Lead Us Back: Songs of Repentance

I’ve felt for some time that one aspect of biblical worship that is largely missing from our modern worship is songs of repentance & confession. In some cases that’s because we generally prefer our songs to be “uplifting”- we want people to connect with God, not feel bad about themselves. In other cases, it may be that we just don’t have that many good songs of repentance. I can understand that, song writers probably write songs of repentance, but those songs may be too personal for corporate worship.

The “uplifting” concern worries me, largely because such encouragement is ultimately shallow. We want the feel-good benefits of the grace of God, without acknowledging why that grace is needed in the first place. But without knowing how great our sin is, how can we ever know how great God’s grace is?

This morning I was listening to some songs from an album called Before the Throne, put out by Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, KY. You can download 4 of the songs from that album for free; I highly recommend you do so soon. I’ve grown to love these songs, as evidenced by the fact that “In the Shadow of Your Glorious Cross” is the most played song on my iTunes. In this case, though, it was the song “Lead Us Back” that was particularly powerful. It is a song of corporate repentance and lament over our sin. The lyrics are by Bobby Gilles and Brooks Ritter. This song has its finger on the pulse of the church, and poetically describes some of our shortcomings. I found myself convicted of the sins mentioned in this song; and convinced of my need for God’s grace. I hope you take the time to read these, listen to the song and reflect.

Falling down upon our knees
Sharing now in common shame
We have sought security
Not the cross that bears Your name
Fences guard our hearts and homes
Comfort sings a siren tune
We’re a valley of dry bones
Lead us back to life in You

Lord we fall upon our knees
We have shunned the weak and poor
Worshipped beauty, courted kings
And the things their gold affords
Prayed for those we’d like to know
Favor sings a siren tune
We’ve become a talent show
Lead us back to life in You

You have caused the blind to see
We have blinded him again
With our man-made laws and creeds
Eager, ready to condemn
Now we plead before Your throne
Power sings a siren tune
We’ve been throwing heavy stones
Lead us back to life in You

We’re a valley of dry bones
Lead us back to life in You
We’ve become a talent show
Lead us back to life in You
We’ve been throwing heavy stones
Lead us back to life in You

Contemporizing Theology in American Evangelicalism

I just received a copy of Jesus Made in America by Stephen J Nichols (thanks to my new friend, Adrianna of IVP). It'll take a bit before I can actually review it, but I've read the first little bit and have already found it to be an interesting read. He observes that it is natural for Christians to bring their cultural understanding and expressions into their reading and application of the Bible. But, he claims, "there is something peculiar to the tendency to contemporize in American evangelicalism" (10). He lists 4 areas he sees as American tendencies to contemporize, which I'll summarize (these are found on pages 10-12).

"First, American evangelicals reflexively harbor suspicions of tradition." He notes that this tendency "leaves American evangelicals more vulnerable than most when it comes to cultural pressures and influences. In the absence of tradition, we tend to make up a new one, one not tested by time and more or less constructed by individuals or by a limited community."

Second, is the tendency to appeal to sola scriptura, one of the rallying cries of Luther's call for reformation. But, Nichols notes, "the mistaken conclusion is that because American evangelicals hold firmly and prize sola scriptura, it naturally flows that all of the beliefs of American evangelicals naturally flow from the pages of Scripture."

Third, "much of contemporary evangelicalism... operates under the assumption that we are neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. The upshot of all this is that our ideas or beliefs are not held as our ideas or beliefs but as the ideas or beliefs."

Fourth, "American evangelicals are strongly influenced by pietism, which emphasizes personal religious experience, and values devotion and practice over doctrine."

These four tendencies, Nichols claims, "all conspire to make American evangelicals quite susceptible to culture in the shaping of beliefs and interpretation of Scripture."

Now, I suppose it's open to debate that contemporary American evangelicals are any more susceptible to this than any other group of Christians in various times, places and cultures. The questions I ask you: do you think Nichols observations are true? What are the potential outcomes (good or bad) of these tendencies?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

they do it in the Bible, so why can't I...

Over the years, I've encountered some interesting attempts at justifying one's actions or thoughts with the use of Scripture. Almost always they involve digging in Scripture for analogies to defend our vantage point. I've decided to post some here, and invite you to comment or share your own. Note: I'm not necessarily talking about debatable doctrines or applications of Scripture. I hope you will notice the difference between that and what I'm posting here.

1. The "they use offensive language in the Bible, so why can't I" defense: A recent version of this can be seen in Tim Challies book review of Mark Driscoll's new work Vintage Jesus and some follow up comments he made on his next post. Challies takes exception to some of Driscoll's language (and anyone familiar with Driscoll will not be surprised), though is largely favorable to Driscoll's ministry. If you'd like to find out more, I highly recommend you read these 2 posts, I tend to agree with Challies' summary.

Here, Driscoll uses these words when talking about Mary and the sketchy circumstances surrounding her pregnancy: "Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the 'fact' she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom." The problem that some have, naturally, is the use of the phrase "knocking boots", which is deemed crass and unnecessary. A commentor, however, argued that since some of the prophets use strong language denouncing Israel ("whore", etc), we can't really be upset at Driscoll's comments.

Regardless of whether or not you think his wording is offensive, I would think that the deficiency of this defense is obvious (and I've heard this numerous times over the years). The prophets use strong and vivid language to show the immensity of Israel's sin and God's punishment for that sin. The offensive language used in the manner like Driscoll here is not at all analogous to Ezekiel's language (or Isaiah, Hosea, etc). This type of offensive language is nothing more than an attempt to be funny. I won't speak about Driscoll, since I don't know him personally, but in my experience, most Christians who frequently use these types of terms and phrases (and I'm not talking about swearing when you drop something heavy on your foot) are doing so simply to be cool and "edgy." There's nothing really to be gained by doing it, and in fact, I find it to be sad and pathetic rather than cool. Anyway, the Scriptural justification is wanting.

2. I've seen people pull one verse out to justify actions, all the while ignoring the mountain of verses against them. For instance, as I've been teaching on the gospels lately, I remembered in undergrad how people would defend their churches spending a lot of money on various and assorted decorations for their church building. I mean, a lot. What always killed me was the common use of Jesus' words "You will always have the poor among you" (see John 12:1-8).

Now, Jesus spoke these words in response to the disciples' objection to Mary anointing Jesus for His burial. It was a one-time act of worship by a woman disciple who actually understood what Jesus was about to go through (unlike his closer disciples). Jesus wasn't laying out a theology of giving to the poor, He was commending this faithful follower for her act of worship. Building a waterfall in your church foyer is not the same, or even analogous to, as Mary's one-time act of worship before Jesus' death. Not even close. (Side note: yet none of these folks who defended their churches ever considered that maybe Jesus' command to the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give to the poor was for them, they had "good" reasons to argue against that. That's what my former NT prof would call "hermeneutically dodging the bullet.")

Now, you may disagree with me on how money is to be spent for church decor and for the poor (though to warn you, I'm developing very strong opinions about this), but at the very least I hope you can see why this defense is so very weak.

3. Leading in the irony department, I remember a debate with someone who was coming from a liturgical church background. We were discussing spiritual gifts and their use in the church service. This person, who didn't believe in the continuing existence of spiritual gifts anyway, argued that liturgy should be used because excercising spiritual gifts is disorderly. After all, it was said, "God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33). The irony, of course, is that Paul wrote this in the middle of discussing the proper use of spiritual gifts during a congregational meeting. It certainly is far removed from liturgy, isn't it?

4. I went to a Southern Baptist school in undergrad. As a Southern Baptist university, the school did not allow school-sponsored dances (what you did on your own time was up to you, I suppose). Now, many fought against this, understandably so, but used an interesting way to argue their case: David danced, so why can't we? Of course, David danced, no one argues that. But David danced before the Lord in worship. He didn't go to clubs or go line dancing. Mind you, I have no problem with dancing, at least not morally (I mean, I don't like dancing, but don't have a moral objection to it). But I didn't confuse dancing at my wedding with dancing before the Lord as the ark was being returned to Jerusalem. Again, poor analogy.

Anyway, I kind of breezed through these, but I hope you see the points I'm making. Any of your own? Oh, and if anyone would like to point out the plank in my eye, please do so. Thanks!

5.5 random things: links edition

5.5: This post is dedicated to whoever invented the idea of posting links rather than troubling with developing an insightful post to educate, entertain or edify others. If someone can do your work for you, cite them and move on. Here they are, in no particular order.

5: J. A. Adande of ESPN had an interesting article about race and the Boston Celtics. I meant to link to this a while back but forgot to. I thought it was well written, but I admit my Celtics bias.

4: Cousin Jeremy takes on the view held by some evangelicals that the act of sex is necessary for a marriage to be properly considered a marriage. I have to give props to any man who takes time to write a blog post called "Sex as a Condition for Marriage" on Christmas Day and actually have a tie-in.

3: Leading the "I Wish I Had Written That" category is Tim Challies' post (all the way from November, see how slow I am!) It Was My Sin That Held Him There, on the hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us. Read this, reflect on this. Please.

2: Bill Simmons had linked to this and I thought it was interesting. It's a short article by Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star about Tony Gonzalez playing for Bill Belichick in the Pro Bowl. There is a genius to his madness.

1: My favorite Bible scholar is Gordon Fee, a man who is comfortable not only in the classroom but also in the pulpit. Here is a little video to get a feel for his preaching (actually, it seems like it's only the intro to a sermon, but he manages to pack a lot into only 5 minutes). I'm not sure who added the various images, but I think this is very well done. Check it out if you're interested in what it means to be saved and in community.

Messianic Jews Respond to Hagee

As a follow up to my previous post about John Hagee's new book, In Defense of Israel, I offer a few thoughts from the realm of Messianic Judaism. A friend, who is a Jewish believer, sent me a link to a statement put out by the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) regarding the book, in which he argues that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah for the Jewish people, only the Savior of the world (the world excluding the Jewish people, presumably). It's no surprise that they do not find his views favorable; I thought they did an admirable job of shooting his claims down (which is not hard to do, hence the short space it took them to do so).

But I found their final paragraph enlightening:

To teach that Jesus did not come as the Messiah for the Jews is ultimately anti-Jewish. Jesus becomes the savior of the world, but with no particular relationship to the Jewish people. If Jews want to respond to him as savior they have to leave Israel and its messianic hope and become part of something universal. In contrast, when we declare Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, we do not invalidate Israel or the Jewish people. Yes, Jews need to respond to Jesus, as do all people, yet in this response they discover that he is distinctly Jewish, distinctly relevant to them, and very much a part of the Jewish story.

This was something I had not thought about, but is completely true if one takes Hagee's viewpoint. If Jesus did not offer salvation to the Jews, but only to the rest of the world, then for a Jewish person to follow Jesus, they would have to renounce Judaism, since Jesus never offered them salvation. They'd have to become a Gentile in order to follow Jesus. After all, as Hagee says in his promotional video, "how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" (For the record, I am against "blaming the Jews" on some corporate level for rejecting Jesus, that's not the point I'm arguing). Turning Hagee's thought on its head, how can the Jews accept what was never offered? The answer (as the UMJC points out): cease to be Jewish.

I encourage you to read the fuller response written by Rabbi Russell Resnik, who handles a few more issues of interest.

I don't like to make the claim of heresy, but...

it's hard to be kinder when watching this advertisement.



This is a man who pastors a church of almost 20,000 people. Thousands more watch his television programs, who knows how many people read his books. This isn't dispensationalism, this is outright denial of who Jesus is and claimed to be. Scary stuff.

He makes a couple true statements, or at least half true. I agree, it's hard to make the claim that the Jewish people "as a whole" denied Jesus as the Messiah, since the majority of the earliest Christians were Jewish. But really, that depends on how you define "as a whole" anyway.

And I agree that there was a "conspiracy" to kill Jesus, though I wouldn't include Rome within that conspiracy. The conspiracy more likely involved individuals within differing sects of Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) and even some of Herod's followers (Mark 3:6, 12:13). I'm not sure you can call Rome a co-conspirator, though clearly responsible for the death of Jesus (which admittedly gets underplayed in many circles).

But to claim that Jesus never claimed by word or deed to be the Messiah, well, that's outright unbiblical. In fact, I wonder if Hagee will come out with a book denying the divinity of Jesus as well, since that is even "harder" to argue from Jesus' teachings and actions (mind you, I don't think it's all that hard, but it's even less explicit than his Messiahship). I wonder what Hagee thinks the word "Christ" means. I was under the assumption that most know it is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah (Anointed One). I suppose he could argue that Christ claimed to be the Anointed One, but not the awaited Messiah. However, it would be awfully hard to argue that a Jewish person in the 1st century would differentiate.

So, I leave you with the words of John (1 John 5:1):

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is born of God...

when "being myself" is a sin

Lisa and I just got our wedding video the other day and had a chance to sit down and watch it. It was great to look the ceremony again, relive some of our favorite parts (the hymns, of course, rank near the top of the list), and see our friends and family who attended. Most importantly, there is no video evidence of me making a fool of myself on the dance floor, therefore it may never have happened. Nice.

But there was something in the video that helped me see something I did not know about myself. During the ceremony, I looked completely unemotional. Honestly, my facial expressions barely changed throughout, it was eye-opening to me. What disturbs me is that I loved the ceremony and was genuinely moved throughout, there were a few times where I thought I would end up crying (and did, during How Great Thou Art). I can point those times out in the video, but if you didn't know me, you'd probably never think that was the case. After running this revelation across a few other people, I've been informed that this is often the case with me.

There's nothing wrong with looking unemotional, of course. I'm not a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve, though I'd bet I'm more emotional than some might think. But this also brought to mind something I felt conviction over this past summer. You see, I was a part of a faithgroup (small group) in our church led by my good friends Matt & Pam. Every week Pam would prepare a time of worship through singing for us, but most of us rarely sang. It basically turned into the Matt and Pam Family Singalong, with a couple others singing in a barely audible voice.

I was convicted, however, in my failure to worship as a part of the community in these times. See, I often like to listen to the congregation worship on Sunday mornings. Hearing the voices of God's people singing can be a powerful experience. I also like to spend more time thinking about the words and what they teach us about God. These are both perfectly acceptable ways to worship.

However, in a smaller corporate worship setting, it may be inappropriate to do this all the time. Here's why: corporate worship, by definition, is a time for a group of people to worship the Lord in unity. While we may "connect with God" personally, that is not the primary goal of corporate worship (see some thoughts on corporate worship here and note in particular Jeremy's comment). In a smaller group, it can actually be selfish, and it certainly was for me. Sure, I can trot out the "I have a horrible voice, I'm saving you from the pain" argument (which is true, to be sure), but that again is selfish. If my silence causes discouragement for someone else, in particular the leaders, then my worship is self-focused, not blessing God or my brothers and sisters.

I can't turn myself into someone who suddenly shows every emotion on his face: I wouldn't even know how, and it would probably be dishonest to do so. However, I can, especially in corporate worship times, do a better job of promoting unity in the Spirit by participating more. A lack of participation is not "being myself", it is being selfish. And that is a sin.

Emerging into Better Interpreters

I read a great post a few days ago (and am just now getting around to posting about it) at Scot McKnight's blog jesuscreed.org. McKnight is an NT scholar but has interests that range beyond the academic. He writes often about the Emergent Movement, mostly favorable. For those who aren't familiar with the Emergent Movement I recommend you check out some of the links on McKnights page. At its best, those who are considered "emergent" or "emerging" are socially aware/active believers who emphasize the necessity of community in the Church's life, doctrine, evangelism and mission and provide a necessary corrective to evangelicalism. At its worst, they are theologically negligent, doctrinally evasive and just plain condescending. This, of course, is merely my opinion based on my interactions and readings. I tend to think that many, if not most, fit within the first category rather than the second.

McKnight's post is a letter largely addressing the issue that I've seen pop up periodically in the thoughts and writings of emergents: shouldn't we be more concerned with following Jesus and his teachings than with Paul? Many emergents think that the Church (especially evangelicals) has paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Paul rather than Jesus. Here is McKnight's paragraph explaining the issue with his reader:

Your point seemed to favor one idea: that Jesus is not only “the first one we need to go to” (which your friend advocates) but (what you think) the “only one we really need. After all,” you ask, “what else do we really need besides Jesus’ teaching?” Besides, you observe, Paul’s “so abstract and theoretical and all his stuff about justification doesn’t really make sense to any of us.”

I encourage you to read McKnight's post, it was thoughtful, generous and insightful. My response would probably not be any of these things.

McKnight's conversation partner reflects a common understanding within the Emergent Movement. That is, we should be what some have called "red letter Christians" who avoid the common trap of "reading Jesus through the lens of Paul." This line of thought concerns me (which should be no surprise for those who know me well), I guess for two main reasons.

One, this strikes me as awfully arrogant. What makes us think we can interpret Jesus better than Paul? I mean, wasn't Paul a Jew who lived in the same time frame as Jesus? Wasn't he the one who encountered the risen Christ and had his life radically transformed? Wasn't he the one who risked his life to preach the good news of this Savior to the entire world, and ultimately faced his death because of this? How arrogant would I be to think that I can understand and apply Jesus' teachings better than Paul?

Two, there seems to be a fundamental problem with hermeneutics here (by "hermeneutics" I mean the process of applying an ancient text to today, the basic question is "how do we get from there to here?"). Because we don't grasp the first issue (how Paul applies Jesus' teachings), we don't grasp how to apply Paul. If we studied Paul and asked the questions "how?" (how does Paul apply Jesus?) and "why?" (why does Paul apply it in this way?) we might have a clue to following Jesus' teachings. It seems to me that Paul would be a great case study for us. While our contexts are certainly different, there are striking similarities that could give us a clue how to preach the gospel faithfullly in our context. Both contexts (Paul's and ours) are pluralistic, socially diverse, economically diverse, morally loose, and so on. (It's interesting to note that Jesus ministered in a monotheistic and morally stringent- to the point of legalism in some cases- atmosphere. That doesn't sound too much like modern day America, does it?)

I think this is what bothers me when McKnight's reader says that "all his [Paul's] stuff about justification doesn’t really make sense to any of us." It was this doctrine that Paul used to defend the right of Gentiles to fellowship with Jews. It wasn't abstract or theoretical. It was practical. Justification by faith meant that Gentiles could eat with Jews (making the reverse true as well), worship with Jews, etc, without having to become "Jews" (circumcision being the most obvious issue). It doesn't get much more practical than that. Given that emergents are so concerned with equality between classes/races/cultures/etc (one of their most admirable qualities), justification should be emphasized in their circles, not diminished. I think the movement would be much more powerful and productive if it would spend more time reflecting on these things.

some late thoughts on the Haggard situation

I realize that Ted Haggard has already become yesterday's news in many circles, but I've been meaning to write something about it for a couple days. Many have voiced their thoughts, and I am hesitant to just be one of the many out there, but here it goes anyway. I apologize if this is old for you already.

It's interesting to see the varying reactions Christians have had (I won't really comment on the reaction of non-Christians for now). Some are heartbroken, some are utterly shocked, and I've even read some comments from folks who seem to feel this whole situation justifies their dislike of the megachurch movement. While I am no fan of megachurches, I'm not sure that's the point we should take from all this.

My feelings were varied, I suppose like many other's. My heart breaks for his family, I can't imagine what this might do to his wife and kids. My heart breaks for his church, and I pray that they haven't put too much stock in their long-time pastor, who is but a man. And my heart breaks for him as well, it's not like he's enjoying this situation, I'm sure. No matter how much of this is his fault (and it is his fault, there's no doubt about that), my heart still breaks for someone who let himself go this far. I don't want to see someone fail, no matter what size church they pastor.

There was another feeling, however, that I still have, but I'm not sure how to describe it. I guess you could call it "gratefulness", clearly not that this happened to him, but that I could be that guy. As I watched this whole thing unfold, I kept thanking the Lord that He has kept me from this. Perhaps people just don't think that something like that could happen to them, but I know it could. It wouldn't be the same type of sin, that's sure, but it would be something. I deserve to have my sins made public for everyone and be ridiculed. I'm not special. But God has been gracious to me.

There are two factors I see behind Haggard's fall. One is being honest about sin. It amazes me how much of the Church overlooks sin in its embryonic form, not realizing how it will in fact grow (I'm also speaking of myself here). So many Christians have trouble calling sin sin, they can't seem to bring themselves to call it evil, which is what it is. We accept way too much of sin in our lives (I might need to get on a Romans 7 kick at some point, but I'll refrain). While I can't accept the Wesleyan "perfection" concept (although that's often misunderstood anyway), I love John Wesley's never ending pursuit of holiness. Some call it legalistic, I call them cowards for not being able to stand before others to account for their actions (and yes, I call myself a coward all the time).

The other factor is what I just hit on, accountability. I realize accountability is not a new concept in the church, and everyone seems to be aware of it and its benefits, but rarely do we practice true accountability. How many people know the dark places of your heart? How many people know the sins that constantly hound you, the thoughts that plague your mind thoughout the day? As for me, I am a master at wording my confessions in a way that "gets me off the hook" at times. But honestly, I have those in my life who don't allow it to happen very often. The truth is I have been kept from sin many times because of the fear of having to look my pastor in the eye and tell him what I did or thought. Again, some would call it legalism. But I don't think so. God has given us people to keep up in line, we ought to use them. The Holy Spirit often convicts us through the words of our brothers and sisters, we must seek that conviction.

So I've done a lot of soul searching in this time. Am I the one who stands before God and says, "I'm glad I'm not like Ted Haggard"? Or am I the one who stands before God and says, "I'm more like Ted Haggard than I want to admit. Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."?

The Sting of Death, or the Lack Thereof

I have to admit, death bothers me. I realize that sounds obvious, since it bothers everyone, but death really affects me. Whenever I hear about someone dying, whether or not I know them, I cringe. Just knowing that that person has family, friends, coworkers, neighbors, etc, who will never be able to eat dinner, watch a movie or shoot the breeze with that person again breaks my heart. It doesn't get much more permanent than that.

It breaks my heart even more when there are tragic circumstances surrounding the death. We've seen such things recently in the news: a state trooper in New Hampshire gunned down by a criminal, those poor little Amish girls killed by a psycho (that situation actually made me utter the words "hell won't be hot enough for some people"), even Steve Irwin being killed by a stingray (while many were talking about his shows and his conservation efforts, all noteworthy and appreciated, I felt awful for his poor wife and little kids). It's painful enough when a 90-year old dies after a long illness (and it is painful), it's even worse when someone's life is cut short unexpectedly.

Every year around this time I think about this because of my own experience with a friend's unexpected death. On the night of October 22, 1998 a bunch of my friends and I were sitting on the couches of our dorm talking baseball. I remember going on a prolonged rant about why Nomar Garciaparra should win MVP over Juan Gonzalez that season. Next thing I know, my friend Brian Barnes was coughing and gasping for air. We knew that Brian was born with a hole in his heart, and he had already had major heart surgery when he was 16. He was told he probably wouldn't live past 18, he was 23 that night when I watched his eyes roll back in his head as I tried to help him.

The paramedics came and revived him, but we found out the next morning (after getting absolutely no sleep) that his brain was showing no signs of activity, it had been deprived of oxygen too long. His family decided to give it one day just to see if some miracle would happen. That miracle never came, and we (his family, 3 other guys from the dorm and I) watched him breath his last on that hospital bed in Springfield, MO on the morning of Saturday, October 24.

There are plenty of great things to remember of our time together: wrestling matches, dance parties (which weren't co-ed at our Baptist school and existed mostly for comedy's sake), too many viewings of Tommy Boy. There was something more important about the relationship between Brian and our hall on the first floor of Gott Hall. Brian was never the cool kid. He was short and fat, he couldn't play sports because of his heart condition. He wore thick glasses, had a bad mustache and his haircut too closely resembled Forrest Gump's. But he was one of us. Other people made fun of him, we had fun with him. For years he was left out and pushed to the side, on our hall he was one of the guys. I'm not trying to make saints out of us, it's not like we said "he's not cool, how about we let him hang out." This wasn't a charity project, it's just the way it was. He was our friend.

I remember the wake (or whatever the non-Irish call it) and how many people showed up. There was a group of us talking with his parents and siblings and sharing memories. His father picked up the guest book that people signed when they came in and thumbed through the pages. With tears in his eyes he said "I never knew my boy had so many friends." I honestly can say that Brian died at the peak of his life. Never had he been so loved, and never had he been so close to His Savior. It was only a couple weeks before this that he wrote a cousin to whom he had been witnessing and told him that he was in fact ready to die, he had confidence in Christ (Brian had no idea he was about to die, at least not to my knowledge, he actually had a doctor's appointment not too long before this and was told there were no major problems). I have another clear memory from that semester. During a hall Bible study we started with some worship songs. Those who know me know that I rarely sing during these times, I generally prefer to listen and meditate. On this particular evening I noticed someone singing rather loudly and quite off-key, I open my eyes to see Brian with his eyes closed giving it everything he had. It's weird how that picture has stuck with me all this time.

Knowing how hard it is for me to deal with death anyway, and given that this was a good friend of mine, I was forced to face the issue head on and not avoid it. I found solace in the words of Paul found in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. I encourage you to read them. Someday Christ will return. The great thing is that He will not return alone, but there will be a reunion with those who have died and those who are still alive. It sounds so cheesy to say, but we have confidence that those who are in Christ will see each other again. No wonder Paul can say in v18, "Therefore encourage one another with these words."

As time has gone on, 1 Corinthians 15 has become my very favorite chapter in the Bible. It is here where we see history, theology and application come together in a dramatic way, perhaps rivaled by only a few other places in the Bible (Philippians 2 maybe?). Because of one event, Christ's resurrection (history), we know that death has been defeated and we will rise like He did (theology), therefore we need not fear death and we know that the struggles of this life are not in vain(application). In Christ, death has become an obstacle that has been overcome, a hurdle that has been jumped, an evil that has been overpowered by good. From our vantage point this truth can be clouded, but it's power is no less real. We can grieve (read Paul's words in 1 Thess 4), but we can also boldly say "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" (1 Cor 15:54-55).

The Spirit & the Community

You may remember a week or so ago that I guest blogged at another site, or I suppose you may not remember. Well, I opted to carry the post over here, you know, just to fill some space until my overdue Hymn of the Week and much needed football posts come around. I originally wrote this late Friday the 1st and early Saturday the 2nd of September. As I reread it I'm not all that happy with it, but it's something to discuss and ponder.

------------------------------------------

Here are two stories about my church community from the past week.

1. The last couple days are some of the craziest in the city of Boston. With over 300,000 students in this small city (it really doesn’t cover much land), and most moving in or out on the same day, this week can be one of the most frustrating of the year. Nothing works out as planned, and you can forget about meals at normal times or sleeping the recommended amount (I got 7 hours of sleep in two days and skipped dinner 2 nights in a row). It just won’t happen.

Last night I got a phone call from a young lady in my church. She and her roommate had hoped to avoid the craziness of this day by hiring movers to transport their stuff, a plan that the rest of us had admired. The movers were to arrive around noon- I got a call over 6 hours later and was told that they hadn’t arrived. The landlord was screaming at them to get out and they had few options. The option they did have, however, was to ask for help from their friends from church. Before you knew it, there were 15 people (most of whom were already tired and sore from moving themselves and others for the last 2 days) bringing couches, desks, a piano (curse that piano!) and other odds and ends down the steps and into a giant truck that one of the church members donated for the evening. Odd as it sounds, it was actually a lot of fun. And of course the steak quesadilla I got to eat didn’t hurt.

2. This past Sunday 40 or so people from my church gathered in an apartment to say goodbye to 2 dear sisters. We sent these 2 out as missionaries to serve an existing church planting team, they will be gone for 1 year. At one point during the evening we gathered into the living room (yes, it was as cramped as it sounds) to have a time of encouragement and prayer for these 2 young ladies. We laughed, we cried, we shared stories and Scriptures. It was a bittersweet moment for all of us, happy to send two of our own out to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, sad to see them leave our fellowship.

As I looked around the crowd of people loving these two, I thought about some of the folks in the room. I saw some who have had their hearts broken and were cared for by others in that room. I saw some who have felt rejected all their lives and have found acceptance by others in that room. I saw some who have had wonderful times of rejoicing (weddings, engagements, babies, new jobs) and celebrated with others in that room. I saw some who have been depressed, stuck in sin and on the verge of giving up who have been loved by others in that room. The truth is that there is no community like the community of God.

That shouldn’t be surprising, though, given the fact that the Spirit of the Living God dwells within this community. Think about that for a second, the Spirit that hovered over the earth during creation, the Spirit who descended upon Christ like a dove, the Spirit who came upon the church at Pentecost like tongues of fire is the same Spirit who dwells within each heart of those who believe in Christ. It is the Spirit of God that binds us together. The community of God is powerful, and empowering, because it is empowered by the Holy Spirit. As my associate pastor is fond of saying, “the great thing about us is the One who is among us.”

This small community of believers in the city of Boston has been a powerful force in the lives of many. It isn’t because we are smart, good looking and uber-spiritual. We haven’t concocted some secret formula that makes us holy, we haven’t passed out copies of the latest Christian self-help book at our services. We have been able to bless others because we are blessed with the presence of the Living God.

We most certainly aren’t perfect, I’d be willing to bet that every person involved in the 2 stories I shared have been hurt by someone else in our church, including myself. That is, unfortunately, a part of life together. But we’ve also learned how to love and forgive each other. We’ve learned that where the Spirit of God is, there is community.

Consider some of Paul’s teachings for a moment.

When Paul was dealing with the division between Jew and Gentile believers he teaches us that the Spirit brings God’s people together. “For through Him [Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access to the Father by one Spirit” (Eph 2:18). “And in Him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by His Spirit” (Eph 2:22, italics mine).

The Spiritual gift of prophesy is used to edify the church (1 Cor 14:5), in fact, Paul urges the Corinthians “since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church” (1 Cor 14:12), that is, rather than seeking personal gain. Regardless of whether or not you think spiritual gifts are still in use today, you can see the point that the believer can build up the church by the power of the Spirit.

Compare Ephesians 5:18-21 and Colossians 3:16-17 and you see how the believer, by being filled with the Spirit, can encourage, admonish, and teach others through songs and music. Again, the result of being Spirit-filled is worship and teaching that is community driven, not self seeking.

The Spirit in the heart of the believer is the restorative force amongst the people of God. Right after he lists some of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), Paul states, “if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual [that is, living by the Spirit in the manner Paul just talked about] should restore him gently” (6:1).

My point is that when the Spirit of God is present, there should be unity and community. We are bound together by the Spirit of the Living God, that bond is far greater than cheering the same baseball team or voting for the same politician. We (and I’m speaking of all Christians here) are enabled to love each other will a sacrificial and selfless love because we have been showed love. This is nothing we can do on our own; any self-made work will surely falter in the long run. It amazes me that a group of sinful and depraved people can be brought together to worship and serve the Lord. Truly the great thing about us is the One who lives among us.

there's the right way, and there's the Lahaye way: reading the book of Revelation

Msn recently published an interview with popular author Tim Lahaye, of Left Behind fame, regarding the current war involving Israel and the end times (clicking on the title of this post will get you there). Many who know me are aware of my aversion for Lahaye and his theology, I may have even used the word "disease" once or twice. Mind you, I'm grateful that people have decided to study the Bible more as a result of reading his books, and the Lord has no doubt used such means to draw people to Himself. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, since the Lord has also used those who wholeheartedly disagree with Lahaye to draw people to Himself. That's just the way He works, thankfully we don't have to get it all right in order to be used.

I just want to point out a couple things really quick. The interviewer at one point states: "But my understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written." Lahaye's replies with: "These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally." Woah, slow down, buddy! This is hardly a liberal position. Is it liberal to assume that the Bible had something to say to those living in the time it was written? Or should we automatically assume that the apocalyptic visions were written only for the future, or more specifically, for 21st century Christians? This is, after all, what Lahaye believes. This reminds me of a friend of mine who said Revelation is his favorite book "because it's the only book written specifically for us today." How arrogant is that to assume that John decided to skip over 2000 years of the Church in order to encourage us?

Actually, when you study Revelation, it makes much more sense to see the imagery as something that the initial readers understand. This isn't a "liberal" notion, it's common sense. It was written in the 1st century, therefore 1st century readers would have been able to figure out its meaning. Mind you, I think Revelation does talk about the end times, but not to the exclusion of addressing the original readers. The truth is that God delivering His Church from the persecution and temptations of Rome is intertwined with God delivering His people in the last days. Have you noticed how OT prophets refer back to the exodus from Egypt when talking about the Israelite return from exile? Why? Because they are connected. God delivered His people from Egyptian slavery, and He would do the same as they were in exile in Babylon. Looking backward is the key to looking forward.

Notice that Revelation does the same thing. There is imagery of the exodus (for instance, the plagues) and wording taken from the prophets (Zechariah, Ezekiel, Daniel) who spoke of the return from Babylon. Why? Because looking back to God's faithfulness to deliver His people is how John decided to encourage his readers in their trial. In a sense, history is cyclical. God's people are persecuted/enslaved/exiled and are delivered. There will one day be a final deliverance, which Revelation does talk about (see chapter 20). It is the "end-times exodus." We can understand Revelation to address its original audience without making it purely about us. We can understand the Lord's view of the future by looking at His view of the past. Rome was a brutal, oppressive force agains God's people. They were also a temporary power that eventually God would destroy, and John's readers needed to know that. And so does every generation of Christians who has suffered at the hands of an enemy of God. That is the primary way we can see Revelation addressing us.

I also wanted to make a comment about Lahaye's commitment to a literal reading of Revelation. It's interesting to note that he (and others who take his view) love to trumpet this claim- that they read the book literally. However, they aren't consistent. Does he really think a literal beast will arise from the sea (chapter 13)? No, he sees that as a picture. Why? If he's so committed to a literal reading he should see this as a literal beast popping up out of the sea. But he knows that's absurd, so he abandons his method at this point. In essence, he becomes a "liberal" (his word, not mine) when it's convenient.

I'd also like to point out that Revelation interprets itself metaphorically: "And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs, for they are the spirits of demons" (16:12-14, italics mine). It gives a picture (three frogs) and its interpretation (spirits of demons). Shoot, Jesus Himself does this in the last verse of chapter 1 ("the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches", where are the red letters when I need them?). This is one reason I read the book metaphorically, there aren't literal frogs, and there isn't a literal beast or literal horses with literal riders. And for the record, I don't take the numbers in Revelation literally, either.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is our poor understanding of how metaphors work (and here I may be getting away from my realm of "expertise" so bear with me). Admitting that something is metaphorical is not the same thing as saying it isn't real. A metaphor is grounded in reality. In fact, metaphors work so well because they refer to something that is real. We see this in art, music, etc., why not in the Bible?

Anyway, I really think I'm starting to ramble here, I apologize. My point is that we don't need to read the newspaper or watch the evening news in order to understand Revelation. The Bible does a fine job interpreting itself, we don't need CNN to do it for us. Revelation was always intended to be understood. Notice that the angel tells John "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (22:10). Contrast that to what the angel tells Daniel: "conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time" (Daniel 12:4). Daniel's book was not meant to be understood at that time. John's is.

Lahaye and others confuse the main point of the book with the wrong things. They think it's all about timing: when is the tribulation going to happen? What about the rapture? And so on. Revelation isn't about these things. I am convinced that people are intimidated by Revelation because people like Lahaye have focused on the wrong things. People have become worried about what is happening in the world because they keep wondering "what if this is Armaggedon? What if this man is the antiChrist?" It's odd because Revelation is meant to inspire confidence and trust in our God, not concern. It's about how to view reality in times of persecution and temptation to fall away. It shows us that God is the one who is truly in power, not those who attack God's people. We don't have to wait for the stars to align or the right powers to be in place for Revelation to become a reality. It already is.

We are living in the last days, and have been since the time of Jesus. I refer you to Acts 2, where Peter states that the last days as prophesied by Joel were beginning right then. The "end of time" that Daniel's book referred to is now. John uses all sorts of imagery from that book because he was aware of this fact. The time of confusion over what is happening to the people of God is through. We can rest in confidence knowing that the same God who delivered His people from Egypt is the same God who deliverd His people from Babylon and is the same God who delivered His people from Rome. Whatever might happen in the future is to be interpreted with this knowledge, not some secret knowledge we attain by reading the Bible with the newspaper opened next to it.

what would you do, if I sang out of tune...

In the comments of my last post, my good friend, Pam, asked this question:

What do you think about speaking to each other in psalms, hymns, and spiritual
songs? Can I say "Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise" next time I see
you? Would that make you chuckle, or be encouraged? What is the not-so-literal
interpretation of that charge? (in your thoughts...)

First, yes, I grant you permission to say “Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise” to me next we see each other. Second, yes, I probably would chuckle, but maybe I shouldn’t.

As for your question, you are no doubt referring to Eph 5:18-19, where Paul states, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord…” This passage is similar to Colossians 3:16, where Paul says, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.” I’ll deal mainly with the Ephesians passage, but the Colossians passage is helpful, since they are parallel (Ephesians and Colossians are very similar, which has led many scholars to think that they were written around the same time). Anyway, I think they’re basically saying the same thing.

What can we say about the Ephesians passage? First, “speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” modifies the main verb, “be filled with the Spirit.” This isn’t obvious in the NIV, which treats all the participles (speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks and submitting) as separate commands. (I really like the NIV, but this is something they consistently get wrong. Thankfully the TNIV has corrected this.) The exact relation between the participles and the main verb can be debated, for now I’ll stick with the idea that the participles (speaking, singing, etc) are results of being filled with the Spirit. Clearly not the only results (Paul elsewhere talks about spiritual gifts, the fruit of the Spirit, and so on), but they are the results Paul chooses to highlight. People who are filled with the Spirit are people who speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (I wouldn’t make too much out of the 3 types of songs mentioned here).

So, part of life in the Spirit is speaking and singing songs. This shouldn’t be surprising, since in 1 Corinthians 14 (an extensive teaching on the Holy Spirit and corporate worship), Paul encourages his audience to have a psalm (among other things) when they assemble (v26). And the Colossians verse is really interesting because there songs are used for teaching and admonishing one another. I think that the same idea is present in Ephesians as well (community expressions of the Spirit filled life). So what we have here is the use of music and singing as a means of encouraging and teaching each other.

So what should we do? Well, for one thing, it affirms the use of music in the life of the Church. This, of course, is to be expected, since there is an entire book of songs in the Old Testament meant for God’s people. It also shows us that songs are used for more than just a nice beginning (and end) to our worship service. Songs of worship play a role in teaching the body (in seminaryspeak, they have a “didactic function”). Music has played an important part in most (if not all, I’m not an expert) cultures, why not the Church?

In my opinion, this should influence the music we choose to play in our churches. Do the songs we choose accurately reflect the teaching of the Bible? Do they reflect the character of God? Do they encourage/inspire/rebuke/challenge the people? I’m thankful that my church has a worship leader who puts a lot of thought into the music and chooses songs that are primarily God-centered (which is rarer than it should be).

Let me also say, however, that it has become more and more common to hear people bash modern worship songs as theologically shallow and weak, especially compared to hymns (this is quite popular in some circles, and amongst many in seminary). This bothers me, and I’m clearly a big fan of hymns. First of all, pick up a hymnal and you’ll find that most of the entries leave a lot to be desired. The best of the hymns are unbelievably powerful, but many are pathetic. Anyway, that’s not my main point, so please don’t get caught up in that.

Second, I think there are a higher percentage of quality modern worship songs than many are willing to admit. There certainly have been plenty of bad ones (anyone remember the Hop on the Bus craze of about 10 years ago?). But there are plenty of good ones. I think part of the problem is that people confuse simple with shallow. Jesus Loves Me is a simple song, but it is hardly shallow (that’s why it works so well with children). I’ve even heard people claim that a worship song was shallow, until I pointed out to them that it was taken practically word for word out of the Bible (I wish I could remember what song it was). It’s a matter of song selection, just like with hymns, we need to choose the ones that glorify God and edify the body.

Let me give an example from our worship service this past Sunday. We sang a song written by David Ruis called We Will Dance. I like this song, but I wouldn’t put it in my top 10 or anything. But the imagery used for the people of God really struck me. It relates the Church as people “from every tribe and tongue and nation” and a “pure, spotless Bride.” What an opportunity to teach about the Church! I thought about how I can look around at the people of God and not see a pure, spotless Bride. I certainly don’t feel pure and spotless. But this song accurately portrays the people of God, especially as we will be seen from God’s eyes at the wedding feast. I think this is a great way to teach people about how Christ has redeemed for Himself a people and the true nature of the Church (ecclesiology). And like I said, this isn’t even necessarily a great example of a theology-laden song (although I do think it has more than first meets the eye).

Let me make one final point about the Ephesians passage. Paul also says “singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord.” It seems obvious, but it’s worth saying (in order not to forget) that worship through music exists first and foremost to bring glory to God. It does not exist primarily to provide us a medium through which God can touch us, although He may do that. And the best time for us to learn and be edified is when God is glorified.

Anyway, I’m not really sure I’ve addressed Pam’s question. I thought about this the other night and really wanted to put some great thoughts out, but who has the time? Instead, I’ll throw these out there and hope that someone will respond and refine what I’ve said. Does anyone else have any thoughts about how we can use music to help teach and encourage the Body?

"Follower of Jesus" or "Christian"?

11 Thoughts on Whether It’s Better To Be a “Follower of Jesus” or a “Christian”

In February, I attended a missions conference with 3 main speakers who have ministered throughout the world. The man who spoke on Sunday morning is someone who has ministered for over a decade in the Arab Muslim world (I’m not giving his name or location in this post, I ask that anyone leaving a comment do the same please). His sermon was thought provoking, and perhaps a “feather-ruffler.” He asks the question: should we replace the term “Christian” with “Follower of Jesus” in order to communicate more effectively who we are what we do? I wrote down his 11 thoughts while he was preaching, and soon after typed out some thoughts of my own. I’ve since gone back and listened to the sermon again in order to make sure I did not misunderstand him. What follows are my thoughts on his thoughts.

This sermon addresses the issue of communication. He claims that the word “Christian” does not accurately reflect our faith, therefore we ought to consider replacing it with the phrase “Follower of Jesus.” He gives 11 reasons why, which I address below. Some of them overlap, so I don’t give responses to each of them. Each point deserves a more thorough response, but this will be plenty long as it is. I’m addressing this issue from the perspective of what we should do here in America. I recognize that there are good reasons not to use the term “Christian” in other contexts (such as the Arab Muslim context the speaker ministers in). But he also states he thinks we need to rethink this issue in our own culture. So, I take him up and examine it. Anyway, here are his 11 points, with some of my comments, as well as some follow up thoughts.

1. Being a “Follower of Jesus” is dynamic rather than a static noun
I like this thought. The term “Christian” is rather static: I am a Christian, period. While this is true, it could lead to the thought that once you become a Christian, that’s it. But we are on a “journey” (that sounds so cliché and corny), one that ends in our reception of a resurrection body, just like Jesus (1 Cor 15). Our sanctification is ongoing. We are trying to become more and more like Christ everyday. In that sense, our relationship with Jesus is dynamic rather than static. It’s not that I think anyone is more or less a Christian, but we are more or less like Christ. And I think this is what he is getting at here.

2. If a “Follower of Jesus”, you are forced to talk about Jesus
True enough. Of course, this can easily be done with the term “Christian.” It depends more on the person talking rather than the term that is used. The advantage to the term “Follower of Jesus” is that more than likely people will ask something like “huh?” That opens the door to talking about Jesus. I suppose this could be what the speaker is saying. But we don’t have to stop using the term “Christian” in order to be forced to talk about Jesus. Talking about Jesus will do that just fine.

3. Places us back in company of the 12
I’m not convinced this is true. I mean, I could call myself an apostle, that doesn’t mean I’m in the company of the 12, does it?

4. Suggests process rather than completion
“Even though we are completely in the kingdom… all of our life is a process.” This is essentially the same as #1.

5. Shows you’re trying to follow Jesus rather than agreement to facts
I understand that he believes theology is important and that there are necessary beliefs one must hold (resurrection, deity of Christ, etc). So, why the false dichotomy? It certainly seems Paul thought agreement to doctrine was important (read his letters to Timothy). Jesus Himself knew there to be certain facts that His followers must agree with. He argued against the Sadducees about the resurrection of the dead. He praised Peter for his confession of Jesus as the Messiah (which is a statement of fact- “You are the Messiah”). Agreement to facts is important. It is not everything, but it is something, and we should never lose sight of that.

6. Being a “Follower of Jesus” means Jesus at front, me following
This could still be true if you call yourself a Christian. The speaker claims this helps us realize that we are following Him, rather than Him following us. I suppose calling oneself a “Follower of Jesus” might help some do this, but that won’t automatically be the case. His main point, however, is quite valid: we are not leading in our relationship with the Lord, He is leading. I’m just not sure calling ourselves something other than “Christian” helps us avoid this. Or let me say it this way: if you have trouble letting Christ lead while calling yourself a “Christian”, you’ll continue to have problems with it no matter what you call yourself.

7. If a “Follower of Jesus”, you don’t have to explain what kind of “Christian”
That would be nice, wouldn’t it? The variety of “Christianities” is an unfortunate fact in our world. That the one Church of God is divided is something we can’t avoid this side of eternity. Actually, I think by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” you introduce a new “kind of Christian”, thereby compounding the problem rather than solving it.

8. If a “Follower of Jesus”, I don’t have to defend 2000 years of Christendom
This sounds wonderful at first. After all, there have been all sorts of evil done under the banner of Christianity. However, if you decide not to associate yourself with 2000 years of Christianity because of its dark side, I say that you must not associate yourself with 2000 years of triumphs. You can’t associate yourself with the foundational councils of the early church (that doesn’t bother some, but this simply shows their ignorance of the debt we all owe to them). You can’t associate yourself with the missionary movements (William Carey, etc). And so on. This may be helpful in some contexts (Arab world, for example), but not necessarily in ours.

9. Being a “Follower of Jesus” encourages me to follow His model of how to live
I’m not sure by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” that you make yourself a follower of Jesus. Only by following Jesus is one a follower of Jesus. What you call yourself means little in this regard. Does it encourage you to think about what Jesus would do? Perhaps for some, but again, not necessarily. The speaker notes that Jesus didn’t always snap off theological answers, so we don’t need to. Agreed, but Jesus did in fact get into some theological debates. What He did is often answer with parables and other things. That isn’t less theological, but it is a different form of communication than we commonly use. In this sense he is correct, we should look for ways to communicate other than debate. But, as I’ve said, how successfully this is done is not determined by what you call yourself.

10. Being a “Follower of Jesus” helps start the day to find out where He’s going
Again, I’m not sure how calling yourself a Follower of Jesus makes this so. You can do this whether you call yourself a Christian, Follower of Jesus, Baptist or Red Sox fan.

11. Being a “Follower of Jesus” means we check in multiple times a day to find out where He’s going
See #10.

------------------------------

Further thoughts

1. My friend Lisa noted that calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus” rather than “Christian” can be seen by some as dishonest. I think this is a great point. Imagine if someone asked you if you were a Christian, but you replied that you were a Follower of Jesus. As they get to know you, see that you read the Bible, pray, go to church, etc., there’s a chance they’ll think you tried to slip in the back door. These are things that Christians do! So why are we avoiding the obvious- we are Christians. Refusing to call ourselves Christians could be seen as attempt to slip in under the radar and trick them into accepting us.

2. How long would it be before we need to come up with a term other than “Follower of Jesus”? After all, eventually someone who calls themselves a Follower of Jesus will do something not befitting that name and ruin it for everybody, just like we see now with the term “Christian.” Are we then to come up with a new name? How long will this cycle go on? Why not just stick with what we got?

3. Not calling yourself a Christian separates you from the body of Christ. I think this is the number one reason we should be careful about doing away with the term. This reminds me of something the Lord convicted me of a few years back. I was working at a bookstore with people who were not predisposed to like Christians. While I was working there, a well known evangelical Christian leader said something in the media that was, well, stupid. Of course the media jumped all over it, and I found myself in the middle of the firestorm at work. So, I separated myself from this man and tried to let them all know that I was not like him. But something hit me (I’d say this was a slap from the Lord): he is my brother in Christ. No matter how much I disagreed with him, he is closer to me than any of my non-believing coworkers. The same Spirit that lives in me lives in him. Here’s the point: many Christians may be idiots, but they’re our idiots. We don’t have to defend what they do or say, but we must stand by them. The same Blood that washes away my sins washes away theirs.

---------------------------------------------------

There are two ways to take the speaker’s points. First, as I point out a few times above, one could say that calling oneself a “Follower of Jesus” will help you do things differently (checking in with the Lord throughout the day, etc). I’ve stated multiple times that this is not necessarily true. What you call yourself has little bearing on whether or not you do these things.

Second, his main point throughout the sermon is the issue of communication. Are we accurately communicating who we are and what we do/believe? He suggests we change our self-designation from “Christian” to “Follower of Jesus” in order to communicate better. I have attempted to show that this might not actually be helpful, it could in fact be counterproductive. He seems to think that by calling yourself a “Follower of Jesus”, then you communicate reality better. My main point is that this is not necessarily true. In fact, you might just muddy the waters even more. I would ask the speaker this: is the term “Christian” beyond saving in our culture? It may be in other contexts (remember, he works in a Muslim context, where this may be true). I maintain that in our culture, “Christian” is still redeemable. There are enough godly men and women who proudly wear the name “Christian” that we can win it back from those who have tarnished it.

But I do want to note that I think the speaker is right in his overall point- we need to learn how to communicate our faith better. He uses the example of inviting someone to church. What will that person think when you invite them to “church”? Their notion of church is probably far different than what you want to communicate. So why not describe what it is to them in order for them to gain a more accurate understanding of what we mean? It’s doubtful we’re both thinking the same thing, so we ought to bridge that gap. He stated that his sermon was really about “communication style.” And in that sense he is right. We, meaning American Christians, rarely do a good job of communicating our faith. We speak in Christianese, as well as its close cousin, Biblish. We use words and phrases that are not commonly used in our language. Some of this is okay- I’m still searching for a word that can replace “justification”, but I doubt I’ll ever find one.

Jesus often used words to create pictures to teach concepts (dare I say, theology). These were effective and memorable (as evidenced by the fact that someone remembered them well enough for them to end up in the Bible). And He lived out what He taught in such a way that communicated His message. This is where my brother and I undoubtedly agree- we ought to strive to do the same.

We're Not in Kansas Anymore: what will Christianity look like in the future?

Back in December, I bought a book by Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State, called The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. I am now finally getting around to reading it. I could have read it before now, but I wanted to be able to give this book more attention. What Jenkins attempts to do is look into the future and see how the religious makeup of the world will be different than it is now. He produces some interesting figures (though I'm still in the early parts of the book, so I'm sure there's more to come).

I have great interest in this for a few reasons, but mostly because I hope to be involved in missions in the future. Jenkins looks at worldwide growth rates of Christianity and comes to some interesting conclusions:

In 2025, if current growth rates stay the same as now, “there would be around 2.6 billion Christians, of whom 633 million would live in Africa, 640 million in Latin America, and 460 million in Asia. Europe, with 555 million, would have slipped to third place.” (3)

“By 2050, only about one-fifth of the world’s 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites.” (3)

Think about that: by 2050 only one-fifth of Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. Ask your non-Christian coworkers to describe the average Christian and I'll doubt that's what you will get. It's interesting, many people that I talk to assume that Africa is a Muslim continent, but statistics show that Christianity is growing quite well over there. And any claims that missionaries are importing a "foreign" religion to Africa are difficult to support in light of the fact that North Africa was largely Christian before the Muslim Arabs swept in (and obviously something other than Christian before that).

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm trying to make a definite point just yet, I'm simply noting certain trends. I'm still trying to figure out what all this means for us today. I've maintained for some time now that in the future Europe will become a frontier for preaching the gospel. I think this is true for two reasons: Christianity is fading rapidly in the lives of Europeans (especially in Western Europe) and Isalm is on the rise due to immigration and out-breeding the Europeans (note the problems with Arab Muslims that have arisen in the last year in some European nations).

This may change, however, because European countries might make efforts to stop the inflow of Arabs into their countries. That's one thing that studies such as this one by Jenkins can't always do accurately: predict outside variables that factor into making the future what it will be. Nonetheless, his thoughts are insightful and need to be taken seriously.

I want to mention two points Jenkins makes in his first chapter about the difference between the "Southern Church" (meaning from the Southern Hemisphere, specifically, Latin America and Africa) and the "Northern Church." First, he notes that Christians from Africa and Latin America tend to be among the poorest peoples of the world. Many from the more affluent countries have tended to think they would then be among the more liberal Christians, since liberalism often sees itself as the champion of the poor and oppressed (I'm speaking more of theological liberalism here, rather than political, the connection is, contrary to the belief of some conservative Christians, not necessarily always there).

This is partially true, but not to the extent that some might imagine. In fact, while these churches are concerned with the poor (since they are poor themselves), they tend to be among the most conservative morally and theologically. This was seen a few years back when the African Anglicans voted against the liberalizing tendencies of other Anglicans (especially those from America and Britain), particularly in regard to the issue of ordaining homosexual priests. I remember reading a letter from an African pastor who began to refuse money from American churches of his denomination because he feared they would try to use that to "buy" his influence. If this isn't evidence of the downfall in mainstream Western Christianity I don't know what is.

Second, like it or not, these newer churches live in a world where the supernatural is real. Our culture and worldview do not allow much room for demons, angels, healings, exorcisms, and so on. These Christians, however, consider these things basic. Again, I note that many feel that opening Christianity to these things simply makes liberalizing the faith that much easier. But the opposite has happened. This fear is at times true, because there are certainly churches who have syncretized pagan practices with Christianity. But there are just as many who believe in casting our demons and healing the sick who are faithfully and effectively preaching the gospel and demanding repentance from sin. Dare I say that these Christians are much closer to what we see in the New Testament than we are?

Finally, I also want to note another interesting point that Jenkins makes regarding the rise of Pentecostalism. In 1900 there were only a handful of Pentecostals, but now there are several hundred million. By 2050 there will be over 1 billion. If you were to ask just about any educated sociologist which social movements have been the most effective in the last century, it is doubtful any would mention Pentecostalism. You might hear them talk about feminism, the civil rights movement, and so on, but Pentecostalism probably won't make the cut. Yet, the numbers show that it is growing at a phenomenal rate. Why is that?

Like I said, I'm not really trying to put out answers right now, I'm still attempting to sort through everything. It is thought provoking, to say the least. I pray that we all seek wisdom for the future as the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord (Rev 11:15).

You Can Have Your Best Life Now

Let me share a couple stories. First is from the recent New York Times article about the bestselling author and megachurch pastor Joel Osteen. Joel shared in one of his sermons about a time when he was driving around in a large parking lot (it may have been a mall parking lot, I can't remember right now) and began to pray that he would receive a good spot since it was full. Sure enough, God answered his prayer he claims, and he not only got a spot, but the best spot available.

Another is from a sermon I heard Keith Wheeler give over a year ago. Keith is a guy who has carried a cross in dozens of countries across the world and shared the gospel in places where others have never dared to go. One time Keith was walking down a road (I believe it was in South Africa) and was sweating profusely from the incredible heat. At some point in his journey he says to the Lord, "you know, I could really go for an Orange Fanta right now" and keeps going. Not long later, a nice car pulls up beside him and the window rolls down. A nice lady had stopped to offer him some Orange Fanta she had in her cooler. Of course Keith gladly takes the needed refreshment.

These two stories are fairly similar- both men pray for something they really want at that time and seem to have their prayers answered. However, they draw two completely different conclusions from these events.

Mr Osteen goes on to tell his audience that this is the type of blessing we should be praying for and God wants to give us. God doesn't just want to give us a parking space, He wants us to have the best parking space. Mr Wheeler sees this as a humorous example of God's provision. Mr Osteen sees his example as a small part of a larger principle- God wants you to have the best stuff. Mr Wheeler didn't draw any major principles regarding God's desire to answer every prayer we offer up. He didn't use this as an argument for God granting every little desire we have- a nice car, job, parking spot or soda. He never said, "because God gave me Orange Fanta I know that God also wants me to have the best of everything else" (besides, if God wanted to give him the best soda He would have given him fountain Pepsi).

Let's suppose for a second that God did answer Joel Osteen's prayer for a nice parking space. Is this a sign of God's favor? I mean, doesn't Paul say that God gave man to his desires to worship gods other than him, and they are now living with the consequences of that decision (read Romans 1:18-32 for the whole context)? I'm not comparing asking for a nice parking spot with worshipping idols or sexual immorality, but what I'm saying is that God allowing us to have our desires is not automatically a sign of favor.

After all, doesn't Jesus Himself say "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first"? Doesn't he say to His disciples, "whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all" (Mark 10:43-44)? What if Joel Osteen getting that spot meant some elderly person had to walk a quarter-mile to do their shopping? Is that being a servant to all? Is that what the Lord would have us do? Maybe I missed the verse where it says if you pastor a big enough church and sell enough books that means you're exempt from such things.

Osteen's book is called "Your Best Life Now." And you know, maybe he and others are living their best life now. That's too bad, because it seems to me that there is a life to come that is supposed to be better than this one. And with all the verses in the Bible that laud humilty and self-sacrifice I'm betting that'll count more in the time to come.

Sometimes God, for whatever reason He has determined in His sovereign plan, does answer the little prayers we offer, like Keith Wheeler's. Sometimes, He chooses not to do so. We can't always draw up a formula for these things. And for those who have ever heard me teach, you've probably heard me use the phrase "God is not a vending machine." I'm afraid that folks like Joel Osteen have turned God into just that- a vending machine where you need the proper amount of "faith" or whatever. I prefer Keith Wheeler's version, God has a sense of humor and is always faithful to provide, and once in a while He gives us a small, seemingly insignificant glimpse of the truth that He hears our prayers.

Who God is and what we do

This past Tuesday night I was teaching in the training school at my church. It was my assignment to teach James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John and Jude (all in a hour and a half, which is a lot of fun). It's always a fun experience and I generally learn a lot not only in preparing, but in teaching it. One of the things we talked about was the connection of theology and ethics. Perhaps the most clear example of this occurs in 1 Peter (who is quoting Leviticus): "you shall be holy, for I am holy" (1:16).

The thought is this: because (insert theological statement here) you should (insert ethical command here). In this case: because God is holy, we too should be holy. Simple enough. This connection is seen all over the Bible. In Exodus 20, before God gives the Ten Commandments, He starts with "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (v2). After the Lord lays out who He is and what He has done for His people He proceeds to tell them how they should act.

This same thought process occurs in the famous passage in Philippians 2. Paul starts with the ethical commands for unity and self-deference (vv1-4), then he gives them the basis for this command- Christ's sacrificial attitude (vv5-11). Because Christ Himself emptied Himself on behalf of others, so we should do the same. Paul also uses this pattern on a larger scale in Ephesians. Chapters 1-3 are full of theology (election, calling, the unity of Jew & Gentile, etc), while 4-6 contain the actions we should take because of everything he talks about in the first 3 chapters. This is made quite clear in 4:1, where Paul says "I urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called."

The point is this: everything we are called to do- every command given to us as the people of God- is rooted in the character of God. God doesn't simply say "do this because I say so" (although if He did we ought to pay attention). We are to live humbly because we have received undeserved grace from Him ("undeserved grace" is an intentional redundancy). We are to forgive because He has forgiven us. And so on. I find this quite freeing.

But something hit me this morning as I was pacing around in my kitchen before I left for work. This is why Jesus says "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15, see also 1 John 2:3-6 for something very similar). He isn't arbitrary or needy. This isn't a perverse form of manipulation like it is often used in our time (how many guys have used the "if you love me..." line to take advantage of a girl?). He's stating something deeper: "what I am commanding you to do is based in who I am, so if you love Me, you'll love to do what I command."

This is why John can stress to his readers, "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). It is not a burden to do as the Lord says! If it is a burden, it's because we misunderstand and don't appreciate who Jesus is and what He has done for us. It should not be a burden to serve someone you love- it is a joy!

Do I delight in serving the Lord? Do I delight in His commands? Do I delight in Him- what He has done for me on the cross and in the empty tomb? I confess that I often feel burdened in trying to live a holy life. This, however, just reveals my lack of comprehension of all that Jesus has done for me. My ethics/actions should be grounded in who He is, but they often are not. I have some repenting to do.

The Resurrection of Jesus and Faith

I love Easter. It's my favorite holiday- yes, even more than Christmas. It isn't just the nice weather that comes in this time of year, although I appreciate that. It isn't just seeing folks wear their Easter best to church (I actually don't, shame on me). It's what this day represents. I love the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I love reading about it, singing about it, thinking about it. I love that it happened. It is the single most revolutionary event in the history of this world.

I also love the television shows that come along with Easter, as frustrating as they can be. I watch whatever I can, just to see what scholars they ask to speak and what they say. There's the usual suspects: John Dominic Crossan espousing some ridiculous view for the sake of being unorthodox, there's Craig Evans who offers the voice of reason, and there's usually N T Wright, giving his interesting historical twist to everything. Once in a while someone jumps in who I've never heard of (although rarely), and I try to follow up and figure out who they are.

But in all of these shows, someone will make a comment about the resurrection that frustrates me to no end. This comment normally goes something like this, "the resurrection is a matter of faith, whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead is not as important as whether or not you believe it in your heart." Ugh. What junk. Unfortunately, I think that too many faithful believers would agree with this. However, that is not the position of the Bible.

Read 1 Corinthians 15 and you'll see the proper place of faith. The quote given in the last paragraph essentially says this: "the resurrection is true if you believe it in your heart." But, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul argues that our faith is grounded in the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection didn't happen, our faith is empty and useless (see especially vv12-19, you can click on the link for the NET Bible here on my page). If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead in bodily form, our faith has nothing to stand on. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, we are wasting our time.

Those who claim that the resurrection is merely a matter of "faith" operate with a poor definition of "faith." They see faith and facts operating in different spheres. That is not Paul's understanding of faith as seen here in 1 Corinthians 15. He sees faith as needing the resurrection. We may not need to have a fact "proven" (what proof is needed, though, is fairly subjective), but that fact needs to be true- it can not be simply a matter of my personal opinoin.

Here's the point: our faith does not birth the resurrection and its truth and power. The truth and power of the resurrection birth our faith. The resurrection of Jesus happened, no matter what anyone believes. Just because I believe the resurrection happened doesn't make it any more true or powerful. It's truth and power do not derive from me. If I were to stop believing in the resurrection of Jesus (God forbid- literally), it would not cease to be true. Because it is true, I can believe. Praise God for the victory won for us, seen on the cross and in the empty tomb.

the how of the Great Commission

My good friend Ryan has challenged me to come up with some thoughts on how to carry out the Great Commission (see my post and the comments below, it's not like there are a whole bunch to sift through). This is just like the old days, two young bucks who are dumb enough to think they can come up with an answer to some question that has perplexed the Church for years.

Ryan stated that he felt our methods need a little shake up, noting that the 4 Spiritual Law method might not be the best anymore (some would say it never was). Let me state this about the use of this method: it was never intended to be a "read this, pray this and you're in" method. Unfortunately, it has become something like this. This whole concept is horribly unbiblical.

Part of the problem is that while we say we take Jesus' commands seriously, we don't really follow His example. What I mean is this: when Jesus wanted to make a disciple, He walked with them, lived with them, worked with them, prayed with them and taught them in both word and deed. He didn't ask the 12 to pray a prayer accepting Him into their hearts. Now, I'm not against this, it's just that it isn't what Jesus did. Or Paul. Or any other New Testament author.

Ryan mentioned "a relationship that transforms." I think he was talking about a relationship with Jesus, and this is totally true. I also want to propose that the Bible calls us to walk in relationships with one another that transform lives. Isn't this what Paul did with Timothy and others. Or Barnabas and Paul, or Barnabas and Mark. They didn't have this "pray and you're done" mentality, they discipled with the notion that this was a lifelong journey. Why do you think that the biblical authors were so anxious to make sure their spiritual children were moving forward in their faith?

The fact is that Christians are called to be in community with each other, and I think this is perhaps the best witnessing tool: the body of Christ living life together like the body of Christ is supposed to. This is where I agree with some of the more "post-modern" Christians (see the Emergent Church movement): the best witnessing is done as we live like Jesus and show love to those around us. Where I disagree with some of them, however, is that we must place importance on claims of truth. We must be willing to say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. We must be willing to say that Jesus did in fact die for our sins and did rise from the dead in bodily form. These are not just nice concepts, they are essentials.

So here's where we can start the conversation: we should follow the example that Jesus gave us. He lived in community with His disciples (I'm not talking about sharing a house or anything), He showed love to those in need and He also taught His disciples Truth. Sharing the gospel is far less powerful without living out the gospel in community. We can teach the truths of Scripture as we live out the commands of Scripture together (especially loving God and loving our neighbor- the two greatest commands).

So that's a start. Not a lot of depth, I realize, but that's what you get when you only have so much time. I appreciate any thoughts people have, maybe we'll all learn something.

The Great Commission: for us?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Mt 28:18-20, NASB

A few weeks ago a friend passed along a question that she received from someone else: how do we know the Great Commission still applies to us? Most of us grew up being taught that we are called to help fulfill the Great Commission and never bothered to ask this question. I am one of those people. I mean, I've thought about it, especially when reading about William Carey and his answer to this question (more on that in a minute), but it's not like it keeps me up at night. But, when this friend asked, I decided to think about it further. At first, I danced around it, buying myself a little more time to come up with something that sounded smart.

William Carey (often called the Father of Modern Missions) faced those in his day who claimed that the Great Commission was given to the 11 apostles and that was that, we weren't the recipients of that command so we don't have to try and carry it out. So I talked about William Carey and his answer, which I hope I remember correctly. Basically he said two things: (1) we can't accept the blessings of the New Testament without accepting the commands and (2) we gladly teach and baptize like the Great Commission says to do, why not make disciples of all nations too?

As I was stalling, the thought hit me. This really is an issue of hermeneutics. "Hermeneutics" is a fancy way of saying "interpretation." It deals with the question of how we get from there (a 1st century text written in a different culture dealing with different situations) to here (21st century America, or whatever context). Most of us apply the text intuitively, we read something and apply it instictively. So, when Paul asks Timothy to bring his cloak that he left in Troas, we don't go through a series of questions about how to apply it. We know that it doesn't address us in our context. Similarly, when the Bible tells us not to murder, we don't have a theological debate about whether or not such a command still applies to us, we just know it.

But not everything it that easy, because plenty of commands are giving to address specific situations that may or may not be like our current situations. This is where hermeneutics comes in. This is a huge topic that requires volumes of books to deal with it adequately, but I think there is an important question to ask first: why? The "why" question is crucial to applying the Bible accurately and faithfully.

What do I mean by "why"? The question is this: why does the author tell his readers to do x? Why does Paul ask for his cloak to be brought to him? I suppose because he was cold, or winter was coming, or the cloak really brought out the color in his eyes. Whatever the reason, it has little bearing on what we should do (except we could broaden it out and say we should always keep our spiritual leaders warm and looking good). Why should we not murder? I suppose there are numerous reasons, but the Bible gives us a good one: Genesis 9:6 tells us it's wrong because man is made in the image of God. That fact is still true today, therefore the command against murder still applies.

So what about the Great Commission? Why does Jesus command his disciples to make disciples of all the nations? The answer is (duh) right there in the text. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." You see, many of us make the mistake of thinking that the primary command in this text is "go." Actually, the primary command is "make disciples." In Greek sentences, participles are subordinate to the main verb. So, if someone wrote "you should root for the Red Sox, hating the Yankees and kissing the Green Monster", "root" would be the main command, while "hating" and "kissing" would somehow modify the main command (maybe examples of what rooting for the Red Sox looks like).

In verses 19-20 there are three participles: "go" (some say it should be translated "as you are going" or something like that), "baptizing" and "teaching." These three verbs modify "make disciples." Teaching and baptizing are part of the disciple making process, they are not separate commands. Jesus' main concern here is not going, teaching or baptizing, but making disciples. Those three things are each an important part of making disciples.

Okay, so what does this have to do with Jesus' authority (verse 18)? It's simple: it gives the reason why all the nations should be made His disciples. Why should the nations be His disciples and not someone else's? Because He has been given all authority. Why all nations? Because He has all authority.

There's no doubt in my mind that Jesus is echoing Daniel 7:13-14. His favorite self-designation was "Son of Man." And His words to the high priest in Mt 26:64 (and parellels) leave no doubt He saw Himself as the Son of Man prophesied in Daniel 7. He was the One who would receive glory and a kingdom. He was the One who would receive the worship of "all the peoples, nations and language" and have a dominion that would never pass away. The Son of Man receives the kingdom and is served by all nations. This is the background to the Great Commission.

So how does this apply to us? The answer to this question is in the answer to the "why" question. Why does Jesus command His disciples to make disciples of all nations? Because He has been given all authority. He alone is worthy of such an honor. Does this still apply to us? Absolutely. The reality of Jesus' authority has not changed. And because of that, the call to make disciples of all the nations still stands.