Preaching in a Church/State Context Versus a Separation of Church/State Context

[moral necessity]

Reading through a Spurgeon sermon recently, I was struck with how familiar it sounded to many I grew up around. I like Spurgeon, moreso since I can read him better through the glasses of grace now, and not legalism. But, I can hear the similarity in his words through many preachers today, yet harped on to a different tune. It seems to me that he preached in a time when there was a church/state connection in their society, and many were there who were not professers of the faith at all. They partook in the body of Christ, or else they were outcasts in society. They even took communion, a subject that Jonathan Edwards later lost his job over, with the convictions he was having over administering it to those who did not profess faith in Christ. And so, I've read many sermons from these guys who preached in this context, and many of them are filled with challenges to question your Christianity and claim of being a believer. And, it makes sense why this would be done, for much of the congregation was there simply for the fact that they could not function in society if they were not in good standing with the church. But, in places where church and state are separated, you can usually function just fine if you have never been a member of a church at all. And yet, I don't see much difference in the sermons I've sat under. So, I see lots of people today reading Spurgeon and Edwards and other preachers who preached in this context, and they say, "see there, this is how one should preach...much of your sermon should be harsh and challenging, and bring the people to scrape and question if they measure up or are even Christians at all, and very little should be spent on sharing the comforts of the gospel." I agree that we should examine ourselves, as scripture says, but, in my experience, the proper balance between that, and between receiving the comforts of the gospel, do not exist much in the sermons I've sat under. (And, I'm not at all advocating that Easy Believism hogwash either, but rather the proper admistration of the gospel and the food of the Word for the nurturing of the sheep). And so, with a church that is mainly filled with those who profess Christ from little or no cumpulsion of society as before, I wonder if Spurgeon and Edwards and others wouldn't preach much differently. In fact, when I read the sermons of Calvin, it comes across in an entirely different way. Very much of his lecture is about feeding the sheep and giving them the comforts of the Word of God, and challenges are also made reagarding how well we honor Christ, but usually always within the context of us being believers already. And, he usually always follows his challenges with the comforts of the gospel, not leaving one hung out to dry with a sense of despair.

So, I just wondered if anyone else had seen this connection before, and what thoughts some may have regarding it and how it should influence our sermons today. Do you think there should be an obvious difference between how one preaches in a church/state context, and how one preaches in a separation of church/state context? And, if so, what differences should be seen?

Thanks for your thoughts, brothers!

Blessings!


Also, this might fit better in the Preaching forum. As I typed it out, I saw that it may have fit better there, but forgot to transfer it before I posted it. If a moderator thinks it better to move it, feel free to do so. Sorry for the inconvenience if that's the case.