Christoculture
  • Home
  • About
    • Christoculture: Gospel, Church, and Culture
    • Terry Coy
    • Endorsements
    • Contact
  • Flight Plan for 21st C.
    • Conference for Pastors
    • Conference for Churches
  • Consulting Services
    • Consulting
    • Speaking and Teaching Schedule
  • Blog
  • Books

Be careful what you wish for

2/27/2016

0 Comments

 
I was standing inside an old C-47 parked in a hangar at the Valiant Air Command Warbirds Museum in Titusville, Florida. As I looked out the side door, the Vietnam Veteran tour guide set up the scenario: “Imagine you are eighteen years old. You are flying in this plane at 800 feet off the ground. You weigh 150 pounds and are carrying some 200 pounds of gear. Your parachute ripcord is connected to the static line. You look out the door and see German tracers blazing up at the plane. Then, contrary to what every fiber of your being is screaming, you jump out of the plane and into the tracers over Normandy. That's what it was like, and this same plane made three trips over Normandy during D-Day.”

Why would an eighteen year old kid – and millions like him – go to war and be willing to do something so incredibly dangerous? Yes, because his country called on him. Yes, to fight for the defense of his country and its freedoms. Yes, because he was trained to follow orders and do no other. But he also did it because millions of other people -- Germans, Italians, and Japanese, in this case -- got what they thought they wanted.

I was touring this aviation museum with my wife's uncle Hal. Hal is 91 years and flew P-51 Mustangs in the South Pacific during World War II. He still flies at 91 in his two seater experimental plane! After we visited the museum, we wondered how it is possible that so many people in highly “civilized” countries could have been so drastically misled by their leaders. How could they have possible believed all they were told?

Well, the answers are complex and full of psychological, sociological, economic, and political nuances. Maybe it is an oversimplification, but I think a big part of what happened is that they bought into the ideas they were being sold without taking the time and making the effort to consider how those ideas would be brought about. They were so excited and comforted about the potential end that they never seriously considered the means.

Therefore, they bought into the legitimate ideas of "honor," and "glory," and "patriotism." They believed their leaders could lead them to "recapture a glorious heritage," or "honor the memory of their ancestors," or "re-establish national pride." Only a few, however, saw past the soothing rhetoric to the implicit, and eventually explicit, evil means to achieve those goals – the persecution and arrest of dissenters, racist policies, invasion of neighboring countries, and mass murder in death camps. They failed to recognize, until it was too late, the tools their leaders used to implement their promises: Half-truths that led to outright lies, warnings that led to fear mongering, discrimination that led to persecution, and threats that led to violence. The end result (in case you haven't seen the movie) was tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions of displaced, leveled cities, destroyed countries, a changed map, the near end of European civilization, and further oppression in Eastern Europe for decades. The promised ideas certainly didn’t hold water for long, but, as has been noted with tongue in cheek, at least there was an autobahn that was the model for American interstates and the trains ran on time.

Politicians still speak of big ideas. This is good. We need vision. We need big ideas. We need what those big ideas promise. However, the means to achieve the big ideas are important. Furthermore, everything has a price. Whether it is the promise of all kinds of “free” stuff, of being “great again,” of being “safe,” being a “world leader,” “taking back America,” “returning” to a supposed divinely “chosen nation,”, semi-theocratic past, or even a bland generic expression of “hope,” we must insist on answers to at least two questions:

1. What do you mean by that big idea? Define what you are saying.

2. How will that big idea be achieved? Give specifics.

Now, am I drawing a direct parallel between Italian Fascism, German Nazism, Japanese Nationalism and current American politics? Not necessarily. We have lots of checks and balances in place that none of those countries did. Moreover, our historical, political, and economic situations are vastly different. However . . . Be careful what you wish for, especially when it is ill defined or not defined at all. Be careful what you wish, especially when the how is never explained. Be careful what you wish for, especially when substance and content is pushed aside in favor of sound bites, slogans, and juvenile insults. I think we are all mad at the system and want change, but . . . Be careful what you wish for, both left and right!
0 Comments

a comprehensive pro-life position? Some thoughts

2/16/2016

0 Comments

 
I believe the Bible is the revealed word of God. I believe it is still applicable in its totality to the totality of life. Of course, it must be interpreted and applied wisely and correctly, a sometimes difficult task. But this is not an article about hermeneutics (the science and art of interpretation). What I want to detail are some of the implications, as I see them, of a comprehensive and a consistent Biblical pro-life position. Now, I won’t be able to cover every nuance, and I may be off on some of my points. But, if I read the entire Bible and work hard at coming up with a theology of life, here are some things I have to consider:

1. The Bible is clear that humans are made in the image of God. This sets us apart from the rest of creation. We are not just different in degree from animals and other created things, but we are a different kind. That image of God in us means we have the capacity and the privilege to have a relationship with our Creator. Although that image of God in us has been marred by sin and can ultimately only be restored through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, it’s presence means that . . .

2. We are to see all people as having both the image of God and the potential for redemption. No, the image in all people does not mean all with be saved. Furthermore, it does not mean that all human beings are “children of God.” All are creations of God, but only redeemed persons are children of God. It does mean that all human life is valuable and of inherent worth. Contrary to our human pragmatism, this value and worth applies most importantly to . . .

3. Those who are helpless, defenseless, and who perhaps cannot speak for themselves. This includes the unborn, the disabled, the mentally ill, and the infirm elderly. The issue is ontological personhood rather than a pragmatic definition of quality of life or a temporal legal defense of individual rights. Moreover, this value and worth applies to . . .

4. Those who are marginalized, disenfranchised, and often caught up in the fallen structures of human society. By “fallen structures” I simply mean the societal structures that may be good in and of themselves, but which are also affected by the fall of creation (government, economics, education, and so on). That the structures are fallen and even broken in no way removes personal responsibility. Personal responsibility (or irresponsibility), however, does not remove the image of God either. It does acknowledge that these structures are made up and run by fallen human beings, often have complex cause and effect dynamics, and that the “fallen-ness” of these structures affect real people. Let me break down the implications for four groups:

a. First, I am talking about the poor, the homeless, the powerless, and the marginalized. Whatever their condition and whatever the cause of their condition, self-imposed or victims of circumstances, the Bible has a whole lot to say about caring for them. They may need assistance or they may need admonition, but they are persons made in God’s image.

b. Second, I am talking about those incarcerated and guilty of crimes and about their victims. The first may need punished swiftly and severely. They certainly need a chance at rehabilitation. Their victims definitely need restitution, comfort, and justice. It all gets kind of messy, but both are in the image of God. By the way, I would argue that a society which genuinely values life has in place both swift and severe penalties for crimes against persons and aggressive rehabilitation efforts for the incarcerated. Not to have the former overlooks justice and the inherent value of their victims’ lives. Not to have the latter overlooks the inherent value and potential redemption of the perpetrators’ lives.

c. Third, and most relevantly, I am talking about those who are refugees and immigrants seeking a better life. Certainly, there are legal and safety issues to consider. That is the government’s responsibility (and it could do a better job). The starting point from a Biblical perspective, however, is that refugees and immigrants are bearers of the image of God, should be cared for, and are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, simply trying to make a better life (what could be more American than that?). At the same time that I ask my elected officials to secure the border, I also want them to come up with a compassionate and quick way to help anyone who qualifies to become a productive (and tax paying) American citizen. I don’t think it is that hard to come up with a solution. It is just that the issue has become one by which to demonize the political opponent, while image bearers of God suffer and American citizens on all sides grow more and more frustrated.

d. Finally, and at times the most difficult to shallow and apply, I am talking about the enemy. Yes, we have enemies. Even the Bible acknowledges that. My personal enemy is also made in the image of God. I am commanded to love him and do all I can to live at peace with him. Our corporate enemy is such that at times we go to war with him. Some would argue for absolute pacifism based on the command not to kill and the fact that all humans are made in the image of God. I can’t go that far, but would argue that the image of God in humans means we should always avoid war until all other options are exhausted, and do all we can to spare innocent lives. Oh, yes, the historical realities are sometimes overwhelming (to quote the Brad Pitt character in the movie Fury, “Ideals are peaceful; history is violent). Debates get quite intense and nuanced here, as they can for all points above.

There is so much more to be said about a comprehensive and consistent pro-life position; many books have been written on the subtleties and nuances of application in this messy world. The bottom line for me is this:

One, my starting point has to be the image of God in humans and a respect for all of life, including and especially the unborn and the powerless.

Two, having said that, I know our fallen world makes application of a comprehensive and consistent pro-life position a challenge. Crime, poverty, self-defense, war, evil, hardened and unrepentant criminals . . . well, as they say, it all looks good on paper. The devil is in the application details (that’s two clichés in a row).

Three, when it comes to evaluating politicians running for office, I have to weigh their positions on all of the above before I make a choice. All the points above are important to me, but some do carry more weight than others. When I agonize over the scorecard, I have to struggle with the only opinion that ultimately matters – What does a comprehensive and consistent study of the Bible tell me? You tell me: Am I being too naïve and unrealistic?
0 Comments

the business of fear: a few observations

1/28/2016

0 Comments

 
There are many things in and about our world for which we need to be concerned and a bit afraid. War, terrorism, disease, oppression, economic uncertainty . . . you name it. Things are bad. However . . . welcome to life. Read a little history. These have always been with us in some form or fashion. Some come and some go. The pendulum swings this way and that. Some things get better and some things get worse.

Our country has survived, and even grown from, the Civil War, two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the Cold War with its numerous hot wars. The sixties and seventies were mighty turbulent. Lesson to be learned? We might even grow past our current problems.

This does not mean we should not be aware of, concerned about, and willing to address our problems. I don’t think we will ever solve all of them, but we can make some improvements. But, here’s my point: A little perspective, please.

Some random and personal observations, certainly not meant to apply in every case to everyone:

 We fear too many of the wrong things. For example, the number of people who die in plane crashes each year is statistically insignificant (yes, I know, they are still people) considering there are over 30 million flights per year around the world. The numbers who die in auto crashes is statistically significant. Which do we worry about?

 Per surveys done the top five things parents worry about for their children are: Kidnappings, School shootings, Terrorists, Dangerous strangers, and Drugs. Certainly things to worry about. The top five things that actually kill children? Car accidents, Homicide (2/3 of the time by a parent), Abuse (2/3 of the time by a parent), Suicide, and Drowning. Which ones get the headlines?

 Presidential candidates (and others) must bring up real problems to be addressed. It seems to me, however, that they appeal to the basest fears in us more often than not. They want to get elected and they want us to believe they can save us from all the boogie men. Lately there seems to less and less of a vision for the future (“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”), or reassuring leadership (“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”), or even commanding leadership (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”). What we have is fear-mongering, finger pointing, and hand wringing.

 And . . . the media loves it! The old adage of “if it bleeds, it leads” is still true. But now what bleeds (or has the potential to bleed, literally or figuratively) is live on 43 channels, hashed and re-hashed for days, evaluated, analyzed, and debated ad nauseam, all the while with us viewers cowering in our dens. Note how media reporters even start interviewing other media reporters. Can you say “time filler?” And that is not even to mention social media.

 All that comes down to the personal. Just the other day I was told that I should pack a gun because of all the traveling I do. “Things have changed so much.” Well, I think there are perfectly good reasons and situations for some people to pack. I am not interested in debating that right or preference. (By the way, years ago I was a licensed Oklahoma law enforcement officer and owned and carried a gun. I don't do either now). Is it dangerous out there? Yes, but I take note of two things:

-- One, according to FBI statistics violent crime rates are the lowest since 1967 (They peaked in the seventies and eighties. We have never gotten over it). You can research that yourself. Why do we think otherwise? Think about it.

-- Two, for the last 24 years I have been all over Fort Worth all times of the day and night (including the “bad areas;” that is, the areas of a different color) and have travelled all over Texas (Houston, El Paso, Laredo, the Rio Grande Valley, east, west, and all points in between. I’ve even been in Odessa, the “most dangerous city in Texas”). Not one single time have I felt threatened, been afraid, or been in an “awkward” situation. Maybe I’m naïve and stupid. Maybe my time will come. But statistically (!) and experientially I feel safe.

 Finally, be careful, be cautious, be wise. Be realistic, address issues, be concerned. Pack heat if you feel you must. But don’t buy into the business of fear from politicians and from the media. Most of all, remember Psalm 4:8, “I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”
0 Comments

How to defeat Isis.

1/17/2016

0 Comments

 
Now that I have your attention, let me clarify what this article is not about. It is not about offering political/military solutions to defeat ISIS or Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group (and there will be more). How to do that is way above my abilities. I am pretty confident, however, that jingoistic rhetoric like “carpet bombing” and “glowing sand” is not the solution unless we are willing to engage in total war, something we haven’t done since World War II. Waging total war in today’s world is not politically or militarily feasible, not to even bring up the ethical and theological issues. The candidates making those kinds of statements need to recruit some serious and experienced military advisors.

But I said this was not about political solutions. It is rather, about the church’s role in defeating ISIS. It is about what each individual Christian can do to defeat terrorists and any other threat to life and liberty. Four simply things:

One, make it a matter of prayer. Yes, we do pray for our country, our leaders (all of them), and our military forces. But I mean more than that. I mean reminding ourselves who the real battle is against. It is ultimately not against “flesh and blood” but “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12). That is, behind ISIS and other evils in this world stands the demonic. We can argue whether actual demons are involved or whether it is merely sinful human beings perpetuating sinful structures, but either way there is real evil in the world and there are spiritual forces behind these. I do not want to reduce the world’s problems to a simplistic “the devil is doing it.” We live in a complicated fallen world where we also have to consider psychological, sociological, economic, and political factors. My point is, are we willing to ask that God act in His way to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, the drug cartels, the KKK, the pornography business, human trafficking, and any other evil in the world? Yes, he may do it (most likely will) through human means. It is, however, a matter of having the right spiritual perspective. I need to learn this.

Two, make it a matter of distinction. That is, work at distinguishing who the real enemy is. We need to work at not generalizing. Not all Muslims are terrorists; not all Muslims are supportive of ISIS. In fact, Muslims are fighting against ISIS right now (and, yes, more moderate Muslim nations need to take the lead in doing so). Now, I oppose Islam as a belief system from a Biblical/theological basis. I do the same for Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, and other religions. I cannot, however, hate their adherents. Jesus doesn’t allow me to. I cannot forbid them from having the same religious liberty I enjoy. Neither Jesus nor the Constitution will allow it. Similarly, I cannot lump the adherents of any of these religions into their respective extremes. I certainly don’t want them to do that with Christians. For example, I don’t want to be thoughtlessly lumped and dumped into one of the three extremes of Christianity (right, left, and . . . something). That is:

• I don’t want to be lumped with the rigid straight-jacket theology of, for example, Westboro Baptist Church, of jingoistic nationalists, and of the KKK and white supremacists.

• I don’t want to be lumped with the gelatinous mushy theology of, for example, Rob Bell, Oprah Winfrey, Dominic Crossan, and Bart Erhman.

• I don’t want to be lumped with the manipulative materialistic theology of, for example, the prosperity teachers like Osteen, Copeland, Meyer, Hinn, and Dollar.

Worse than that, I don’t want the other world religions to look at Hollywood, the multi-billion dollar pornography industry, our ubiquitous casinos and say “that’s Christian America!” So, let’s do the hard work of distinguishing between most Muslims who do believe a false religion but are not terrorists and those who take their religion to horrible extremes. I need to work harder at this.


Three, make some friends. Bottom line, how hard have we worked at simply being friends with the Muslim down the street? If we really want to reach them for Christ, doesn’t that begin with a simple “hello.” Ouch! I need to really work harder at this.

Four, make it about first Jesus and his Kingdom. Government authorities have a responsibility to protect us and the military is charged to do just that. We may disagree and argue heatedly over the best way for them to do it (I just wish candidates would move past crowd-baiting sound bites to some real policy talk). We need more Christians involved in political and military life. We also, however, need to make sure that as believers and as His church we are seeking first and foremost the good of the Kingdom. We must be good American citizens, but we are Kingdom citizens first. Furthermore, because followers of Jesus are members of His Kingdom we cannot be ruled by fear. Yes, it’s a scary world, but we must work hard to think and be like Jesus and not be driven by the fear drenched rhetoric of politicians and media. Remember politicians are concerned about being elected and the media wants ratings at any cost. Even if what they say is mostly true, we still need to act as Kingdom citizens – praying, loving, and offering the life of Christ in attitude, word, and deed. I need work harder at this.

How wrong might I be about all this? I don’t know, but I do know I have a lot to work on.

​By the way, my book Return to the Margins is on sale on
Amazon for $2.30. Get them while you can!
0 Comments

Hurt by church? Angered by church? Simply fed up? Here’s what to do.

1/10/2016

1 Comment

 
Gossipy members. Cliques, judgmental attitudes, and legalism. Selective moralism. Constant bickering, criticism, and in-fighting. Being ignored, under-appreciated, or flat-out rejected. “Pastor killing” congregations. Dictatorial and abusive pastors. Controlling deacons. Does any of this sound like a church you’ve belonged to? Served as pastor or staff? Sadly left?

Have you been hurt by a church? Offended by some in the church? Angered by a church? Have you simply been so frustrated with a church because it acts like a social club, does not do effective ministry and missions, or just does not do what a church is “supposed to do”? Have you actually left or been tempted to leave church and never go back?

I am confident the majority of Christians have seen, heard about, or experienced some of the above at some point in their lives. In fact, some of us have even contributed to these unfortunate situations (I confess!).

In recent years I have known pastors who have been wrongly fired by dysfunctional and unrepentant congregations. I know staff members who have left ministry altogether after serving under an unhealthy and insecure pastor. I know quite a few long-time church members who have simply gotten fed up with the same old “stuff” and have either dropped out or are considering leaving the local church. What to do when the church (yes, I mean the people) act these ways? How should we respond?

To begin with, there are three responses to avoid: One, we should not ignore, excuse, or overlook sinful behavior. Issues must be prayed about and dealt with according to Matthew 18. Two, we should also not respond in like manner. Scripture is clear that returning evil for evil is not an acceptable response (Luke 6:35; 1 Peter 3:9). Three, we should not abandon church, leaving the fellowship because of all those unspiritual, mean hypocrites. Sure, there may be a bunch of them, but what does it say about me when I make myself out to be so spiritually superior that I just dump the church? Sounds a bit like the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:10-14. Ouch!

So what are some appropriate responses?

One, choose to forgive. Oh, sure you say, the Sunday School answer. Well, that’s right. As followers of Jesus we have no choice but to forgive those who have wronged us, wronged others, or who have done damage to the church. Now, forgiving them does not mean we have to agree with them, that we avoid Biblical confrontation, or that church discipline is not called for. It also doesn’t mean there are occasions when it is time to move on and leave that particular local church. Forgiving does mean choosing not to hold a grudge, not to speak evil about that person, and perhaps overlooking a ton of offenses. Even though some offenses have to be dealt with according to Matthew 18, it doesn’t mean every single little offense has to be. Sometimes we just need to overlook things said or done to us out of love. No, I didn’t say it was easy. I have struggled myself plenty with forgiveness.

Two, adjust our expectations. I think we pretty much know we can’t find the perfect church, but I am talking about more than that. Re-read 1 Corinthians. Guess what? That is more normal than not. This whole church, body of Christ, “one another” stuff is a whole lot harder than we often care to admit. It takes work – the work of love, forgiveness, and overlooking a ton of stuff.

Three, improve our perspective. Take it a bit further than adjustment of individual expectations. As a matter of fact, take it way beyond the individual. That is, this whole church thing is pretty much what the New Testament is about. Yes, it does begin with individual regeneration, but there really is not, as the cliché goes, such a thing as churchless Christianity. Now, I know some would agree with that statement but then point to the universal church. “I am,” they say, “a part of the church. I just don’t really have to go to a church.” But the New Testament is all about the local gathering of believers. They are the universal Body of Christ and a local church. They go to a church at some point and in some fashion. Certainly, there is plenty of room for debate on different expressions of church, but my point is there is no excuse for not gathering on a regular basis with a body of believers. Biblically speaking, there is no other option. The local church is the culturally appropriate expression of the Kingdom. Could be a house church, could be a megachurch. There is something to the idea that the world will know us by how we gather, love each other, treat each other, and then reach out to them. I just can’t do that all by myself.

Four, consider the family. One of the Biblical images for the church is as the family of God. That image has a couple of implications. On the one hand, if it is like a family, then it is as messy and difficult as most families can be. Being a family is joyful and a wonderful blessing . . . and also at times hard work, frustrating, and annoying. On the other hand, some biological families are so dysfunctional and abusive that members are estranged from each other. Consequently, the church can be and should be the family for them. In fact, our eternal family will not be our biological family. It will be the church! Certainly, it is wonderful if our biological family is also part of the church family. But, bottom line, if we are the church and the church is a family and we are spending eternity together, we are compelled by Scripture to build that relationship now, hard as it may be.

None of this is to deny the real pain, disappointment, humiliation, anger, or frustration that we all sometimes experience. I have myself often wanted to scream, fight, mercilessly criticize, or just blow it all off and leave. I do give in to a bit of that temptation at times. At other times, I try to bite my tongue, take a long look in the mirror, work on forgiving, and thank God that he hasn’t revoked my church membership for the foolish things I have said and done.
1 Comment

Why is it? Random questions i ask myself.

12/20/2015

1 Comment

 
Maybe it is just me, but here are some of the head scratching questions I occasionally ask myself:

 Why is it when I order a small drink at a fast food restaurant and I am told “Sir, we only have medium and large” I want to say “Well, then according to the theory of relativity your medium IS the small?” (Actually, I don’t know that the theory of relativity has anything to do with it. It simply irritates me. Just give me your smallest one and let’s move on).

 Why is it that rich and famous celebrities who barely made it out of high school are domestic and foreign policy experts? (And supposedly “smart” politicians crave their endorsement?).

 Why is it patriotic and spiritual to pray for the President you voted for, but the President you didn’t vote for is destroying America and an idiot? (I have heard this often in reference to both Bush and Obama. Maybe they are both deserving of prayer. And maybe they are both . . . never mind).

 Why is it that motorists merging onto the Interstate think the Yield sign refers to the guy already on the highway and not to them? (And, they usually don’t even look as they force everyone to move over).

 Why is it that no one seems to know how to use “I, me, and myself” correctly? (Myself and my wife were just wondering about it. If you figure it out, please tell my wife and I).

 Why is it when I am ordering a coffee at Starbucks I just can’t bring myself to say “tall” when I am ordering the “small?” (They can’t make me say it).

 Why is it that everyone to the left of me is an intolerant, narrow-minded liberal and everyone to the right of me is an intolerant, narrow-minded conservative? (Maybe I’m an intolerant, narrow-minded centrist?).

 Why is that people who rarely, if ever, read the Bible are experts on what Jesus would do? (Oh, that’s right, they’re rich and famous).

 Why is it that a person’s opinion has come to matter more than truth? (I’m all for the freedom to have lots of opinions, even contradictory ones. But, having one doesn’t make it right. That’s why it’s called “opinion” and not “fact”).

 Why is it that so many of us emphasize truth to the exclusion of love and others of us emphasize love to the exclusion of truth, when Jesus perfectly embodied both? (I know, I know, he was perfect and we are not. Still, can we work a little harder at holding to both?).

 Why is it that everyone on the highway driving faster than me is a reckless idiot and everyone driving slower than me is a slow-poke moron? (I don’t think I am as obnoxious as I am starting to sound).

 Why is it that I enjoy being a “senior” only when there is a discount involved? (I just wish they would decide how old you have to be to qualify. Is it 55? 60? 62? 65? I can’t keep track).

 Why is it that you are actually still wasting your time reading this post? (I do appreciate it, though).

Do you have any random questions you ask yourself? In the meantime, Merry Christmas and thanks for reading.
1 Comment

people leaving church? maybe it's not tough enough.

12/13/2015

1 Comment

 
There has been a lot written recently about people leaving church. The primary concern has been about millennials. However, my limited observation is that there is also a pretty significant exodus of life-long Boomer church members. I have no idea whether research would confirm that observation (I’ll leave that up to Ed Stetzer and George Barna to figure out), but I know plenty of people my age who have disengaged and even dropped out.

Why are people leaving? All kinds of reasons have been given. I think one of the most compelling reasons is that the ongoing marginalization of the church is “encouraging” cultural Christians to drop the pretense. That is, being part of a committed community of believers is just starting to be too tough.

The flip side of that statement is that many people may be also leaving church because it hasn’t been tough enough.

What do I mean? Sociologists and anthropologists have long studied why groups cohere. Social Bonding Theory tells us that group cohesion involves attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs. That makes sense. But, the question is, what is it that creates and reinforces those four elements? What happens in groups that actually causes bonding? What lead the way are rituals and shared experiences. Think about some of the more common group bonding experiences:

**Military and combat experience. These life and death situations create the proverbial “band of brothers.”

**Sports teams. Winning and losing together create lifetime memories that only get better and better.

**Fraternities, sororities, and social clubs. Life-long friendships are made, especially among the pledges who shared “heck” week.

**Young couples who become friends while having babies and learn to be parents together.

**Mission trips that involve travel, hard work, close living quarters, and a focused purpose.

There are many other examples and they all involve some type of ritual and experience which could be described as demanding, difficult, challenging, dramatic, and even traumatic. Would it be fair to say that tough times create community better than good times?

So, why are some people leaving the church? Because too many churches and too much of what most churches offer is low risk and low reward. A church that has bought into too much consumerism offers non-demanding rituals and experiences. Come, sit, soak, and be anonymous. We won’t expect much, demand anything, and will cater to all your felt needs. Worse, when you have a generation of millennials that may have been over-protected, sheltered, and coddled, then when the going gets tough . . . they leave. (And, no, it is not just millennials).

What I am saying? Perhaps some people are leaving church because they eventually find it too easy. The experience isn’t significant enough (not even in the sociological, social bonding sense), there is nothing expected or demanded from them, and it is all just rather bland. They use church for their own self-interest and self-satisfaction, expect and want convenience, and . . . we give it to them.

Now, some churches have recognized the lack of true community, of true koinonia. These churches talk, therefore, of “authentic community” and “doing life together.” I don’t know how effective they have all been, but they have the right idea. Authentic community – true koinonia – requires doing life together, especially and including the tough, demanding, and messy aspects of life. These experiences create the bonding required for community, for true relationships, and for sticking it out when times get tough.

​As the church is marginalized more and more, and as the difference between cultural and committed believers shakes out, it is the tough times – the significant rituals and the life-changing, demanding experiences – which will both create community and be the line of separation between cultural and committed Christians. So, you want authentic, life-together, koinonia? You want the “one anothers” of Scripture to be real? Then create, expect, demand, and hope for some tough times. Make it worth being in church. Make it mean something. Make it about a whole lot more than “me.” In fact, be thankful for marginalization and potential persecution. They will really create community.

1 Comment

just a few ways we make god into our own image

11/29/2015

0 Comments

 
“When you did these things and I kept silent, you thought I was exactly like you.” Psalm 50:21a

It is not news that we humans tend to make God into our image. In one sense it’s understandable. That is, we are limited in our knowledge, our intelligence, and our language, so we struggle to wrap our figurative arms around the literal truth of God. Even when we are accurate in our descriptions of God, we are never comprehensive. We can accurately say that God is “holy,” that God is “love,” or that God’s attributes include wrath, justice, omnipotence, and omniscience. We are then immediately limited by human language and human experience in defining those. Even when we use the inspired words of the Bible, we have to remember that a perfect God accommodated himself in revelation to a fallen humanity. We can certainly know him personally and can talk about him accurately and confidently. We just have to do so with care and humility, fully aware of our limitations.

It is still rather amazing how quickly and easily we make him into our image. Humans always have. Whether through ignorance or rebellion, we too often talk about him in the most careless fashion, reflecting not what he has revealed about himself in Scripture but what we wish he were or assume he is based on our own experiences and fallen emotions. I am not talking about using crude terminology like “the man upstairs,” but of theological descriptions and understandings that are driven by our desires or fears. For example:

1. “When all is said and done, God will give you what you deserve.” That is, he will weigh out the good and the evil and your eternal destiny – punishment or reward – will be based on what you have done. After all, isn’t that what we believe and want justice to look like here and now? There is some truth in this view of God. For one, God’s justice requires that sin be punished; sin and sinners should get what they deserve. That is the “justice” bad news. In God’s plan of grace, mercy, and love, however, Jesus voluntarily took that punishment on himself at the cross. Justice was done. Sin and sinners got what they deserved, but, unlike our human conceptions of justice, the guilty did not pay the price. The innocent One did in our place. That is the “justice” good news!

There is also an element of truth in the ides of “getting what you deserve” in the sense that the Bible suggests there are levels of eternal punishment and levels of eternal reward, based on one’s deeds done while in this life. However, the “balance” or the weight given to these deeds do not determine eternal destiny, rather the weight given is determined by one’s previously determined eternal destiny. In other words, trust in Christ alone will lead to or weigh out rewards based on good deeds in this life. On the other hand, rejection of Christ will lead to an appropriate level of punishment for evil deeds done in this life.

So, seeing God in the same way that we see Lady Justice down at the courthouse is putting him into our image – our image of justice. Will justice be done? Yes, it already has been at the cross. Will I get what I deserve? Not for my sins, because Jesus paid for those. Will I be rewarded for good deeds done in and by faith in this life? Yes, and I trust him for what that will be.

2. “God is pure love, so he can do no other than forgive all.” The implication is that God is not seriously concerned with holiness or justice (unless, perhaps, it is for the other guy). This is a popular concept. Many people conceive of God as a benign, loving, grandfather in the sky who will ultimately overlook their sins (for theirs are not as bad as the other guy’s), so that all will be saved. As once infamously stated, “God will forgive me. After all, that’s his job.” This view refuses to see (hopes not to see?) any holiness or justice in the character of God. Instead, a sentimental love is projected on him in hopes that he will overlook the little bitty evil in our lives. Of course, if Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laden or any number of serial killers or pedophiles are mentioned, then “there is a special place in hell for them.”

​In this inconsistent view of God, sin is defined only as the most horrible and despicable acts against humanity, which someone else always commits. As long as one doesn’t fall into any of those extreme sinful categories, a loving and forgiving God will overlook sins (which somehow are never against him!), not on the basis of the work of the cross, but because he can surely only be kind and gentle. Ultimately, unless you are Charles Manson, God doesn’t really care what you do or believe. Believe whatever you want and live however you want, because in the end it will all be OK.

3. “God is good, God is love, and spiritual laws he has set up obligate him to bless me!” Well, yes, he is good and he is love. And, there are spiritual principles found in Scripture which apply to me, such as “Ask and it will be given you,” or “Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly.” These principles, however, have to be interpreted and applied correctly, taking into account what the Bible says elsewhere, such as “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness” and “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives.” Furthermore, these spiritual principles are never to be seen as above God in the sense that he is obligated to them. Yes, God keeps his promises; however, he is not obligated or bound to anything or anyone.

Bottom line, God is not a sky bound vending machine, who is obligated to bless and prosper me just because I insist on it or try to put some kind of human powered faith into action. My faith should be in him, not to direct or control him. That approach is one the crassest of the ways we make God into our human image. We measure prosperity by visible stuff. So, we want stuff, we like stuff, he’s gotta give us stuff.

In these examples, we are building an image of God based on either personal experience or personal desires. Why do we do this? Well, we are fallen, we are sinful, we are selfish, we are . . . so many things. Rather than go to Scripture to understand the God of perfect love, grace, mercy, holiness, justice, and righteousness as presented there, we project our highly imperfect understandings, desires, hopes, and expectations on him. And usually it is a disaster.
0 Comments

Love in the particular: three suggestions

11/23/2015

1 Comment

 
“I love humanity but I hate people” Edna St. Vincent Millay.

That quote attributed to the American poet/playwright has also been repeated in some fashion by Albert Einstein, Fyodor Dostoevsky (in The Brothers Karamazov), and by Linus of Peanuts fame. Most of us who read the quote are initially appalled by its crassness but then secretly admit we know exactly what she means. Why? Well, we humans are often a pretty difficult bunch to like, especially in the particular.

Oh, sure, we can easily speak of loving people in the abstract. We talk of loving each other, of loving the homeless, of loving the poor, of loving our neighbors, of all getting along in a great big group hug way. But then we have to deal with the guy down the street we can’t stand. We have to face the panhandler at the busy intersection every day as we drive to work. We have to work all day with people who get on our nerves.

Furthermore, those of us who are followers of Jesus speak of loving the church, loving sinners, loving the lost, and extending love, grace, and forgiveness to all. And then we have to deal with the particular sinner – me and you.

For many love in the abstract is easy while love in the particular is hard. Sure, some of you are just naturally the loving kind of people, but most of us love easily in the ideal world and then grit our teeth in reality. In fact, someone has observed that the more one idealistic one is in his/her love for humanity, the less they really like to be with people. Bottom line, it can really be hard for us to live together, much less love each other. So, what to do? Three suggestions:

One, although love involves feelings, it does not depend on them or usually start with them. Love starts with action. Choose to say and do the right things even to those you don’t particularly care about and even when you don’t feel like it. (Yes, I’m talking to me). Changed actions will eventually lead to changed feelings.

Two, understand that everyone has a story and many a person’s story is really tough. Stephen Covey in 7 Habits of Highly Effective People puts it this way: “Seek to understand before being understood.” Sure, sounds like something Grandma would say, but it’s true. Listen before you talk. There is a whole bunch in Proverbs about that.

Three, for those who are in, have been, or have avoided being involved in a local church: No, it is not any easier there. In fact, learning to be a community of Christ followers is hard, very hard. Just read some of the Apostle Paul’s letters in the New Testament. See, a born again believer is new in Christ – forgiven, redeemed, and saved. He or she, however, is still on a journey learning daily how to live and to do according to what he or she already is in Christ. And that can be very hard, especially if one’s story is a tough one. Remember that grace and forgiveness stuff? It works both ways. So, remember, it is a journey. We are all pilgrims in this together.

Unfortunately, too many on the outside of the church don’t get it and simply call us all hypocrites. Even more unfortunately, some on the inside of the church don’t get it and either place legalistic expectations on each other or just get frustrated and drop out. (I’m reminded that my friend Mike Lumpkin once told me he was running into so many pastors and church planters who loved the “idea” of church. They just didn’t love the church! Even leaders don’t always get it – you have to actually love people).

​This list of suggestions could certainly be much longer. In the end, however, we need to remember that love in the abstract – the ideal – is pretty easy. It is love in the particular that is hard, because the particular involves messy, irritating people, just like you and me.
1 Comment

our message is about . . . ? Part 2

11/15/2015

0 Comments

 
Continuing last week's post about the absolute necessity of the church's Christocentric message:

Our message must be all about Jesus Christ, and him crucified. Taking the previous point even further, the scandal of the cross cannot be avoided. In fact, not only should we not avoid the scandal of the cross, we should rejoice in it. It was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23), and it still is so for many today. To some world religions the cross still is foolishness. To others the cross is merely the unfortunate death of a good man. To us who believe, however, it is wisdom, power, salvation, love, and joy. Therefore, whatever our particular message may be to individuals and to American society, whatever particular aspect of life and culture we are addressing, whatever portion of Scripture we may be preaching and teaching, our message must at some point lead to the cross of Christ. Whether the cross is explicit or implicit in our message, whether it is our beginning point or our conclusion, or even when it may not be specifically mentioned, it must be the foundation, the core, and the driver of our message.

Our message must be about Jesus Christ and his Kingdom inaugurated. The crucified and resurrected Messiah is central to God’s Kingdom purposes. The work of Christ on the cross means that forgiven and justified sinners have been united to Christ, are members of the Kingdom, and are now, as saints, participating in God’s redemption and restoration of the creation. Because salvation and membership in the Kingdom includes all aspects of redemption – “spiritual, physical, bodily, social, relational, and political” – the church acts as the present, universal, and most importantly and effectively (albeit imperfectly) localized sign and agent of the Kingdom. As a community of the Spirit (and as local communities), the church lives, loves, and acts differently than the world, confronting not only personal sin, but also entrenched corporate and structural sin. This is because the loving and just God who dealt with the individual’s sin on the cross is the same loving and just God who deals with all sin in the fallen creation. He is the same God who is restoring the entire creation, partially now in the “already,” but ultimately, completely, and finally with the new heaven and the new earth. This means, once again, the story of the resurrected and living Lord Jesus Christ is the story, the overarching story, the metanarrative, that addresses personal sin, individual destiny, and the fallen-ness of the world. Whether poverty, war, economics, environmental stewardship, or any other societal ill, it matters in the Kingdom of Christ. 

Our message must be about Jesus Christ and his attitude. Having the right theology, the correct Christology, the conviction and passion about America as a mission field, an understanding of proper methodologies, and an unswerving confidence in the Bible and the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolutely fundamental to the task. Yet, without the attitude of Jesus Christ, as expressed most profoundly in Phil. 2, we will have only sporadic and short-termed fruitfulness. Besides having a Biblical theology and Biblical methodologies, let me suggest that we ought also to practice certain Biblical attitudes:

a. Boldness tempered by humility. The American mission field needs to hear a consistent and constant word about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and his saving work on the cross. We must be confident and bold in that assertion. At the same time, the message must be communicated with an attitude of humility. That is, we must have the attitude of Paul, who was “not ashamed” (2 Tim. 1:12) of the gospel of salvation for sinners, but who was also well aware that he was the “worst of them” (1 Tim. 1:15-16). Although the gospel of Jesus Christ is absolute and true regardless of our behavior and attitudes as believers, sinful behaviors and wrong attitudes are unnecessary obstacles to preaching, hearing, and responding to the message. Consider that Jesus saved his harshest words for the religious establishment and not for the lost. His rebukes were strongest toward his disciples, who should have known better. Yes, he confronted the world, but when people rejected him it was because of the truth and not because of an attitude.

b. Truth telling tempered by love. Similarly, the message must always be the truth about the Truth – Jesus Christ. Yet we should not use expressing the truth as an excuse to lambaste someone we don’t like, agree with, or approve of. There are times to confront, to speak boldly, to not back down. Is our driving motivation, however, to win an argument or to show the love of God for the sinner?

c. Passion tempered by acceptance. Our passion for the gospel, to see individual lives change, and to see the transformation of communities and society should not blind us to several realities we must accept: One, lost people are usually going to act like lost people, and Jesus promised the world will hate us. Why, then, are we surprised in America when that is the case? Two, not everyone will believe. Results will be mixed. There will be both wheat and tares. Three, even when we agree as evangelicals on the central premises of the gospel and are unified on the primary purpose of the church, we will still not agree on the details and the applications. We will continue to have “family fights” until Jesus returns. Therefore, we need passion, but we must also accept that we are still imperfect people who belong to an imperfect church ministering in a fallen world.

For American evangelical churches to impact our ever changing culture, the first question to be answered is: “What are we going to do about Jesus?” That is, who do we say that He is? What are we saying about Him in our preaching, our teaching, our lifestyles, our churches, and our attitudes? On the one hand we must confront the false and deficient Christologies found in world religions. On the other hand, there are times when the evangelical world has to examine the Jesus it proclaims. Have we misrepresented Him? Manipulated Him? Preached a deficient, incomplete, and wimpy Jesus? Have we allowed Him to be captive to our ideology, our culture, and our personal experiences? Who do we say that He is and what are we going to do about it?

​
0 Comments

Our message is about . . . ? Part 1

11/7/2015

2 Comments

 
Some cultural observers have noted that the twenty-first century is a lot like the first century in terms of spiritual interest, spiritual pluralism, and cultural change. The first century was one of great advances. The Pax Romana had forced an end to tribal and territorial wars, had established a relative peace and prosperity throughout the known world, and had put into place a common administrative system. This “peace,” along with the building of a road system, allowed for greater commerce, travel, and exchange between nations and peoples. Great cosmopolitan cities grew, ideas flourished and exchanged, and religions of all kinds moved beyond their territories of origin. The end result was a world in transition, of people movements, and of spiritual interest and awakening. Pagan religions, mystery religions, syncretistic practices, and a pluralism not seen in previous days prevailed. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of the first century world, which was both its greatest challenge and greatest opportunity, was that the majority of the world was lost! The harvest was “abundant,” as Jesus said in Luke 10:2; the fields were “ready for harvest” (John 4:35).

This was the world in which the first Christians found themselves. They were alternately persecuted, received, scattered, listened to, praised, and ridiculed. Whatever the case, people came to faith in Christ, churches were planted, and the church as a whole grew. In a predominantly pagan and hostile society, with intermittent (and later consistent) persecution, this small minority “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

The twenty-first century is similar in many ways, one being that the harvest is great once again, especially in America. The growing secularization of society, disappointment in modernity and the move to post-modernity, the great movements of people, the new “road system” called the internet, growing acceptance of world religions, and the almost assumed values of tolerance and pluralism make twenty-first America much like the first century world.

This provides both a great opportunity and a great challenge for the evangelical church: On the one hand, many people may be spiritually interested and hungry; on the other hand, they too easily follow the latest amateur celebrity guru, or simply practice cafeteria religion, picking and choosing what they want to create their “religion for one.” On the one hand more people may want to know about Jesus and what the Bible says; on the other hand, they do not automatically accept the authority of the Bible (much less that of the church), and add Jesus to other well-known gurus. On the one hand, the church has the answer: Jesus Christ, the only, eternal, crucified, and living Son of God; on the other hand, we are not always very good at communicated that reality in the American culture. We bemoan the changes and the deterioration of the culture at large, but are too blind to our own cultural captivity. The only conclusion is that America is a mission field. So, what must our message be about?Simply . . .

Our message must be about Jesus Christ. The great temptation of the last two thousand years has been to make Jesus into our image by fitting him, his teachings, and his work into cultural, ideological, personal, or religious categories that do not fully reflect Scripture. This is a temptation for all of us, which we sometimes succumb to intentionally in order to support a presupposition, but which more often we are unaware of as we assume Jesus fits into a personal or cultural mold or pattern. The challenge for the evangelical church in America is to strive to faithfully present the Jesus of the Bible. One flip of the television channel or one visit to the popular Christian book store reveals that careless Christology creates confusion within the church and scorn in the world. With a multiplicity of deficient Christologies clamoring for attention, we must continually return to the Scriptures for the historical facts, for explanation, for correction, and for instruction. We have to get Jesus “right!”

Our message must be about the totality of Jesus Christ. Avoiding the temptation of presenting our own personal Jesus also means we must strive to present all of Jesus Christ. A holistic, balanced Christology requires presenting him as the incarnate and only begotten Son of God, fully divine and fully human, and yet sinless. It also means we must present all of what he said and did, and what the inspired writers of the New Testament confirmed and explained about him and his work. Certainly, there are hard sayings of Jesus; yes, there are challenging passages by Paul. We can and should move forward confidently driven by a Christology based on the entire New Testament and not on some personal “canon within the canon,” whether liberal or conservative.

​Our message must begin and end with Jesus Christ. By that I mean two things: One, Jesus Christ is the overarching, all-encompassing metanarrative. His "story" answers and covers all other stories. Therefore, our message cannot be compartmentalized to say that Jesus answers only spiritual needs, or only the needs of the individual, or only the Western person’s quest, and that there are other answers for other peoples or other aspects of life. Rather, all people and all of life are addressed by all of Jesus. Two, although there are specific personal, family, and social issues the church must address and respond to, these cannot be dealt with apart from the person and work of Jesus. Yes, poverty must be addressed, but the ultimate answer is Jesus Christ. Yes, the breakdown of the family must be addressed, but the ultimate answer is Jesus Christ. And so on. This is not to denigrate or minimize any particular passion, issue, or ministry, but to say that any passion, issue, or ministry devoid of a balanced and holistic Christology may be a good work, but ultimately spiritually unsatisfactory and eternally lacking.

​Next week: Our message is about . . . ? Part 2
2 Comments

The “Politics” of Jesus or the Political Rebel?

10/27/2015

0 Comments

 
In Matthew’s account of Jesus’ trial before Pilate, the governor gives the people a choice. Because it was the Passover Feast he had the custom of releasing a prisoner chosen by the crowd (27:15). He asked them whether they wanted to release a “notorious prisoner, called Barabbas” or “Jesus who is called the Christ” (v.17).

Barabbas was probably a “notorious” insurrectionist, arrested by the Romans, and condemned to die. His notoriety, however, was probably viewed as heroic to the people in the crowd. He had stood up to the Roman oppressors and could now be released. According to scholar Donald Carson, it is highly likely that Barabbas and the two “thieves” crucified with Jesus were co-rebels (the word used for “thief” or “robber” is inadequate; the fact they were condemned to die means their crime was far more serious). Therefore, notes Carson, the “fact that three crosses were prepared strongly suggests that Pilate had already ordered that preparations be made for the execution of the three rebels. If so, Jesus the Messiah actually took the place of the rebel Barabbas, because the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God.” Think on that a minute.

So, here is the situation:

-- Some people believed Jesus was the Messiah; however, they expected and wanted a political and military hero who would overthrow the Roman government and re-establish the kingdom right then and there in Jerusalem.

-- The fact that Jesus had been arrested and tried and apparently was headed to his death was a shock to these folks. Some, like the disciples, despaired and hid. Others were probably so disappointed they reacted in anger. “If this Jesus wasn’t going to help free us from the Romans,” they thought, “we might as well give Barabbas another chance.”

-- The chief priests and the elders simply took advantage of the confusing situation and “persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed” (v.20). For them Barabbas was not their problem. He was, rather, a political problem for the Romans. On the other hand, Jesus was a serious problem for them, because he challenged their authority and entire system of belief.

-- Pilate caved to the demands of the people, released Barabbas, and condemned Jesus.

I want to return to Carson’s point about the people’s choice; i.e. “the people preferred the political rebel and nationalist hero to the Son of God.” Now, Jesus’ life and death were political in the sense that he challenged the religious and political status quo, upended prevailing social, economic, and ethical norms, and focused on the outcast and marginalized of society (women, children, the sick, the demon possessed, Samaritans, Gentiles, and others). In that sense, Jesus was a political radical.

He was not, however, the kind of political rebel and nationalist that Barabbas was. He never resorted to or encouraged violence and was clear that his kingdom was quite unlike those of this world. He did go first to his own, the people of Israel, but his message was for the Gentiles, too. He was not a nationalist, but a global thinker (to use a modern term). Jesus’ “politics” were far superior in content and lasting impact than those of Barabbas. But, yet, the people preferred Barabbas, one who represented a short-term and human-centered solution.

What about today’s contentious political environment? What about the options we have? We must listen to candidates and we must eventually make a choice for one. In our selection, will we shove Jesus’ eternal, kingdom, peaceful, and comprehensive “politics” to the background and chose instead the temporal, violent, and self-centered politics of the rebel, the nationalist, the ideologue, the reactionary, the establishment hack, the one with the slickest ads, the most money, the legion of celebrity endorsements, and the golden tongue?

​Of course, we do live in the here and now and must participate in our temporal and imperfect system. So, I’ll pick one of those to vote for (maybe while I hold my nose), but Lord, please help me to not overlook Jesus and his kingdom while I do.
0 Comments

Why this evangelical doesn’t need any more pandering from presidential candidates. 

10/19/2015

1 Comment

 
Although pandering by politicians to get the “evangelical voting bloc” is not nearly as big a deal as it has been in the last couple of decades, it still takes place. Most politicians (Republicans all) believe their chances of election are enhanced, if not guaranteed, if they can prove their “values” line up with those of evangelicals. Well, perhaps they do, and perhaps it helps. I do think we are only a couple of rounds of elections away before all that goes away. Here’s why I think the “bloc” will go away and why I am ready for them to leave me alone:

One, the “evangelical bloc” is not what it used to be. Until recently the bloc (as politicians saw it) was mostly white, middle-aged, and infused with a syncretistic American civil religion. Yes, they were pro-life (a good thing), pro-family (also good), and for religious liberty (another good thing) but too often equated Americanism with Christianity and militarism with biblical conviction. The evangelical today is still pro-life and pro-traditional family. She recognizes, however, that “seeking first the kingdom of God” does not mean living the American Way of Life, much less necessitate vitriolic nationalism. She does not immediately buy into popular versions of American exceptionalism (as exceptional as we truly may be).

The newer (younger?) evangelical also has a more balanced (and biblical) concern for the environment, for economic inequalities and opportunities, for immigrants seeking to be part of the American dream, for speaking to pro-life and pro-family issues with both conviction and kindness, and so on. They are less concerned about “holding on” to some idealized golden past than they are with being part of God’s mission in the world in spite of temporal partisan politics. They appreciate the past, but realize that biblical Christianity is forward looking. Politicians will continue to speak to the old bloc, still large and important, but diminishing in size and influence.

Two, the pandering has all too often become fake, cynical, and transparent (can you spell Trump?). Politicians, don’t tell us what you think you want us to hear, just tell us the truth about all your beliefs, your stands, your values, your convictions, and what you will do. Yes, some do, and all should, regardless of whether or not they are speaking to evangelicals (but that may be too much to ask). Having said all that, this is exactly why political outsiders lead in the polls. They are speaking more truthfully (I didn’t say absolutely truthfully) more often than politicians usually do. Not that I agree with all they say, but their popularity is understandable. The other establishment guys should learn something from this; but apparently they aren’t.

Three, evangelicals have been burned too many times. The Religious Right married the Republican Party. Certainly, the Republicans lined up more with evangelicals than Democrats did, but that marriage meant we lost too much of our prophetic voice. We need to regain it. We especially need to regain it because the Republican presidential candidate of 2024 will be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. If not, he/she will not be elected. Think about it. If the demographic changes of the last five years stay the course . . . just think about it.

Four, and most importantly, evangelicals are more and more setting partisan politics and nationalistic tendencies aside and asking “what is the comprehensive biblical view as it relates to all these issues?” That is, not just “what does the Bible say about abortion and gay marriage, but what does it say (and how can we apply it) about poverty, war, immigration, gun violence, crime, and all other kinds of social issues?” That is, many of us need to move beyond simple favorite verses to doing the hard work of biblical theology. Of course these are not new questions and going to Scripture is not a new tactic! There is, however, a new desire on the part of evangelicals to take into account the whole counsel of Scripture and apply it to all social, political, and economic issues, not just to the most egregious moral ones. Yes, it is hard work! (Warning: shameless plug. See my growing feeble efforts here www.christoculture.com/flight-plan-for-21st-c.html).

Now, I am just an old, white, middle-class evangelical myself. I have voted against more candidates than for any over the last couple of decades. I still struggle with how to be politically aware, concerned, and involved (as I believe we should be) without being sucked into partisan ideologies and politicking. Besides, I may have completely misread all this! I do know, however, that I am tired of overly simplistic answers from pandering politicians to serious and complicated issues.

I want – really want – to think and act biblically and theologically in my politics. I am more interested than ever in having a kingdom vision of reality and not simply an American vision. Am I patriotic? Yes. Do I want to see America “great again”? Of course. I think the big issue is how we define “great.” Hasn’t that been part of our political struggles for over two hundred years?
1 Comment

6 things I just don't get

10/11/2015

0 Comments

 
OK, regardless of what the title says, there are far more than 6 things I don’t get. A bunch more. These are just some random cultural, theological, political things (kinda both right and left) that befuddle me. Maybe it’s just me?

One, I don’t get eating contests. Certainly, these contests are not the greatest danger to American society, but sometimes it is the apparently innocuous things which tell the most. Is there anything that displays our consumerism, gross over abundance, and growing decadence than eating contests? “Sports” competition has come to this? Just a couple of weeks ago I was listening on the radio about the corn dog eating contest at the State Fair of Texas (and they have them everywhere). Buckets to vomit in were provided for each contestant. I don’t get it.

Two, I don’t get beauty pageants. I’m all for beauty, talent, and congeniality. But to parade young women in bathing suits in order to be judged (yeah, you say it’s really about the talent. And you read Playboy for the articles, too). And this stuff starts with preschoolers? I am no radical feminist, but I would not allow my daughters or granddaughters to be subjected to such objectification and superficial evaluation. I don’t get it.

Three, I don’t get calling someone a “hater,” or a “bigot” just because they disagree with you. Now, I am all for stamping out hateful speech, attitudes, and behavior. I am all for overcoming uncalled for biases, prejudices, and discrimination. That is just the way I was raised and the conclusions I come from reading my Bible. However, our American debate has deteriorated to the point that there is no debate. There is just name calling. Simply call the other person a bigot or a hater and case closed. I don’t get it.

Four, I don’t get inconsistent popular relativism. This is for those who argue that there is no absolute truth and, consequently, no absolute moral or ethical values. That is, truth is culturally constructed; we all make our own cultural or community truth. However, as soon as that argument is made, something awful takes place and the relativists are the first to yell “that’s so wrong!” Well, on what basis do you even say that? Wrong for who? Says who? Yes, we may disagree on what the absolutes are and how to interpret and apply them, but, please, don’t tell me there are no absolutes and then complain about some wrongdoing or injustice based on some fuzzy and ill-defined sense of right and wrong. I just don’t get it.

Five, I don’t get how one can be adamantly “pro-choice” and at the same time be adamantly “green” or “pro-animal rights.” Hey, I all for green and all for taking good care of animals and being more ethical about how we raise and process our meat. But, really? Can we try for some kind of consistency?

Finally, six, I don’t get Prosperity Theology. From all my Bible reading and study, I just don’t get the twisted exegesis, confused theology, and simple pastoral irresponsibility of Prosperity Theology. I’ll leave it at that. I just don’t get it.
0 Comments

Need to do: 5 things to do in light of our changing global missions situation.

10/5/2015

0 Comments

 
I have previously listed 5 changing realities affecting global missions and 5 missions strategies which need to be re-thought. This means we are part of a rapidly changing world and are struggling with how to continue planning, funding, and implementing strategies to fulfill the Great Commission. What should the average church (and church member) do while all this is going on? Let me suggest 5 simple things to do (or keep doing):

1. Pray in a focused and strategic manner. Keep praying for missions and for missionaries. Name names. That is, pray specifically for people, both missionaries and people groups. Pray specifically for nations and strategies. Be informed so you can pray intelligently.

2. Give regularly and generously. Regardless of what you do individually and as a church in direct missions, don’t stop giving cooperatively and through special offerings to support missions and missionaries (for Southern Baptists that is through the Cooperative Program and to Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong). Keep doing all you can directly, but don’t forget that entities such as the International Mission Board are charged with the global perspective. Someone has to think and act according to the big picture. Bottom line, don’t rob Peter to pay Paul. Give more, not less.

3. Go humbly and wisely. When you go on direct missions trips, go with care. That is, learn all you can about the mission field and missionaries where you are going. Line up with their strategies. Commit to work with them long-term. Be a learner, an encourager, and a support to the missionaries. Work hard at not being one their horror stories!

4. Send increasingly and enthusiastically. Along with giving more, send more! That is, realize that having billions of dollars more in missions funds won’t matter if there are not people called and sent. When missions is celebrated in your church, put out the call. When people surrender to the call, get behind them. Be open yourself to the call. We often hear the statement that “every Christian is a missionary.” I have said it myself. Well, yes, every believer is to be a missionary where he/she is, BUT there are those who are specially and vocationally called to be missionaries. Let’s don’t allow “everyone’s job to be nobody’s job.”

5. Trust God from the beginning to the end. God is on mission to redeem his entire creation. This mission did not start with us – with any missionary or missions agency. It started with God himself way back in Genesis. His mission continues. Amazingly, he has chosen his imperfect church to carry out the mission. Sometimes we fail, sometimes we take a few steps back, and sometimes we despair. Don’t, at least not for long. Trust that God’s purposes will be carried out.

​The world is changing rapidly and radically. The task of global missions is caught up in those changes. The task does not change in its essence, but continually has to be re-examined, re-explained, and re-charged with new ideas and methods. Sometimes we get it right and sometimes we don’t. The task – God’s task – continues until He returns. Keep it up.
0 Comments

Need to Reconsider: 5 Missions Strategies We Need to Re-think

9/28/2015

0 Comments

 
In my last article I covered “5 Changing Realities Affecting Global Missions.” Those interested in missions need to be aware of how these realities are changing the face and nature of our task. Speaking of how we do missions, here are 5 missions strategies which, although popular and not without merit, need to be re-examined:

1. A Heavy Focus on Unreached-Unengaged People Groups (UUPGs). Many of the major missions sending agencies, including the Southern Baptists International Mission Board, have concentrated heavily on people groups deemed unreached and/or unengaged. Most of these, but certainly not all, are in what is called the 10/40 Window, essentially North Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southeast Asia.

The Positives: The emphasis on identifying unreached people groups was long overdue. The traditional missionary approach focused on countries as geopolitical entities. What usually happened was that missionaries were sent to Nigeria, for example, to reach Nigerians. Missionaries were aware of real tribal and ethnic differences, but often concentrated on the dominant tribes and assumed that reaching the people from one of those tribes would lead to evangelism and church planting among the other many tribes. The reality is that, one, people groups are not limited by modern (and often artificial) country boundaries, and, two, the gospel does not easily (unfortunately, rarely) cross cultural, tribal, and ethnic boundaries without an intentional strategy to do so. Consequently, in many countries hundreds of minority/non-dominant people groups were not identified and were not being reached. The UUPG focus corrected that oversight.

The Negatives: First, in an effort to identify and comprehensively list the world’s UUPGs, the list became unhelpfully reductionistic. For example, one of the UUPGs identified were ten (yes, 10) Norwegians on the Falkland Islands. In too many cases, any identifiable ethnic heritage that did not originate in the current country of residence, led that group of people to be classified as a UUPG. Therefore, for example, several groups of people from European descent living in Santiago, Chile were listed as UUPGs. Never mind that they were fifth or sixth generation, spoke Spanish, and identified as Chilean. The researchers fell into the trap of over-analysis. Second, there is considerable debate as to the definition of “reached” as opposed to “unreached.” Essentially, if a group that has 2% or its population identified as evangelical Christian, then it is reached. Maybe, maybe not. A lot depends on the political, cultural, and religious environment. In some cases that 2% is certainly able to grow exponentially. In other cases, that 2% is mostly hidden and underground. The 2% is too low and too artificial.

​Bottom Line: Becoming aware of how many ethnolinguistic people groups have been overlooked throughout the history of missions was a needed corrective to missions strategies. Like many correctives, the pendulum swung too far. The UUPG strategy should not be abandoned; it does however need to be re-examined (and that is happening), and it needs to be seen as one piece of a missionary strategy, not the whole.

2. Short-Term Missionary Assignments. In the “old days” missionaries signed on for life, often with limited opportunities to return to their home country. Over that last several decades, changes in our Western church and changes in the ease of travel has led to the strategy of sending more short-term missionaries (shorter assignment or beginning at a later age).

The Positives: For one, a short-term strategy opens the door for many more people to surrender to missions. One does not have to say, “Well, I am fifty years old. It is too late for me to go.” The strategy allows for apprenticeships, focused and specialized assignments, and second career options. It can also provide experienced, long-term missionaries with valuable team members.

The Negatives: Sometimes missions can be seen as “something I will check out. If it doesn’t work out, I’ll do something else.” Obviously, sometimes being a missionary does not work out and the missionary needs to go home. However, starting off with an expected life-long commitment makes a significant difference to both adjustment and effectiveness on the field. As the decades have progressed, the short-term option has become too often the default position. Consequently, experienced and highly effective missionaries on the field are fewer and fewer. Some missions experts say it takes seven years for a missionary to become culturally adjusted and effective. If that’s the case, short-termers never quite make it.

Bottom Line: Short-term missions assignments should not be abandoned, but they cannot take priority over long-term, life-long assignments. The cost of training missionaries and the time it takes to become effective simply demands those who answer the call “for life.” State-side we (churches, pastors, seminary professors, and missions strategists) need to once again sound out the call for “lifers.”

3. Mission Trips. Over the last few decades more and more American churches take mission trips around the world. This is due to and intentional strategy to involve local churches in more direct missions and to the lower cost and ease of global traveling.

The Positives: One, the more people can get a taste of missions, the more passionate they will become about praying, giving, sending, and going. Two, excitement about what God is doing “over there,” leads to a new desire to go to work “here.” Three, when done correctly, missions teams can be a genuine support for the missionary’s strategy. Connecting local churches and church members to global missions is never a bad idea.

The Negatives: It may never be a bad idea, but, boy, can we get it wrong sometimes. One, too often our own going replaces the sending of and supporting of career missionaries, especially in our finances. This has happened significantly in Southern Baptist life. Whereas, for example, a church may have at one time given 10% of its income to cooperatively support missions, it now only gives 5%. The rest goes to pay for its own missions trips. Two, often the missions team is woefully unprepared to support the missionary’s strategy. The team wants to do its own thing, regardless of need, context, or strategy. Ask any missionary; they all have horror stories. The greatest horror is when missions teams don’t follow missionary instructions in closed countries and endanger national believers.

Bottom Line: By all means go on a mission trip! I have been on many. Just don’t lose sight that you are there to come alongside the missionary and his/her strategy. It is not a tourist trip, it is not a vacation, and it is not a time to do your favorite “thing.” Communicate early and often before you go with the missionary and prepare carefully and fully to do what his strategy requires.

4. The Local Church as the Missionary. This is a step beyond just taking mission trips. Here the local church becomes the missionary, catalyst, or strategist for a particular city, region, or people group. The church actually takes on the role of the missionary by planning and implementing a missions strategy.

The Positives: When done right, this is an outstanding strategy. It does take, however, a lot of time, resources, and strong leadership to see it through. A local church can fill in the gaps for a missions agency where missionaries are not or cannot be assigned. Often a local church can work avenues of business, government, and education that missionaries on the ground cannot (or have to carefully) or they may jeopardize their status in the country. Frankly, we need more churches to take on this monumental challenge.

The Negatives: Having stated the positives, the negatives are much like mission trips. One, the church must work within the strategy of the agency or coordinating missionary. If there is neither and the church is doing it all, then the church must be well trained missiologically or it could get itself into trouble. Two, some churches who want to do a lot of direct missions and be the “missionary” themselves often do so because “we can do it better ourselves.” Perhaps. The big problem is that although that church may be doing a fine job in planting that church, running this orphanage, reaching that village, who takes care of the big picture?

Bottom line: As a church, by all means be involved in direct missions, take on the role of missionary, strategist, or coordinator. Make a direct impact on a people group, town, city, whatever. However, remember that someone has to have the big picture. Your church may be doing well in XYZ country, but who is going to tackle the rest of the world? Be in XYZ, but continue to pray, give, and send to the rest of the world.

5. Diminishing Theological Education. In some cases, missions agencies have moved many of their resources (money and personnel) out of schools and seminaries so they can concentrate on being church planters. Most training, therefore, is informal, on-the-job, and decentralized.

The Positives: Without a doubt theological institutions can become isolated ivory towers, out of touch, overly institutionalized, and simply too concerned with theory. In some cultures, one is not even considered a “minister” and cannot begin ministry until he/she has completed extensive academic preparation. As missions agencies have distanced themselves from involvement in and support of theological education, some of the ministry bottleneck has improved. Lay people can lead, they can plant churches, and great training can take place in the field and on the job. Ministry, therefore, is not just for the academic elite.

The Negatives: Unfortunately, the baby may have been thrown out with the bathwater. Although how theological institutions operate is always up for debate, they are still needed. Some people are actually called to “do” theology, train others, and work hard at ensuring that Biblical foundations are firmly in place. Should American missions agencies, however, be involved with theological education in other countries? Not as sole proprietors, fund providers, or teachers, but as partners in a holistic strategy for both training and implementing.

Bottom Line: Formal theological education is not the answer to all the issues in missions strategies. It is, however, a critical piece of the puzzle. With American Prosperity Gospel going worldwide, with the growth of Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses, and with growing religious and philosophical pluralism, a theologically centered missions strategy is essential.

Next: Need to Do: 5 Things to Do in Light of Our Changing Global Missions Situation.
0 Comments

Need to Know: 5 Changing Realities Affecting Global Missions

9/19/2015

1 Comment

 
There are always plenty of controversial issues to discuss among those interested in global missions. Fortunately, most evangelical believers are interested because we have a vested interest in what is going on in missions and with missionaries. Whether praying, giving, sending, or coming alongside during a mission trip, most of us have some degree of concern for the global task of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Southern Baptists have a big immediate concern right now. Our International Mission Board is offering retirement packages to missionaries age 50 and over in hopes of reducing the missionary force by up to 800. These offers are driven by financial realities of the last decade that are finally catching up to the practicalities of sending and keeping missionaries on the field. I am personally concerned not only because of theological and missiological reasons, but also because this decision directly affects friends and family members.

There are those far more informed and articulate than I who have written about the theological, strategic, and methodological issues that led to the current financial realities. I won’t rehash those reasons and explanations or give my take on them right now. Instead, I want to list 5 big changing realities that affect and will continue to affect global missions, whether done by the International Mission Board or by other groups.  Each one of these deserves a chapter in a book:

1.     The Marginalization of the Evangelical Church.
 
What is happening: This is primarily a Western phenomenon. Due to rising secularization and pluralism, the church has already been marginalized in Europe (notwithstanding state churches) and is on the way to life at the margins in the United States. There are some who want to fight this return to the margins. There are others who argue we should accept this new (and really ancient) reality and embrace our existence at the margins.  Why? Because it will force the church to be a committed missional church. Cultural Christians will decide fringe belief and involvement in the church is no longer worth it and will opt to leave.

What it means: The church is losing its status at the center of American culture. There will be a considerable loss of political power, control, and influence, which is not altogether a bad thing. Some will fight to regain the center. Some will respond by going into survival mode, turn inward, build a Christian ghetto, and wait for the return of Jesus. They will be motivated primarily by fear of losing.  A better response is to see that America is in fact a mission field and that global missions begin right here and right next door. The difficulty is that there will be fewer people and less money in the church, a reality we are already experiencing. We should not retreat from the global task, but the financial realities will mean new strategies and new methods. Furthermore, we have to consider . . .

2.     The Flattening of the World.

What is happening: Rapid advances in travel, communication, and technology mean the world is not as big as it used to be. More significantly, we can know about anything in the world instantly, over and over again. Some places may still hard to get to, but those are increasingly fewer. Trade, multi-national corporations, pop culture and entertainment, and global people movements are blurring the lines of cultures and cultural distinctiveness as never before. The distance between “here” and “there” is just not that great anymore.

What it means: On the one hand it means global missions are easier; we can just get there quicker and easier. On the other hand, as already mentioned, global missions are also next door. Paradoxically, a greater encounter of cultures and peoples means a greater tolerance and growing religious pluralism in some cases and greater intolerance, fear, and conflict in others. More importantly for the future of global missions there is . . .

3.     The Shift in Global Christianity.

What is happening: Some hundred years ago the “typical” Christian was a white, European male. Today, because the center of gravity of Christianity has shifted south and east, the “typical” Christian is probably female, Black, African, poor, and charismatic. China is poised to be the largest Christian country in the world, in terms of raw numbers of Christians. Christianity is rapidly growing in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. America may still have the richest Christians, dominate the production of Christian resources (many are “Christian” only in the broadest sense), have the most theologians, and send the most missionaries (not for long), but the majority of Christian people are not in the West or the North.

What it means: Simply put, it means we must get ready for changes in the “face” or look of Christianity, changes in theologizing, and changes in how and who does missions. For one thing, many of us Americans need to stop whining about the decline of the church, as if we were the only church. Besides, committed Christianity in America is not necessarily dying, cultural Christianity is. Consequently, we are seeing the growth in . . .

4.     Multi-Directional Missions.

What is happening: The flattening of the world, the shift in the center of global Christianity, the growth of the church in the majority world, global people movements, and America as a growing mission field.

What it means: Missions is no longer from here to there; that is, from the West to the rest. Missionaries are being sent out more and more from non-Western countries such as South Korea, Brazil, and from African nations. Some are coming to the United States, which they see as desperately needing the gospel! Sending non-Western (Anglo-European) missionaries often means fewer cultural and racial barriers to cross (Latinos are quite effective in North Africa and the Middle East, for example). Bottom line, the global church will work together to find the most unreached areas and send missionaries “from everywhere to everywhere.”  This means we will have to discover . . .

5.     New Understandings and New Ways to Cooperate.

What is happening: The marginalization of the evangelical church in America, a decline in giving, the lack of institutional trust by millennials, and the shift of Christianity to the majority world. In the American church financial resources may be fewer, but they still dwarf what is available in the majority world church. Furthermore, less money available in the church does not mean there is less money! It means less is being given. So . . .

What it means: In the U.S. we are going to have to figure out new and different ways to cast the vision for global missions. There is money. People, and especially millennials, however, are not going to give it as readily through traditional means. In Southern Baptist life I agree that the Cooperative Program is the best funding vehicle possible. However, we must re-think, re-brand, and re-sell it, always couched in the vision and reality of missions.  I know. Others far smarter than I have tried to figure out how. As for the global missions task in both the U.S. and around the world, the marginalized church needs to figure out new cooperative ways to carry out the Great Commission. Globally, we are going to have to find ways to unite “our” resources with “their” people. For example, how can American churches use our millions of dollars and partner to deploy thousands of Latin American or African missionaries ready and willing to move to North Africa and the Middle East?

Each one of these changes demands much more thought and discussion. I may not have interpreted or explained them perfectly, but I do believe they are real, they are only going to increase in significance, and they will affect global missions more and more.

Next: Need to Know: 5 Missions Strategies We Need to Re-Think.  

1 Comment

What I learned from three homeless men.

9/7/2015

1 Comment

 
A few years back I was in Corpus Christi, TX with Brent Burden, videographer for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. We were there taping some interviews and city shots for a state missions offering promotional video. While walking along Shoreline Drive Brent ran into three homeless men sitting on the lower steps of the seawall enjoying the sun and a cold beer. After a few minutes, they agreed to be interviewed in exchange for us buying them dinner.

We spent nearly three hours in fascinating conversation. These three guys were thoroughly engaging, totally honest, and had a great sense of humor. I walked away wondering how many homeless had similar stories. I know that many homeless people suffer from mental illnesses, not to mention drug and alcohol addictions. In fact, many of us probably assume this is the case for most of the homeless. All three of these battled with alcohol to some degree. One was a former New York stockbroker who drank himself into homelessness. Another was a former truck driver who had run out of work, made some bad decisions, and lost it all. He admitted he had “conquered my addiction to drugs but just can’t get past alcohol.” Both, however, were intelligent, articulate, and fully aware of the problems they had brought on themselves. The third gentleman was the only one who gave hints of a mental health struggle. Apparently he was a Marine veteran of the first Gulf War who never fully readjusted to civilian life. During most of the conversation he was quite coherent, but occasionally exhibited some fractured thinking.

I have never forgotten the hours with those men. Although I had previously talked with beggars and even bought meals for them, had at times encountered the obviously mentally ill street person, and had served meals to the homeless in shelters, this was the first time I had engaged the homeless on a personal level for an extended period. Some learnings and observations (certainly not scientific; simply based on these guys):

  1. Yes, drugs and alcohol abuse were a significant part of their spiral into homelessness. It was obvious and these men readily admitted as much.

     

  2. Homeless people stick together and see themselves as family. They have to.

     

  3. These guys were careful not to litter. When we were done talking and started to walk over to the restaurant to buy them gift cards, one of them picked up the trash around them and joked: “Hey, we don’t litter. This is where we live.”

     

  4. Even good “church people” can fall into homelessness. After lengthy conversation with these men about spiritual matters I discovered that two of the guys knew a lot of Bible. I am also convinced the former truck driver was a believer. He was simply one who had fallen into addiction and its ugly consequences.

     

  5. These guys had a great sense of humor. They were funny, self-deprecating, and more than willing to banter back and forth with us. One of the funniest exchanges was over the gift cards we were going to get them. Brent and I wanted to get cards from a nearby restaurant. The former stockbroker really wanted us to get them from Stripes, a convenience store chain. I laughed and told him I wasn’t as stupid as I looked, because I knew they sold beer at that store. He went on and on about me needing to “be a friend” and get him a Stripes card. We went back and forth, quite humorously, with me refusing and he laughingly insisting it was the right thing and easiest thing to do.

     

  6. Humor helped them deal with the ironic injustices in their lives. The truck driver had spent the previous night in jail for using a construction site portable toilet without permission. He said there was a sign prohibiting the use by outsiders, but he didn’t want to “go” on the sidewalk.  He laughingly commented, “I spent the night in jail for trying to do the right thing!”

     

  7. They easily discerned which Christians and which churches had a genuine interest in them as people and who was just trying to score a quick spiritual good deed. They were quite complimentary of Bay Area Fellowship for their consistent, compassionate, and authentic ministry on the streets of Corpus Christi. Ironically, while we were talking two men came up and did the quick tract and “come to church” hand-off and moved on.

     

  8. They were keenly aware that most people are afraid of the homeless. They were both amused and saddened by this, because “most of us are nice people. We don’t want to hurt anyone.”

     

  9. Finally, they appreciate it when they are treated as people and not projects, boogie men, or objects of pity. They thanked Brent and me over and over for taking the time to talk to them and to do so as real people. They didn’t want to be treated with pity, fear, anger, or do-gooder condescension. Just people to people.  

I don’t know have all the answers to homelessness or any other social ills. I do know the causes can be, like most of life’s problems, paradoxically both simple and complex. I also know that Jesus treated every person he encountered with respect, dignity, and as a bearer of the image of God (flawed though it may be). Yes, he felt compassion and demonstrated pity and mercy. With the self-righteous he expressed impatience and anger. He never was, however, condescending, demeaning, or superior in his attitude toward them. If the Lord of lords and King of kings can be that way, how can I not at least try?

1 Comment

Top Five Misused Bible Passages

8/27/2015

1 Comment

 
OK, so we all do it every now and then. It is actually quite easy to do. We hear Scripture passages quoted, they are the result of poor exegesis and tagged on to sermons (not I, of course!), they become overly familiar, and we sometimes just assume we know that they mean.  In some cases, these passages are obviously ripped out of context and misinterpreted. In other cases, the original intent of the passage is simply ignored and a contemporary application is made that may or may not fit.  And, there are probably hundreds of examples which could be given.  Here are just five of the ones I see most often (and of which I have been guilty a time of two):

  1. “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32. This verse is often used in reference to “truth” in general as opposed to falsehood in general. As important as “truth” is in any situation, the full passage states “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Knowing the truth is tied to the Truth, the person of Jesus Christ; that is, obeying his teaching and thus giving evidence of being his followers.  That’s the condition for knowing the truth that sets one free. It is not just generic truthfulness, as important as that may be. It is Him.

     

  2. “Do not judge.” Matthew 7:1. This passage is often used to ward off criticism or an unappreciated attempt at accountability. It is also used by one person to shame another who may be judging the character or behavior of a third party. The passage, however, does not forbid any and all judgment or discernment. New Testament scholar Donald Carson points out the preceding Sermon on the Mount requires “that decisive judgments be made.” The point, rather, is not to judge thoughtlessly, non-reflectively, and with condemnation in mind. That is, make sure you are first taking care of your own stuff! Yes, sometimes we must make judgments, but we also must be sure that we are willing to be judged by the same standard. The command, therefore, is to avoid hypocritical condemnation. The Bible often calls on us (especially as a church body) to discern, evaluate, and even judge the character and behavior of others. It is to be done, however, carefully, humbly, graciously, with love, and for the purpose of restoration (see Galatians 6: 1-5), not rejection or condemnation.

     

  3.  “And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:19. Well, yes, he will. However, this passage is too often appropriated by those who confuse needs with wants. It is often taken to be a promise that God will give us anything and everything we want, however and whenever we want it. The context of the passage is Paul’s explanation that he has learned to be content with whatever he has, as little as it may be. He has also learned that God will supply for the needs of the Philippians because they have sacrificed in their gift of support for Paul. This is needs meeting in the context of sacrificial giving.

      

  4. “I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Philippians 4:13. In the same section is the verse infamously appropriated by some when scoring touchdowns, landing a coveted job, qualifying for the American Idol contest, and pretty much getting whatever is dreamed of. Again, yes, God is interested in all aspects of our life. But Paul is saying here that he has found that he can live and minister in whatever situation he finds himself, whether in plenty or in want. The appropriate application is along the lines of “I can live, work, and minister in whatever circumstances I find myself.”

     

  5. “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” Proverbs 22:6. This verse if often interpreted as a promise that if parents raise their children the correct way, it is guaranteed children will always do the right thing. Besides the fact that scholars differ on the exact meaning of the verse, experienced parents know that they can do all the right things in the right way, but children, as they get older, will often reject godly teaching and simply choose go to the wrong way. Without a doubt, training kids up in the right way certainly stacks the odds in favor of a godly life, but proverbs are not promises, they are, well, proverbs.  That is, they are meant to be wise sayings and instructions for practical living. They state general truths rather than specific commands or promises. They are based on godly experience and are true in that they can be trusted when understood and applied wisely. They are not, however, guarantees or promises. In fact, in some cases they must be applied differently in different situations. See, for example, the complementary sayings in Pr. 26:4 and 5.

Now, I am not judging anyone for misusing these verses, but I do believe if they know the truth about them they will be set free so that they can go on to do anything they desire through Christ who gives them strength.

What are some of your “favorites”?

1 Comment

Random things I learned from Dad

8/16/2015

2 Comments

 
My Dad recently turned 85.  I am now 60. The older both of us get, the more I appreciate him, the man he is, and all he taught me. Some of these are quoted directly (as best as I remember them) and some are principles or concepts I learned more by observation or over a longer period of time.  How many of you learned similar things from your Dad?

  • Let’s see what the Bible says about that.

     

  • “Stand up when a woman enters the room.” And, you better offer her your seat to a lady and to the elderly (I got lots of opportunities to practice that on public transportation in Chile.  Dad was rarely with me, but his voice rang in my head. I could not not stand up and offer my seat to a lady or an elderly person).

     

  • Treat all women with respect. This was especially driven home once when as a teen I once used a derogatory slang word for women. Bad idea. Believe me I have not used it since. Would not even think of it. Never.

     

  • “Respect your elders.”

     

  • “Be ye kind one to another, even if it is your brother.”

     

  • When fighting with my siblings: “I don’t care who started it, I’m going to finish it.”

     

  •  “If you have to fight to defend yourself that’s OK. But never fight anyone smaller than you.”

     

  • Related to that, “The bigger they are, the harder the fall.” Although, I didn’t really seek too many opportunities to test that theory.

     

  • “We’ll see how that works with your first boss.” Said when as a sullen fifteen year old I said something along the lines of “I’ll just do what I want. If I don’t want to do what someone tells me, I just won’t.”

     

  • “Ohhhhhh. That’s it. I quit. No more.” When as a fifteen year old I finally bested him in a wrestling match by flipping him over my head and him landing flat on his back.

     

  • Total, absolute honesty and integrity.  Said, modeled, and taught in more ways than I can describe.

     

  • “If you lie about what happened you will be in more trouble for the lie than for what you did.” Wish politicians who try to cover things up would learn this one.

     

  • “It’s a great big, wonderful world.” Which he stills says regularly, especially when things are not that wonderful.

     

  • “I will do the best I can with what I have for Jesus’ sake today.”

     

  • “Ah, the good ole days. You can have ‘em.”

     

  • Treat all people with respect, whether rich or poor, educated or not. Similarly, approach them all the same – no need to either lord in over the one or be intimidated by the other.

     

  • When dealing with someone who is far less educated or has far less knowledge, there is no need to correct them on everything. You don’t have to be right, and much less prove you are right, about everything.

     

  • Some people regularly use vulgarity or curse words only because they are too ignorant or too lazy to express themselves otherwise.

     

  • As I am heading out the door to drive somewhere: “Be careful. Watch out for the other idiot.”

     

  • Sometimes it is a good idea to call your kids’ bluff.  When I was sixteen and living in Chile, the time came for several missionary families to head back to the States for furlough. I and two other sixteen year old missionary kids told (not asked) our Dads that we wanted to hop a freighter in Valparaiso, Chile, sail to Australia, spend a couple of weeks there, hop another freighter and head to the U.S. Anticipating their objections, we had our know-it-all teen-age answers ready. The three Dads just looked at each other and all said, “Sure. Sounds like a great idea. Go ahead.” We were stunned. Now what were we going to do? So, we did . . . nothing.

And there is so much more!

2 Comments

What Will Be Your Authority?

8/10/2015

1 Comment

 
Part 2: The Church at an Authority Crossroads

 We are living in an age that rejects the certainty and absolutism of the rationalist and empiricist. No metanarrative (overarching story), whether of religion, reason, or science is accepted. Truth is local, which implies that ethics are relative and open to change. Religious revelation and experience are accepted, but they, too, are constructs of personal experience and the community, and only “semi-authoritative.” That is, they are true, but only true for you.

As Evangelical Christians face these historical and philosophical realities and their implications for church, ethics, and culture, we return to the question “What authority will we cling to?”


The Bottom Line


Evangelical Christians agree that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, dependable, and trustworthy, with all that is needed for faith and life. We may define and debate the exact meaning and mode of inspiration, for example, but we agree that God’s word is our final authority for guidance, direction, and decision making in life. We may disagree on our hermeneutical approach, the specific exegesis to a passage, and the application of a particular teaching to our lives, but we agree that the starting point is the written word of God. 

This bottom line should engender both confidence and humility. We are confident that God has spoken and spoken to us, and that we can know accurately, if not exhaustively, what the truth is. We are humble because we are aware of textual difficulties, translation differences, different hermeneutical methods, and especially of our own sinfulness and limitations. The evangelical Christian, therefore, appeals to the authority of Scripture based on Pre-modern, Modern, and Post-modern understandings of authority.

With the Pre-modern we agree that the Bible is the revealed word of God. That word was revealed in many ways: prophets “spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21), Jesus spoke the words God gave him (John 17:8), Paul wrote letters recognized as Scripture (2 Pet.3:16), John experienced a direct vision of the risen Jesus (Rev. 1:1, 12-13). In every case it is an authoritative word, applicable to the first hearers/readers and applicable to us today. We may struggle with understanding the original meaning and its current application, but we must cling to the Bible as the ultimate authority that judges all other claims to authority.

With the Modern we agree that reason and experience are real and are to be used as tools. God gave us the ability to think and analyze (Lk. 14:28-32), to design, plan, and build (see the tabernacle, the temple, Solomon’s projects, and the walls of Jerusalem), and to observe and measure the world (1 Kings 4:33-34). Unlike the Modern, however, we do not cling to reason and experience as ultimately authoritative. They are to be understood and practiced as derivative from God and within his sovereign rule. They are gifts from him and not inherent in us nor inherently good. With the preacher of Ecclesiastes we know that all reason and experience is vain and “wearies the body” (Ecc.12:12) if not grounded in the fear and obedience of God (12:13).

This “moderated” Modernity thus rejects the blind authoritarianism of the Pre-modern, which was often grounded in the politics, intrigues, and power of church leaders rather than in Scripture. It does not mean an acceptance of the Modern autonomous individual. Faith and the discovery of truth are individual; however, in the Bible the individual is always understood to exist in community, whether family, clan, tribe, nation, or as a member of the Body of Christ. Faith and truth are best discovered and practiced in community.

We also agree with the Modern that there is absolute, objective, and certain truth. There is a metanarrative – a story – which encompasses all reality and answers all ultimate questions about life. That is God’s story as revealed in his written word and manifested historically, particularly, and perfectly in the life of Jesus Christ. This is the authority we cling to.

With the Post-Modern, however, we agree that we are all, to some degree, constructs of our environment and our community, whether family, race, culture, or nation. Although there is an objective and absolute truth we strive to comprehend and practice, we are not objective. As fallen human beings we must humbly acknowledge our limitations, our biases, and our perspectives. Therefore,

  1. Absolute truth is a reality. It is found in the revelation of our Trinitarian God. God acted in the history of Israel, the incarnation of the Son perfectly revealed the Father, and the Holy Spirit inspired the writing and subsequent recognition of the sixty-six books of the canon.

     

  2. Absolute truth is not just information about God. Absolute truth is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This means we can hold to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and argue that his story is the story or metanarrative that answers all stories.

     

  3. We can know truth sufficiently, correctly, and with certainty. We cannot know truth exhaustively or perfectly, because our sinfulness, our culture, and our experience get in the way. This is not reason for despair, but reason for faith and humility.

     

  4. We cling to the authority of the Bible with confidence. We acknowledge textual, translation, and interpretation difficulties, but we can trust the Bible in our hands.

     

  5. Although we hold to the priesthood of all believers and the freedom for each believer to read and interpret the Scriptures, we believe that the best reading, interpreting, and application is done in community. We need each other. On the one hand, we must avoid incorrect hyper-individualism. On the other hand, we want to avoid group-think. Trusting in and listening to the Holy Spirit, respecting and listening to others, and letting the plain sense of Scripture judge all of our perceptions, perspectives, and interpretations, we move closer to the true understanding and the best application.



Conclusion

 As we are moved closer and closer to the margins of society and culture, we will have to make a decision about ultimate authority. Will it be something in humanity, whether reason or experience? Will it be culture itself – the prevailing mood, the preference of the majority, or the path of least resistance? Or, will it be what the marginalized church has always clung to: the living, authoritative, trustworthy word of God. We must cling to it and its authority, always willing ourselves to be judged, rebuked, and corrected by its teachings. We learn from other sources of authority. We listen and consider the claims of other authorities. But in the end, when push will come to shove, we cling to the authority of the Bible, no matter the cost.

1 Comment

What Will Be Your Authority?

8/3/2015

1 Comment

 
Part 1: The Reality of Authority

All humans are subject to authority. Even the most rebellious, anti-authoritarian individual submits himself to some type of authority. As Evangelical Christians we must answer the question “What authority will we cling to?” Specifically, what is the authority we will finally submit to as we are increasingly shoved to the margins of society? Should we fall back on Pre-modern concepts of authority, hang on to Modern tenets of authority, or accept Post-modern denial of ultimate authority? During these three eras of Western history, the grounds of authority have shifted numerous times, always with consequences for the Christian understanding of knowing and arriving at truth.


Pre-Modern World
Early Christians rebelled against Roman imperial authority by declaring that Jesus and not Caesar was Lord and that the teaching of the Apostles was authoritative in their lives. They believed this to the point of persecution and even death. Whatever the prevailing philosophies may have been and whatever fierce temporal power Rome possessed, none of it stood up to the ultimate authority of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This meant that truth, meaning, and any explanation of the working of the cosmos was grounded in religious authority and specifically the revealed word of God.  


As the Canon of Scripture was being recognized by the early church, religious authority began to shift from the oral tradition to the written Gospels and Epistles, but not completely. There was still dependence on the “tradition” (understood as teaching) of the Roman Catholic Church, which it was essentially on par with the authority of Scripture. Still, regardless of emperors, disagreements between bishops, fights between popes and kings, and competing pagan religions, authority for all of life rested in the revealed will and word of God in Scripture and through the Church.

This does not mean that religious authority was not challenged. The extent and legitimacy of Church authority was often questioned and usually with devastating consequences for the questioner. Generally speaking, however, these were not rejecting the ultimate authority of Scripture or the Lordship of Christ, but differed from ecclesiastical authorities on interpretation and meaning in matters of political governance, science, and the nature of Scripture.



The Reformation changed the understanding of religious authority to a significant degree. Although Protestant leaders understood authority differently, they argued for either the authority of sola Scriptura or suprema Scriptura. Creeds, confessions, and patristic or medieval writers could inform and assist in Scriptural interpretation, but in no way were they authoritative. In every case the Bible superseded any church tradition or any proclamation from an ecclesial leader. In matters of nature, science, and the workings of the universe, it was still God’s creation. Truth was still God’s truth and was to be discovered through reading and understanding his written word.

Modern World


Ever growing secularization meant a shift in authority. Knowing, finding the truth, and the authoritative grounds for declaring what was true moved from what was external to humans (the religious and the revealed) to what was internal and inherent in humans, namely reason and experience.


Reason.


As Western civilization moved from the pre-modern to the modern age, the locus of authority moved from the supernatural (revelation and religious authority) to autonomous human reason. Belief in God was certainly still a possibility, but it was to be grounded in rationality rather than in the necessity of divine revelation. Knowledge, truth, and all of reality was to be discovered and explained by reason and by the scientific method.


Empiricism.


Empiricism sees humans as born with a mental tabula rasa or blank slate.  All that is known is based on experience through the traditional five senses. The world can be and must be observed neutrally and dispassionately, the data measured and analyzed, and then certain, objective knowledge is possible. All ideas and concepts are dependent on experience, and thus all knowledge must also be dependent on experience. Authority rests on human senses and human ability to somehow objectively process and interpret the data received.


Modern Authority and the Christian


To rely on reason and experience for knowledge to some degree is not a bad thing for the Christian. First, the rational processes of the mind, logical analysis, rational explanations and proof, and the dynamic of doubt and questioning is part of what it means to be human. It is also part of what it means to be a Christian believer. We want our faith to be reasonable and to make sense. We want to be able to explain our faith with coherence and logic. We can and do rely, however, on our God given reason as a secondary or derivative source of authority and not the primary or ultimate source. For one we are fallen human beings and cannot fully trust either our reason or our experience. And, there are aspects of our belief that involve mystery and faith, explanations of which come not from our human reason but only from revelation, and to one who is “spiritual.”

Similarly, human experience – what we see, observe, and measure – is also a source of authority for truth to a certain degree. This is how we do science. We observe, sense, and measure the world. The data is analyzed and interpreted. We gain further knowledge of reality. Experience cannot be, however, our only nor our primary source for knowledge and our ultimate authority for truth. Empirical observation takes place in a fallen world by fallen human beings. It can inform, adjust, and confirm knowledge and truth, but cannot be our ultimate authority in determining truth.


Postmodern World


Post-modernity is a reaction to the failure of Modernity; that is, the certainty of Modernity, and its faith in science and technology, led to two World Wars, the threat of nuclear holocaust, pollution and ecological disaster, and the depersonalization of human beings. This means, says the postmodernist, that objective and absolute truth is a myth and that to claim such an absolute truth or metanarrative is oppressive and an act of violence. Truth? Authority for making any claims over life, morals, and ethics? For the postmodernist such “authority” is found in two sources.


Culture and Community


The post-modern rejects the notion of absolute, objective truth, whether found in reason, experience, or even revelation. The postmodern is also not nearly as concerned about the autonomy of the individual. The community, the social group of language, values, and beliefs, is most important. Therefore, “Truth,” or better said, truths are relative and are constructions of culture and community. There is no objective truth “out there” to be discovered and then imposed oppressively over all people. There are, instead, many relative truths that are part of and constructed by different communities and cultures, none of which are to be imposed on other communities and cultures.


Personal Experience.


The Enlightenment Empiricist believed certain, objective, and absolute knowledge or truth could be arrived at through observation and experience. To the post-modern this is maximum hubris, an indisputable criticism after the disasters of the twentieth century. For the post-modernist knowledge and truth are still grounded in experience, however it is not the same experience of the Empiricist. The Empiricist sought knowledge outside of himself, objective and certain. He discovered it through keen, scientific observation. For the post-modern experience is subjective, personal yet grounded in community. It is developed or constructed in community through deeply personal experience. Truth is therefore niche truth. Different communities build their own truths and never consider that theirs is above, better, or “truer” than another. Much less should it ever be imposed on another person or community.


Post-modern Truth and the Christian


The mistake many Christians make is to automatically reject the relativism and pluralism of Post-modernity and uncritically hang on to many tenets of Modernity. There is much in Modernity to hang onto; however, the post-modern is right to criticize the hubris of the Modern human. The belief that humans could be objective and grasp, out of their own reason and experience, objective knowledge and truth is not Biblical. This confidence, rather, was grounded in a belief in the innate goodness and objective abilities of humans, which simply overlooked or rejected the Biblical doctrine of the fall. The Post-modern, although taking it too far, does remind us to be humble and to take into account the real influence of culture, experience, and perspective as we seek, verbalize, and pronounce truth.

But Post-modern relativism is not the only alternative. There is a truer and safer ground to be had.

Next week: Part 2: The Church at an Authority Crossroads


1 Comment

Multi-cultural congregations: A tale of two churches

7/26/2015

0 Comments

 
An ongoing debate in the church world is the importance and the possibility of multi-cultural/ethnic/racial congregations.  Technically, those are three different things, something that is often not recognized in the debate. That is, a church can be multi-racial but mono-cultural. Conversely, it can be mono-racial or mono-ethnic and multi-cultural.  However one defines each term, admittedly the most challenging opportunity in our American society is the multi-racial, and specifically White-Black, congregation.

One of the issues in the debate is the differences between planting a new church as a multi-racial (or cultural/ethnic church) or transitioning an existing mono-cultural church to a multi one. Most agree that, with some exceptions, transitioning is harder. Whatever the case may be, let me share the story of two multi-cultural churches, one planted and one transitioning.

Caprock Church in Arlington, Texas was planted by Francis Calimbahin in 2005. Francis says that his vision was to plant a church that would reach internationals. Granted, most of the initial outreach was to other Filipinos, since that is who Francis is. It was not too long, however, before people of all races and backgrounds started coming to Caprock, and not just internationals. Why? Was it because Arlington is an ethnically diverse city? Was it because Francis is a good expository preacher, who stays focused on the word? Was it because Francis and his family love people? Was it because the congregation was open to anyone and everyone? I imagine it was all of these.

Whatever the answer may be, Caprock is now a congregation of Asians, African-Americans, Anglos, and Hispanics, not only in attendance, but in leadership positions. I know. I have been there several times and have experienced vibrant multi-cultural worship, fellowship, and food!

Francis says: “Our church is intentional in reaching out to anyone regardless of ethnicity or race who is unsaved . . . we deliberately change our outreach strategies, methods, and approach . . . but the message remains the same.”

Want to learn more about how Francis and Caprock did it? Check out their website and contact info here http://www.caprockchurch.com/

Meadowridge Community Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX has been in existence since 1986.  It has been through several pastors, some mergers, and a couple of name changes. Originally started on the predominately Anglo far south side of Fort Worth, by the turn of the 21st century the church found itself in a growing diverse area of town. The zip code for the church is now 46% White, 35% Black, and 7% Asian. About 22% are Hispanic. (Remember, race and ethnicity are two different things, so “labels” may overlap). Moreover, the church found itself in a plateaued, if not dying condition. What to do?

Enter Wedgewood Baptist Church. They sent Pastor Randal Lyle and a group of people over to help Meadowridge make a comeback.  And they did . . . to a point. Randal was convinced, however, that God was leading the church to intentionally reflect the community in its racial and ethnic diversity. Easy, right? Well, no. It took lots of prayer, lots of explaining, lots of bridge building, and lots of changes in music style, organization, and relationship building. It took work and commitment. It took giving up a lot and moving out of the proverbial comfort zone.

And it worked. Today Meadowridge is a healthy, growing, and vibrant multi-racial fellowship.  I had the privilege of visiting there last Sunday and was wowed by the genuine friendliness, love, affection, and respect people had toward each other and toward visitors. The place was full. The first worship song was “salsa” style. The sermon was outstanding. Black and White hugged each other, sat together, worshiped together, and serve the Lord together on a daily basis (yes, there really is a multi-racial staff).

Randal and his staff are eager to share their experience with other churches needing to be revitalized and willing to make the same transition. To learn more about Meadowridge and to get contact information, go to http://www.meadowridgechurch.org/. You can even watch a video that tells their full story.

Want to know what it takes to plant a multi-cultural church? Want to know what it takes to revitalize and transition a church to a vibrant multi-cultural ministry?  Contact these two godly men and they will be glad to tell you.

0 Comments

What will we be known for?

7/19/2015

0 Comments

 
There is no lack of opinion over what a Christian should look like. There is plenty of debate over the future role of the church in America. As we find ourselves further marginalized  in society and as cultural Christianity falls to the wayside, what will identify and describe us as a body of believers?

In his book The New Testament and the People of God N.T. Wright notes what distinguished early followers of Jesus more than anything else was their radical new community. Wright quotes the report by Pliny to the emperor Trajan:

“They met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god, and also to bind themselves by oath, not for any criminal purposes, but to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery, to commit no breach of trust and not to deny a deposit when called upon to restore it. After this ceremony it had been their custom to disperse and reassemble later to take food of an ordinary, harmless kind. . .  .”

Wright also quotes the apologist Aristides, who defends Christians by saying:

“Their oppressors they appease and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies . . . they love one another, and from widows they do not turn away their esteem; and they deliver the orphan from him who treats him harshly. And he, who has, gives to him who has not, without boasting. And when they see a stranger, they take him in to their homes and rejoice over him as a brother; for they do not call them brethren after the flesh, but brethren after the spirit and in God. And whenever one of their poor passes from the world, each of them according to his ability gives heed to him and carefully sees to his burial . . . .”

Certainly, this last quote has to be taken with a grain of salt, for it comes from a Christian defending his own. Still, as Wright notes, the early community of believers “did not expose their children [in pagan Roman society unwanted children were left exposed to the elements to die], nor did they indulge in sexual immorality. What is more, they did not attempt to overthrow governments; did not commit suicide; and in particular – astonishing in a world where trust and affection were normally confined to family and friends – they cared for one another across the barriers formed by normal culture.”

What can we learn and apply from these descriptions of the early church? A lot; but let me just mention three things:

One, although only implied in the first quote, it is obvious their belief in and experience of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord so completely transformed their lives that this community lifestyle was inevitable and authentic. A saving encounter with Jesus not only changes a person’s heart, it radically changes his relationships. Do our churches reflect this type of radical community? Being driven to the margins will expose a local church’s faithfulness to the word and its practice of community.

Two, therefore, the definition of “family” changes. Jesus addressed this himself in Matt. 3:31-35 and elsewhere. It is wonderful when a biological family follows Christ together, but many times that is not the case. The new, Biblical family is made up of those “after the spirit and in God.” As the church is further marginalized, hard decisions will have to made by many.

Three, although the early church community was often ostracized, marginalized, and even persecuted, they somehow practiced patience, love, and grace. They did this among themselves and toward their adversaries, their enemies, and to strangers. They gave, they fed, they provided. They lived honestly, sought peace, and died to self. Are we willing and able to do the same? Seek peace when attacked, return good for evil, be willing to die to self and to our “rights” and not have to win every time?

I certainly don’t know what the future holds for the American Bible-believing church. I do think, however, that we will have to individually and corporately seriously examine who we are, how we act, and what we do. Scripture is our ultimate and infallible guide, but those disciples who have gone before us can teach us a lot.

0 Comments

American Idols: You Gotta Serve Somebody – Part 2

7/13/2015

0 Comments

 
Continuing from last week – what are two more American Idols we need to name?

 

Avoiding the Silence, Filling the Space: Entertainment

Rest, recreation, and having fun is not wrong. In fact, it is mandated by God and was practiced by the people of Israel and by Jesus and his disciples. Our difficulty is that we do not really know how to rest and truly recreate. We fill our time with countless and extremely expensive activities so that we can be distracted, titillated, and stimulated. Sometimes some of these activities lead to rest; at other times they are simply activities of a different kind used for simple distraction.


The billions of dollars and millions of hours spent on sports, music, movies, eating out, concerts, video games, gadgets and toys reflect a cultural obsession. Moreover, it is an obsession that only begs for more. More sports leagues than ever, and when that is not enough, we create fantasy leagues. More amusement parks, which “generate $12 billion in revenues each year.” More ways to spend money on entertainment in all kinds of: cable television (“estimated revenues of $74.7 billion in 2007”), listening to music (MP3 players alone “generated $5.4 billion in revenue in 2007”), movies (“more than $10 billion in 2009”), video games (“Americans spent $13.5 billion on home video and computer games in 2006”). [1] Apparently, the entertainment industry is a very profitable one and is scratching a cultural itch.


Related to our obsession with entertainment is the American (global, really) obsession and near worship of celebrity. People magazine, The National Enquirer, the Star, and multiple other tabloids; TV shows like TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, and Extra, and a countless number of talk shows that major on celebrity visits and stories – we are fascinated by the lives of the rich and famous even when their lives are messed up and they have nothing of significance to say. In fact, nothing really fascinates us more than a celebrity life gone haywire: a messy divorce, an arrest for DUI, or a movie set meltdown. It seems as if we can’t help but be attracted to celebrity “train wrecks.” This obsession with every detail of a celebrity’s life, the inability to separate reality from the fantastic life of the celebrity, and the projection of inordinate knowledge, wisdom, influence, and even a sense of “normalcy” to that celebrity that is idolatry.
Free Love at Last: Our obsession with sex


Among all of God’s good gifts to humans, perhaps none has been as misused, abused, and perverted as that of sex. He created us as sexual beings, an identity that far exceeds the mere sex act. It was part of his original design for men and women, to be perfectly expressed within his plan of the permanent union of one man and one woman loving each other, learning to understand each other more and more every day, and procreating to fill the earth. Obviously, the fall of Adam and Eve distorted the gift: both the security and stability of God given sexual identity and the fulfillment of the physical act of sex have been stunted, corrupted, and manipulated according to sin’s twisted desires. The result throughout history and across all cultures has been frustrated, abusive, and self-centered relationships. Certainly, not all humans have expressed their fallen sexuality in the worst of ways; however, the potential, the temptation, and the threat simmer just under the surface in all of us.

This is not just an American problem – it is global. In fact, there are many cultures where sex, either overtly or covertly, is perverted almost beyond belief. The sex markets of Bangkok, the red light district of Amsterdam, the world sex slave business, the abuse of women in Muslim countries, pedophilia in Mormon polygamist sects, the explosion in online pornography, the sickening growth of child pornography, worldwide prostitution – no society or culture is free from the effects of sin on God’s good gift of sex.

We use sex to market and sell cars, beer, perfume, clothes, vacations, and even milk. We hesitate to talk about how much money we make, for that would be ill mannered, but are willing to publicly talk about our sex lives. Magazines at the grocery store checkout lines have scores of articles on how to improve your sex life, how to turn him or her on, or new secrets about what he or she really wants, and they publish the same thing every single month. Television ads appeal to male insecurity offering all kinds of remedies, prescription and natural, for all kinds of ailments, real or perceived. It seems that every television sitcom that eventually runs out of good writing ideas (and they all usually do after a couple of seasons) turns to storylines full of raunchy sexual situations, some of which may be funny to a twelve year old just discovering what sex is about. And, it seems as is every television show has to introduce either a gay character or couple just to reinforce the view that such is perfectly normal.

American society is moving through three general attitudes toward sex: One, from an era when sex was a taboo subject that was practiced in private, and when even sinful acts were kept private. Two, through an era of “open and free love” in which sex has been “freed from its shackles” and idolized. Three, toward a rapidly developing era in which sex has become so open, commonplace, routine, and marketable that it carries no more meaning to people than having lunch together, an attitude already common in some European countries and found in such shows like “Sex and the City.” Then, our slavery will be complete. We will think we have achieved full freedom regarding our sexuality and our sexual activity, but the truth is that the idol will have achieved its purpose: it will no longer even be noticed, its control complete.

Cultural and Missional Implications

How do we remove these idols from our lives and demonstrate to American culture what it means to be free as a slave of Christ?

  1. We must unmask the idols by naming them. The challenge is to unmask false gods. That starts by naming, and thus admitting to, the idols in our society. We do this naming, which implies and includes confrontation, through both word and deed. Doing it by word does not mean we stand on the street corner (or in a television broadcast) and yell out that our neighbors are idolaters. It means that we continue to preach and teach that idolatry is anything that interferes with, distracts from, or takes the place of, on a regular, patterned basis, our faith in and dependence on God. More difficult, and more importantly, is to practice what we preach! We have the opportunity to demonstrate in our lifestyle what it means to be a slave to Christ, which is the true definition of freedom. Practically, this may mean simplifying our lives materially, reducing our obsession with, and maybe even participation in, “accepted” diversions, and cutting back on our addiction to busy-ness. This is not a call for a return to a legalistic view toward “wordly” entertainment; it is a call for an honest examination of priorities and investment of time and resources.

  2. We must be willing to give up our individual rights. We can demonstrate appreciation for our American political, economic, and social freedom, and especially the individual rights that come with those. We can also demonstrate what it means to stand up for justice – for the rights of those who cannot speak and fight for themselves. At the same time we can demonstrate that being a slave to Christ means being willing to give up certain rights for the sake of Christ and others. We don’t always have to be right. We don’t always have to win. We don’t always have to be compensated for a loss. 

  3. We must articulate and practice a Biblical theology of life. At the same time that we passionately argue for the rights of the unborn, our greater missiological challenge is to present a comprehensive Biblical theology of life. That is, we need to carefully articulate a pro-life stance that addresses not only the unborn, but the aged, victims of crime and war, and even the disconcerting number of wrongful convictions that have led to misapplication of the death penalty. We have done well in providing life affirming options through crisis pregnancy clinics, adoption ministries, and other counseling. Our growing aging population may demand similar “right to life” action for the growing numbers who will not be able to care or speak for themselves. 

  4. We must articulate and demonstrate how rights demand responsibility. For many of us this was modeled and taught to us by our parents. That does not appear, unfortunately, to be any longer the common cultural experience. To the contrary, the common cultural experience is that of entitlement and little conception of consequences. The “right” to have promiscuous sex includes the consequences of disease or pregnancy and the responsibility of an unexpected child. The “right” to free speech includes the consequence of being rejected or not liked for what is said and the responsibility for the hearing rights of others. The “right” to have a job includes the responsibility of showing up on time, working hard, and paying taxes. The “right” to use this earth includes the responsibility of taking care of it. And so on. What would seem to be so elemental is lost in our idolatry of radical individualism. 

  5. We must practice simpler lifestyles and demonstrate generosity. We can demonstrate appreciation for our abundant material blessings, but also demonstrate what it means to generously give, to live simply, and to live by faith. As believers we can model staying out of debt, purchasing and owning less, and not pursuing the latest gadget or fad. Preachers often bemoan that contemporary Christians don’t stand out from the world, and mainly point to hair, tattoos, and dress styles. They may have a point, but what if Christians were known for those who live simply because they give most of what they make away?  That would really stick out. 

  6. We must keep science and technology in perspective. We can make full use of science and technology, especially for the sake of the gospel. We need to be fully aware, however, that they are human constructions and temporary – they will fail us. The opportunity exists to appreciate what science and technology have to offer us, in spite of scientism and Darwinism, but yet preach, teach, and demonstrate that our faith is ultimately in God’s provision and plan. 

  7. We must learn and practice what the Bible means by Sabbath rest. We need to learn and then demonstrate that Biblical rest and re-creation need not be a burden financially, on our families, and on our time. We need to learn to model a weekly Sabbath rest, moderation in family activities, and regular re-creation times that don’t require exorbitant expenditures.

  8. We must practice sexual purity. This is perhaps the most difficult challenge. We must learn to demonstrate sexual purity while speaking the truth about God’s plan for sexuality. We must continue to speak the truth in love about adultery, pornography, and homosexuality, but always with compassion and grace for those trapped in these idolatrous sins and humbly guarding against our own failures. Essentially, we must practice what we preach.



You gotta serve somebody. There is no person who is totally and absolutely free. What freedom we do have is oriented towards service to someone or something, whether we know it or admit it. The myth is that freedom means no shackles to anyone; the reality is that true freedom is only found in being free from sin, from idols, and from self, and being shackled to Christ. That freedom, however, is not be used “as an opportunity for the flesh,” but in service to “one another through love” (Gal. 5:13). That freedom is also to be used to express in word and deed the truth of the One who has set us free.




[1] http://www.researchamerica.org/research_cents.

 

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Author

    Terry Coy -- husband, father, grandfather. Trying to figure it out while on the journey with Jesus.

    Archives

    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015

    Categories

    All
    Bible
    Culture
    Discipleship
    Missions
    Personal
    Theology

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly