine out when we desire. A foreign holiday is no longer an extravagance but a routine occurrence for most people, sometimes more than once a year. Clothes are no longer bought out of necessity, but rather putting on our 'Sunday best' has been replaced by choosing which 'Sunday best' we will wear this week. Technology has provided for all our needs, we have gadgets for everything, and the increase in disposable income means that we have more opportunity for leisure than ever before.

This age of plenty is also evident in the church. Most congregations now enjoy the comfort of large, well equipped, multi-purpose buildings. Impressive advertising campaigns can be conducted, with glossy literature just as impressive as anything produced by the world. Multimedia technology assists with every aspect of the church's ministry, via PowerPoint presentations, online streaming of services, social media and more. Bank balances are healthy and ministers are well paid. Just as society has become more affluent, so too has the church. Whilst none of these developments are wrong in themselves, indeed we thank God for the material blessings he has given us, there can be the danger that just as the church becomes richer, so it also becomes poorer.

The Dilemma of a Young Adult

There comes a time when young believers in the church, often in their mid to late 20's, feel that they have now outgrown the traditional Youth Fellowship environment. They become what we often term the 'young adults' of the congregation; a group which consists of a mixture of young married couples and unmarried persons aged approximately 20 to 40. Some churches will organise specific meetings and events for their young adults, effectively as a follow on from their Youth Fellowship days. This period in a believer's life is a pivotal one; they have come through the difficult and testing years of secondary school and university and are still part of the church, yet there seems to be the question of where they go from here. What should be the position of the young adult in the church?

Should a church be seeker sensitive?

A popular model for many churches today is the 'seeker sensitive' approach to evangelism and conducting church services. One of the most high profile exponents of this is Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Church was released almost 20 years ago. The seeker sensitive advocated by Warren and many other involves changing church to something which is more friendly, culturally sensitive and appealing to the unchurched, a church experience which is non threatening and which will give them what they want from church. Old style hymns and worship will be replaced with a more modern worldly style of music, including pop, rock and rap. Long expository sermons will be diluted down into a shorter story based talk that meets the perceived needs of the hearers, with biblical doctrines such as sin and repentance being rarely mentioned. The focus of the message will instead be light on doctrine, centred on man and with the Lord Jesus Christ presented as the means of you improving yourself and filling that void in your life. Essentially it is church done the way the unsaved want it to be done, a way that does not cause them to feel uncomfortable or threatened. The seeker sensitive church will also provide for the social needs of the area with numerous programs aimed at improving the lives of those living in the community. These churches have been very successful in seeing large congregations built up very quickly, with thousands of people in attendance and multi-million pound programs being run by the congregation. The question is whether the seeker sensitive approach to doing church is one that we should adopt, and whether it can be supported by scripture.

The cure for church hopping

In our last post we considered the issue of Church hopping. Four observations were made on this matter. Firstly that it is a sign of theological shallowness; we have surely little depth to our faith if we are able and content to regularly move from church to church. Secondly, it does not produce useful Christians; those who cannot settle in a church are rarely of much use in the churches they frequent. Thirdly, it is discouraging to other believers; the constant to-ing and fro-ing benefits no-one. Finally it is detrimental to the children of believing parents who need stability in spiritual matters as much as anything else. Having considered these things it would be wrong not to consider what can be done to cure the problem of church hopping. For those who are guilty of it, what can they do to stop themselves continuing in this course, and for those who have never done it how can they prevent themselves from falling into this fault.

Church hopping

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the greatest and most popular preacher of his generation. Many would argue that he was the greatest preacher of any generation since the time of the apostles. People came from all over London and further afield to hear him preach, with over 5,000 people regularly hearing him preach at the Metropolitan Tabernacle every Sunday. Yet on one occasion, having seen those from other congregations in his church, he made the following statement:

By the way, looking round here, I think I know some of the persons present who belong to neighbouring chapels. What business have you here? Why did you leave your own minister? If I see one come into my place from the congregation of another brother in the ministry, I would like to give him just a flea in his ear such as he may never forget. What business have you to leave your minister? If everyone were to do so, how discouraged the poor man would be. Just because somebody happens to come into this neighbourhood, you will be leaving your seats. A compliment to me, you say. I thank you for it; but now, in return, let me give you this advice: those who are going from place to place are of no use to anybody.

The fault which Spurgeon had identified in many believers in his day is one which is still prevalent today; that of church hopping. Church hopping essentially exists in two forms. Firstly there are those who associate themselves with a particular congregation, have done so for years, and who faithfully attend the Sunday morning services there every week. Yet on Sunday evenings they might be found anywhere, depending on what has taken their fancy that week. Then there are those believers who will attend a particular church for several years, get involved in the work to some extent, then become disillusioned with that church and go elsewhere, only for the cycle to repeat itself again at another church in three or four years time. Occasionally they may return to a church they had previously attended, but over their lifetime they never settle in one place, but are continually moving from church to church.

Church hopping is not something that is to be approved of, or considered as acceptable behaviour for a Christian. There are of course occasions where it is right to leave a church, for example where that church has compromised on the truth of God's word and departed from the truth of the gospel. It is also natural to change churches if you move house, as it may no longer be practical to attend your current place of worship. This however is the exception; changing church should not be a regular occurrence, nor should it be a habit to be absent from your own Sunday evening services simply for the purpose of going somewhere else. There are four observations that we would make on church hopping.

1. It is a sign of theological shallowness
What church do you currently attend? Let us say that it is of some Presbyterian persuasion. You have chosen to attend that church because you believe in what it teaches about the word of God. The reason you do not attend a Methodist or Anglican church is because you do not agree with their teaching to the same extent. Yet with church hopping denominational distinctives are often meaningless. People can go from Presbyterian to Baptist to Brethren to Elim to Methodist and back again without any thought or concern for what theological differences may exist between them. From reformed to charismatic to dispensational, church hopping often involves a very big hop! We are not implying that there are not believers in all of these groups, for clearly there are, yet the differences between them are still significant. If you can jump from one to the other, attend one place in the morning and another in the evening, then the question does need to be ask; what do you believe? The theology of a church seems to be of so little importance today when choosing where to go, yet in truth this is the most important factor to be considered when choosing a church. If we move from church to church based on the activities that the church provides, or because of it's current popularity, without any thought for what it actually teaches, then it is difficult to say that we are not shallow in our theology. We must know what we believe and be convicted of it.

2. It does not produce useful Christians
In the words of Spurgeon which we quoted earlier he finishes with this line; 'those who are going from place to place are of no use to anybody'. He also made the following statement in relation to church hopping; 'To be driven from church to church, as some are, is a wretched business. To be like others, changing their views as often as the moon; happy nowhere, miserable everywhere, agreeing with nobody, not even with themselves, is a poor business'. If we are no sooner settled in a place than we are going somewhere else then we will never be of any use in the work. To only be in attendance on Sunday mornings, and always traveling the country going to other meetings on a Sunday evening is not a sign of usefulness, but of unreliability. Such an attitude will not encourage the leadership of the church to give that person any responsibility for if we cannot commit ourselves to being at two Sunday services in our church, how can anyone believe we would be any different if we were to lead some aspect of the work. To be moving from church to church belies an attitude that the church exists to give us what we want, and when we do not feel that it is doing that then we will go elsewhere. Yet the responsibility lies of the shoulders of every Christian to contribute to the work of the church themselves. If we cannot settle in a church then it is unlikely we will ever be of any great use to the Lord. 

3. It is discouraging to other believers
The desire of every church pastor, elder, leader and member is that the work in which they are engaged would be built up. It is a great encouragement to them when new people start to attend the church and get involved in the work. It is however a great discouragement when those same people leave within a couple of years. It may be of brief encouragement to that new church where they started to attend, however if they continue in this cycle (as is so often the case) they achieve little more than discouraging people in every church they attend, rather than just one. God's kingdom is not advanced constant uprooting, Christians are merely recycled. The same is true of those who attend their home church in the mornings yet always find somewhere else to go at night. For those who are faithful in their attendance at church it is discouraging when they see that others are not so, and for the leaders of the work such people provide little more than a temporary hope. Hebrews 10:25 states calls us to not forsake 'the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another'. To move from church to church, here in the morning, elsewhere in the evening does not do this, but is rather detrimental to all concerned.

4. Its is detrimental to the children of believing parents
How many parents believe that it would be beneficial for their children to change schools every couple of years? It is unlikely that any would see this as being a good thing, for it would be disruptive, and have the risk of a negative impact on their education. Can we then believe that it is any different spiritually? Certainly it is likely to result in the children following that same pattern as their parents when they are older. If their learning in school is important how much more so is their spiritual education. The difficulties which face young people in today's world are immense, and are not made any easier by a regular movement from one church to another. They will know little of what they believe and even less of why they believe it. If a child, at the age when it is most impressionable, is exposed to such a lax approach to choosing a church, then it is likely that they will worship anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere! Just as a fountain cannot rise above its source, so it is unlikely that the next generation will fare any better than the previous where people are in the habit of church hopping.

Are you guilty of church hopping? Has your Christian life been one of constant movement from this church to that, or of regularly being elsewhere on a Sunday evening? Consider these thoughts and pray that you would have done it for the last time. Commit yourself to the work where you are and know why you are there.

When no-one can tell the difference

George Orwell's political satire Animal Farm ends with these words; 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which.' The group which had sought to provide a better alternative to the previous regime, had now become so like those whom they had sought to replace, that it was no longer possible to tell the difference between the two. This illustration can also be applied, not only to the political sphere about which Orwell wrote, but also to the religious world today. The church, instead of providing a better alternative to what the world has to offer, has in many cases become so like the world, that it has become difficult to tell the difference between them.