What I was describing is the way in which the evangelical world was reconstituted after the Second World War by people like Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and John Stott and how it has declined in recent decades.  This kind of rhythm—renewal followed by decline, followed by renewal, followed by decline—is, in fact, the story of the Church.  In Scripture, we see this very rhythm working itself out in the Book of Judges. It is always important, though, for people to know where they are in such a cycle.  There is no time when the Church is perfect but there are times when it is better and others when it is worse.  My view is that in important ways we are leaving behind better days, even as being “born again” gains cultural acceptance and as megachurches become more numerous.  It is the deep sense of truth, the truth that God has given us in his Word, that defined the earlier evangelicals and this sense is now fading in comparison to the desire to be culturally relevant.  We should, of course, be engaging culture but not so that that culture defines who we are and what we want and how we go about our church business.  It is “sola Scriptura” not “sola cultura” ! The marketers are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have adopted from the business world all of the tricks of marketing that make corporations successful.  The emergents are in danger of building the Church by cultural means because they have allowed themselves to be infiltrated by a postmodern mood which imagines that knowing what is true is arrogant, that the way we make connections with Gen Xers. is by being so diffident that we are unsure how true Christianity really is or what its demands actually are.

Focusing on the problems with church marketing strategies, you note that, "The gospel cannot be a product which the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel." If the marketers/seeker-sensitives are not "selling" the gospel, what is it that their consumers are actually buying?

What we seldom understand is that the modernized world in which we live has untold benefits but it also extracts from us deep, inward costs for having those benefits.  That is our paradox.  Never have we had so much --so many products, choices, opportunities, so much knowledge, instant communication, and long life (in 1900, people could anticipate on average 49 years of life in America but today it is in the early 80’s).  But, at the same time, the levels of anxiety have never been higher, or the levels of stress, and the incidents of depression have never been greater and we now have more kids who are more demoralized than ever before.  This is our paradox.  Never have we had so much and never have we had so little.  Living in the American consumer Paradise is....hard!  That is why when people come to church, their minds are full of all of these pressures, anxieties, worries, cares, distractions.  What they are looking for is inward relief, a moment’s therapy, some fun and lightness, some inspiration, a little break from the harshness of the workplace.  That is what they want from their churches.  And that is what the marketers are intent on giving them.

You claim, "There is a line which connects Marshall and Wright to Bell and McLaren.  It is that the authority of God functions separately from the written Scriptures… The common threads across this broad front are that Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the Church today.  We are, in fact, autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world." One might argue that evangelicals have been doing this for some time. For example, many try to find guidance from God through "putting out fleeces", feeling a special peace about a decision, or waiting for some other sign. Would you say that the common thread also extends through these sorts of spiritual practices that appear to water down the authority of Scripture? How would you assess the role Scripture currently plays in the lives of most American evangelicals? 

We all find ourselves in the midst of a world which is sometimes baffling, confusing, and painful.  Like the psalmists of old, we often ask, “where is God in all of this?”  This experience, I suspect, is the common lot of those who know God because we are all being trained to walk by faith and not by sight.  We find this hard.  We want to be supported by evidence—interesting coincidences, miraculous escapes, compelling narratives—and so we do, indeed, often lean to our own understanding as you suggest.  However, this weakness, I believe, is of a different order from those who, in small or large ways, have undermined the full, working authority and truthfulness of Scripture.

You state, "It is important for us to remember that culture does not give the Church its agenda." Given the context of debates over our relationship to the culture, what ought our relationship to culture to be?

Culture is simply the public environment in which we live that has been brought about by the modernization of our world.  Our culture is defined by our urban concentrations, by our consumerism, the fact that technology is interwoven through our lives, by the massive bureaucratic  structures in our society which create its impersonal feel, by our loss of connections to place and family so that loneliness has become epidemic.  This is what explains why our music is as it is and why serious movies are exploring the themes which they are.  So, as in ourselves, so in society which is an extension of who we are, we must make a distinction between what is good from creation and what has been corrupted.  The N.T. understanding of worldliness is that it is everything in our culture which, however pleasant, makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange.  It takes discernment to be able to see what is good in culture and what is not.  The problem here is that discernment is essentially a moral ability and we are now raising a church generation which is simply adrift morally.  That is a fact which I have documented.

A significant criticism in your book is against the autonomous self that has come to define popular culture and even many churches. You argue that we have become self-centered as opposed to God-centered. Isn't there some degree, however, to which we should be aware of ourselves? Some of the great hymns emphasize our wretchedness and our gratitude toward God. How does a healthy view of self differ from the autonomous self?

Yes, we should be aware of ourselves and it is still true that the unexamined life is not worth living.  That, however, was not what I had in mind.  The “autonomous self” is what happens when we have little or no compelling reality outside of ourselves; we have no Scripture that summons us into the presence of God, no God who is indistinguishable from our needs and wants, no community that can help or correct us, no moral world in which right and wrong are enduringly true and out “there.”  There are millions of Americans like this and many are in evangelical churches.

One of the emails I received today linked to a men’s devotional series called “Live by His Power,” which is published by Christianity Today. The very brief “devotional” for today recites the story of a pastor counseling a young man regarding sexual temptation:

I counseled Justin, a gifted young man fighting a losing battle with pornography and chronic masturbation.

"The next time you rent a porno movie," I advised, "pray, 'God, I know this isn't right, but I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.'"

"You call yourself a pastor?" Justin exclaimed. "How could you tell me to keep on doing this!" He rose from his chair and headed for the door.

"God already knows the needs in your heart," I said. "He knows the content of every pornographic movie you've rented and witnessed your every act of self-gratification. Why not stop pretending and acknowledge the God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff?"

Justin left my office very upset with me. But several months later, he returned. "You were right," he admitted. "God is there with me. Recognizing that has spoiled lust for me and made me listen to the real yearnings for love in my heart."

This story was quoted from a book, so I don’t know if there was more to it. I sure hope the pastor worked with Justin to help him repent of his sexual sins instead of simply pointing out the God knows the desires of his heart. Regardless, I think this brief story highlights some of the problems with the way in which we often address sexual sins with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

1)      “Chronic masturbation”- “Chronic” has strong psychological connotations. There’s a sense in which something chronic is out of our control. Too often we treat pornography and masturbation this way- we know they are not healthy, but we sometimes treat them like psychological conditions or diseases rather than sin. While there are often emotional and behavioral problems related to these actions (e.g. misplaced intimacy, addiction) that should be addressed, we must not lose sight of the simple yet devastatingly sinful nature of these problems.

2)      “I have terrible unmet needs for love and intimacy that I can't address any other way.” At best, this is a poorly worded statement. We have unmet desires of all sorts in this life, but I’m not sure we have unmet sexual “needs.” The claim that these are needs too often becomes an excuse for engaging in sinful activities (e.g. viewing pornography, masturbation). We recognize that we must eat to survive and nourish our bodies. Many see certain sexual sins in the same way- such as masturbation is necessary to relieve stress or tension. A man once told me he masturbated before dates so he wouldn’t be as tempted to go too far with his girlfriend. Because he viewed his sexual desires as “needs,” he exchanged a terrible sin (pre-marital sex) with a “lesser” sin. But it was still sin, and the Bible makes it clear that following Christ means we must repent of all sin.

3)      "God already knows the needs in your heart.” This is true. God knows our needs and provides for them. He also knows our desires, and some of them are repugnant to His holiness. The desire to feed our lusts inappropriately is one of those desires. Not only does God know these, so does everyone else. We treat them as if they are secret unique sins, but just about every one in some way struggles sexually. Because we don’t often acknowledge that, we find comfort in sharing our struggles through sympathizing with others. I’ve been in a few “accountability” groups were guys would go around in a circle and list some of their sexual sins from the past week. Then everyone would pray and leave. There’s nothing wrong with sympathy. It can often be helpful. But finding sympathy alone will not lead to repentance. God does know my desires, as well as every other totally depraved man, and that’s why some of them need to be drastically changed under the guidance of His word. God doesn’t just know and understand them, He wants to sanctify them.

4)      “God who's already there when you struggle with this stuff.” God not only knows, He’s not only present, but He has also spoken on these struggles. God is there, and He has not been silent. Whether we view Him as a caring friend or a condemning judge, we must not stop at simply acknowledging His presence. We must also seek to understand what He has said- what He has commanded and what He has forbidden. What did Jesus mean when He said “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart”? (Matt 5:28) Lusting after a single woman may be acceptable if we limit adultery to a crime against someone’s marriage. But if adultery is also a crime against God, then the marital status of the woman is irrelevant. Such excuses for sin will be destroyed when we regularly and humbly meditate on the Bible. The Holy Spirit works through God’s word to instruct and change us- to make us look more like Him. So while it’s okay to point out that God is with us, we must not fail to point also to His word as it is His means for sanctification in our lives.

So, I realize that this method of breaking up my critique of Storms' book into small, brief sections lends itself to the suspicion that I'm just taking cheap pot shots.  But I hope the reader will understand that I'm simply doing this for practical reasons, mostly relating to time (and besides, you don't want to read a 1500 word blog post anyway!).

In Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?: 4 Views, Storms gives two suggestions to explain the "dormant" periods in history, where the Spirit was not ubiquitously and supernaturally active among the people of God.  The first is sin and apostasy, the second is Biblical ignorance.  The first suggestion is meant for Old Testament history, the idea being that Israel's constant sin and rebellion against God caused the quenching of the Spirit's power.  But as Dr. Robert Saucy points out in his response to Storms, this suggestion can hardly be taken seriously, since one of the most active periods of supernatural power in Israel's history is the time of Elijah and Elisha, and this is arguably one of the worst times of apostasy, at least in the Northern Kingdom.

The second suggestion is meant for the early medieval period.  Rampant Biblical ignorance, primarily due to illiteracy, is a primary reason that the Spirit was not working miraculously in the same way that He was in the 1st century.  My question is, does Storms extend this charge to his contemporary cessationist (or even open-but-cautious) brothers?  I would think not, since Storms praises cessationists for being word-centered and having a high view of doctrine, etc.  And yet, the only other option Storms has left us with is sin and apostasy.  One of these two things must be true, or, according to Storms, cessationists should be experiencing the power of the Spirit on a regular basis.  He might want to suggest that some cessationists do in fact experience the power of the Spirit, but dismiss or rationalize it.  But this seems unlikely on any large scale, especially when it comes to things like speaking in tongues.  It could also be argued that cessationists don't experience such things beacuse they don't believe in them.  This seems problematic for two reasons.  First, it seems to adopt the "if it didn't happen, then you just didn't have enough faith" mentality that is antithetical to a true Christian worldview.  Second, according to Stroms, one of the primary purposes of the spiritual gifts is to engender and strengthen faith, so it would be odd to argue simultaneously that faith must preceed them (with the possible exception of initial, regenerating faith). 

The fairly obviously conclusion, that Storms and others seem stubbornly unwilling to accept (and I'm really not sure why), is that it is God who ultiamtely determines when and where (and how) the Spirit works, not just on any given Sunday morning, but within history as a whole.  I personally don't see how this conclusion is harmful to the Third Wave position, and I see no reason why Storms must attempt to rationalize the Spirit's "dormant" periods by appeals to apostasy or ignorance. 

In Convergence: Spiritual Journeys Of A Charismatic Calvinist, Sam Storms lays out a solid case for the continuation of spiritual gifts in the church today, and argues that "charismatics" need not be anti-intellectual or anti-doctrine.  He believes that cessationists have historically done a wonderful job developing doctrine and what we might call the "life of the mind" in the church, and he admits that charismatics have often ignored the life of the mind in favor of spiritual experiences.  But he does not believe that this divide is a necessary one, and takes his own story to be evidence that one can be both charismatic and a "Word-centered" Calvinist.

I found the majority of the book to be both helpful and informative.  I was a cessationist not too long ago, but now I would consider myself in the broad middle category of "open but cautious" (in part due to Storms' arguments against cessationism).  But I found several of Storms' arguments to be inadequate, and at times even ad hoc.  I wish to address these concerns in a series of posts.  This first post will deal with just one of the arguments.

Storms argues that Charismatics don't put immediate Spiritual guidance ahead of guidance found in the Word.  Why not?  Because, says Storms, every prophetic word or dream or vision that is received is immediately and meticulously weighed against Scripture.  Scripture, then, is the final authority. 

That answer sounds good, but it actually dodges the question.  Notice that, while the Bible may act as a rubber stamp that will allow a certain bit of direct Spiritual guidance to pass, it is still the direct guidance itself that remains central.  It is not Scripture that is actively guiding a person, Scripture merely allows (most often by its silence) someone to be guided by other means.

This is no knock-down, drag-out rebuttle, but it does seem that Storms' attempt to show that the Bible remains just as central to daily guidance for the charismatic as for the cessationist mostly fails.  The difference between "active guidance" and "passive allowance" is a big one, and one that Storms cannot ignore.