Amazing Grace?

Recently, I attended a service at a church where the projector in the room wasn’t working properly, and a printed sheet was handed out with the words to the songs that were to be used.  I kept the sheet and looked at it later.  I think the projector failure that caused me to look at the words of the songs may have been providential.

One of the songs that was performed was titled “God in the City.”  I observed that the words aren’t really distinctively Christian, at least in a traditional evangelical sense.  There is mention of God as “God of this city” (I assumed it to be the city where the song was performed), and some general concepts of God as “King of these people,” “Lord of this nation,” “Creator,” etc., and the phrase “There is no one like our God” is repeated many times.  But the words express nothing that could not be used by a Catholic, a Mormon, or any other group in Christendom.  There is no mention of anything distinctively doctrinal, no mention of Christ, no mention of the atonement, faith, or repentance, nor is there any expression of true worship.

But the song that really caught my attention was titled “How Sweet the Sound.”  This contemporary number borrows the phrase “Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound” from John Newton’s words set to music in the classic hymn “Amazing Grace.”  Newton’s words are deeply doctrinal and expressive of the nature of grace and explain the reason that the word “grace” might be said to have a sweet sound to a Christian.  He wrote that grace “saved a wretch like me,” that “I once was lost, . . . was blind.”  He is expressing the truth of being “lost” in sin.  Newton knew that there can be no understanding of grace in the biblical sense without understanding that human beings are hopelessly lost in sin.  Sin is a pervasive fact of human existence, both personal sin and the sin nature we have as human beings since the Fall.  But with the salvation offered to us by grace, God does not treat us with judgement but with mercy.  He continues to deal with believers in grace as a principle of life, delivering us from the power of sin and forgiving our sins as we live in a fallen world.  With the understanding of God’s grace as the remedy for sin, Newton wrote that he was no longer lost, “but now am found,” and was no longer blind “but now can see.”  Newton wrote that grace “taught my heart to fear, ” that is, to know and fear God, “and grace my fears (fears in life) relieved.”  He connected the receipt of grace to faith when he wrote “How precious did the grace appear, the hour I first believed!”  Newton’s words express something of the depth and meaning of the doctrine of grace and can be sung to God by a believer as an act of worship celebrating His grace in the forgiveness of our sin.  The hymn is an expression of gratitude from the heart of a repentant sinner who had been saved by grace.

A later writer in the nineteenth century wrote the words of the classic hymn “Grace Greater Than Our Sin.”  The author wrote of the “Marvelous grace of our loving Lord, grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt” in her opening line.  Her words speak of Calvary, “There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt.”  The second verse speaks of “sin and despair” that “threaten the soul with infinite loss,” but grace “points to the refuge, the mighty Cross.”  The third verse reminds that the dark stain of sin can be removed by nothing but God’s grace; the fourth verse celebrates that grace is extended to all who believe and pleads, “Will you this moment His grace receive?”  Like Newton, this author poetically explained God’s offer of grace as a remedy for sin available to be received by faith, made possible by what Christ did for us.  Singing this hymn is a testimony and an act of worship remembering God’s grace in providing Christ as the remedy for sin.

The words of the contemporary “How Sweet the Sound” number on the sheet I received takes a decidedly different tack.  The words contain phrases such as “You are always right beside me,” “You’re my rock and strength, You comfort me,” and “Carry me through the waters, Where Your peace clears away all my sorrow.” The chorus begins “Amazing Grace how sweet the sound, I hear you singing over me,” and then repeats Newton’s words “I once was lost but now I’m found” before continuing on to say that grace is beautiful, covers every part of me, and has a beautiful sound.  Aside from the quote of Newton’s words “I once was lost but now I’m found,” there is no mention of any concept of sin, repentance, or forgiveness. There is no mention of Christ, no mention of His atoning death that made salvation possible and brings His gracious favor and blessings to believers, no mention of faith, just an upbeat celebration that “You” are beside me giving me things like comfort, shelter, and healing in my perceived personal pain.  The song uses the words “amazing grace,” but doesn’t in any way connect to the biblical concept of salvation by grace or help understand what “grace” means.  The focus is purely on a “grace” that benefits “me” in the present.  The tone is almost narcissistic.  The concept of grace that might be brought to mind by the words of this song is decidedly different than the grace that was understood by John Newton.

Amazing grace?  I’ll stick with John Newton’s version.

The Need For A Countercultural Church

Evangelical churches in the twenty-first century seem to be enamored with fitting easily into secular society.  Current social and cultural trends are invited into many churches with numeric growth seen as the primary goal and perceived as being dependent on attracting unchurched people in a manner that will make them feel as comfortable as possible.  Long observed characteristics of church have been completely left behind and, in many instances, what happens in a church today is almost unrecognizable from a traditional perspective.  To some degree this must be expected, as the church will of course reflect the social and economic setting in which it exists.  Times change, society changes, and this will of necessity be reflected in churches.  It is not to be expected that a twenty-first century church in the inner city will have the same look and feel as a church in an American rural area a century earlier.

Unfortunately, this has brought about a tendency for many evangelical churches to become completely focused on being culturally acceptable.  Relevance has been emphasized and misunderstood to mean that the church must be contemporary and completely affirming and accepting toward anyone in its target audience.  Entertainment, consistent with current secular entertainment, has taken center stage as the preferred method to reach unchurched people.  When the Bible is referenced in a sermon, it will likely be used as a backdrop for some sort of affirming motivational talk that the speaker presents rather than as an authoritative basis for the sermon.  In a blog on the “Grace to You” website dated August 22, 2018, pastor and author John MacArthur wrote, “For decades the popular notion has been that if the church was going to reach the culture it first needed to connect with the style and methods of secular pop culture or academic fads. To that end, the church surrendered its historic forms of worship. In many cases, everything that once constituted a traditional worship service disappeared altogether, giving way to rock-concert formats and everything else the church could borrow from the entertainment industry. Craving acceptance in the broader culture, the church carelessly copied the world’s style preferences and fleeting fads.

One wonders, however, if churches wouldn’t be better served by the idea that they should be counter-cultural.  Historically, the church has been counter-cultural in most societies.  In the early centuries of Christianity, the church existed and enjoyed rapid growth completely outside of social acceptance and often under intense persecution.  A countercultural church will have characteristics that will make it unpopular from a postmodern twenty-first century perspective just as was the case with the early church.

A key issue will be authority.  American pastor and theologian Francis Schaeffer wrote in his “The Great Evangelical Disaster,” published in 1984, Notice though what the primary problem was, and is: infiltration by a form of the world view which surrounds us, rather than the Bible being an unmovable base for judging the ever-shifting fallen culture.  As evangelicals, we need to stand at the point of the call not to be infiltrated by this ever-shifting fallen culture which surrounds us, but rather judging that culture upon the basis of the Bible.”  Postmodern thought rejects the very idea of authority.  Right and wrong, the binary/non-binary concept, has been replaced with personal choice and relativism.  A church with a focus on incorporating current societal ideas will do little to challenge this perception of personal autonomy, focusing on how to affirm, aid, and motivate the hearers.   The church operating from the more traditional and biblical perspective, on the other hand, will boldly challenge personal autonomy and declare the absolute authority of God and of the Bible.   People will be reminded that they were made by God for His pleasure and will flourish under His authority.  Authority in a countercultural church will clearly and obviously be presented as coming from scripture.  “The Bible Says” as a concept will be embraced, and the Bible will be affirmed as the Word of God.  Right and wrong, thesis/antithesis, will be presented, affirmed, and taught by a countercultural Christianity.

A countercultural church will challenge current social thinking concerning gender, sexual ethics and morality, and egalitarianism.  To reach people with the message of Christ, there must be a proper emphasis on loving sinners as Jesus did, and churches must present a winsome attitude toward anyone who will come.  Believers must live out the gospel and express love toward all.  The difficult life circumstances of people that may have taken them into sinful behavior, addictions, or relationships will be recognized and confronted in a loving manner.  But there can be no attempt to hide or soften the teaching of scripture.  Biblical marriage must be upheld and cannot be defined as anything other than one man and one woman for life.  Christian homes and marriages that demonstrate submission to the authority of scripture should be the norm among believers, and churches must be dedicated to teaching scripture so that people are instructed and enabled to live out their faith.  The countercultural church will proclaim the teaching of both the Old and New Testament that sexual sin is wrong and will clearly define what constitutes sexual sin according to scripture.  Further, biblical roles for men and women in the home and in the church will be clearly taught and demonstrated.  Male leadership in the home and in the church will be upheld according to biblical teaching.  Relativism in these areas will be challenged, with an appeal to the standards of right and wrong from Scripture.

Social justice issues are ever a focus of media but cannot become confused with the mission of the church.  Speaking out on issues of race and perceived economic issues might be popular, and scripture does give instruction on these issues.  Materialism should be condemned.  It is right and necessary that the church should teach honesty, charity, and benevolence, both corporately and individually.  A church cannot display racism and should teach from scripture that racism is wrong.  But social justice is not the primary mission of the church, and scripture nowhere teaches socialism or wealth redistribution.  The mission of a countercultural church will be tightly defined and tied to the declaration and communication of the gospel.  Further, the nature of the gospel will be clearly defined according to the teaching of scripture.

It is not enough, however, just to make statements.  Churches must reflect and demonstrate biblical authority and teaching.  The weekly gathering of the church that centers on contemporary entertainment and low-content sermons does not accomplish this.  Nor do small groups that focus on social interaction to the exclusion of serious consideration of scripture and Christian teaching.  The weekly gathering of a countercultural church will include a sermon from scripture that is true, substantial, and, well, scriptural.  Music will focus on more than just entertainment or “Jesus as my good luck charm.”  Music in church gatherings will sing back to God His attributes and nature, His grace and the great acts of the atonement in Christ, as an act of corporate worship.  Sermons, lessons, and small groups will proclaim the gospel from scripture and all of its ramifications for life.  Believers will be equipped to live in this world, even as they continually focus on the next world.  Salvation through repentant faith with an eternal focus will be taught, to the exclusion of merely an emphasis on popular themes like prosperity, success, and self-affirmation.  A countercultural church will thus tend to be reflective of a more traditional model than of more contemporary ideas of church.

Francis Schaeffer wrote in “The Great Evangelical Disaster” that If the truth of the Christian faith is in fact truth, then it stands in antithesis to the ideas and immorality of our age, and it must be practiced both in teaching and practical action.  Truth demands confrontation.  It must be loving confrontation, but there must be confrontation nonetheless.”  That confrontation will often be uncomfortable.  The countercultural church, indeed the countercultural Christian, is likely to experience a degree of rejection, ridicule, and even persecution.      

In his 1970 work “The Mark of the Christian,“ Francis Schaeffer wrote, “The Christian really has a double task.  He has to practice both God’s holiness and God’s love.  The Christian is to exhibit that God exists as the infinite-personal God; and then he is to exhibit simultaneously God’s character of holiness and love.  Not his holiness without his love: that is only harshness.  Not his love without his holiness: that is only compromise.  Anything that an individual Christian or Christian group does that fails to show the simultaneous balance of the holiness of God and the love of God presents to the watching world not a demonstration of the God who exists but a caricature of the God who exists.”  Sadly, the contemporary church, and the contemporary Christian, too often are thoroughly wed to current culture and thus demonstrate a bad caricature of God.  The church will not be effective in communicating the gospel if it is not to a great degree countercultural.