One of our summer interns, Ryan Shevalier, was required to interview his senior pastor for one of his classes. You can read the full text of the interview below:
1. The modern church is often accused of being anti-intellectual. Is this accusation valid?
Any question about what “the modern church” thinks or says is invalid because the modern church doesn’t exist as a homogenous entity. The modern church is like a continent that was struck by a nuclear bomb and has fragmented into a thousand tiny islands travelling rapidly in different directions. That is why we have an explosion of prefixes in the Christian world. Everyone is “Reformed Evangelical”, “Post Modern Evangelical”, “Conservative Evangelical” or “Generic Evangelical”. When you have to put prefixes on words that used to mean something, you are in an interesting new place.
The issue of anti-intellectualism is complex. Certainly the clergy in the broader Evangelical world (think all of those prefixes plus some) is far less educated than it was 30 years ago. I’ve been in ministry 20 years and when I started the 3 year MDiv was pretty standard and now it is extremely rare in all but a few camps. The emphasis is on platform skills and administrative savvy – neither of which require extensive reading in Herodotus or Mesopotamian History.
What is encouraging to me however is that within the YRR crowd or the New Calvinism there is a voracious appetite for old books and classic voices within the Evangelical tradition. Pastors who may not have a 3 year master’s degrees are reading Owen, Baxter, Goodwin, Manton and Bunyan. Guys are reading the Institutes over lattes and quoting Spurgeon in their sermons the way guys used to quote Hybels. That has to be considered a very good thing and while it seems to be isolated to just a hand full of the Post-Evangelical islands, we can always pray that it spreads.
2. What is the proper response of the church and the Christian to a world that is hostile to a theological or spiritual mindset?
First of all its important to note that the hostility of the world towards the church is not new – it just feels new because it has been relatively rare and politely stifled in Canada for most of our brief history. Jesus said:
In the world you will have tribulation. (John 16:33. ESV)You will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. (Matthew 24:9. ESV)
Those who are surprised or unduly alarmed by the fact that our input into the cultural debate is no longer coveted only reveal a shocking ignorance of the Bible and of Christian history in general.
There have always been three available responses to the hostility of the host culture; accommodation, isolation or influence. The fabulous failure of the mainline Protestant denominations in the early part of the 20th century to make effective use of the first of those ought to serve as a caution to us today. While there have been many isolationist movements within Christendom, the standard orthodox approach has been to seek influence. Jesus used to overlapping images to communicate the correct approach:
13“You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.
14“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 5:13-16. ESV)
The metaphors of salt and light collectively speak to an approach characterized by distinctiveness, accessibility and vitality. We must be different, we must be near and we must summon unto life and blessing. We don’t try and bridge the gap, as the liberals have done and as the Post-Moderns appear to be attempting, neither do we hide in the caves, as the monks did and as some fringe groups continue to do, rather we live apart, but near and we critique and call while giving evidence of the Holy Spirit in our midst by means of good works and good living.
3. What is your reaction to the following quote: “Christians are often criticized of being narrow or closed-minded. The exact opposite should be true. A Christian mind should be characterized by its openness, not only to the natural, material, empirical world, but also to the supernatural, eternal, and invisible possibilities.”
Christians should probably spend less time worrying about how we are critiqued. They said Jesus was a drunkard and a glutton but he wasn’t too worried about it. Of course they say we are narrow minded – all such evaluations are relative and relative to culture we are narrow minded. The culture is so open minded its brain has fallen out. When people stop believing in God they don’t believe nothing, they believe everything. A Christian mind should be characterized by its discernment and its submission of all things to the mind of Christ.
4. How should church history influence the modern church? Is it more important to be looking back, or does our focus belong on the present and future?
Churchill said that how far back we look determines how far forward we can see. The Puritans called it “reading Providence”. After the Bible, that is the book we should most attend to.
5. North American culture is very individualistic. What danger, if any, does this present for the church? Is there anything inherently wrong with an individualistic culture, or is it simply a matter of choice?
The problem isn’t really individualism, its autonomy. Autonomy is original sin so, yes, I suppose it is a pretty big problem for the church. We call people to tremble before the Word of God and submit to the Lordship of Jesus and to let themselves like living stones be built into a spiritual house, so our call is radically counter cultural. The danger is that the church accommodates to individualism and autonomy rather than converting it through the power of the Holy Spirit.
6. In your judgement, is First Baptist Church, Orillia as communally oriented as it needs to be? If not, what needs to change and how does this happen?
That’s a little bit like asking “Are you as good a husband as you need to be?” The answer to that can never be yes; there is always room to improve. Our church has a very good reputation in this city with respect to community engagement. The support programs for single mothers and also for people struggling with addiction are well thought of and well used. The food program for vulnerable seniors is growing week by week. Is there more to do? Absolutely. Would you like to volunteer?
7. How does the First Baptist Orillia care differently for its members than it does for those outside the church? Is the church responsible to show equal care for all?
I’ll let the Apostle Paul answer that:
10So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10. ESV)
We often use the language of overflow. Let’s love and serve each other and let that overflow into the community. The love and care in here should be deepest but the walls governing the flow should be very low.
8. How should the church view the arts? Does it have a responsibility in their promotion? If so, what does this responsibility look like?
The church has a very narrow mandate which is to glorify God by making disciples as we go into all the world, baptizing and teaching all that Jesus has commanded. There are a very long list of things we are not in charge of and “promoting the arts” would likely be somewhere on that list. The church is not indifferent to such things, but we must remember that the church gathered has a certain set of concerns while the church scattered may have a much broader list of concerns. Individual Christians living as redeemed members of the new creation will of course have an interest in redefining beauty and aesthetics and this will be pursued in a wide variety of contexts both in the culture and where appropriate in the local church.
As for the more specific question of the arts in the gathered, worshipping church, it is clear that music is commanded and instanced in both the Old Testament and in the New. In Ephesians 5 the Apostle Paul says that Spirit filled Christians will be:
19addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart (Ephesians 5:19. ESV)
The word translated in the ESV as “making melody” he uses the participle form of psallo which literally means “twitching or twanging” and refers to strumming the harp or lyre – an ancient guitar. In modern English we would render this: “Singing and strumming to the Lord with all your heart”. So clearly the use and by extension the promotion and preservation of music is encouraged by the Scripture. The body of Christ should do what it can to encourage people in the development of whatever gifts they have been given that contribute to the worship and mission of the church.
9. Many church traditions have responded in wildly different manners when it comes to visual art. Does the church have a responsibility to be aesthetically pleasing, by use of art, symbols, stain glass, etc., or should the building be bare except for those things mandated by the Scriptures?
I don’t really have a strong opinion on architecture and decoration. I’m intrigued by the thoughts of Schaeffer on beauty and aesthetics but have not entirely processed how that relates to a functioning local church with a budget and a desire to be faithfully proclaiming the Gospel in their city and throughout the world. Again I think it is important to maintain a separation between the concerns of the church gathered and the church scattered. Anything that can aid in the direction of the heart towards contemplation of God in all his glory may be considered, provided that it does not seek to supplant what is established as primary: hearing the Word of God. The Scriptures are clear on this:
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. (Romans 10:17. ESV)
The Gospel is not primarily conveyed by visual symbols but rather by word and word interpreted symbols such as the Lord’s Table and Baptism. This is why Protestants in the Reformed tradition have always understood the centre piece of worship to be the ministry of the Word and the ordinances. I stand by conviction in that tradition.