Imp-licit preaching

We live in a world of very effective preaching. Surprised? But this world is far removed from the pulpit. Direct preaching words are rarely used, as the media, advertising and politicians implicitly divert society from Christian values.

As Satan's teaching breaks no laws, imp-licit is trebly appropriate. Sadly, the Church can also implicitly preach bad messages in rather similar ways, albeit unwittingly - and these stumbling blocks to faith are the burden of this article.

They will be better understood however, if first I explain how the world implicitly injects ideas: by example, deception, word-manipulation and legislation. My examples could be multiplied by readers a hundredfold.

By Example - TV soaps such as Eastenders portray immorality and perversion as normal.

By Deception - advertisements falsely associate e.g. sexual attraction with cars. Media caricatures, teletubbies Advent calendars and the Dome 'preach' our faith is trivial and merely one among equals.

By Word-Manipulation - references to 'Christian militia', 'Protestant pub', 'partner', etc. contain Satanic implied lies or a deceiving euphemism.

By Legislation - laws and benefit rules 'preach' Christian marriage as only one option.

Stumbling blocks

Yes, the church and individual Christians can also play the above games, 'preaching' negatively unintentionally. Indeed, until a united church both explicitly and implicitly preaches the same essential message, local and world evangelism is greatly handicapped - unless God intervenes. Direct, pulpit preaching with words only reaches a limited number. Implicit preaching can reach deep down and totally destroy any spoken preaching. It also often has a universal and unaware audience. You will no doubt perceive which of the above four worldly ploys applies where the church is concerned. But before I detail the implicit stumbling blocks to which even true believers can contribute, I must highlight Unbiblical Teaching, which of course is largely explicit-and hopefully not applicable to EN readers!

Unbiblical teaching

Liberal theologians abound, especially in high office. The world must be confused by the explicit messages they receive. Churches whose main concern is a personal commitment to Jesus must contrast strangely with those preaching a 'social' gospel, 'do' uncommitted baptisms, seem interested only in fund-raising, jumble sales, flower festivals or bell-ringing, and whose moral position is obviously contrary to the Bible. And paradoxically, nominal Christians are often the hardest to evangelise!

Secondary issues

All denominations, and certainly individual Bible-based churches, should make it clear that secondary issues, however important to them, are trivial compared with the clear, unequivocal public presentation of the gospel. If only the Anglican General Synod realised this and that also the devil-inspired media eagerly publicises all the wrong things. In many ways this is an extension of the liberal-clergy issue. With true Christian theology and morality, and if we turned to the advice given in Romans 14, most secondary issues would either melt away or have a low and private profile. How Satan must rejoice at the public perception of a church apparently concerned with wrong or trivial things. He at least knows its true concern is a life-or-death matter!

Related to this is the question of church labelling. The world sees 'Baptist', 'St. John's' or 'Evangelical' but never 'Christian'. The implicit message is therefore that the former is more significant than the unwritten latter. Perhaps the secondary qualification should be put in brackets after 'Christian church'?
And between ourselves, I am disturbed by all the different 'evangelical' affiliations, journals and magazines. Although my wife and I contribute to several, and I write for a few of them, I wonder why people with identical core beliefs, but with different secondary nuances, have to distinguish themselves from other Christians. Our different 'flavours' are due to environment, nurture and God-given personality differences. I wonder what the world makes of e.g. 'conservative', or 'charismatic', when the 'flavour' is made to seem more important than the Saviour. Oh dear, I tend to emphasise my nuances in the same way! The world happily assumes a divided church.

Ancient & modern conflict

Although this is more an internal problem, some elements of it must get to the world outside. The differences concern worship style, any liturgy and the music. For each, one can usually make out a good case for Ancient, Modern or a mixture of the two, and, once again, one's preference is determined by those God-given human differences. However, I believe there are objective criteria which should be applied to both A & M in all areas. Failing to do this causes conflict, division and justifiable criticism.

Criteria

I have written before concerning the 'W' criteria for music. They can also be applied to worship style and any liturgy. What is done must work and be practical, it must be worthy, and it must not be too worldly. Here are a few applications of these criteria:

The music should work and be singable by all ages - the 'modern' not too syncopated or idiosyncratic for the elderly, and 'ancient' chants only used when a good choir can support.

Whether the worship style is A or M, its format and general presentation should be worthy of an infinitely wonderful and loving Creator. This applies also to the quality of what is sung or said. Both an over-casual, flippant content or approach and an apparently thoughtless, habitual repetition of a liturgy are inappropriate and misleading to uncommitted visitors.

So, seducing young people with worldly sights and sounds is dangerous, seriously misleading them as to the nature of our often difficult walk with God. I am particularly disturbed when both music and music group portray the aural and visual sensuality associated with a rock band. Some modern worship magazines picture leading groups as such. And when I read of 'star worship leaders', I am speechless!

Conforming to the world

Although this title also applies to much of the above, I want now to mention some of the worldly philosophies and procedures that today's church often espouses.

Most have some virtue, but the danger is in regarding them as unequivocally good. 'Child-centredness' suggests that youth rules above the wisdom of age. 'Democracy' can lead to a majority decision overriding Bible teaching. A worship of 'choice' leads to pick 'n mix services dividing the fellowship by age or 'flavour'. 'Business management style' causes the Anglican Church to be dominated by accountants and all of us to have workshops, focus groups and seminars. Then there are 'Codes of Practice' which inhibit free, Spirit-led, loving action.

Finally, political correctness is responsible for the unnecessary changes to the vernacular and inclusive language in Scripture, liturgy and hymnody. The world thus sees a church behaving and sounding just like any other secular organisation. So, even among what we call 'sound' churches, there are few to which I would invite new Christians or genuine seekers.

Lack of leadership

As our leaders have a platform denied to lesser mortals, when are they going to tell the nation just how the media and politicians are turning it from Christian morality? And when will the Archbishop of Canterbury, in particular, have the courage to assert the gospel above all other issues-and sack errant clergy- including bishops who voted against the retention of Clause 28? When will all church leaders publicly condemn the media for its blasphemy and clergy ridicule?
When are all going to assert that Britain should remain an essentially Christian culture-sadly nominal though it be? And what about the destruction of Sunday as a special day? All this disgraceful neglect implicitly communicates untrue messages concerning our faith and values-perhaps sometimes destroying the faithful preaching of the comparative few. The church is thus helping Satan in his deceitful indoctrination.

A final word

Let us pray, therefore, for a generally perceived unification of the true church of Christ. I do not know how it can be achieved-only God knows. But until it comes, evangelism both here and abroad will become increasingly difficult. How can the world take a divided church seriously? Recently, in a sermon, the conditional aspect of the following text was dramatically brought home to me for the first time. It makes a wonderful confirming summary of all the above: '... that they may all be one... that the world may believe' (John 17.21).