The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 4

Below is the second half of the conversation j razz and I had almost a year ago. May we continue to involve ourselves in conversations that stretch us.

_________________________________________

Nick said...

Man, these are becoming some long posts, huh?

I appreciate you clarifying some things. I understand that you were not accusing me of anything, but I also think it's clear that I clarify that we do or don’t do certain things.

Now, for some dialogue/commentary:

I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.

See, this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him. We will have all eternity to praise (not that it isn’t important now), but we can only win people for a certain time. I think that is God's “MO” and Jesus' when he was on earth: that for this season, God desiring that his people come back to him.

I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose. It isn’t asking “what's in it for me?”, because evangelism doesn’t always help out the believer. It would be much more comfortable to make church a social club with nice carpet and not do the work to reach anybody, but that would not be God's will. I agree that scripture is concerned with glorifying God through the son, but the reason seems to be so that "he will draw all men unto him." It goes full circle back to that.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.

We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit...

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved in salvation (of course). The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful. Why aren't we? We have to answer the pragmatic questions. I don’t mean to be too "business minded", b/c the church is not a business, but the bottom line does count. Souls matter.

To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about the rich man and Lazarus. Although it seems clear that the point is to use Lazarus as a foil for the Pharisees and make a point about position on earth vs the afterlife. Although, I will grant you, Jesus does talk about Hell here, though I would argue that it isn’t the point. Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die...

Yeah, this argument is used a lot. My response, like I said, is that I think love is a better motivator than fear. For example, if we did a study and told 100 rafters that there was a waterfall and 26 of them listened, then told the next 100 to pull over and that there were many great things to see on the shore and 54 of them responded, we would be fools not to use the 2nd option. I think that is a closer comparison to the point I am making. I believe in urgency and all that, but I think the truth is that the second way works better; that love is a better motivator. Please forgive the analogy, because I know it isn’t exact, it isn’t that black and white, and it seems to suggest that we are keeping the truth from them. That is not what I am saying (analogies are only so good, you know?). I am simply saying that I am making my point on practicality. The argument against this is that those converted based on love are not real converts, or that they fall away when trouble hits, but I have seen enough examples of people being saved this way to be convinced that that theory is simply not true.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well. I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that on the final day there will be 2 kinds of people: those that say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." People can choose to be their own king and go to hell or to put Jesus as Lord and go to heaven. It is their choice.

Again, I appreciate the dialogue. It is great to have a disagreement where there is mutual respect. Thanks, j razz.

_______________________________________

j razz said...

...this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him.

I think that this is one of our biggest humps to cross. Your foundational element is that God’s primary goal is to attempt to restore as much of creation before His Son returns for the purpose of right fellowship. My foundational element is that God seeks His glory and all of creation’s purpose is to glorify God.

The view I hold is that God cannot and will not fail at anything He seeks to accomplish (He is sovereign). If God supplied a means (Christ’s redemptive work on the cross) then He will see it through to its rightful end (Redeeming a people for Himself). Christ did not die for all to have the opportunity to make it to Heaven (at least I can’t find that in scripture), Christ died for a real, concrete purpose- to save that which was lost (MT. 18.11); He gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1.4); He gave His life as a ransom for many (MT. 20.28); He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people…(Titus 2.14); He loved the church and gave Himself for it… (He even goes on here to explain why He gave Himself for it.)(Eph. 5.25-27). So, if Christ died to fulfill a specific purpose- that being to redeem us, then He either accomplished that goal of redemption on the Cross or He did not. If He didn’t then He failed and would cease to be God and we both would be living and believing a lie. I think you would say that you don’t agree with my premise. I think you would say that Christ died so that all and any may come to Him. (Correct me if I am wrong). I would say that scripture makes it very clear that He died specifically for those that the Father has given Him. If He died for a possibility what do we do with the scripture that says He died for a purpose? Either 1. He died for all of the sins of all people or 2. He died for some of the sins of all people, or 3. He died for all of the sins of some people. If the first, why are people going to Hell? His death and atoning work was effective and wrought redemption; there is power in the blood. If the second, no one would be worthy of being with the Lord as we would still have sin that is un-atoned for. If the third, then Christ’s work on the cross can be said to have merit as it was a means to an end as it brought about the end goal that was established in scripture as mentioned above; redeeming a people unto Himself.

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose.

To respond to this, j razz included a lengthy quote from J.I. Packer that you can find here. I have removed it for space purposes.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.


I believe that God is completely sovereign over every thing that is, was and will be. In addition to that, I also believe that man is completely responsible for every action they commit, every thought they think and every word they say. I would say that these two things appear as contradictory statements, but I would say that appearances are deceiving. For more on this read The So-Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man.

The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful.

What do we do with great Christian men like William Carey who did not see one single convert for years into his ministry to India and all the while his wife and children fell ill and some died? What do we do with men like Jeremiah or Jonas? What do we do with men like Paul who went to the market place and few believed? Unless the Spirit gives them a regenerated heart and ears to hear, the gospel message falls on deaf ears. I agree, if no one comes to Christ, then something is wrong, but our time and our wisdom is not the timing of God nor His wisdom. What we think to be right and good is folly to God.

Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I do not think that we should avoid it either. I also do not think that we should over emphasize it either. That was really the point I was making. It has its place and if we leave it out, then we neglect the whole of the message. We need not build up one side to the detriment of the other else we find ourselves being partial and witholding truth.


As for the waterfall argument, my main point is not that I would rather be told about Hell than Heaven, it is that I would rather be told both that Christianity has much to offer as well as Hell is a real place where those who do not believe in Christ will be placed after the judgment. I followed up that paragraph with that statement as I would rather be told the truth than only part of the truth.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well.

If God institutes a certain method that is to bring about a salvific response and that response hinges on the Holy Spirit first regenerating a heart to be able to respond to the gospel message, I would conclude that God is demonstrating His authority over salvation. I would further conclude that man is responsible for what he does with the gospel message whether or not he has a heart to believe as the Gospel is a command, not an option. If the man has no desire to obey the command as he is given over to his own wickedness, he is held accountable for his disobedience. What separates that man from you or me? God’s intervening grace in our lives in that He chose to regenerate our hearts and give us ears to hear the truth of the gospel so that we would respond in obedience to the gospel call. God is not impotent; He does not let man dictate their future to Him. In the same way, God lets no sin go unpunished. If men disobey His gospel command, they stand judged already and will be placed in their appropriate place. If men obey the gospel command, they too will be placed in their rightful place based solely on the merits of Christ.

Nick again, it has been a pleasure. If only all my dialogues could be of this caliber. Have a great day buddy and just for the record, I do give 2 craps :)

j razz

________________________________________

Nick said...

thanks for the comments, j razz. I must say though, I am diducting two points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

I think we have hit a wall. Let me recap what I think we have found that our differences are, and see if you agree.

You hold to a sort of divine election belief, a "no man will be saved unless God chooses him" idea.

vs

I hold to a "whosoever will come, can come" idea.

This is an age old debate the books have literally been written about. Their is honestly biblical evidence for both. I doudt you and I will solve this issue.


You feel that God's purpose is his own glory.

vs

I feel that God's purpose is fellowship with his creation, which can only happen if his creation is being brought back to him, which is the primary purpose of the church.

This is fairly major, but I think what is interesting is how we see each belief playing itself out in practice. That is what originally got us discussing this topic.

You have stated that God actively send those who dont follow him to Hell.

vs

Hell was not meant for people, but for the Devil and his angels, but people choose to go there when they make themselves king over God.

Im not sure how much of this is just semantics, but, again, i think it plays itself out in our practice. Beliefs matter, because they effect us in a myriad of ways.

Does this sound fair, j razz? I am of course better at articulating my side than yours, but I tried to do my best. If you think I'm close, than we can agree to disagree, and walk away from this with a better understanding of the other person's beliefs.

Thanks again, friend.

Nick
___________________________________________


j razz said...

I am diducting to points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

Wow! I am humbled that you think I write like J.I. Packer. You have more than made my weekend! About deducting two points- if you must! He just says it so much better than I.

I will just clarify my position where I think it is necessary and then sign off :)

Divine election vs. Whosoever will...

I would say it is less a vs and more of a both and. Whosoever will come will... because God deemed it so.

I doubt you and I will solve this issue.

Come on Nick, let's give it that old college try :)

God's Glory vs God seeking fellowship with creation

Yes.

God sends people to Hell vs Hell is for Satan and his angels

Yes. I would also add to this that if God never intended Hell to be for the majority of mankind, He would not send them there- he would send them where they belong b/c He is God and He is Sovereign and He never settles b/c He has the means not to.

Nick, this really has been a pleasure and a great example of as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. I think that God has been glorified through this and hopefully whoever stumbles upon this will see how Christians can disagree and still be Christians and still be brothers in Christ.

You have been a gentleman in this and I have gained respect for you.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

j razz

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 3

As we continue to look at how respectful, honest, and fair conversation can be used to help us learn and grow as disciples of Christ, but with those who share our faith and those who do not, I wanted to revisit a post I did back in Febuary and the conversation that flowed from it. My conversation partner was j razz, a dear brother in Christ and a fellow blogger. The first half of our conversation is posted below.

As an intro, here is the basic content of the post. I was thinking about preaching and what my philosophies are on the topic, and wrote the following article.

____________________________________

1. Preach From the Bible

I had a professor that once told my class to always read, quote, and paraphrase the Bible in sermons as much as possible. "That way, when you are done, you know you said something inspired." Well said, Dr. Nunnally. I don't believe every sermon (or even most sermons) needs to be verse by verse expository preaching, but scripture should always be used. How can we get by with not using it?

2. Keep it Practical

My currect senior pastor holds to the idea that sermons should all be very practical. I agree. In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand. They don't want hear about why we should boil goats in their mother's milk, but things like parenting, conflict, influencing culture, God's plan for marriage etc. they tend to care about because it speaks to their lives. There is a place for the esoteric studies of fairly insignificant bits of scripture, but that is not a Sunday morning. Another word for this would be relevance. People need something that is going to pertain to their lives.

3. Use Humor/Entertainment

Erwin McManus was once challenged by someone who accused his church of trying too hard to entertain people. His response, in my own words, was basically that to entertain someone was simply keeping their attention. Some people are entertained by hymns, or organ music, or expository preaching, or drama, or humor etc. I think he makes a great point. We are all trying to communicate a timeless message in new, creative ways. Whatever form that communication takes should depend on the audience. In LiveWire Student Ministries we use lots of humor, video, movement etc., because young people (actually, all people) learn in multi-sensory ways. This is not diluting the message, but rather, becoming better at communicating it. Jesus used stories, object lessons, humor etc. in his teaching, so why are we afraid to?

I must say though, that this, like all things, can easily go too far. Making jokes at a time that needs to be serious can lose a crownd quickly. Also, when the goal becomes entertainment, rather than communicating the message, it has gone too far.

4. Be Semi-Normal

Weirdness is not a spiritual gift; neither is it admirable. Some preachers seem to get off on using "insider language" or "preacher voices." Is there anything more annoying? This is the whole problem with the Christian Subculture that has been created. By pulling back and secluding, we have lost the right and the opportunity to speak into the culture. I am going to a conference in 2 weeks where Donald Miller will be giving a talk called "How to Share the Gospel Without Weirding People Out." I think that is a great point.

Now, I say semi-normal, because it is not entirely normal to lay down one's life for a dead criminal, or to simulate eating his body and drinking his blood or lots of other things for that matter. There is a level of percieved weirdness that all outsiders might have for Christians that involve core doctrines that just come with the territorry. But people need a real person. They are very good at spotting the phony.

5. Talk about Jesus

I tend to think that no matter what topic a person is preaching on, they should involve Jesus in the process. It shouldn't be hard, for he is all over the Bible, even in the Old Testament. It seems that the "model" from the book of Acts is just to tell about Jesus and what he did. That seemed to work pretty well. Therefore, we would do well to involve Jesus in our message every time, and to tell the story of the cross regularly.

There it is. It is certainly not perfect nor is it comprehensive, but I have my thoughts down. Feel free to critique, disagree, and call me a heretic if you must, but may we never give up the journey of becoming better communicators of the most important message in the world.

____________________________________________
Here is the conversation that followed from this post.

j razz said...

In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand.

Nick,

Not picking I promise.

With this statement, why would it be beneficial to dumb down the message for a handful, when you have a faithful majority (or at least those who would claim to be Christians) that needs to move on from the milk to the meat as the author of Hebrews would say?

Would the corporate worship time not be better suited for building up and encouraging the believer with the truths of scripture no matter how hard? The whole of scripture was given to us so that we may learn from it and the examples within. The non-believers only need to hear the gospel to be saved. The believer needs to hear the whole counsel of God to grow in sanctification. If your Sunday morning services are to be geared towards those who would claim no allegiance to Christ, why then use anything other than the gospel- the good news? After all, scripture does state that the gospel is the only means under Heaven by which a man can be saved.
It really seems out of place that preaching to the non-believers would be the primary focus of a Sunday morning service. If it is though, when do the saints gather together and fellowship fulfill Col. 3.16? I will stop there.

Just some questions for you Nick. I hope you have a great weekend buddy.

j razz

_______________________________________


Nick said...

Thanks for the input, J razz.

I dont mean "to dumb it down", I just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about. We can preach a sermon that is applicable to a person who isn't "in" yet, as well as move the "faithful majority" as you say, "from milk to meat." We really can dp both. Our Senior pastor just finished a series on conflict...something everyone deals with and could get better at dealing with, but also talked about Christ and how he has called us to handle it and what our responsibility is etc. I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one for the other.

That being said, we do have other times of more intensive Bible study and small group time where christians have the opportunity to dig deeper.

The other thing is that we need to avoid insider language, like christianity is a club. I dont think you were referring to that here, though.

Just to clarify, preaching to the non-believers is NOT the primary focus of a Sunday morning service, but we do make ourselves aware that some will be present (we hope and pray).

________________________________________

j razz said...

I dont mean to dumb it down, i just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about.

I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement whereas I would say that the Bible is very applicable and sermons should seek to be faithful to the text. 1. I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom. 2. The original authors who were inspired by God wrote with purpose when composing the New and Old Testaments. Their message meant something then and it means something now. I would say it is the preacher’s responsibility to show what the text meant, what it means and how it is relevant today. After all, the prophets and apostles were not writing for the joy of it. 3. Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it. If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

Preaching is not barred by scripture from using any other method than this, but I would dare say that examples are bountiful where this method (expositing/applying) is used over and over again in scripture. If we look at the New Testament’s Pauline epistles and letters, we mainly see instruction/explanation given to the local church dealing with doctrinal issues that leads into application. Paul addresses his readers from truth’s sturdy foundation and then he builds a structure of ethics/application. I think this structure can be found in most any of Paul’s writings, and if he is any example by which we are to learn from, then where is the irrelevance? Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John. It would seem that if the authors of scripture inspired by the Author of scripture wrote the way they did, it was because that is how God deemed it to be so. If we can learn anything from examples, I think it would be their example we would learn most from as I do not know any other men that have been inspired by God to perform the task of building up the church at its very foundation.

I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one (preaching to unbelievers) for the other(preaching to believers).

Here again, I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement as I would agree with the statement on face-value but disagree with some methods of carrying it out. I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer. This is also relevant to a believer as we need to be reminded of the gospel regularly. When Paul spoke in the market place to the Greeks, he told them of Christ in a way that they would understand. He went out to them and spoke to them where they were at. But, when Paul wrote letters to the local churches of Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, etc., he did not make provisions in his letters that spoke to the unbelievers in their mist. He spoke to the church and the local church at that.

Now, if we have unbelievers among us when we worship and hopefully we do, they should be presented with the truth of the gospel message. That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you. Christ has already conquered Satan, Sin, and Death and it is just a matter of time before He comes to claim what is rightfully His. It would seem that if a preacher was faithful to the text- preached through its original meaning, its meaning to today’s believers and its application, one application would always be that if you do not repent and believe and obey Christ, then Hell awaits you. This is how I see the prophets worked: God is passing judgment, if you repent that judgment will pass over you, if you do not then you will face that judgment. That is how I see the Gospel message as working: Jesus has done what Adam could not do. Because of this, those who believe on Him for salvation will escape judgment while those who do not will be forced to face judgment for all eternity.

Now, with all that being said, the Bible does not state that a church service must consist of _____. I would be a legalist if I said it did. The Bible does not give us commands as to what is to be done or said, but again, the Bible does give us examples which we can follow. Now whether you follow those examples or not are up to you.

Good conversation Nick, I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to dialogue with me. I hope you have a great week. By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

____________________________________________

Nick said...

Thanks again J razz. This is a fun dialogue.

I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom

I agree, and notice that my #1 point was to use scripture. Context is equally important.

Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it

I think this is easy to say, and hard to disagree with, but reality is that it is difficult. Communicating this timeless message in a way that is relevant to an ever changing culture is hard. Is scripture relevant? Yes. But we are separated by 2000 years of time and culture (at best), so the job becomes increasingly difficult to communicate the message in a relevant way. I could pick a number of scriptures to speak on, for example, "Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart. Communicating that verse in a way he can understand is hard, and I think we would agree that it is not very relevant or effective. That is an extreme example, of course, but some churches are not far from that, and they never see any new people and they don’t grow as a result. Again, I think we need to consider our effectiveness in every step of this, but never to compromise.

If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong. We are actually very effective (I think) at moving seekers from the outside, to repentance and entrance to the family of God, to deep discipleship and growth, to ministry/leadership etc. Not all of that happens on Sunday morning, though. We have many other programs that help facilitate this growth. But to say we keep people at a certain entry level is inaccurate.


I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect. We share the Gospel regularly, nearly every Sunday. It seems like this argument is assuming a lot of things to be true that are not. Willow Creek gets a lot of flack for supposedly "watering down" the Gospel by critics who have never been to a service there. The truth is that they give a clearer and better communicated presentation of the Gospel that the majority of churches out there. You are right, the gospel is relevant to both the believer and the non-believer. That is one of the reasons we share it so often (that and the whole obedience thing).

That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you.

This is true, but we choose to take a bit of a different route. We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up. For one, we don’t see Jesus using Hell as a scare tactic to get people to follow him (the one exception is the virgins/talents/sheep and the goats stories, but it seems he was talking to his disciples, per 24:3, where his disciples come to him privately). Rather, he used love, but did not compromise his demands. We also see the disciples in the book of Acts focusing on what Jesus had done, not on Hell. The prophets in the OT are a bit of a different animal. I would argue that they were talking primarily to Jews, who were very religious already, and were just not living out what they knew, which is perhaps different than speaking to unbelievers. Nonetheless, it seems that the early church would be a better comparison to our churches today than the days of the prophets.

However, the reason I choose to share the love message before the Hell message is because I think love is a better motivator than fear. Fear comes close to coercion, whereas love is an invitation. Again, this is an opinion, and a bit off topic, but worth mentioning. This is not to say we don’t believe in Hell or that we don’t talk about it, only that we don’t use it in evangelism.

By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

Use it well and often my friend.

Thanks again J razz. I appreciate you challenging me like this. I think it helps us both.

Have a great week and I look forward to your response.

__________________________________________

j razz said...

"Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart.

It is funny that you should mention this as I wrote a paper on it back in University: Deuteronomy 23.12-13. I did go through and find application to modern day man… with that being said, I understand your point but I still think we can find intended relevance.

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

I see your point in what you are saying and I see where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree with the premise. I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son, and that salvation is a welcomed byproduct of Him seeking to glorify Himself. I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.
As it relates to them not being around long, I would respond by saying that God has made it clear He is sovereign. In light of that, if someone is to be saved they will be saved. Now, what I am not saying is that we can just all go about and never share the gospel because God will save who He wills. By no means! I am saying that God has given man a tool (the gospel) and a command (share the gospel). If we are disobedient and do not do what is commanded of us, we are in sin. If we do not use the means He ordained for us to share with man, the glory of God, through the gospel, then we sin. My point here is that we are dead in our sin… not sick, dead. We need life and without the Holy Spirit giving us a regenerated heart, we can never believe in something we don’t have the heart for. God must grant us ears to hear and a heart to believe before we can ever do either of those. We are natural enemies of God as Paul would say. If we are faithful to present the truth to them (which is our responsibility) then the Holy Spirit will not fail in His duties to bring glory to God. No means, as a means, is considered as good in itself, but only as conducible to a farther end; it is repugnant to the nature of means, as such, to be considered as good in themselves. – John Owen We cannot bring anyone to salvation. We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the unregenerate that gives them ears to hear and a regenerated heart that willingly accepts the hard truth of the gospel- we are evil and twisted and in need of a perfect redeemer who died and was buried and was raised on the third day.
So, to summarize all that (I know, I am long winded) I would say that a God-centered gospel message is more biblically aligned than a person-centered gospel message (For supporting information on the above see The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen with the introductory essay by J. I. Packer) and a person-centered gospel message tends to lean itself towards a thought of “what does this have in it for me?”

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong.

I was not insinuating that at all- just making things clear for others who may stumble upon your blog at some point in the future.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect.

Nope. Again, just making things clear for others. I do not know your church nor do I know what is taught or not taught. It would be arrogant of me to presume certain things as facts when in reality I know nothing of the matter. So, don’t take these comments as attacks against you or your church as I have nothing to attack- we are brothers in Christ and I hope that this dialogue shows how brothers in Christ are to carry on talks concerning differences. I hope that you know my character a little better than that just from reading some of my posts on Tim’s blog.

We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up.

Luke 16.14 & f.f. especially the last five verses of the chapter: "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' “But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and giving them all they need to see the truth of who He is. To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point (vs.14). I don’t think that Hell has to be used as a scare tactic, but it is reality and truth told plainly is far better than part of the story. I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die when I tumble over it than having someone to tell me to please pull over to the side of the river as there are many great things to see along the shore. What is more, I would rather be told both if both are true. If I am in eminent danger, I want to know if the Holy Spirit has enabled me to hear that message and respond to it. If not, I will find myself crashing over the waterfall doomed to my own destruction because I chose not to listen and obey. You can sink thousands of dollars into extravagant Sunday morning services and not a one will be effective unless the Holy Spirit has regenerated hearts and opened ears and the gospel is preached.

I would say that speaking the truth concerning Hell is far from a scare tactic, but it is love to the nth degree. What is more loving, to tell someone here is the blatant truth of the matter or to only focus on one aspect of it? God is both loving and wrathful. God is both merciful and judging. With building up certain aspects of God’s character to the detriment of others, we find we have a different God than the God of the Bible. God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there. He sends them there because they did not believe in His Son and did not glorify Him by believing in the gospel message. Therefore, if we only tell of the good things of believing in Christ, we do it injustice and do not portray the whole of the gospel. (just for clarification Nick, this is not a critique of your theology in that I think you are doing God an injustice by believing only in parts of His character).

Again, it has been good to dialogue with you. Have a good evening buddy. I hope you take this in the manner in which I wrote it, but in the case that you don’t, I don’t give 2 craps :)

j razz

_________________________________________

The rest of the conversation is posted in the next post to save space and to break it up a bit.

Fake Interview Hints at Truth

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

This is a fake article/interview courtesy of the Onion. My jaw dropped open for about the 30 seconds that I thought this was real. This is good satire: well done, funny, and has one foot on the side of truth and one in fiction. The sad truth is that some (many?) Christians are so homophobic that this may be only a step or two away from the truth. And then we Christians have the audacity to say things like "Christians are being persecuted in America." What a joke, especially when you consider that suicide is now the 2nd leading cause of death among homosexual males. What does that say about our society? And here is another one: why is homosexuality such a hot issue, when issues like divorce, greed, and lying are so prevalent in our society? The Bible certainly has more to say on these issues than it does on homosexuality, yet we have dicided to major in our opposition to this one issue.

I could say more, but before I do (in future articles), let me turn your attention to a cutting edge message by Dr. Tony Campolo called "Struggling with the Gay Issue." Campolo is gaining a reputation for his views on homosexuality, that are certainly progressive, but he makes some amazing points. This would be a fun issue to have a discussion about, so post and dialogue with me if you feel so inclined.

Until next time,
-NF

Some Pros and Cons of the Emergent Movement

We are getting to the point where the Emergent Church movement is no longer a new trend. It has been around long enough now that it has established itself, in some sense, in the Church universe. There is still the sense that when we use the term Emergent that people don't know what we are talking about, because people mean different things when they use the term. Mark Driscoll has this great soundbite where he separates out four streams within the Emergent Church movement. The characteristics I am listing below tend to be in place at the core of the whole group that Driscoll talks about, though perhaps not each specific congregation that would deem themselves Emergent.

That being said, I was very positive on the Emergent Church when I first learned about it a few years ago (and still am), but I hesitated to write much about it because it was still working out its kinks. At this point, I think I am ready to offer a look at some of the best things about the movement as well as some pitfalls. Let's start with the good stuff; those things that, from my perspective, the EC does very well. It is important to note that the EC is a reaction against the church as it existed in the 80's and 90's, the church the EC leaders would have grown up with. That is to say that they are reacting against a largely ineffective, dying, and out of touch institution. Most of their pros (and cons) are reactions against this form of doing church from the past 20 years. Here we go.


Pros

1. Relevance

The Emergent churches tend to greatly value relevance and they do a very good job of being relevant. In many cases the churches emerged from culture, so it was born relevant, if you will. The days of organs, pews, shirt/tie etc. are over for the emergents, because that is not what the target group is about. In addition, impractical messages on the theological significance of the Nephilim of Genesis 6 are scarce, whereas messages on social justice, love, peace, and losing a loved one are in, because those are the issues we see and hear about every day. Every part of the Emergent church is much more relevant than than you might find in other churches.

2. Conversational rather than Dogmatic

The tone of the church in the past was "We have the truth, you should (must!) listen to us." The tone in the Emergent Movement is "Let's have a conversation about death. You tell me what you think and I will tell you what I think and we can ask each other questions and stretch one another with our differing perspectives." Why the different approach? Because people felt abused and brow beaten by the church for so long. It is the old adage that "people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care" put into practice. The Emergents put a good deal of stock into listening to science, the media, the world, in order to learn and gain credibility. Emergents earn the right to be heard, and it is working very well.

3. Emphasis on Community

In the past fifty years, the church has seen salvation and spiritual growth as a very individual thing. The Bible, on the other hand, was written to communities. God created us to live and experience life (the highs and lows, the good and bad)in community. The EC has latched onto this and places a high value on community. The church has been bad at this in the last 50 years, but the EC is living this out in a very real, alive way. Emergent authors such as Joseph Myers and others have written profoundly on this topic.

4. The use of Story

The church of the past did its spiritual formation around certain propositional truths. "Here is the list of things you need to believe. Now change your beliefs to these and go live them." The EC communicates far differently, primarily in the form of stories. That is not to say that they don't communicate truth. Much is communicated when telling a story. The vast majority of the Bible, and specifically, the teachings of Jesus, is story. There is not one bullet point in scripture, as Donald Miller says. The EC has done a great job of effectively using this method.

5. Emphasis on Social Justice

The Evangelical church of the past has been pretty bad at making an impact on the world in the avenue of social justice, and they have certainly paid a price for it not the least of which is the perception to the world. The EC, on the other hand, takes God's call on His people throughout Scripture to care for the poor and to fight for justice for the weak seriously. The Emergent Churches have been the pioneers in the last few years on making social justice issues a big deal again, and the rest of the churches out there would do the right thing to join them.

Cons

Remember, most of what makes up the EC characteristically is a reaction to mainline denominationalism in the last 20 years. These following "cons", in my opinion, are areas where they have reacted too far and over corrected. That does not mean that the swing in the polar opposite direction is correct, but usually that a balance of the two extremes is needed.

1. Culture Supersedes Truth

One of the dangerous pitfalls of the Emergent Movement is that at times it seems that culture can take a precedent over God's truth. This certainly isn't true in all churches that label themselves this way or in all areas, but it can be true. In the attempt to be culturally relevant, they sometimes take it too far and find themselves in error. This is a question that some Emergent Churches still need to answer: when it comes down to matters of doctrine (i.e truth), will Scripture or culture dictate what is right and wrong?

2. Potentially Misleading as to Motives

This is a weird one, because it is a bit contradictory within the movement. What I mean by this is that in some cases Emergent ministries have some sort of a front, be it a coffee shop, bowling alley, whatever, that is there face to the community. Behind the scenes, however, are Christians looking to do ministry without telling you so up front. This seems to contradict the EC's value of authenticity, which I could have put above in the pros. I would say that this is certainly the minority of cases but again, in the attempt to be relevant, the EC can become misleading.

3. Can be Anti-Authority

Lastly, in a reaction against the horrific failure of leaders in the past 20 years in men like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Bakker, not to mention the countless others who didn't make such lofty headlines, the EC has really downplayed leadership and authority. It has come to the point in some places to seem as if there is no real , or at least no real power in the authority that exists. Again, this is extreme, and in my humble opinion, error. God established authority and did so for very good reasons. Certainly the failures of the past can be taken into account and accountability can be in place, but to over react and make authority almost meaningless is equally as bad.

There you have it: my amateur thoughts and critiques of a movement that I am certainly no expert on. Disagree as much as you wish. If you feel led to say "Hey! I'm in the Emergent Movement and my church isn't like that at all!" it is okay. I am not pointing to a specific body, and I think we could agree that there is enough variety within the EC that one does not represent them all.

I have a lot of respect for the Emergent Church Movement and see it to be a great thing that God is doing. Despite some flaws, it is certainly a net gain and is reaching a whole sector of people for the Kingdom that the church of 10 years ago never would have.

Books R' Us

I used to be one of those people who read one book at a time. I would finish a book every week and a half or two weeks and then pick up another. However, the demands of ministry and life, as well as my own scattered interests have forced me to read a myriad of books all at the same time.

In addition, I am also a giant nerd. I love to read. I love to tell people about what I'm reading. I also love to recommend books to people, have them read them, and then talk about the book with the other person. Welcome to my curse. Anywho, here is the small library of books I am working on right now. If you would like to discuss any of these or if I inspire you to check one of these out, please let me know.


A Mind For God James Emory White

I finished this book recently having plowed through it in a day and a half. It is not long, but man, does Jim White hit the nail on the head or what? J. E. White is a great mix of passion for the Lord, academic standards, and practical ministry rolled into one. In A Mind For God, he talks about the importance of Christians thinkers in our day and what it mean to have a mind for god. We are giving this book to our graduates in June.

Jesus the Jewish Theologian Brad Young

I just started this one today. I had been fond of Brad young already having studied his book on parables and their Jewish context, so this book was a no brainer. It is a very scholarly look at Jesus in His culture, that is first century Judaism. The truth is, the 21st century church has largely dejudaised Jesus and Christianity, which is missing the entire context of Jesus. A dense, but interesting read.

Love is a Choice Robert Hemfelt, Frank Minirth, Paul Meier

This is the definitive book on codependency. The truth is that 80% of ministers are estimated to be codependent, and I would guess that about 80% of people in our society struggle with codependency issues. If I was mentoring a young minister, this would be required reading, because we all have the responsibility to examine our past hurts and families of origin and struggle with how it may be effecting how we act and treat others. A deep read that is sometimes painful, but always helpful and interesting. I am reading this book very slow because it is so introspective.

Story Robert McKee

Coming highly recommended by Donald Miller, this book tackles about every possible element that exists within a story. McKee talks about what makes a good story and a bad one, a good protagonist and a bad one, a good climax and a bad one etc. At about 500 pages, I don't expect to finish anytime soon, but it is fun to glean all I can from a master storyteller like McKee.

Overcoming Barriers for Growth Michael Fletcher

We are reading this book as a staff and I couldn't be happier. Michael is one of my favorite people to hear speak and he is almost as good a writer as he is a speaker. this is a good 'ol book on church growth, which is a topic of particular interest to me. I would recommend this for all leaders serving in churches.

Praise Habit David Crowder

I just started this one too, but I love David Crowder. we are looking to really step up our worship on Wednesday nights, so I though David could help us with that. it turns out that he is a pretty good writer. I'll let you know more about this as I get into it further.

Ask Me Anything J. Budziszewski

I love apologetics, which is why I was turned onto this book. Written for college students, the arguments are spelled out very well and the issues are very real and relevant. The thing that caught me off guard was that it is written in story form, as if a professor were eating and talking with some students. It is a nice change of pace, but not as good as I expected. It is still worth a read and will be a great reference for me in the future.

"An Invitation To Know God"

I'm back again with more from Donald Miller in Searching For God Knows What. I have to say that this may be my favorite book of all time, and it is definitely in my top three. We are doing a series in LiveWire Service this month on Identity, borrowing stories and examples from this book. It has been my favorite series we have done in the last three years.

Here we see Donald explaining how his thoughts on God and what it meant to follow Him changed. He wraps this up quite beautifully.

Jesus was always, and I mean always, talking about love, about people, about relationships, and He never once broke anything down into steps or formulas. What if, because we were constantly tyring to dissect His message, we were missing a blatant invitation? I began to wonder if becoming a Christian did not work more like falling in love than agreeing with a list of true principles. I had met a lot of people who agreed with all those true principles, and they were jerks, and a lot of other people who believed in those principles, but who also claimed to love Jesus, who were not jerks. It seems like something else has to take place in the heart for somebody to become a believer, for somebody to understand the gospel of Jesus. It began to seem like more than just a cerebral exercise. What if the gospel of Jesus was an invitation to know God?

There are a couple comments I would like to make about this.

1. It seems clear that Donald is referring to the experience of being born again; falling in love with the Savior and entering into an intimate relationship with God. I think we would agree with this in principle, but I would argue that it is not played out practically as much as we would like to think. For instance, what percentage of your church would you say is born again? By this, I mean really born again. They have had an undeniable encounter with the risen Christ. They have the appetites that born again people have, the appetite to worship, to read and study the scriptures, to pray etc. They have a faith that is stronger than just believing in a set of principles, but that is drawn from an experience that no skeptic can undermine. What percentage would you say? Half? Less? My pastor and I have a theory that the Church has taken people who are not born again and told them that they were, and then told them to crave the scriptures, and worship, and service to the body etc., but they do not have the appetites because they are not born again, so they do not grow.

2. Secondly, what percentage of the Christians you know merely subscribe intellectually to a set of true principles, and how many have actually fallen in love with Christ? I think this is one problem churches run into who make scripture "the point." I dint think we believe in God and have a relationship with Him because of the scriptures, and if we do, I would argue that it is an intellectual thing. No, I think it is the other way around. We believe the scriptures because we have met the risen Christ. Scripture then becomes our guide and our primary and authoritative source of hearing the will of the Lord. But, it is not "the point." God is "the point."

Anyway, those are my rants. I love how Donald can deliver a paragraph that is both beautiful yet incredibly deep and thought provoking. May we continually stress the importance of being born again.

The Lies We Tell Young People, Part 2

While navigating Yahoo! to check my email, I was struck by a headline on their news page. you know, the ones that they make as shocking and eye catching as possible so they can report more hits to their advertisers? Anyway, the title of the article is Can Cheaters Change: Can cheaters stop straying, or is infidelity a personality trait? What!?, I thought. Cheating is a personality trait now? Unbelievable. I read the article, which is very short and a disappointment based on the headline, but it basically says that 25% of men and 15% of women admit to sleeping with someone else while in a relationship, and that those who cheat are more likely to cheat again.

So, I'm sure you are left to conclude, as I am, that cheating is a personality trait, right? And what follows from that is that is it is a personality trait, like introversion/extroversion, it isn't wrong, per say, but part of who they are.

What a crock. Our culture is becoming so steeped in moral relativism that cheating, a practice that obviously hurts and destroys, is seen as a personality trait. This is the dominant worldview that is being handed down to the next generation: that all morality is relative, there is no absolute truth, and every belief is equally valid. Join me on my quest to find more examples of this in the media.

If you care to read more on this subject, I recommend this book on relativism by Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith. I am about half way through it, and they have already blown relativism to shreds, both logically and practically. It employs quite a bit of deep logical terminology, but most high school grads should be able to follow it for the most part.

As a note before I close, I found it funny that this article, by David Zinczenko, is in a series called "Mysteries of the Sexes Explained." After thousands of years of trying to figure this out, thanks, Dave, for making this all so clear.

The Lies We Tell Young People

This decal that I saw on a Myspace page capsulates perfectly the mindset that many young girls have about dating and the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this seems to fit perfectly with what guys are wanting: attention (laughing at their jokes) and sex. It also seems to meet the wants (needs?) of the girls: attention (checking out their slutty clothes) and to be cherished (sex). I would suggest, though, that each thing that both the guy and the girl think they are getting in this scenario are cheap imitations of what they are actually seeking. They are pseudo-fulfillment of the deep needs that God put inside each man and each woman.

For the man, it is the need to be honored and respected by his wife. He has an innate sense that he wants to make her proud and represent her well. In addition, he has a strong sex drive, a desire for the most intimate connection with a woman; a connection and an intimacy that is partnered with the safety of commitment and the security of "until death do us part."

For the woman, it is the desire to be loved and cherished by a man. The desire to be special in his sight and catch his eye, and to captivate him with her beauty. In addition, the woman is cherished in the intimacy of sex, a sex that operates within the confines of love; love that "always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

This cartoon above is apparently the best that secular culture has to offer our young people. In a culture of moral relativism where feelings become the new determiner of truth, instant gratification becomes king. The fastest, easiest avenue to get what you want becomes the road they take. It results in a hollow fulfillment, emptiness, and disappointment, not to mention the more concrete results like STD's, divorce, single moms, and abandonment. Children in single parent homes are more likely to repeat this behavior, so the process is continued.

So, what is needed? Fathers, who will cherish their daughters and teach them the way a man should treat them, and who teach their sons the way men should act. Mothers who will love their children, not by spoiling them, but by instilling in them the values that make a whole person. Boys, who will stop viewing girls as objects and delay gratification for a better end, and who will think, even why society is telling them they should be idiots. Girls, who will see that they have value and worth and beauty, who will set their standards high and not sell themselves short to get attention. But most of all, I think what is needed is the Church, the local body of believers who will step up and change culture one young person at a time.

May we counter the message that is being sent to the young people of this age.

Preaching Tips From...Well, Me

Not than anybody really cares what I think, but I thought I would put down some "preaching tips" from my experience. As I try to become a better communicator myself, I try to learn as much as I can and continue to learn. By the way, I must admit that I completely stole this idea from Tim Ellsworth. It is interesting to see how our lists are different.

Two things to keep in mind: First, that I am young. I gave my first sermon when I was probably 14 to our youth group and have been speaking regularly for the last 4 or 5 years, but I am still pretty young. Second, I work with youth, so that effects my perspective a bit. Here we go.

1. Preach From the Bible

I had a professor that once told my class to always read, quote, and paraphrase the Bible in sermons as much as possible. "That way, when you are done, you know you said something inspired." Well said, Dr. Nunnally. I don't believe every sermon (or even most sermons) needs to be verse by verse expository preaching, but scripture should always be used. How can we get by with not using it?

2. Keep it Practical

My currect senior pastor holds to the idea that sermons should all be very practical. I agree. In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand. They don't want hear about why we should boil goats in their mother's milk, but things like parenting, conflict, influencing culture, God's plan for marriage etc. they tend to care about because it speaks to their lives. There is a place for the esoteric studies of fairly insignificant bits of scripture, but that is not a Sunday morning. Another word for this would be relevance. People need something that is going to pertain to their lives.

3. Use Humor/Entertainment

Erwin McManus was once challenged by someone who accused his church of trying too hard to entertain people. His response, in my own words, was basically that to entertain someone was simply keeping their attention. Some people are entertained by hymns, or organ music, or expository preaching, or drama, or humor etc. I think he makes a great point. We are all trying to communicate a timeless message in new, creative ways. Whatever form that communication takes should depend on the audience. In LiveWire Student Ministries we use lots of humor, video, movement etc., because young people (actually, all people) learn in multi-sensory ways. This is not diluting the message, but rather, becoming better at communicating it. Jesus used stories, object lessons, humor etc. in his teaching, so why are we afraid to?

I must say though, that this, like all things, can easily go too far. Making jokes at a time that needs to be serious can lose a crownd quickly. Also, when the goal becomes entertainment, rather than communicating the message, it has gone too far.

4. Be Semi-Normal

Weirdness is not a spiritual gift; neither is it admirable. Some preachers seem to get off on using "insider language" or "preacher voices." Is there anything more annoying? This is the whole problem with the Christian Subculture that has been created. By pulling back and secluding, we have lost the right and the opportunity to speak into the culture. I am going to a conference in 2 weeks where Donald Miller will be giving a talk called "How to Share the Gospel Without Weirding People Out." I think that is a great point.

Now, I say semi-normal, because it is not entirely normal to lay down one's life for a dead criminal, or to simulate eating his body and drinking his blood or lots of other things for that matter. There is a level of percieved weirdness that all outsiders might have for Christians that involve core doctrines that just come with the territorry. But people need a real person. They are very good at spotting the phony.

5. Talk about Jesus

I tend to think that no matter what topic a person is preaching on, they should involve Jesus in the process. It shouldn't be hard, for he is all over the Bible, even in the Old Testament. It seems that the "model" from the book of Acts is just to tell about Jesus and what he did. That seemed to work pretty well. Therefore, we would do well to involve Jesus in our message every time, and to tell the story of the cross regularly.

There it is. It is certainly not perfect nor is it comprehensive, but I have my thoughts down. Feel free to critique, disagree, and call me a heretic if you must, but may we never give up the journey of becoming better communicators of the most important message in the world.

Christians Being Christians

This is Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle talking about Christians being missional, or as I would say, Christians just being true Christians. He is a bit abrasive towards the "seeker" churches, but he makes some great points. Check it out.

To Invest in People...

Allow me to talk for the next few minutes about a personal thing in my life.

I spent the summer of 2003 in Thailand, specifically Bangkok, doing missions work with a team from my college and another Assembly of God school. There were 8 of us in our group who all worked together: Crystal and Rebecca, 2 of the greatest ladies that could be on a trip like that with me, who were, like me, from Evangel, and Mark, Dylan, Jasper, Duffy, and Niina all from Washington State, and amazing people in their own right. We became very close during this trip, forming something of a family bond. The missionary we worked with was Alan Johnson, a fulltime missionary to Thailand for 20 years. He spoke Thai fluently and led us all over the place; to slums to minister to the poor families, to putting on outreach services for youth, to Thai churches, and to other villages where we would have the priviledge to minister. His amazing wife Lynette would cook our food (what a great cook she was) and do our laundry. In addition to working with Alan and the other 7 students, I also got to work with the youth at International Christian Assembly (or ICA Bangkok), which was an English speaking church that had over 30 nations represented. These couple of months were some of the best in my life.

Alan and Lynette were like parents to us when we were there. I look back most fondly on the meals. In addition to feasting on great food (did I mention Lynette was a fabulous cook?), we would often have deep conversation about spiritual topics: the strategy of missions in Thailand, what Jesus meant when he said "The greatest will be the least and the least will be the greatest," how to treat people and show them the love of Christ, what it meant to be a great leader etc. I have never met anyone in my life who was more intentional with his conversations or who utilized opportunities to disciple young people better than Alan. I feel that I grew more in those months than I have in any other similar period in my life. Now, 3 years later, 4 of those 8 have gone back to Thailand for longer missionary stints, and 2 of those plan on being there full time. 2 are full time youth pastors. 1 is involved in various ministries in his home town. The last is an elementary school teacher in Missouri. 8 college students, from different states, with different goals and dreams and different reasons for going to Thailand, are now all changing the world and investing in people. I wonder how much of that is due to Alan being so intentional with us and the time we had, how much he believed in us, and how much he lived out and showed us what a leader who is sold out for God and people should be.

I leave tomorrow to drive 10+ hours to go visit Alan. The way it works is they spend 4 years in the field, followed by 1 year at home. If I don't take this opportunity to see him now, I may not get to spend time with him for a long time. My wife and I are struggling financially, and I am plenty busy at the church. But, for me to not do everything I can to connect with Alan at this time would be, I feel, bad stewardship on my part. Such is the effect that Alan was able to have on me in one summer.

May we all follow his example. May we all value people in an incredible way. May we intentionally pour ourselves into the next generation of world changers. Thank you Alan, for the difference you have made in my life, and countless others.

Thoughts on the Ted Haggard Situation

With Ted Haggard's confession being officially read at this mornings New Life services, we have now entered into the "wake," as it were, of this scandal. Before we continue to my comments, please be directed to the actual confession and press releases made publicly available:

Ted Haggard's Statement

Gayle Haggard's Letter

New Life Press Release

Latest CNN Article

Naturally, this incident is being likened back to the Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart scandals of the late 80's. It seems, at least so far, that this is less huge, for several reasons, but mainly because Haggard is not near as popular as either Bakker or Swaggart were. Here is a BBC news brief of the Swaggart situation to put it into perspective. No, this is a smaller thing.

However, there certainly are some repercussions. I have met Haggard personally on one occasion. I have heard him speak on several occasions. I have read all of his early books. If you remember, I put his The Life Giving Church as 3rd on the most influential books in my life. I was accepted into the 24/7 discipleship program coming out of high school (I didn't end up going). Churches I am and have been a part of have done his "Loving Your City Into the Kingdom" projects and are members of the "Life Giving Network." Needless to say, there are not too many prominent ministry figures that could have fallen that I would have been more connected with (Perhaps Erwin McManus or Bill Hybels). Having said that, allow me to make a few statements about this incident.

1. May We Maintain an Appropriate Response

I think the 2 most common responses to this issue are to either say "Everyone sins; it is not a big deal," or "Crucify, crucify!" I think that both are unhealthy and inappropriate, and that the proper response is somewhere in the middle. This is very much a big deal, but we must hope and pray for forgiveness and restoration, rather than lifelong estrangement.

2. Be Thankful for the New Life Accountability Board

Not every church has the oversight that New Life does. That is one of the things Haggard stresses in his writings and that caught on more after he wrote about it. They have a very good accountability board that has and will continue to handle the situation well. One of the reasons Swaggart fell so hard is because he rejected the decision of the oversight committee. Haggard's best ally for his restoration and spiritual growth from this incident is the oversight team. It appears that they have done their job.

3. He Seems Repentant

Until I read his confession earlier, I was very concerned. Up to that point, Haggard had not seemed contrite and repentant. After reading his letter, however, it seems that he has become broken before God and has repented.

4. May We, As Young Leaders, Get Our Lives in Order

If there is one thing to take away from this, it is that we as young leaders must get our lives in order NOW. Do not put problems off, for they will catch up to you. "Your sin will find you out." These are not scare tactics. Rather, the battle is too important to lose anymore casualties like we have been. The Enemy will show no mercy. May we, as young men, draw a line in the sand and say that pornography and sexual addiction will stop with us. May we raise up a standard of purity that may be emulated. May we be the kinds of leaders that can and will change the world because our character is strong enough to handle the weight of our successes.

Hidden Sin

I have been thinking a lot about sin recently. There are many reasons. The topic we are discussing in our series on Wednesday nights to the Students, the stuff I am reading, the struggles people I know are going through, sin in my own life. From all of this, I have come to a very specific conclusion:

Sin is not a big deal to us.

We see sin as if it were on a credit card...that we can spend whatever we want without worrying about it. We sin staggeringly often, but are seldom arrested in our hearts to change our ways. I am talking to myself as much as anyone else. I notice this all the time. It boils down, again to my point, that Sin is not a big deal to us.

I think there are pretty much 2 reasons that this is the case in our world today. First, that we know the outcome: Jesus paid our debt. If all of our sin is covered, why is it such a big deal? We would never be so crass as to verbalize it as I am now, but I think it is what we tell ourselves. The scary thing is that Paul warns against this very idea. He writes in Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?" Great question, Paul. And yet so many of us, I believe, are doing exactly what he describes, "Living in Sin." Sin is a way of life; a rut, if you will, that we have apparently no plans to get out of. Have you noticed how trendy it is to lie nowadays, even for Christians? Have you noticed how common it is for Christians to use profanity? Do you realize that according to youthpastor.com, 60% of youth pastors admit to having viewed pornography in the past month? Friends, sin is a major issue, and we need to do all we can to remove it from our lives. The problem, as I return to my point, is that we view it as already taken care of. What if it were harder? What if we still had to sacrifice a goat to gain forgiveness every time we sinned? What would that cost us financially? Would it change things?

The second reason I think that we view sin as no big deal, is that sin is primarily hidden in our lives. Sure, sin happens publicly on a regular basis on TV and the radio blah blah blah. But I mean in our personal lives, sin is so often hidden. What if we still practiced confession? The Roman Catholics did that for over 1000 years until it became legalistic and corrupt. The result is that we almost never confess anymore, and that leads to very little accountability on our part to change. When asked whether confession was necessary, C.S. Lewis stated that he wasn't sure confession was absolutely necessary, but that a man should at the very least make a list of his sins. We don't even get real and face our sins any more. What if we started confession again? And what if we no longer felt that we needed to hide our sin from everyone? I for one am sick of feeling like I need to pretend I have it all together. I am ready to throw in the towel on hypocritical perfection.

What do we have to do to make sin a big deal again? It is a huge deal for God, that is for sure. Allow me, while I am here, to make a few comments to add balance to this discussion. I am not promoting legalistic perfection or condemnation. God is a God of grace, that is for sure. But, as in everything, there is a middle ground that is healthy, with ditches on either side. I fear that we may have fallen into the "grace ditch," and no longer view sin as a big deal. My intention is not to urge us (or myself) into the other ditch, the "legalism ditch." What I do hope is that those who are serious about God will get their lives in order, that they will do whatever they have to do to remove deeply rooted sinful behavior from their lives. Don't wait until later; get it done now. I realize that this view is very unpopular because of the discomfort and shame that results (but honestly, after several of my blogs in the past, do you think popularity is my goal?). However, I think God is calling me (and maybe you) to a higher level of obedience and sacrifice for him. To a more serious view of sin and a declaration to not live a lie any longer. May God help us as we journey on this road of righteousness together.

As I continue these thoughts, I intend to go back to The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his reflections on "Cheap Grace" versus "Costly Grace." Feel free to join me as I continue this voyage to better understand what God is saying to me.

A Black and White Issue

I read on Tim Ellsworth's Blog today the following story from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal:

Twelve-year-old Joe recently asked Jesus to live in his heart.

Yet the church where Joe accepted his Savior not even two weeks before will no longer allow the biracial boy to enter.

On Aug. 6, during its scheduled Sunday night business meeting, Fellowship Baptist Church in Saltillo voted not to accept blacks within the church. More specifically, the congregation also voted Joe out and said he could not return.

That evening Fellowship Baptist did not just say goodbye to Joe and an entire race of humans. With that decision the church’s pastor, the Rev. John Stevens, resigned, and at least one other family decided not to return to the Baptist Missionary Alliance congregation that averages 30 people.

Of all of the issues a church can have, racism is the scariest. I have never been to Mississippi. Is racism still that abundant there that churches hate blacks, and apparently hate them so much as to expel a recent convert, a 12 year old boy no less, bacause his skin was a different color?

How can a group of people read there Bibles and think this? Even more, how much is racism still present in our own hearts? Let us continue to become more like Jesus and forever continue increasing our "bandwidth" of who we think is included in God's love.

More Donald Miller

I heard this quote today on Donald Miller's podcast from his new book, "To Own A Dragon", which is about his life growing up without a father. By the way, if you haven't read anything by Miller yet, please do. He has quickly become my favorite author and he has this gift for writing and putting his finger directly on the issue that is a rare find.

Anyway, in continual evaluation of how we do Church, Student Ministries, etc. I thought this thought applied.

"You are going to pretty much do the things that make you feel good about yourself, that make you feel important and "on purpose", and walk away from the things that make you feel like a loser."

Which of these do our churches tend to do more? Are we a welcoming, validating body that tells and shows people that they are a unique creation of God, who loves them and died for them? Or, do we treat people like the sinners that they are and make them feel like unimportant outsiders?

Just some food for thought.

Donald Miller's Problems With the Church

I finished Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller tonight. It is a fantastic book to provoke thought and challenge you, as well as to give you insight into what is important. But the review will come later. I wanted to list and comment on what Miller says are his problems with almost every church he has been to. To give a little bit of background, Miller grew up Baptist and at a time, walked away from the faith. He has sense come back to Christ and now writes and speaks to churches and colleges. Here are what he says are his 3 major problems with the church:

1. "I felt like people were trying to sell me Jesus."

"[Preachers] were always pointing out the benefits of the Christian faith. That rubbed me wrong. It's not that there aren't benefits, there are, but did they have to talk about spirituality like it's a vacuum cleaner? I never felt like Jesus was a product. I wanted Him to be a person." Pg 131

I think Miller makes a great point here. I believe that evangelism is a major part of the role of us as Christians, but we must always be careful not to come across as salesmen. We do not share the Gospel to get another notch in our belt. I fear that many people have felt used by Christians in the past because of this salesmen mentality. What are your thoughts.

2. "They seemed to be parrots for the Republican Party."

"Do we have to tow the party line on every single issue? Are the Republicans perfect? I just felt like to be part of the family, I had to think George W. Bush was Jesus. And I didn't." Pg 131

I am a pretty strong Republican, but I have to say that I agree on this too. I think we often make being a Christian synonymous with being a Republican. I think there are some major problems with the Democratic Party, but with the Republican Party as well. I think we should be Christians first, deep thinkers second, and political proponents last. I hesitate advocating activism, because I think a Republican and Democrat should be able to worship next to one another in the same body of believers and call each other "brother." In our current state of political polarization, I'm not sure that is possible.

3. They continually used "War metaphor."

"The churches I attended would embrace war metaphor. They would talk about how we are in a battle, and I agreed with them, only they wouldn't clarify that we were battling poverty and hate and injustice and pride and the powers of darkness. They left us thinking that our war was against liberals and homosexuals. Their teaching would have me believe I was the good person in the world and the liberals were the bad people in the world. Jesus taught that we were all bad and He is good, and He wants to rescue us because there is a war going on and we are hostages in that war." Pg 132

Again, interesting point. I think that we need to be very careful not to alienate people, as Miller alludes to. I think we should be speaking the truth about issues and what the Bible says about them, but I think when we start accusing (which is the Devil's job), we lose our love. We must always be for the liberals, the hippies, the homosexuals etc. even though we are against some liberal ideas, homosexuality etc. We must value people as Jesus did, and sadly, we cannot hold a candle to the way Jesus loved. Tax collectors. Prostitutes. Drunkards. He loved them all. Let us love like Jesus loved. To paraphrase Rick Warren, I want to be known by what I am for, not by what I am against.

There you go. I have given you plenty of ammunition to use against me. Fire away. What do you think about Miller's (and my) critiques?

The Stewardship of Influence and Affluence, Part 1

I just got home from a leadership meeting that was amazing. We watched a video of a message by Rick Warren that he delivered at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit in 2005. I have gone to a satellite broadcast of this in years past, but Angela and I were on our honeymoon during this one (I don't regret missing!!!). I encourage all of you to attend the Willow Creek Leadership Summit at a satellite location near you. You will find it is one of the best training seminars around.

Getting back to the issue at hand, Warren did a fantastic job. His message was touching, heartfelt, thought provoking, and completely relevant. My respect for Warren greatly increased after hearing this message. It inspired me so much that I thought I would do a several part series on different points he made. Warren talks about how God took something very simple, The Purpose Driven Life, and made it into the best selling American book of all time. This brought in ridiculous amounts (millions) of money (Affluence) and took a small farm boy from a town of 500 people and made him into a celebrity (Influence). Warren shares the story of how he came to deal with these two huge issues; issues that changed his life. Now, Warren is talking on the macro-scale, but I think we who are on the micro-scale can glean from this wisdom as well. Rick and his wife made five decisions in response to the increase in finances. Here they are, with my commentary:

1. "Our Lifestyle Will Not Change"

Rick and his life decided that even though millions of dollars were pouring in, they felt that they should not change their lifestyle from what is was before all of money and fame arrose, which we would probably call middle class. They still live in the same house they lived in 25 years ago when they started the church in their basement. Rick mentioned that he only owns 2 suits. Their lifestyle did not change. Amazing! I am not sure if I could do that. Honestly, if money was pouring in faster than I could spend it, I would be tempted to spend a lot of it on "stuff." I'd want a better car and a nice house and a boat etc. But I think they were wise to do what they did. This helps them guard against materialism, in a consumer driven age where it is so prevalent. How is your financial lifestyle reflecting God?

2. "We Will Stop Taking a Salary from the Church"

In order to better serve his body, the local church that he was called to, he no longer accepts any salary from Saddleback Community church. Amazing! A person sure has to have their priorities strait, their heart in the right place, their call secure if they will work for free. I would love to be able to do that. What a great act of love in this day in age.

3. "We Will Pay Back All of the Salary we have Taken from the Church Since we Started"

I know, it is crazy. Rick mentioned that one of the most common criticisms he heard of pastors was that they were all in it for the money. So, in response, he paid back his combined salary from 25 years of service. This touches my heart in an amazing way.

4. "We Will Start 3 Foundations to Help Others"

The 3 they started were The Mercy Foundation, which is to help stop the AIDS epidemic, Equipping the Church, which helps small churches who cannot pay a pastor, and the Global Peace Fund. Rick commented that if we are to truly be like Jesus, we must be exemplary givers. In what ways are you giving?

5. "We Will Reverse Tithe"

Rick and his wife felt God calling them to give 90% of their income away and live on only 10%. Again, this is to ensure that materialism never creeps in and their hearts are always focused on the mission at hand.

Is your financial life in order? It is one of the most accurate ways to tell how committed a person is, particularly in America. How has our culture become so amazingly materialistic in such a short amount of time? I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Nonetheless, I think the Warrens are great examples of how we should live. That is not to say we all need to reverse tithe etc., but it is not hard to tell where their priorities are when looking at their life.

A Conversation With James Emery White

The following links lead to a three part conversation with author and new president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary James Emery White. The interview is done by Tim Ellsworth and was originally posted on his blog site, which I check daily. The interview is a bit lengthy, which is why it is divided up into 3 parts, but it is definitely worth the read. White offers some amazing insight on topics like education, mega-churches, culture, worldview, and the angle churches can take to make guests feel more comfortable. Here are the links to the interview:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Let me also recommend a few other resources connected with James Emery White. He has a website called Serious Times which is dedicated to answering the question How can you make a difference in the world today? He also has written several books, not the least of which is a book called Rethinking the Church, which is a must read for anyone involved in ministry in the local church, lay or professional. I read it in college and it is great! There is a link to the left where you can buy that book. A more recent book by White is called Serious Times, and I am intrigued enough by the Title and subtitle that I want to read the book and consider leading a series with my Youth Group on it. Check all of this out and give me feedback! Here are some quotes from the interview:

A third major challenge in relation to those two is that this means the church must think creatively about ministry and about outreach. We must think creatively about how we proclaim the truth of Scripture. Now, please notice how I said that. We don’t water down the message. We don’t compromise anything. This isn’t about transforming something. It is about translating something. We have a tendency to confuse tradition with orthodoxy. Tradition is fine, traditionalism isn’t.

The church is the great revolution on this planet and there is no ministry outside of her umbrella. We must recapture a deep sense of ecclesiology and realize that is where our first and best fruits are to be given. That’s the front line of the fight. Any Christian not aligned with the church is outside of God’s ideal will for their life.

I am all for the mega-church movement. I was a mega-church pastor, still am at this point. I believe in that. I believe in it biblically. I believe that’s how God chose to birth the church at Pentecost — 3,000 people in one day — that’s a mega church. Let’s not forget that. That’s how the Holy Spirit pleased to birth the church, was through a mega-church. So this anti-mega-church rhetoric is not even biblical. The mega-church is a wonderful God thing[.]