Theology

The Perfect Church

in

I got an email from someone I know today who has visited the church I pastor but is still looking for a local body to connect with.  Great guy, theologically thoughtful, concerned about the right things.  I asked in an email if he has found a local church yet, and he said he found three imperfect ones that if the good parts were combined (worship style, preaching, elders, passion) would become the "perfect church." 

I know what my friend is talking about.  So many times in my years as a Christian I have wished to find the right combination in a local community of believers, and every time I've been disappointed.  So I don't fault what he said; I've said the same before.  But it did strike me that we all might be looking for the wrong things in this elusive "perfect church."

I made this statement in reply to his ideal church cocktail...

The perfect church is the one that you truly lay 100% of your life and heart down to serve through.

The longer I thought about that sentence, the more I liked it.  I think it's that simple.  Sure, let's make sure they confess that the historic truths are really true, and that they know the mission we are on in the world, and all that.  But then just find the closest one and invest every ounce of yourself to living the mission in your neighborhood.

Maybe the "perfect church" is closer than we think.  It's the imperfect group of people down the street who gather to give and serve and worship and grow, and then work redemption all around them all week long.  And everytime an imperfect person joins up with them, they are even more perfect.

Prayer of Francis

in

This just never gets old...

Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love
Where there is injury, pardon
Where there is doubt, faith
Where there is despair, hope
Where there is darkness, light
Where there is sadness, joy

O Divine Master
Grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled, as to console
to be understood, as to understand
to be loved, as to love
For it is in giving that we receive
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned
it is in dying that we are born into Eternal Life.
Amen.

Free Will Sex

in

Alright, that was a really racy title.  Two plugs.  Hat Tip: Justin Taylor

Interesting four page interview with Bruce Ware, theologian at SBTS, on the issue of free will.  It's PDF, and it starts on page 4.

You can get a free copy of the forthcoming Sex and the Supremacy of Christ book if you will read the advanced copy in PDF, review it on your blog, and send Justin Taylor the link.  My wife and I attended the conference in Minneapolis that is being transformed into this book.  It was excellent.  Go to JT's blog for more info.

Defense or Defensive

in

I think apologetics is a very interesting issue for emerging generations.  I am a regular visitor to and reader of a few apologetics websites and have read much on the topic in the last 10 years.  And lately I've been starting to wonder if what many call "a defense" of the faith has really become about being "defensive" about the faith. 

In other words, has apologetics turned from being the work of defending the faith against error to being about feeling defensive about our position in the culture?

Becoming a Man

in

I have found Al Mohler's thinking on maturing into manhood very thought-provoking.  I've heard him speak on the issue of the problems of an extended adolscence before, and it was very good.  Now he has offered two articles on the marks of manhood: Part 1, Part 2.  Mohler writes,

This series represents my attempt to provide an answer that will beboth faithful to Scripture and applicable to the real-life challenges faced by men today. More urgently, it was good for me to think through this question and articulate these hallmarks as I seek to show my own son how to grow into biblical manhood. I am absolutely sure that there is more to be thought and more to be said, but this may help us all to see the challenges before us.

Where Was God?

in

Roger_powell_pointing_1This is Roger Powell, Jr., or "The Rev" as he is called.  He is a 6-6 senior, licensed minister, and spiritual leader of the Fighting Illini basketball team.  On Saturday Powell prayed at halftime as Illinois took on Louisville in the NCAA semifinals. 

"I really did pray at halftime.  Seemed like it worked, I guess."  Illinois won the game 72-57, thanks in large part to the inspired play of Powell who played one of the best games of his college career with power dunks and three-pointers.  He ends the game by pointing to Jesus.

The final game was played Monday night.  The Illini played very poorly in the first half.  They have rarely played worse.  Illini fans, like me, sat slumped on the sofa unable to choke down another handful of peanuts into our upset stomachs.  Did they come all this way only to get schooled by a very physical and talented University of North Carolina team? 

The second half began and the Illini looked different.  They came back from as many as 15 points down to tie the game.  I went from slumped to jumping and running and screaming for every shot to go in. Whether you love the Illini or not, it was incredible basketball to watch.  Again, it seemed inspired.

Then, as I paced my basement and brushed off my wife's commands to calm down, I watched Illinois lose.  Yep, they lost.  Confetti showered down on embracing UNC players who were crying with joy.  Roger Powell, Jr. and the rest of the Fighting Illini exited the court and slouched in the locker room. 

And the big question should have been, Where was God?  His Word was scribbled all over Powell's shoes (Eph 6:15!).  His praises were on Powell's lips.  And His glory would have been proclaimed in every Powell interview and TV spot in the months to come after an Illini win.  But God didn't need an Illini win to show His Name is great.

I don't know Roger Powell, Jr., but I've read enough articles and heard enough interviews to know this guy really loves Jesus and has committed His life to Him.  I have no doubt in my mind about that.

But God's Name may fare better with a loss.  Until now for the Illini, God has been associated with winning and euphoria for things that should comprise very little places in our lives.  But Jesus' victory on the Cross wasn't all-good.  It took the end of His life for the world to truly live.  It took immediate defeat on the Cross to show He ultimately was victorious over a world of corruption and rebellion. 

There is no better time for Illini-loving Jesus followers.  A win might have been misconstrued as something brought on by a God that believed basketball was as important as die-hard Illini fans.  A loss reminds us that basketball is just a game and God is concerned for much more than the flight-pattern of three pointers.

As the game ended, I found no trace of Roger Powell, Jr. or his now famous finger pointing to Jesus.  I think all believing athletes need to be careful to not point to Jesus as the point guard of their team.  But if the glory goes to Jesus for a win, it must also go to Him for a loss.  And I think I've heard enough from Powell to know that he is still pointing to Jesus even after losing, if only in his own heart. 

Strangely, Powell may have just received one of the most precious gifts of his life: the chance to put the gods of basketball in their place.

Research and Criticism

in

So, let's say you are in college and your professor has required a paper on a particular topic.  It's something you don't know much about; you've only heard rumors about it, and a few other random things.  Generally you don't understand it and have to produce a paper that won't get ripped to shreds by your erudite prof.

Now imagine that you decide to write your paper based on an article or two you've read in the news giving opinion (without source citings) and the readings you've done through the first page or two of a Google search.  You peruse the Google hits and read up on a couple of sites and draw your conclusion.  Then you write your paper. 

What kind of grade are you going to get?  What are the odds that an opinion article or two you happened to find and a couple of web hits are going to give the full-orbed understanding necessary to criticize?  I've written dozens of papers for my undergraduate degree and my MDiv, and I would never let my footnotes reflect that kind of shoddy research.  It is wholly inadequate.

Yet I get comments on Reformissionary, Emerging SBC Leaders, in emails, and on other sites telling me what people who consider themselves emergent (or sympathetic to the emerging church) believe based on a news article, a Mohler commentary, and a few websites.  I have an incredible amount of respect for Al Mohler, probably more than most who I've read in the emergent conversation, and I know that Al Mohler will give out some seriously poor grades if you research for a paper the way some research emergent. 

Honestly, and I shouldn't have to keep saying this, I'm critical of emergent too.  There are parts and pieces and people I don't agree with in the conversation.  But if I only talk to people I agree with I will end up with me and a mirror.

I'm up for any number of conversations, disagreements, criticism, whatever.  But rumor or pundit-speak isn't an argument.  Neither is reading weblogs by people you don't know about.  You can find anything on the web, and the earliest hits aren't necessarily good sources, and even the ones that are don't speak for everyone in the conversation.

I encourage comments on this and other blogs.  I encourage disagreement where we feel the truth is compromised.  I don't encourage you to criticize unless you can defend your point.  Otherwise we look foolish, even when we are right.

Gospel as Kingdom

in

I read Mark 1 yesterday.  Mark 1:14-15 says,

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

When you ask the typical Christian what the gospel is, I think the usual answer would be that Jesus died for sins and was raised from the dead, and we should repent and believe in Him. 

Gospel, simply stated, is "good news."  We see in Mark 1 that Jesus spoke about the good news long before His death and resurrection.  So is His death and resurrection THE good news, or is the Kingdom the good news? 

Now there isn't any doubt in my mind that to speak of the good news of the Kingdom is to speak of how He brings the Kingdom, through Him being the Lamb of God led to slaughter.  But is Jesus using the good news to identify the means of bringing the Kingdom (death and resurrection) or is He speaking directly to the Kingdom as the good news?

It seems in verses 14-15, the answer is the Kingdom.  He was "proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

It seems we have let the Kingdom take a back seat to individual salvation.  The individual salvation of sinners is how God populates the Kingdom He establishes in Christ, but the Kingdom is the point.

Thoughts?

Robots and Jerks

in

I took the three oldest kids (I have four) to see the movie Robots tonight.  I love taking them to the theater and letting them experience the atmosphere, the anticipation, the popcorn, the soda-concoctions (they like it all mixed together), and the movie, of course. 

Honestly, it was a thoroughly mediocre movie.  It was enjoyable animation and there were a few fun moments, but the story was terrifyingly ordinary and boring.  Oh well.  The kids still thought it was the best movie ever.  Next week there will be another new best movie ever. 

As we entered the theater with sodas and popcorn (lightly buttered), we found the perfect row: far enough forward to drown out the world around us and far enough back so that a chiropractic appointment wouldn't be necessary for me the next day.  There was no one behind us to kick our seats and no one in front of us who would get up to pee during a moment of cinematographic excellence. 

But that's when the jerks walked in.

It was one of those families who inconsiderately sits in the row in front of you.  And everyone who ever goes to the movies knows that there is no reason to sit in the row in front of or behind anyone.  It's so rude.

One of their kids sat in front of me and the other out of our visual path.  But the mom, with no concern for us at all, sat right in front of my 4 year old.  Her foofy hair completely blocked his view.  I noticed my son had to move his head all the way over to his left shoulder to try to see.

I gave one of those looks of disgust in the direction of the back of the lady's "hairnet helmet" hoping that she might feel the heat of my glare.  How dare she?  You come to a kid's movie and don't even look to see if you about to plop down right in front of a wide-eyed munchkin?  Frustrating.  Maddening.

And then God bapped me with the hypocrite-mallet. 

This mother of small children had no idea that her choice of seat caused me or my kids any inconvenience.  Should she have?  Maybe.  But she was occupied trying to keep her kids from spilling their soda-mix and popcorn and didn't look behind her.  She was trying to be a good mom.

But as I was on the verge of committing film-rage I realized that her ignorance about blocking my child's view of the screen wasn't malicious or rude.  It didn't deserve anger or frustration or laser-eyed stares.  It deserved grace. 

She deserved to be understood, especially from a dad.  I know how easy it is to be so focused on keeping my kids from being stolen by a stranger, or keeping my kids from falling out of their seat that I completely miss an opportunity to be thoughtful and considerate of others.  I wondered how many times I was the guy who sat in front of someones kid, or some other oversight.  I'm sure it's happened all too often.

As a Christian, God has looked past so much in my life.  So much apathy and prayerlessness and faithlessness and laziness.  And He has kept on smiling on me instead of frowning.  I continue to be the apple of His eye, not the object of his frustration.  Mercy has been overflowing to me, so how can I be so quick to judge the motives or mistakes of others?   

I think this is a huge problem many Christians have as we interact with the world.  We are so quick to point out the apparent thoughtlessness of people and assume they are trying to be malicious.  Maybe they are just doing their best with incomplete information.  Maybe they are just acting upon the only facts the know.  And because of a sinful nature they end up doing things wrong.

Maybe most homosexuals truly have an agenda to do what seems natural and loving to them.  Maybe they aren't really trying to do wrong.  Maybe most abortion doctors actually intend to help girls who have made a "mistake."   Maybe most thieves are just trying to survive in the only way they know how. When people don't have the Truth, Christ, new hearts and renewed minds, what else should we expect?

Let's stop yelling at actors and politicians and soccer moms and love them instead.  Let's be merciful.  Maybe through our mercy they will learn about God's infinite mercy in Christ.

Landmines and the Real Jesus

in

Land_mines_soccer_2_1"What would you do if you had to worry about landmines every time youwent to the store, took a drive in the countryside or went to see your doctor?"

"That’s the reality for millions of people in about 80 countries. With such large numbers of people affected by landmines in countries that may seem very far away, it’s sometimes easy to forget about the problem."

Please visit stoplandmines.org to learn more and watch a powerful commercial. 

I think it's the responsibility of Jesus-followers to do something about problems like landmines.  But because so many evangelicals consider themselves conservative Republicans, and because social issues are usually taken up by liberals, and because conservatives and liberals (politically) don't much like intermingling, evangelicals have often lost the Jesus-centered approach to world problems and social issues in our neighborhoods. 

One of the first things recorded in the Bible that comes from the mouth of Jesus is the reading of Scripture in the synagogue in Nazareth at the beginning of His ministry.

Luke 4:18-19, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

I've read this passage numerous time over the years and I've always spiritualized it as only meaning preaching the gospel to sinners.  But you cannot get past the terminology he read from Isaiah 61.  This proclaiming is more than words to the poor, the captives, the blind, and the oppressed of the year of the Lord's favor.  He lives it and breathes it and becomes what he has said by healing and helping and serving and loving. 

Shouldn't our lives be like that?  Doesn't taking up our cross daily and following Jesus mean that we are still in that year of the Lord's favor and our job is to proclaim these same things to the world?  And doesn't that come not only in huddling in our churches/hide-a-ways and saying biblical things but by actually finding the poor and serving them and responding with a call for justice to the oppressed? 

There is rarely a time when the verbal proclamation of Jesus isn't tied to a physical healing or serving or some loving act.  And if we are going to help with landmines on the other side of the world or with the oppressed in our community, we need to know the real Jesus and love as He loved.   Speaking isn't enough.

Organic Prayer

in

We love to teach our 2 year old new words that he will begin to piece together into new sentences.  One of the first sentences we teach our kids is "I love you."  There's nothing like hearing your toddler say "I love you."

But it usually starts like this.  "Daniel, say 'I.'"  "I."  "Say 'Love.'"  "Wub."  "Say 'you.'"  "You."  "Good boy, now say 'I love you.'"  "Wub you."  Man, that's a great moment.  But I'm not so naive as to think that by repeating my words he is expressing love.  Using those new words meaningfully comes later.

This helps me think about prayer.  We have been indoctrinated to believe that prayer is like the ACTS acrostic (Adoration Confession Thanksgiving Supplication) repeated in sequence.  We think that if we can make it through the formula and approach God in the "right way," we have prayed rightly.  As if God demands to be told the right things at the right time. I don't think that's how God wants us to pray. 

ACTS is a tool, a learning device for baby Christians.  The most biblical model for prayer is the prayer of Jesus in Matthew 6.  Jesus said, "Pray then like this..."  Maybe if we pray this model, all will be well.  But, then there's His prayer that's similar but not the same in Luke 11.  Well, which model is best?  Which one do we follow?  If we follow formulas, we have to find one "right" one.  If prayer is more natural than that, then we should not baptize a model into becoming a formula and the "right" way to pray.  We should focus more on relationship.

I believe that prayer is organic.  Models and examples are to be thought through and digested, and then our prayers will be informed by them.  But just going through the formulaic pattern is artificial, like my son saying "Wub you" when prompted.  God doesn't want us to repeat formulas, but to respond to His character.

The Apostle Paul gives us another thought on prayer.  "Pray without ceasing."  That's an expression of the organic nature of prayer.  It's not that Jesus didn't get this...He lived it!  But we are so eager to find Scriptural formulas so we can put God in our box and treat Him like a cosmic vending machine, that we can't see it. 

Formulas and artificial patterns are an abuse of models and examples. They might make prayer seem easier, but they can quickly quench a real relationship with God.

Prayer should spring from our lips and hearts at all times and places.  It's a cry for help at the moment of need.  A plea for forgiveness when we fail.  A request for provision when we realize we have not.  It should be a response to the character of God more than mimicking a model of prayer.

My son has already mastered this kind of relationship and communication.  He runs for a hug and comfort when he's hurt.  He asks for juice when he's thirsty.  He smiles when he sees me happy with him.  He yells "stuck!" when he can't get out of a tight place.  He wants me to hold him tight and protect him when he's scared.  Daniel knows how to trust his daddy.  It's organic and natural.   

I want to live in continual faith and talk to my heavenly Father.  He hears me.  He loves me.  He smiles at me.  He helps me.  He forgives me.  He comforts me.  He guides me.  He is trustworthy and good.  I should communicate with Him much like my son communicates with me.

Christian Life

in

"Writing about Christian life...is like trying to paint a picture of a bird in flight.  The very nature of a subject in which everything is always in motion and the context is constantly changing -- rhythms of wings, sun-tinted feathers, drift of clouds (and much more) -- precludes precision.  Which is why definitions and explanations for the most part miss the very thing that we are interested in.  Stories and metaphors, poetry and prayer, and leisurely conversation are more congenial to the subject, a conversation that necessarily also includes the Other."

Eugene Peterson in Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places, page xi.

Who is My Brother?

in

I've had a lot of thoughts lately on the difference between believing something and living something.  It's a problem probably best explained by turning to the letter of James in the New Testament.

In my own life and in much of my observation of many evangelicals, we seem much more concerned with the doctrinal underpinnings held by a person, church, or Christian organization than the life they live and works they do.  I used to judge a good church by their doctrinal statement.  I used to judge a good Christian by their particular understanding of salvation or the Trinity, or some other doctrine.

I'm not questioning whether or not right doctrine is important.  It is of critical importance.  But it isn't of only importance, and maybe not even ultimate importance.

James writes, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (2:19)

He is claiming that the demons are orthodox.  Their doctrinal statement is right.  They believe God is One, and to say God is One is to agree with the most crucial statement of belief in the Old Testament, the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4. 

This verse is in the context of James' claim that "faith without works is dead."  So James is using the demons as a powerful illustration: though the demons have their doctrinal ducks in a row, that isn't enough.  James insists that a saving faith, a living faith, is also a working faith.  That doesn't mean that works must be added for people to be justified before God, but that one must possess the right kind of faith to be justified before God.  And the right kind of faith is active in mercy, love, compassion, service, preaching and so on. 

Typically this teaching is brought up to point out that some people claim to be Christians but really aren't unless they live like it.  That's true.  When reversed it makes sense too.  People who do good works of some sort but don't hold to a faith in Christ aren't Christians.  Another helpful application.

But something seems wrong. 

There are people who claim to have a real faith in Jesus and who live consistently kind of life Jesus lived and taught.  They are loving and merciful and they are also passionate about Jesus, God's Son.  But because they might waver on a doctrinal point or two, evangelicals will deem them unsaved.  Or maybe they view an ethical application of biblical teaching differently, and so evangelicals will judge them as maybe not truly Christian.

Yet in my experience, one of the chiefest of sins of evangelicals is our lack of works.  We claim our "eternal security" all day long, but fail to grab the ladle that serves the poor or open our homes to those in need.  Our understanding of works too often consists of tithing, not doing a ton of things (including many things that aren't prohibited in Scripture), and on occasion trying to give a tract to someone or invite them to church.

And so the question comes: Who are our true brothers or sisters in Christ?  I believe where it isn't obvious, we should be accepting of all who claim it and live it (faith that is fruitful). We may disagree publicly with doctrinal error, and point out ethical discrepancy, and open our Bibles to argue for the best explanation of the truth.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider ourselves One Body in Christ.

Understanding

in

James, the Lord's brother, wrote in his letter in the New Testament,

"Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires." (1:19-20)

All too often, I'm an angry guy.  I like to fly off the handle, give knee-jerk reactions, jump to conclusions, and all sorts of things angry people do.  Now, if you know me, you probably don't know me as an angry guy.  That's usually because we associate anger with loudness (screaming) and fuming.  Honestly, I do that more than I would like to admit.  But at least it isn't usually seen by most of you.

But I think anger, as James means it, is more than that.  I should say, it's deeper than that.  In my brief study of the Greek word (I've studied Greek, but I'm no Greek scholar) the word anger here means 'acting on impulse with displeasure.' 

As James brings up anger in his unimprovably practical letter, he seems to point to a kind of anger that comes quickly without first understanding.  That makes sense when we see he puts anger in the context of other things.  Be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.  (Open your ears, shut your mouth, and restrain your impulse to freak out.)  Isn't James making it clear that a quick anger is wrong because that person has failed to listen and understand before reacting impulsively?  I think so.

I think this fits well with my post on Christian cultural commentators, who all too often react impulsively.  No, they may not seem angry as we often describe it, but the impulsiveness of their displeasure is the kind of anger I think James is talking about. 

It's like jumping down our kid's throat about spilling their cereal instead of realizing they are just little kids who make mistakes and don't have the same kind of control and thoughtfulness about their cereal as adults do.  When we understand that first, we can teach them control calmly and compassionately. 
God doesn't react over our "spilled cereal" with anger, and we shouldn't respond to the culture, our friends and family, new ideas, or most anything else that way.  We should restrain impulses, which are so often based on misunderstandings, and try to listen and understand. 

Understanding before making judgments produces the righteousness God desires in us and our churches.