Which is why I’m concerned that much preaching “against culture” does little to actually penetrate “the culture” with the gospel or to change the minds of people outside of the church. But it could very well tend to make comfortable pew-sitting Christians feel good about the fact that “we” are not like “them”. (We may be prideful or complacent in here…but look…they’re a bunch of gay baby-killers out there.) Which I’m pretty sure isn’t a good thing.

Or perhaps I’m just overreacting to the constant cultrure bashing I heard week after week after week from the pulpit of the large church in central Virginia in which I grew up.

I hadn’t checked this comment stream in a few days, and just now noticed your comment in response to my remark.

Although I thought my words pretty clearly indicated my intent, I’ll clarify further… When I read Art’s post, specifically some of the phrases like “offending culture” and “screaming condemnation”, the image that entered my mind was the encounter I had with a group of protesters from Westboro at the SBC meeting this summer. It disgusts me, but that was (and is) their chosen method of preaching their message… screaming condemnation on a group of sinners in some of the most offensive manners imaginable.

That was my sole intent in the comment… to share the first thing that popped into my head when I read this post. There was ZERO intent to cast anyone in SBC life in the same light as Westboro… ZERO intent to imply anything about anyone… just to share the image that popped to mind in response to the post.

What I’d like to know is this… why the quick jump to assume ill intent?

Paul

Well said. Most of our preaching takes place in church to the church. So, if Pearle is talking about our preaching, maybe you and he are really pretty close in what you would advocate.

Thanks for being one of the only people actually blogging these days.

How did I guess he was going to be asked about alcohol? His comments about Driscoll were sad and rude.

Wayne Hatcher

As always, good thoughts.

I don’t think that the caricature, and I agree that it is a caricature, is held by the other side within the convention, but by the lost within our culture.

Speaking of them, and John the Baptist, John spoke to God’s own people – those to whom the law and the prophets were given. And speaking of the prophets, the bulk of the prophetic word came to God’s people as well. Jesus’ harshest words were for the Pharisees. I think it would be more apropos if we compared these words to strong words spoken to the church about the sins we actually harbor.

Also, I do think that we need words of conviction and of grace. Before sinners accept a savior, they need to know they need a savior. I agree that there needs to be balance. I also agree that there is much more balance than it sometimes seems.

Is there a place for the prophetic word to be spoken to the lost? Sure. Jonah and Nineveh springs to mind.

When thinking of balance though, I would have to say the bulk of our prophetic word needs to be spoken to those who claim to belong to God.

Thanks for reminding me that John qualified his remarks. I had already seen that, and I appreciate him doing so. Yet, I assumed that his qualifications did not exist to remove any correspondence whatsoever (in which case, what would be the point of the comment?), but to indicate, I guess, that he considers the difference between Westboro and, say, Pearle to be one of degree rather than nature. I’m guessing here, because the difference between John’s comment and Dr. Patterson’s is that Dr. Patterson took an extreme comparison and indicated precisely what he did mean by it, while John merely indicated what he did not mean by it.

I thought my comment might be helpful in our search for “balance.” Since the grotesque example on one extreme had been introduced to the discussion, I thought it might be helpful for us to consider the grotesque example on the other extreme.

Tim’s comment, I think, includes buried within it what I consider to be the weakness of your argument—the caricature of the SBC upon which it is based. You allege that the other point of view believes “all we can do is scream condemnation at the lost” and that they find “no place to preach grace to the sinner” since they apparently believe that we must “do one without the other.” I didn’t hear that in Bro. Pearle’s sermon.

Please give me the names of those who hold and promulgate this view so that I may join you in condemning them.

This Christmas season I’ve been thinking about the role of John the Baptist. Have we read his preaching lately? I’ve come to think that the preaching of grace requires the preaching of condemnation. It is amazing grace precisely because it saves us from the condemnation which we deserve. If there is no condemnation apart from salvation, then salvation is not very gracious, is it?

Of course, I think we agree here. Do I correctly discern that the conversation is not so much about whether condemnation is real, but whether it is good strategy to talk very much about it to lost people? If so, then I wish to offer a case for the idea that the preaching of condemnation is, indeed, good strategy in conjunction with the preaching of grace.

John’s message of condemnation was considered the necessary preparation for Jesus’ ministry. I think also of Galatians 3:24, where the Law is described as our paidagogos “tutor” to lead us to Christ. This is the law that is described in the same chapter as not being of faith, not justifying anyone, and having the universal effect of putting mankind under a curse. Yet this unregenerating, condemning, cursing law is the tutor that leads us to Christ! The message of “Repent” and “You brood of vipers! Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” is the “voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord.’”

Thus, I believe that the preaching of condemnation is often effective to produce “godly sorrow” that “leads to repentance without regret.” As you rightly note, such a message by itself is completely ineffective (As you fail to note, there is no serious problem within the SBC of people refusing to preach the gospel of grace—some merely preach condemnation more forcefully or more frequently than you prefer). Yet as precursor to the preaching of grace, the preaching of condemnation is biblical and has a pretty good track record across the broad scope of Christian history of effecting actual demonstrable conversion in people’s lives.

I agree that it is absurd and John said so. Much the same way that Dr. Patterson did when comparing someone who believes in a Private Prayer Language to one who mainlines heroin.