It’s almost always awkward attending church when visiting our families. My wife’s parents still attend the church of her childhood, the church we were married in. My mom is still active in the church I grew up in as well. Both are part of denominations that are going the progressive route, though at different paces. Neither are theologically or otherwise where we are today. So, we are never quite sure of what we will face attending church with them. On Sunday though we attended Jane’s sister’s church which I was excited about because it’s in a bit more conservative denomination. They had just finished VBS, but were assured that reality would not dominate the service. I got through the VBS songs without tossing my cookies. (there is something about putting kids in videos where they overly enthusiastically sing praise songs with hand motions and seem to want to make church look oh so cool, that really churns my stomach) We then had the offering, the reading of God’s word, and the sermon followed by a song and benediction. I was impressed that they stand for the reading. It led me to expect an expository sermon. That kinda happened and kinda didn’t, which is where the thrust of my writing today is going.
There is something about the trendy contemporary church that is odd to me. Actually many things are odd about it. I love modern music though and am not opposed to contemporary worship in general. This particular church is set up in an old piano factory and their conversion of space was fantastic. The “sanctuary” is both earthy and vague in it’s decor. It looks nothing like a church – which is okay. I understand and value traditional church architecture, but the church is God’s people not a building. The backdrop to the stage area is a wall of wooden pallet slats. The stage is lit in a way that conveys performance though and the praise team is fronted by four singers with microphones singing to us. That part gets me. When I was a kid I went to a concert by a traveling music group called “Truth” and still can vividly recall a bunch of overly groomed singers up front with big microphones in hand singing cheesy praise songs. It struck me as canned joy. That’s my baggage. Sorry. I’ll move on to the point.
The sermon was based on Daniel Chapter 1. The pastor explained that they were doing a series at the moment on ‘great starts’. So, I am guessing they are not going through the rest of Daniel but will jump to some other person in the Bible who exhibited great faith and explore how that all began. The pastor then introduced an analogy of guardrails and suggested that Daniel had guardrails that helped him. There was an image put on screen of a car that had jumped the guardrails and ended up sitting just a foot from falling off a massive cliff. Everyone marveled. I wondered what the analogy had to do with the passage.Not to worry though, the pastor’s first point was that God gives us guardrails to protect us. Daniel had guardrails that enabled him to abstain from eating forbidden foods. Hmmm. He then went on to compare Nebuchadnezzar with Hitler and Mao in that they all worked to rally the youth to their view. Nebuchadnezzar actually though took the best youth from the royalty and nobility of the people he conquered and put them in his service. The pastor went on though into the realm of where we see guardrails missing in our society today, pointing to spring break and quoting stats on pregnancies and std’s that result from an environment where guardrails are missing. So now I am seeing moralism developing in the sermon. How does Daniel 1 warrant a moralism sermon?
Well, the sermon honed in on the fact that Daniel was of the conviction that he should not eat the king’s food. It might contain pork or other meats prohibited by God. And God blessed his faithfulness and gave him favor in the eyes of the eunuchs who were in charge of the guys. At this point I am scanning the chapter with a realization. If I were to present this sermon in a class in my seminary I would likely fail. Why? I would have missed the point of the passage. The chapter emphasizes God’s hand in everything. The Lord gave them over to Nebuchadnezzar. The Lord gave Daniel favor in the eyes of the eunuchs. God was providing for Daniel and Daniel was faithful to the Lord in this situation. In a setting where the attempt was made the convert these young men of either royal or noble backgrounds, they did not convert to Babylonian ways. There was a faithfulness that was blessed, but God was in charge all along. The major point of the sermon should have been on God’s faithfulness, not the moral example we should all follow.
I got excited as the pastor introduced the final point in the sermon. He asked what does this teach us about how we should seek to impact culture? I was immediately thinking he might explore the fact that Daniel very graciously turned away a feast of the best foods in the kingdom so that he would be faithful to God’s word. The emphasis being on his humble and gracious faithfulness would be a strong point from the passage. One could point to Daniel’s quiet resistance and reliance on God. Oops! I jumped too quick to conclusions. Instead the pastor talked about mission trips their church was taking and sacrifices made in doing so. At this point I remembered the pattern that drove me mad in college when I visited a variety of local churches. Most of them regularly preached sermons that effectively communicated “be a good person, do what is right, and God will bless that. Oh, and go serve others”. I discovered that moralistic preaching is common in the area. The local church culture seems to want that.
So, years after I found myself frustrated by moralism and the lack of the gospel in preaching, I was reminded of the phrase I heard in a song long ago. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Leave a Reply