The US $, Missions, and Priorities

It's a fairly well known fact that the US Dollar is not doing so well these days. Now, I'm hardly an economist; in fact I don't know a whole lot about money. I've never really had a ton of money to care much about it (though I worry about it at times, I suppose), don't really balance my checkbook, and try to give more than I receive (which is actually impossible when you're on support, but anyway...). But, even I know that when the US $ does poorly, it hurts American overseas missionaries financially. I know of one missionary in India who has not lost a single supporter, but has lost 15% of his support because of the falling buck.

Now, I'd like for one of my economically knowledgeable readers (if I have one) to answer me a question. If the US $ begins to do better, does this necessarily mean that the currencies of other countries will do worse? Logically, it seems that this is true to my simple mind, but I want to be sure. If the US $ takes an upswing, does this automatically mean that other forms of currency (be it from China, the Euro, whatever) will take a plunge?

I ask this because I wonder if we ought not to be praying that the US $ do better for the sake of our missionaries. If it means that the currency of other countries will then do worse, I can't help but think that we shouldn't be praying for this to happen. I shudder to think that our prayers could be so American-centered that we'd actually pray for other countries, including those we send missionaries to, to falter a bit more economically, all for the sake of reaching them with the gospel. Again, I'm not sure this is necessarily true, which is why I asked the question in the above paragraph.

Either way, the success of American money ought not to factor into our missions thinking too much. If our priorities are in order, we wouldn't be shaken by this. Here are two things to keep in mind:

1. The success of the gospel does not ride on the US $ or American missionaries. True, the Lord has used American missionaries in amazing ways to see the Church grow. Yes, these missionaries were funded (more often than not) by faithful Christians giving their (American) money. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are the only show in town. And let's not confuse the tools with the builder. I've worked in home improvement retail- I've seen plenty of builders simply get new tools when their old ones stopped working as well.

2. We can always give more to help our missionaries. I've probably tired some of my friends with my talk of how I've felt an increased conviction to give to others, so I won't belabor the point here. It's amazing how much money we spend on things of little value, all the while passing up opportunities to give to something of eternal relevance. This is true for most of us even in financially difficult times.

At any rate, I'm hoping someone will be able to answer my question above. I'd love to be able to know how to pray. In the meantime, I really need to work on my priorities.

free books & another update

A week ago I had a seemingly random post about the new Reader's Hebrew Bible, and made the statement that I'll write a review if I receive a free copy. That was because there was an offer on Between Two Worlds (Justin Taylor's blog) that if anyone would post about the Reader's Hebrew Bible, promise to write a review and e-mail some guy named Chris at Zondervan- and be one of the first 5 people to do all this- you'd get a free copy. I was the 3rd person. So, Chris at Zondervan agreed to send me a free copy for me to review.

He also mentioned that he might be able to send me other books as well under the same agreement- that I'd review them. So, I may have mentioned in passing that I was really interested in Bruce Waltke's new book, An Old Testament Theology. Well, both books came in the mail today! So, expect reviews of each of these. I'll do the RHB first, since that was the original deal, Waltke's book will probably take a little bit longer, but I am looking forward to reading it. The great part is that I now have an excuse to read books, free ones!

While I'm here, I'd like to point out that I added a new feature to the blog of danny, Joshua Project's Unreached People of the Day. The Joshua Project is an organization that attempts to collect information about people groups around the world and their level of reachedness (I just made up that word). I don't know if their definition of "people group" and "reached" are necessarily the perfect ones, but I like how they are at least trying to bring "definition to the unfinished task" (their words). I hope that maybe you'll take a few moments to pray for each people group as you see them here. May the gospel be preached to all nations in our lifetime!

"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).

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.