Thanks for all the great commentary on the last post.
My point in posting was about the message being communicated. Why, if you have the opportunity every Sunday to tell people about the love of God, would you choose instead to tell them that they are bad?
I meant to get back to that post, but I had to finish my taxes first.
Over the weekend, I discovered that the sermon I mentioned isn’t original to our local church. Here is a link to the original message. At least I am assuming this is the original.
In this version, the good news is
You are a bad person.
instead of
We are bad people.
(It is between 21:00 and 22:00 in the video.)
It makes me sad that this message was broadcast via satellite to many locations and thousands of people. Apparently this message was also presented by other pastors in many parts of the country earlier in 2009.
The local version I first watched was mostly verbatim to the link I’ve included here, including the ad lib parts. If it were a written paper, it wouldn’t pass turnitin.com.
It seems ironic to take a message about moralism and black-and-white truth and pass it off as your own. I’m just sayin. I know there’s a lot of pressure to perform every week, but what is the point of faking it?
This image from Bill seems appropriate here, via kinnontv.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.
Hey, Linda…as soon as the boys are off to school (about 30 minutes) I’m going to finish watching this video. I was totally shocked that it is Craig Groeschell … because I met him and heard him speak at a church planters conference in Kansas a couple of years ago and I got a totally different feel for what he’s about. His book, Chazown, is remarkable.
So…I’ll be back later.
Peggy,
He may be a wonderful person and pastor. I’ve heard nothing more from him than this message. It is this message, as an example of the typical evangelical presentation of the gospel, that I believe must be challenged and reconsidered.
“Why, if you have the opportunity every Sunday to tell people about the love of God, would you choose instead to tell them that they are bad?”
I doubt that those who chose to replicate this message would see it that way. The thinking behind it is: unless there is a clear-cut established “bad” as the dark background, the bright counter part of the gospel won’t be heard as “good” at all. And of course there is a kernel of truth in that. There has to be an understanding of what we need to be saved from before we can talk about the need for and the gift of salvation itself.
The problem with this type presentation is the implied moralism that tends to focus on externals rather than the root of sin itself. And it pronounces a general judgment and condemnation (which may induce a certain amount of guilt and consecutive willingness to “repent” regarding certain patterns of behavior) but never fosters a proper understanding of what God’s love is really about and how it gives us worth and validation completely apart from such things as obedience, belief, absence of rebellion etc.
The simplicity of this model is what makes it “work” for so many people. And if you back it up with a few bible verses which seem to reinforce this paradigm and paint any alternative as “dangerous relativism”, you’ve got something that keeps immunizing itself from any challenge to re-think the matter.
There may be a psychological element in it as well. Some people feel so guilty about their “Christian performance” all week that a good beating on Sunday morning serves as the modern version of self-flagellation and penance. If we get a good whipping through the sermon in the church service and agree with it, we can start feeling better about ourselves again.
So true. I liked how you explained it earlier…
“We are not sinners because we’ve sinned (as is said in this message), but that we miss the mark because something much deeper is broken inside, and so we’re sinning because we are sinners.”
Yes, I believe that is the key (even though it wasn’t in an online reply but in my email to you).
And I don’t really care WHO the audience is. You can NEVER assume that people in the church somehow can place it in a proper context of sanctification when the gospel itself is communicated in the end as a response to compromised behavior.
If he’s talking to believers, he should do it the same way Paul does: What you are now is a new creation, God’s beloved children. Don’t slip back into a lifestyle that is the very negation of what love is all about.
Believers need to re-hear the Good News just as much as others who are in need of hearing it for the first time.
Oops, my apologies, I should have checked with you first. I am sorry.
I agree completely. The Good News is still that God’s love has the power to transform our lives.
The message is the same to everyone, unbelievers, new believers, and mature believers – Know God, let his Love transform you.
Interesting question. I think it is both. Adam and Eve sinned, though they were not broken. Because they sinned, we all became sinners. Thank you Lord, for Jesus who has given us the victory over sin and whose resurrection guarantees our own resurrection.
“It seems ironic to take a message about moralism and black-and-white truth and pass it off as your own.”
Ironic indeed. Looks like it isn’t about internalized and lived truth at all but essentially about conformity and appearances.
Okay, so I’m back.
Let me suggest some possible context for this message: this is the pastor talking to the congregation.
Clearly, several times, he says that if you are not a believer, he’s not talking to you. He is essentially talking about covenant-breaking. He gives the context of confession and repentance for attitudes and actions that are not right and to which God will respond with forgiveness and reconciliation because of his great love for us.
Craig has a tremendous sense of humor … perhaps that context is missing for those who are “watching from outside” … it would not be the first time, for him and for many others of us, eh?
It is a fine line we walk, when we talk about the love of our heavenly Father. He loves us with an everlasting love, yes. But that love also calls for discipline (not punishment), doesn’t it?
Does that mean that he winks at our sin? I don’t think so.
Does that mean that there is no place for godly guilt and sorrow that turns us back to him and makes broken relationships right? I don’t think so.
Does that mean that we are to wallow (or allow others to coerce us to wallow) in self-loathing and shame and guilt because we are the lowest, filthiest of wretches who deserve nothing but death and destruction? NO, absolutely not.
We are loved at all times and in all circumstances … and the Holy Spirit, if we allow, is always at work bringing us, first, and then making us, continually, more like Christ.
If we, who have accepted God’s love in Christ, are not allowing the Holy Spirit access to our hearts to make us more like Christ, then we need to hear the words of correction and repent.
For too long I struggled with a terrible conundrum in church services: a confusion about to whom the sermon is addressed.
I personally think the church is meant to be a gathering place of the believers, where they can be encouraged and can encourage others. Where they listen to the word of God and allow the Holy Spirit to work in their hearts. Where they urge one another on to love and good deeds.
However, too often what I think is taking place is that we are inviting those who are not followers of Christ to our insider talks … airing our dirty laundry in public … speaking to the uninitiated about things that they don’t understand.
This is mainly because we have been led to believe that this is how evangelism is done — in a sermon by a pastor … the attractional model … rather than living our faith and sharing our lives with those around us in such a way as the Holy Spirit gains access to our neighborhoods through the believers in the neighborhood — and the love that they have for one another.
So, what I think that Craig is doing is consciously bracketing those “insider” things (whether or not I think it is really the right thing to do, see above) that are “discipline” from those things said to those who do not know Christ … reaching out to them with the love of God in Christ Jesus so that they can believe that they are loved and that there is hope for them in their situation.
So, I guess this just reconfirms my fears that you just can’t have it both ways … and why I never could preach in that model … and why I now cannot even “attend” church worship services/programs that use that model.
Sigh….
…and do you think that Craig’s sermon is the one being ripped off? I would believe that, because I did not sense, at all, that he is one to preach from someone else’s stuff. He is VERY creative and approaches his pastoral duties from what I would consider the very best of a bad paradigm.
I can see others, who don’t know him or the relationship he has with this congregation, as using his stuff to spin their own stuff … and that is a source of sadness for me.
I think that is what we all risk when we put any of our stuff out there, eh?
Peggy,
Well, I didn’t say ripped off. It appears that his sermons are broadcast widely to other campuses and via the internet. It also appears that his sermon resources are available to network churches and perhaps to anyone else who wants to purchase/use them.
I watched several “versions” of this sermon online earlier, and it was apparent that the original was used as a sermon resource and outline, but that the person speaking had somewhat personalized the message. I think that is fairly normal in churches now.
BTW, the best version I came across was here. This guy frames repentance and grace in a way that communicates the transforming power of God’s love and the role of the Spirit in transformation.
Josh makes a good point about an authentic, internalized message, and Brad mentioned elsewhere about the importance of a locally contextualized message.
As I said in the post, the local message was verbatim in most places. As a student, that is considered plagiarism. But maybe the ethical issues are different in church.
You know, I do remember Craig being very up front with making it a point to provide as much of their resources freely to anyone who needs them. Here’s the link where they say that they don’t attribution:
http://open.lifechurch.tv/faqs
They are very protective of others’ creative work, however, and don’t even rebroadcast things on the internet that are broadcast live if there is a copyright issue.
I was deeply impressed by their willingness to develop materials and then freely allow them to use used by others (within their free license framework).
This is an interesting thing. Some have the creativity to do things on their own. Does it mean that if you cannot do this, you cannot recreate the work of others (with permission)? My Dad frequently did this (he was a very fine preacher) … and the widow of one of his sources said that listening to my dad preach was like listening to her husband again. She was very grateful that this work was going on in this manner.
So, hmmmm…..
“I’m not bad…I’m just drawn that way.”
LOL!!!
…and I think that it is incumbent upon those teaching or preaching to be sure that their content is consistent with the context in which it will be received.
Sigh, again…..
well …. the folks keep comming to get beat up all the time, why is this so?
I had a friend who used to feel that unless they were “beat up” in a message, it wasn’t a good message. Why? I suspect because it gave him a goal to work for the rest of the week.
Mark they have not individuated as Jung says.They’ve absorbed their pastor’s desire and have become trapped in a double bind – he needs them and they need him for purposeful existence.This is what is scary about the dynamic of mimesis or metaphysical desire.
I think the reason is this; feeling bad ‘feels good’ when we have not understood what God is really like.
We see Him as task master as opposed to Good Father, Friend and Comforter.
Maybe we keep going back for more because feeling shame is the closest thing to our understanding of ‘Humility’ that we know. But Humility is agreeing with God about what He sees when He looks at you. It’s shocking when we see how much He actually likes us.
Maybe when we get sick and tired of feeling like crap… we’ll pursue a relationship with Him instead. What He thinks and feels about us will matter more and even when our own conscience screams at us that we’re scum… we’ll know to tell it to shut up and believe God :) We can’t actually change on the inside without knowing God’s acceptance anyway. Lost-saved and in between… the invitation to know Him never ends and He promises us transformation through love and relationship and adventure/process.
I wish I had time to get into this more. All I can say now is that it makes me sad. Very sad.
Here’s what Jesus said:
“Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher” (Lk 6:39-40)
So much for the doctrinal protection of being a part of an organized group.
My wife and I are constantly throwing ropes to well meaning – very good Christian people caught in a pit – they are just like their teachers. We’re getting better at identifying the ones who just want to pull us in – and those who really want out.
If you blindly follow someone – you’ll end up in the same pit they end up in.
very true