Spurgeon, on “Rolling Stone Christians”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, great preacher of the 19th century, had this to say about a problem that seems to have only gotten worse in 21st-century America:
“I know there are some who say, ‘Well, I have given myself to the Lord, but I do not intend to give myself to any church.’ ‘Now, why not?’ ‘Because I can be a Christian without it.’
“’Are you quite sure about that? You can be as good a Christian by disobedience to your Lord’s command as by being obedient? There is a brick. What is it made for? To help build a house. It is of no use for that brick to tell you that it is just as good a brick while it is kicking about on the ground as it would be in the house. It is a good-for-nothing brick. So you rolling-stone Christians, I do not believe that you are answering your purpose. You are living contrary to the life which Christ would have you live, and you are much to blame for the injury you do.’â€
Joshua Harris wrote a book called Stop Dating the Church. Folks who call themselves Christians, but are only casually dating the church, are like bricks “kicking about on the ground” (interesting metaphor there). They might be bricks, but they are surely not good for much of anything in the household of God.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
4 Responses to “Spurgeon, on “Rolling Stone Christians””
Just as timely today as it was in Spurgeon’s day. Rolling Stone Christians are clearly self-centered Christians, the antithesis of Philippians chapter 2.
Don ~ Mar 15, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Also, how can one partake in the Lord’s supper properly without the context of the body, of Christian fellowship?
I do provide communion to shut-ins and folks in nursing homes and even hospital patients, but I believe that is the exception to the rule.
Funny how people will tolerate all kinds of stuff in order to go to a game or concert, but the slightest discomfort can keep someone away from church for years.
They’ll watch TV and submit themselves to a literal barrage of solicitations, both commercial and programmed, yet if someone invites them to church they become overly suspicious, defensive, or even offended!
I must love logic and reason, because whenever I see abuse of it, it gets me going….
Mark Merritt ~ Mar 16, 2007 at 12:34 am
One of the common criticisms of evangelical Anglicans made by “traditionalists” (i.e. the “let’s make the Church of England ready to come ‘home to Rome’.” lobby) is that evangelicals don’t have a proper ecclesiology- a theology of the church.
Now, some of this is unfair, and what they mean is that we don’t share their views. We bang on about salvation and the Cross rather than the essentials like proper church architecture and robed choirs.
But part of the criticism is right. We don’t have much of a theology of the church.
There are two parts of this:
(i) we have a right emphasis on the individual salvation. No-one can make the decision to follow Christ on your behalf. No-one can repent of your sins for you.
(ii) we place a strong emphasis on parachurch organisations. I am an Anglican-Methodist, but my fellowship with other evangelicals is more important than that with other Anglicans or Methodists. My support goes to CARE, Tear Fund, Interserve, UCCF- all of which draw support from evangelicals across the spectrum.
So, I think this leaves the local church in the danger of being “piggy-in-the-middle”.
I spent 8 years of my life as a student, and one of the attitudes that I came across is that it’s the “quality” of “church” that matters more than the “legalism” of where and when. On this philosophy it will be, for example- meeting up with a Christian friend for coffee and a chat? Well, that’s “church”! Having a prayer time with a couple of mates? It’s “church”! Going along to a building full of people hearing someone give a talk and someone do something with bread and wine? How legalistic can you get! I end up surprised at evangelical students who don’t go to a church.
Now one of the reasons given is that church isn’t aimed at students. Well, why should it be? One of the dangers of modern churches, especially in student areas, is that it sends out to students- many of whom are new Christians- that they are the extra-special members of the congregation. We must have special student lunches. We must have special student groups.
Now, many students will already have a university Christian Union meeting weekly. And often lower-level (e.g halls of residence) ones weekly as well. All fine and dandy. But, these can only complement the weekly Sunday church. There is a danger that students feel that this is “church”. That church is there for them. Sadly, not many students join all-age homegroups, or volunteer to serve. I think one of the best ways to ensure people know what church is for is to encourage them to ask “what can I contribute?”, rather than “what can I get out of this?”. This will be the path to service and maturity.
One of the growing dangers is of treating “church” as an ad-hoc object, making up church as you go along by doing things with other Christians you get on with during the week, rather than the discipline of being part of the body of Christ.
Graham ~ Mar 18, 2007 at 7:23 am
Yes, yes, yes! You wanna come preach for me, Graham? Dead on, or as you Brits would say, “spot on”!
Byron ~ Mar 19, 2007 at 8:16 pm