So, We Have An Image Problem . . .

According to a recent article @ Time.com, Christianity has a serious image problem (Click here: Christianity's Image Problem - TIME).  Based on Barna research, Christians are often perceived as too political, too hypocritical and far too judgmental towards homosexuals.

___________________________________ 

"Barna polls conducted between 2004 and this year, sampling 440 non-Christians (and a similar number of Christians) aged 16 to 29, found that 38% had a `bad impression' of present-day Christianity. `It's not a pretty picture' the authors write. Barna's clientele is made up primarily of evangelical groups.

Kinnaman says non-Christians' biggest complaints about the faith are not immediately theological: Jesus and the Bible get relatively good marks. Rather, he sees resentment as focused on perceived Christian attitudes. Nine out of ten outsiders found Christians too `anti-homosexual,' and nearly as many perceived it as `hypocritical' and `judgmental.' Seventy-five percent found it `too involved in politics.'

Not only has the decline in non-Christians' regard for Christianity been severe, but Barna results also show a rapid increase in the number of people describing themselves as non-Christian. One reason may be that the study used a stricter definition of `Christian' that applied to only 73% of Americans. Still, Kinnaman claims that however defined, the number of non-Christians is growing with each succeeding generation: His study found that 23% of Americans over 61 were non-Christians; 27% among people ages 42-60; and 40% among 16-29 year olds. Younger Christians, he concludes, are therefore likely to live in an environment where two out of every five of their peers is not a Christian.

Churchgoers of the same age share several of the non-Christians' complaints about Christianity. For instance, 80% of the Christians polled picked `anti-homosexual' as a negative adjective describing Christianity today. And the view of 85% of non-Christians aged 16-29 that present day Christianity is `hypocritical—saying one thing doing another,' was, in fact, shared by 52% of Christians of the same age. Fifty percent found their own faith `too involved in politics.' Forty-four percent found it `confusing.'"

_________________________________ 

 
I wonder if this would still be the case if Christian preachers emphasized what Francis Schaeffer once called "true truth," i.e., that it is far more important that Christianity is true than it is that Christianity is useful.  How many of those who thought Christians were too judgmental have ever heard a sermon in which law and gospel were properly distinguished?  How many have ever heard that Christ's death is absolutely sufficient to save even the worst of sinners and that his blessed righteousess will cover them on the day of judgment?  My guess is that not one of those who thought Christianity was too political has ever heard someone explain the two kingdoms from a Reformed perspective.

Seems to me that what the church is missing is the kind of stuff we've been emphasizing on the White Horse Inn for years (Click here: The White Horse Inn: Know What You Believe & Why You Believe It).

1).  An emphasis upon Christianity's unique truth claim

2).  A proper distinction between law and gospel (as set forth in classical covenantal/Reformed theology)

3).  Justification by an imputed righteousness received through faith alone 

4).  A proper distinction between the two kingdoms

Recovering these emphases would go a long way toward fixing our image problem! 

Far more important, this will help recover the prophetic quality of true evangelical preaching and which is so often absent from the pulpit.  We reap what we sow.

Comments

[zrim]

Wow. You said the proverbial mouthful. Here, here. If #1 was grasped all else would flow out from there much easier.

(However, I am not yet as convinced that our circles do as welll as possible on #4; seems many agree that there are 2 kingdoms, but aren't as clear or consistent on their natures or the implications of such. Some claim the W2K model but still talk like transformers of one stripe or another. Some, evidently, are called C2K.)

Zrim

[John Gillmartin]

"I wonder if this would still be the case if Christian preachers emphasized what Francis Schaeffer once called 'true truth,' i.e., that it is far more important that Christianity is true than it is that Christianity is useful."

Stating this is one thing; however, for most, appropriating this is quite another.

C. I. Scofield said it this way: "there is implied in the influence of any truth, the fact that it is really believed to be true." Specifically notice the word influence.

Our problem today is not getting people to make a profession of belief in "true truth" but rather in their truly believing it is truth.

So, I would suggest it's not preachers, as a whole, who bear the greatest shame but rather the hearers ... see Ro.10:17.

[zrim]

John's point about "influence" (indeed, his own blog) helps me make my point. Evidently, he thinks Christianity should indeed be more useful than true.

Christian Righties and simply picked where the Lefties stopped in their shared notion that "the Gospel has an obvious bearing on and implication for earth.". Thomas Oden was prophetic: "Fundamentalists and Liberals have more in common than either would want to admit."

I am with Hart when he suspects that theonomists (and their kinder, gentler cousins the Transformationists of various stripes and hybrids) are Calvinism's version of Methodists.

Zrim

[Richard]

We have people like Dr. Dobson to thank for these poll results.

[John A]

The other specific thing that you sometimes stress on WHI, and that folks like Tim Keller (of NYC's Redeemer Presbyterian (PCA)) emphasize, is our own status as sinners dead in sin. This is an aspect of properly distinguishing between Law and Gospel.

Keller occasionally quotes John Gerstner as having said "There is nothing that separates us from God more than our damnable good works." And, indeed, when we forget that, it's just all too easy to think of ourselves as nowhere near so lost in sin as "those people." The older brother -- the good kid -- was every bit as lost as the prodigal, even while staying at home. Maybe even more so, because of his failure to realize it!

And, of course, that portrayal of the elder brother pointed back to those who were condemning Jesus for consorting so with "sinners."

[Alberto]

I think your being perhaps too optimistic about what good teaching can do Mr. Riddlebarger. Many people just don't like any form of controversy when it comes to religion, and people are quite sastisfied with just knowing about what works in the present life. They don't want their beliefs challenged. Also, many people develop their views on Christianity by making hasty generalizations (Converse accident fallacy) We Protestants even get a bad reputation due to the problems of others like Rome.

[mattumanu]

I'm not a prophet, but I'll say I already suspected this. Here in Florida it's a madhouse of so called "christian beliefs", and children grow up thinking it's all garbage because there's little or no continuity from one church to another.

It's the gospel folks. I'm of a mind, right now, that it's not even about dividing law and gospel so much as it is that the gospel itself is obscured by goofy teachings. The Law, I believe, is pretty well being proclaimed enough, albeit the connection with offense towards God is often admitted. But in way too many cases, the gospel that is proclaimed isn't the gospel at all.

How hard could it be to tell people about Jesus? How he IS the Christ? How hard could it be to explain that it's about his sacrificial atonement, Propitiation through his blood, that he was raised on the third day for our justification? How bleepin' hard could that be?

On a comment to a youtube video, I said this to someone concerning whether I should be seen as delusional. The person I was talking to has a son who goes to church "because he enjoys it". I said to them...

>>If I say my beliefs are about sacrificial atonement, propitiation through Christ's blood, raised again on the third day for our justification, seated at the right hand of the Father and coming again to judge both the living and the dead... That belief is no longer tolerated. Perhaps even by your son.<<

To which the other person replied...

>>True, my son believes no such things. They are a bit bloodthirsty in nature, or have you not noticed that?<<

As IF! This person thinks I haven't noticed that there was BLOOD involved in all of what Christ did. I replied back...

>>They are wonderful, in that God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself. If you don't believe in a God who is so just and so holy that He will spare no one because of sin, then these beliefs will seem to you to be bloodthirsty and nothing more.<<

Like you guys at WHI, we're fighting back. I, at the very least, want people to stop making gross generalizations and at least show me how they understand Christianity in a systematic way. Christ and all his benefits are of NO USE to people if it's not true.

It is true. The world needs to get over it.

[reg]

The folks who are so busy trying to trying to establish God's kingdom on earth, because they apparently think God is powerless to do so are to blame. They have converted the Good News into a political cause. It is less important to preach the Gospel than it is to try force people to embrace their agenda for the here and now at the point of a (political) sword. We can bring about the millenium NOW!

"They have healed the wound of my people lightly"

[PB]

Mattumanu, I'll see you and raise you one. The same "bloodthirsty" analysis was recently offered by an ordained American Baptist minister here in MA. Seems she thinks we can't reach folks today with such primitive and violent images. Lord have mercy.
And reg's post with the quote from Jeremiah is right on target. Especially on the gay issue.

[mattumanu]

What annoys me about the "we can't attract people with such primative and..."... IS that the one of the biggest blockbusters here in america of all time was 300. Of course, the passion of the Christ wasn't popular at all, now was it?

Nah, they're right. No one wants to hear about that stuff.

[zrim]

"Keller occasionally quotes John Gerstner as having said "There is nothing that separates us from God more than our damnable good works." And, indeed, when we forget that, it's just all too easy to think of ourselves as nowhere near so lost in sin as "those people."

If this is true (which I believe it is), then the presuppositions of Keller's transformationalism make no sense at all. How can sinners, who are really no better than one another by virtue of faith, think they can change the world?

Zrim

[John Thomas]

I'm somewhat new to this forum and had a couple of questions.

Just for context, I'm a Calvanist and have listened to the White Horse Inn some in the past and have read Kim's First book and liked it.

1. What exactly do you consider to be the proper distinction between law and gospel.

2. How would define the relationship between the two kingdoms.

Thanks,

John...