Mother Teresa, we need you now. . .

A few of you have asked my opinion of the recent appearance of our two presidential hopefuls at the land of all things purpose-ful. From what I saw, it appeared that we fundamentally learned nothing new of either candidate. Obama seemed to run right down the left hand of the dial, with McCain down the right.

Obama said some pretty striking things, of which you can imagine my response. First, I don't fundamentally hold to an individual's right to life from conception as a matter of 'faith'. It is a matter of scientific fact and clear medical evidence, to state this pro-life position as a matter of faith (and so somehow not to be an issue of legislative action as other matters of life and death) is obfuscation and manipulation of the highest order.

Obama was asked when, in his view, a baby gets human rights. His response was fascinating:

"Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade."

Obama is a legislator, civic leader, and running for the highest office in our land and must speak clearly on what is still the most important human rights issue facing our land. This defining moral issue is without a doubt well within the pay grade of our commander in chief. In reality Sen. Obama has made his view clear in every forum thus far. Senator Obama went on to say that he 'believes' in Roe v. Wade, thus making it clear that he denies the human rights of the fetus through to term. He has campaigned unequivocally AGAINST the rights of the unborn and has promised this campaign to continue. How in the world can an American citizen accept such a manipulative and ridiculous answer- regardless of your position on the life of the unborn?

The real issue that I had with the forum, of course, had more to do with the right reverend Rick Warren. Actually, I felt he did a 'good job' as far as all that goes. He moderated well, asked some very helpful questions and was fair and balanced, just like FOX news. The problem with all this is that our pastor-teachers are not called to be debate moderators, or 'forum' providers for political hopefuls. They are to preach the gospel, to oppose sin and injustice, and confront governors and leaders with the truth of God's Word. I am reminded of the famous prayer breakfast when the diminutive and elderly Mother Teresa stood up among a crowd of clergymen and chastised President Bill Clinton for his woeful position on the issue of abortion. She refused the religous stature that the powers and principalities offered and instead chose the cause of the least of these. That Pastor Warren abdicated the prophetic nature of his office at such an opportunity is sad, to say the least. Though it must be argued that such prophetic abdication is the very reason why Saddleback had this opportunity in the first place.

In Case You're Tired of Me...

You can buy another pastor here.

Eldredge's New Silliness

Tim Challies has a review of John Eldredge's (of Wild at Heart fame) new book Walking With God. Check it out. I have not read the new book, nor will I. But if Challies' review is a faithful representation of the gist of Eldredge's latest foray into evangelical mysticism- then I'm glad to steer clear. Just a teaser: Eldredge saw God (almost?) look at him through the eyes of a hawk and also heard his recently perished dog bark from beyond the grave. Yikes. For a second I thought I was reading an article from Lark News.

I would laugh at this silliness and schlock, but then I realize that many will read this book - and it makes me sad and angry.

Kristof's Favorite Evangelicals

My Dad, Pastor Mike Braun, offers some thoughts regarding Nicholas Kristof's latest OpEd piece for the New York Times. Read the piece, then read on below.

This afternoon my daughter sent me the URL to an Op Ed piece entitled "Evangelicals a Liberal Can Love" which appeared n the NY Times on February 3, 2008. It was sent to her by a friend and she kindly passed it on to me. I must confess that when I saw the author's name my initial enthusiasm was somewhat abated.

Nicholas Kristof once again took his pen in hand and ventured onto the playing fields of the Op Ed section of the Times. Most everyone agrees that this venue hardly constitutes a level playing field. Nevertheless Mr. Kristof's decidedly left leaning stance appears quite balanced when framed in the skewed windows of our nation's "paper of record." The Times, a paper proudly claiming to bring its reader "all the news that's fit to print," appears to be convinced that any viewpoints not presented therein are unworthy of the ink it would take to print them. Almost uniformly contributors to the Times' Op Ed pages on any regular basis show a decided liberal bias. They require very little evidence to convince themselves of the fact they are not only brighter than their adversaries, but superior in their eclectic moralities. The Times' self congratulatory viewpoint often turns to Mr. Kristof as its champion. He is benevolent, if condescending, and oh so tolerant … to a point. St. Nicholas believes his positions take the moral high ground so often they do not require oxygen. Like many east coast liberal writers, Mr. Krisof is so pleased to be correct that he often, with all due beneficence, dispatches dispensations of grace to those who occupy lesser stations in life. This time the supplicants receiving his literary indulgences happen to be a few Christian evangelicals. That is, he is willing to acknowledge certain evangelicals if they march to his unchallenged agenda. The items of that agenda, in his eyes at least, are manifestly superior in their morality to all the other concerns of those who would align themselves to the right of his throne which proudly sets quite far to the left of the political spectrum. So, self assured of his correctness, Mr. Kristof is not above bestowing from time to time faint praises upon those less enlightened than he. Noblesse oblige. Thus he looks upon a few evangelicals worthy of his love.

Liberals, Mr. K. intones, "believe deeply in tolerance." This may come as a surprise to the countless conservatives who have been shouted down on major university campuses around the country, physically intimidated and even hit in the face with the ubiquitous pie. Neither should the myriad of conservative academics that have been denied their just credits and tenure be forgotten in this rush to baptize the left in the soothing waters of toleration. The chairman of a major university's department of religion once told me, without blinking an eye, that he would never appoint a self professed evangelical Christian to his faculty for no other reason than that he was an evangelical. Sic semper liberal tolerance. So when Mr. Kristof says "scorning people for their faith is intrinsically repugnant," all manner of red flags begin to wave before me. My caution was quickly rewarded when it became obvious that Mr. Kristof reserved tolerance for the religious right only if they focused on acceptable moral priorities: "poverty, AIDS, sex trafficking, climate change, prison abuses, malaria and" (are you ready?) "genocide in Darfur." One wonders if genocide elsewhere, say in the abortion chambers of the United States, is acceptable? I'm sure other diseases such as yellow fever and gonorrhea could easily be added to Mr. Kristof's fab five list plus one along with things like fetal research and socialized medicine. However, it is clear that to Mr. Kristof issues such as the advocacy of premarital celibacy or opposition to homosexual marriage, or efforts to restrict pornography when it masquerades as free speech and artistic expression, are non-issues. They are not pragmatically useful to a secular society though they are inherently more closely aligned to evangelical beliefs than the issues Mr. Kristof favors. Such evangelical concerns are beneath his standards of tolerance and unworthy of his love, even though they are clearly issues anchored in Judeo-Christian orthodoxy.

Mr. Kristof proves this observation in his praise of the tired radicalism of Jim Wallis whose biggest claim to being an evangelical is that he came out of Chicago and from among the corridors of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. Mr. Wallis, nonetheless, merits Mr. Kristof's "love" because he finds climate change and poverty more compelling moral concerns than the abortion deaths of 1.2 million American infants yearly. Mr. Kristof is delighted that the "purpose driven" pastor Rick Warren is willing to put the American social blight of promiscuity and sexual insanity behind the need for AIDS awareness in South Africa. But God help, no pun intended, any and all evangelicals who may favor a different moral priority than the one espoused by Mr. Kristof. And, by the way, when did Mr. Kristof reserve the right to define a more acceptable evangelical moral agenda? Its bad enough that CBS is attempting to that with its questionable poll data. Mr. Kristof makes his contentions for what is "more moral" out of nothing save his own view point, and that the view point, not of an evangelical Christian, but of a sort of benign non-Christian secular pagan. Thus, with a back handed note of gratitude to a few non-conforming emerging church types, Mr. Kristof brings his mailed fist down once again on the tired head of Pat Robertson and the deceased pate of poor Jerry Falwell.

Yes, Jerry Falwell, the evangelical liberals loved to hate. Like the remains of Oliver Cromwell, who was disinterred in order to be more properly punished, Mr. Kristof resurrected Rev. Falwell's statement that AIDS was "God's judgment on promiscuity." This dictum, St. Nicholas solemnly noted, "constituted far grosser immorality than anything that ever happened in a bathhouse." One wonders just what bathhouses Mr. Kristof frequents to draw such a conclusion. Is he also in possession of statistics showing AIDS running rampant among those who restrict their sexual activity to monogamous marriage? Save for the intervenous drug users, the larger number of whom are sexually promiscuous anyway, and the statistically insignificant number of those infected from tainted blood supplies, Rev. Falwell's observation deserves consideration regardless of the opinion one may have as to its messenger.

When stripped of its contemporary facade Mr. Kristof's view is nothing more than the tired liberal opposition to evangelical Christianity and its heart felt mission to preach the Gospel seeking the salvation of people's eternal souls. It is another attempt to reduce the evangelical agenda in order to place it on a par with many other groups who, ignoring the soul, seek only to alleviate social evils and provide material relief. Admittedly Christ called for his disciples to give "cups of cold water" but it was always to be done under the aegis and clear articulation of His Divine Name. Mr. Kristof seeks a utilitarian marginalization of biblical Christianity. It is the same liberal song and dance that attempted to delegitimize Christian foreign missions at the beginning of the 20th century. It was sought then and is still desired by many today, to replace missionary evangelists and preachers with the more politically correct, and to the liberal mind at least, more noble medical professionals or anthropologists or sociologists. Mr. Kristof would prefer to send Margaret Meade back to Samoa instead of Billy Graham. This is his right. But it hardly qualifies him to determine who the more acceptable evangelical should be. I am not worried about the New York Times being deluded, they are already there. I am, however, concerned with the so-called evangelicals who would take Mr. Kristof's viewpoint seriously and question the urgency of Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations through baptism and teaching. It is this command that explains Jesus' statement that he came to earth not to bring peace but a sword. The Gospel will inevitably divide people. That is only desirable if it is the truth. But, the Gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be labeled false simply because it does what Jesus said it would do and refuses to march in step with the New York Times. The message of Christ is the sword of the Spirit, but Mr. Kristof fails to get the point.

Good Preaching?

I get the pastor trade journal, Leadership. I don't know why I read it. It usually only causes me angst over state of the evangelical church and the evangelical pastorate. I always mutter to myself that I need to read it to 'keep up' and 'keep current' or some such nonsense. And it is nonsense. Hey Pastors- you want to keep current? Read 2 Timothy 4: 1-5. Now, memorize it. Then, do it. Please. We need more 'hip' and 'current' pastors like we need more infomercials.

In the latest 'Leadership' (interesting title, seeing as how I see no trace of biblical leadership upon its glossy pages) we find a discussion of technology and preaching. The question is asked of three pastors, "What does 'good preaching' mean in your church's context?"

Here are their answers:

Pastor 1: Our church is in an urban setting with a multi-ethnic congregation that is about 65 percent Hispanic. We also have Indians, African-Americans, Chinese, Filipinos, Italians, and whites. Good preaching means people's lives are being changed. If I can see that, if I see the connection taking place, I consider that good preaching."

Pastor 2: Ours is a multi-cultural church, too, made up of light white, darker white, and medium white—but definitely white. (Laughter.)
For us transformation is the goal of preaching. We're coming out of a time when merely presenting the text was the goal. That's still incredibly important, but now we're asking, "Does the preaching help anyone? Is it changing lives? Did the sermon help Christ be formed in people?"

Pastor 3: The culture of my church is a 300-person Mennonite congregation and it's multi-cultural only so far as about a third are over the age of 65, a third are in midlife, and a third are under the age of 30. When I started, I was very focused on the question of effectiveness. I found myself drowning because unless I saw some really big life change happening, I felt like a failure. I had a therapist (I'll admit it), and he said to me, "Shane, I went from being an average therapist to being a really great therapist when I simply offered interventions and I stopped being invested in the outcomes." That was a big insight for me. So for me good preaching is being connected to who God's made me to be, and not investing my identity in the outcomes.

What is wrong with these answers? First, not one of these men defined preaching from the standpoint of God's revelation to us as to what 'good preaching' might be. And God's Word does say quite a bit about preaching and the faithfulness of preachers. In these men's assesment preaching is evaluated by our perception of change in others, our perception of God's activity in others, our understanding of the 'outcome': does it help anyone? is it changing lives? can I see the connection taking place? Of course there is a place for all of this. Of course we must ask such questions at some level. But these questions, these human perceptions should be secondary to faithfulness to the Word, faithfulness in proclaiming the truth of the Gospel, faithfulness as a steward of the mysteries of the gospel. God simply does not call the preacher to faithfulness in 'evaluating change', seeing connections between you and the people, noting the 'helpfulness' of a sermon. Ultimately all of those things are sovereign realities, to be left up to God and his activity in convicting the human heart and bringing change by his Spirit.

Pastor #3 almost gave us the right answer. He says that he was drowning in ministry, 'focused on the question of effectiveness'. Any pastor worth his hire would admit that we are always keeping our nostrils just above the waves. Amen. You are never 'effective' enough. There is always some disgruntled naysayer, another tech wave to be surfed, another budget trend to be adjusted, a demographic to be catered to. But, sadly, just when we think one of these pastors might talk some sense, we are taken down a man centered therapeutic path to evaluating preaching: "good preaching is being connected to who God's made me to be, and not investing my identity in the outcomes." Huh? Again, this isn't necessarily a wrong or unbiblical sentiment in its place (if I understand what he means, which I'm not sure I do, but then I might be out of touch with my feelings and my perceptions of others). But whatever he means, it is not the answer to the question at hand.

Imagine Jeremiah walking away from the temple courts with his associate pastors, "Was that helpful? Let's poll folks and get a feel for how 'life changing' that sermon was?"

Or Paul sitting alone at night in Athens going through a post-Areopagite sermon evaluation form, "Connect with audience: check. See life change: check. Connected with who God's made me to be: check."

So let's let Paul define good preaching:

1 Timothy 4:11 Command and teach these things. 12 Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

1 Timothy 6:2 . . .These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. 3 If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing.

1 Timothy 6:13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you 14 to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

1 Timothy 6:20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, 21 which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.

2 Timothy 1:13 What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

2 Timothy 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Timothy 4:1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: 2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

These exhortations lead a young pastor toward God's design for preaching. And as our preaching adheres to the truth of God's Word then it will be 'current' and 'relevant', 'helpful', and 'transforming'. As our preaching soundly exposes this truth to the hearts of men and the hearts of men to the truth of the word then our preaching will be 'good', no matter the season, cultural context, or market share.

Evangelicalism and the New Politics of Personality

I was directed to an interesting article in Harper's by my brother Tim over at BaylyBlog. Tim's post was commenting on the pathetic responses of the Democratic candidates to the question of women registering for the draft. The rather scathing assesment of Rudy's political career by Kevin Baker in the latest Harper's is evidence enough that some of our leading 'republican' hopefuls aren't much of an alternative for those who see a difference between men and women and despise the idea that our mothers, daughters, and sisters should stand in our place in defense of our country (ah, but that is not my point in this post!).

I was struck by one of Baker's introductory statement's regarding the new 'post ideological' age of politics:

"In the new politics the cadidate is everything. The post ideological party distinguishes itself from its rivals not through any particular program or deep moral conviction so much as by the character and charisma of its particular leader - its Sarkozy, or its Berlusconi, or its Clinton - and by its brand selling strategies."

It is interesting how such a statement may stand as an indictment of the current state of evangelical Christianity as well. More and more our churches and our 'movements' are not defined by any ideological, doctrinal, or moral framework but rather by the personality that is sold to us. These leaders themselves ARE the brand, and the publishing houses, mega-church power structures, and market savvy gurus are the might who make right.

I was reading a rather famous and extremely popular bible study guru's latest study materials recently. I was struck at how middle of the road it was, how bereft of real doctrinal clarity, how lacking in any real exegetical work, and how bland it was in application. I had to wonder why this was so popular? The answer of course lies in ourselves to a large degree. But there is, I believe, a more sinister force at work, as cynical and dark as that sounds.

The deal is, this person is marketed flawlessly. Upon entering the local bookstore I felt drawn to the beautiful hair, the sparkling white teeth, the gleam of pastoral love and joy in the eye. The display was sharp, slick, and good looking - overpowering and dwarfing all other materials in its shadow. I felt in my bones a deep longing to purchase this book and fix my life! And of course, this happens in a variety of ways, with a host of teachers, leaders, and Christian self help gurus.

We need to be very concerned with our 'post ideological' and 'personality driven' church. We can fight it by establishing our lives in the midst of covenant relationships under biblical authority and teaching in the local church. This sort of community and leadership should never be replaced by the latest title (and shiny personality) being peddled to us in all its polished glory over at Zondervan.

Marquee Christianity

Want to have a few good laughs?

Go check out http://www.churchsigngenerator.com/churchsigns.php

Actually, with most of these church signs I often do not know whether to laugh or cry.
I didn't see this one on the website, but it was on a marquee around the corner from me,

"Try + oomph = TRIUMPH!"

Now, that's funny, I don't care who you are. The unbelievers in our midst must think we Christians have all lost our minds. I fear they are mainly right.

I make this solemn vow that Four Oaks shall never put such pablum on our marquee. That is, if we had a marquee. That is, if we had a building to put the marquee in front of. But, alas, the Four Oaks saga continues. I am thinking about going ahead and buying a big church sign and just putting it on my front lawn. I'll put some good stuff on it like, "Repent or Perish!" and "Stop, drop, and roll don't work in HELL!" or "King James was good enough for Jesus and it's good enough for me!" I think my neighbors would dig it.

It'd be a powerful witness.

Fyte the Soundbyte

Earlier this Spring our esteemed worship pastor, Josh Hughes, went to a conference for ministry leaders. Of course he dutifully returned with a handful of rich nuggets of LCD (lowest common denominator) Christianity for me to delight in. One of the sessions at the conference was a discussion of leadership and vision led by a renowned evangelical pastor and ‘leadership’ guru. Right out of the gate it was said that for our leadership to be effective as pastors we must make vision ‘stick’. Ah, yes. You might have thought that effective spiritual leadership has to do with integrity and holiness. Or faithful biblical teaching, perhaps? No sir. You must make vision ‘stick’. This is the key. But, dear pastor, how can we get sticky with our vision?

Glad you asked.

[[sidebar:: I am not necessarily saying that these leaders don’t believe in integrity, holiness, or in faithful biblical teaching- it is just that these discussions of effectiveness, success, and growth are by and large the predominant emphasis in such mega and emerging movements.]]

The way to make vision ‘stick’ is to reduce your vision/goals/mission/purpose to an easy, quick, memorable sentence, phrase, or three word clause. This vision ‘byte’ must be drilled into your people, and should define everything you do and say as a church/organization. The question should always be, “How does this or that help us accomplish our vision”? If such and such can’t or doesn’t move us in that direction, then bag it.

This is part of the evangelical megachurch ethos. I call it ‘mission statement mania’. If you are going to succeed as a church, or as a pastor, you must have a ‘mission statement’ that summarizes and captures the essence of what you’re all about. If you are an effective leader, you have a handful of pithy catch phrases that can be handed out like business cards. And, of course, this can be helpful. If your selling cheeseburgers or boot cut jeans.

We need to remember that effective marketing has to do with selling a product. Getting your product into the market. What are people buying? What do they want? Pastors and leaders with any savvy at all will quickly understand that in order to reach this market, we must tailor our message, our mission, and our ‘soundbyte’ to meet them right where they are.

So, what's wrong with that? Well...

First, we must remember that the message of the cross is foolishness to the world. How do you market something that is foolishness and a stumbling block? Well, you need to eliminate that which is perceived as foolishness. You must remove the stumbling block. With the cross, this takes some serious market savvy. Sadly, this is exactly what is going on in our churches.

Secondly, we need to be careful of false and misleading reductions of the Christian faith. Someone recently told me that there is nothing wrong with mission statements because Jesus gave us one. I reminded him that Jesus’ mission statement for the church was actually an imperative, and it was three verses long with about 45 words (in the Greek)- not really pithy, catch phrasy, and most people mess it up when trying to recite it. Then I also asked him why we must come up with mission statements if Jesus already gave us one? It seems that first century Jewish messiahs need us to make their vision stick. And, yes, we are to be ambassadors. Yes, we are to be all things to all men that we might save some. But this is done for the purpose of ‘preaching the gospel’, not selling, curbing, marketing, or reducing it.

Is it possible for me to reduce who we are and what we are about as a church to a quick slogan? At Four Oaks we do in fact have a ‘mission statement’. It was here when I came as a pastor, and it is still buried in our website (‘to live and spread authentic Christianity’). I don’t disagree with it. I don’t think it is ‘wrong’ as a statement. The problem is, I believe there is so much more to be said about who we are as a church. Whenever we reduce our ‘mission’ to our own crafty statements, we run the serious risk of missing the depth and breadth of our true identity. When that happens we also run the risk of ‘selling’ something other than who we are (and who Christ is!) in the marketplace of the world.

Quick assignment: sum up the essence of who you are in a single sentence. You’ll discover immediately how difficult (if not impossible) and unhelpful this can be.

Lastly, consider the fact that we find no such sloganeering in the Scriptures. Unless we isolate out verses like, "For me, to live is Christ and die is gain." Ugh. That sucker won't sell these days, now will it? Paul sought to give the Ephesian church not a simple vision summed up with a catchy sentence but 'the whole counsel of God' (Acts 20:27). Consider the closest thing we get to a 'vision statement' for the church in Ephesians 4:12-16:

to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.

Go ahead. Slap that one on the church marquee.

Some thoughts on Haggard

Well, Haggard has broken his silence! Inquiring minds that must know can read the Denver post article: http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_5164921. If you must NOT know- good for you and go on about your bidness in peace.

The verdict is in! Ted isn't 20% gay, he's not 40% bisexual, he's not 18% transgendered...

HE'S COMPLETELY HETEROSEXUAL!!!!

Now we can all relax, breathe a big sigh of relief, and go back to our normal, 75-99% heterosexual lives.

What do I think about all this? Not too much, as you all know, I rarely have an opinion in such matters and even rarer is my voicing of any such opinion. And if you believe that, I've got a few acres of prime church property down in Crawdadville for you to take a looksie at.

Here's a few things we need to keep in mind as we see this tragedy play out and as we will no doubt see more of this in the future:

1. We should be very careful about our little evangelical 'cults of personality'. This is not the way the bible calls us to heed and follow our teachers/pastors/leaders. When we prop up 'talking heads' in our lives that are outside the bounds of local church accountability, we open ourselves up to danger and abuse. I have few people that I entrust my time and energy to as my 'teachers' in this capacity. You have heard me speak highly of Pastor John Piper's ministry and influence in my life- but much of this influence is because I know that John is committed to the local church, to open accountability with his elders and people, and his public ministry outside of Bethlehem Baptist is secondary to his ministry to his own flock there. This is one of my criticisms of Beth Moore and our adoration and commitment to her teachings around the country and the world. We should be careful in getting the bulk of our teaching and service in the Word via video and workbook of a woman we have never met and have little to no personal knowledge of. One reason I have a greater respect for Kay Arthur's ministry through Precept is because the studies are primarily driven by an inductive method of examining in the text, with her teaching being secondary in the process. This is not so in the Moore studies. Our primary reception of the Word should come through the living and personal ministry of elders and pastors in our local bodies (it is just a gentle criticism, no need to freak out...I'm not telling you to drop out of your Beth Moore study...I just offer it as an example. The same can be said for a whole host of other evangelical teaching ministries).

2. We should be careful about 'cults of personality' in our local churches. We should recognize leadership and gifting for the sake of the edification of the church without building a church upon the leadership and gifting of one man. We are an entertainment driven culture, and we desire entertaining and charismatic leaders on Sunday morning as much as on television and the big screen. This is dangerous stuff. There is a tension here- and I feel it in my ministry at Four Oaks- teachers and preachers are often powerful and charismatic sorts of people. We need not deny this reality. But, the Scriptures call for a plurality of leadership, and a very real accountability for these leaders in the church to hold their influence, power, and egos in check. I am a powerful personality- no question. But let me assure you that I have a pastoral team and a group of elders who lead and rule this church and will take absolutely no crap from me whatsoever (pardon my French). When you've got a guy spending a great deal of time in hotels, buying hundreds of dollars of meth, and spending hundreds more on sexual trysts with gay prostitutes- there has been a major accountability glitch. We must guard against this force in our personality driven megachurch age. I hope that the leadership of New Life Church has repented of such a failure on their part and are establishing biblical safeguards against this for the future of that church.

3. Sin is sin. Homosexuality is sin. Promiscuity is sin. Drug abuse is sin. I really do not understand why we buy into the silly language that is forced upon us by the 'gay' community and the world. What do Ted, and his 'counselors', mean when they say he is 'completely heterosexual'? He is a man, made in God's image, and he is called to obey and glorify God with marital sexual expression and intimacy with his wife. Anything outside of this is sin. It isn't being gay, either 5% gay, or 90% gay, or 'completely gay'. Being gay is not an identity. It isn't who you are. The compulsion towards sexually aberrant behavior might be very strong, it most often comes from a variety of realities and struggles, it is not 'simple' to overcome, and most certainly powerfully manifested in our lives. But it isn't who we are.

Furthermore, I'm confused- how many hours, days, weeks of therapeutic nonsense did Ted go through to come to this conclusion? And whose idea was it to remove him from those to whom his life and ministry are accountable? And should we be comforted that Ted will not be going back into public pulpit ministry, but will be getting a degree in and presumably practicing psychology? Fitting that he would leave the priesthood of megachurch gurus and vector via his falling into the other sacred order of priests in America- counselors and psychologists.

I suggest he sell vacuums, love and care for his wife and kids, sit in the third row from the front at church, and maybe help clean up after potluck. I think that he could receive more grace from such a common life of faith and fellowship than twenty degrees in psychology or theology, ten books on forgiveness and being a wounded healer, and thousands of hours of counseling from Dobson, Campolo, MacDonald, or whoever else.

Take a moment and pray for your pastors and elders. Pray for accountability, pray for purity, and pray for humility. "Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall".

God, keep us close to your Word, full of your grace, and in fellowship with your Spirit and one another. For your sake, and not ours, sustain us and keep us. Amen.

Anne Graham Lotz' Shallow Egalitarianism

Recently, Anne Graham Lotz (daughter of renowned evangelist Billy Graham) was given the opportunity to offer up a guest editorial for the Washington Post. What a wonderful opportunity this was for one who loves Christ to speak out on issues facing us from a biblical perspective! The editorial did indeed deal with an issue that is critical to Christians and non-Christians alike, though it sadly presented a position that was far from the true biblical perspective. Ms. Lotz addressed the issue of gender distinctions in the bible, presenting to the readers of the Post the standard egalitarian line. You can read the editorial over at the Washington Post’s website:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/01/biblical_record_is_clear_god_c.htmlThough

I’m sure that this editorial did not intend to present an exhaustive or even halfway thorough examination of this issue, it does present some standard arguments for an increasingly ‘egalitarian’ evangelicalism. Parsing out Ms. Lotz’ opinion is a helpful exercise in refuting what might be called rather shallow arguments against a complementarian view of male and female roles in the home and the church.

Lotz makes some bold statements about men and women. These statements flow from her fundamental commitment which might be distilled to these three points: 1) there was no pre-fall created order or distinction in role and authority between the sexes; 2) sin created such destructive hierarchical distinctions between the sexes; 3) Jesus abolished such sinful distinctions in role and function and restored the pre-fall order which exists (or at least, should, in the minds of egalitarians) in the church today.
Let's look at this argument in greater detail:

Premise # 1. There was no pre-fall created order or distinction in role and authority between the sexes.

'God created men and women equal. Period' the article says. And here is the fundamental problem. There is a basic non sequitur in the argument. To make distinctions in role and function does not follow biblically from a refusal to admit equality. Students of Scripture have for centuries affirmed an 'ontological' equality between men and women as made in God's image while upholding an 'economic' distinction- or a distinction of order and function between men and women as a pre fall (and, therefore, good) establishment. There can be no doubt of equality from Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." But, we must ask, why the distinctions in name? Why must there be men? Why must there be women? Lotz rather brashly ignores the very important passage over in Genesis 2 in understanding the pre-fall establishment of role and function in the garden, "But for Adam there was not a helper fit for him" (2:20). Why is she the 'ezer', or helper, and not the man? Is such a distinction in role automatically a refusal to accept equality. Obviously not, if we are to be faithful to Scripture.

In the long lists of proof texts for a rather shallow egalitarian argument we find no mention of Paul's provocative (and post-Jesus) statement touching on this very question, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Timothy 2:13-14). Ah, this must be the patriarchal and chauvinistic Paul (who rears his ugly head just a few verses later in the distinctions between men and women in church office- 1 Tim 3:2 and Titus 1:6; and in his weird statements about wearing doilies on your head in 1 Cor. 11; and over in his discussion of men and women in marriage in Ephesians 5:22-33 and Colossians 3:18-19; and it must be this bad Paul who influenced the chauvinistic Peter over in 1 Peter 3:1-7). Don't we prefer the more egalitarian Paul of Galatians 3:28-29? Yes, but only if you seek to pit Scripture against Scripture and arbitrarily affirm your view of Scripture based on a cultural prejudice (whether it be an egalitarian or a complementarian prejudice).

There is a better way. It is to affirm equality (Gen. 1:27, Gal.3:28) while affirming God created order and distinctions (Gen. 2:20; 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim 2:11-14). It is called 'complementarianism'. Men and women are created equally in being (ontology) as image bearers and are created functionally different in order to bring glory to God in their complementary roles and functions as distinctly male and female.Such an affirmation is difficult in our upside down world. Such an affirmation is difficult if you refuse to accept the whole counsel of God, not just a choice few Scriptures that jive with the increasing cultural and ecclesiastical pressures bearing in on us.

Premise #2. Sin created such destructive hierarchical distinctions between the sexes.

As I pointed out above, there clearly is some sort of distinction between the sexes that is pre-fall and part of the glorious and good created order. The bible affirms a headship in the clear functional or economic distinction set forth when God creates woman from man, to be a 'helpmeet suitable for him'. It is not the other way around, however we would like to say so- it was not man made from woman to be a helpmeet suitable for him. And to say that economic or functional subordination between equals is necessarily sinful is to deny the glorious subordination of the Son to the Father in the Godhead. It is also to denigrate the glorious work of Christ who came to serve not to be served. It is to accept a cultural framework of rights and power that is unbiblical and fundamentally unhealthy, and that is itself destructive.Women are able to display glorious theological truths in their submission to husbands in the home and male leaders in the church. Women are able to display the very image of Christ in their functional complement to men in the created order. If one believes that service, submission, and deference to another's divinely appointed authority is weakness, sin, and destruction per se- then, sadly, I believe they do not know their bibles nor do they have the mind of Christ on this crucial issue.

Premise #3. Jesus abolished such sinful distinctions for the church.

Let's just consider some Scriptures that are strangely absent as this point is made in Ms. Lotz' argument:
1 Timothy 2:11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-- if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for ...33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives...6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Now, of course there are exegetical issues to be faced in these passages as in all of Scripture. But, we must honestly say that for one to claim that Jesus abolished such ‘role’ distinctions is to ignore these straightforward Apostolic exhortations in Scripture, or pit the testimony of the broad scope of the New Testament against Jesus. And both of these things are done in the more liberal quarters of egalitarianism. But this cannot and should not be done by faithful evangelicals who affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. So, in order to preserve some modicum of trust in the Scriptures, the current evangelical arguments which deny its rather plain reading in the above passages require a lot of hermeneutical hoop jumping and double talk.

The call of God’s Word is to affirm the biblical portrait of equality while embracing biblically distinct masculinity and feminity. This is for our good and to God’s glory. What God has set forth as good and glorious should not be the cause of so much double talk and equivocation in the public square. The call for Christians is to model a manhood and womanhood that is established by the Scriptures and which is not merely the product of our fleeting, and crippling, cultural consensus.

Another Gospel

I'm sad to say that I actually watched Barbara Wa-Wa's special last night on 'The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2006'. I'll break the suspense, the #1 most fascinating person was Nancy Pelosi. Yeah. And the list just went down from there.

Guess who made the list? The pastor of the biggest church in America, Joel Osteen. You can go to www.abcnews.go.com/2020 and read an abbreviated transcript. I'll pull the most important part out for you:

He is rich, famous, handsome, and adored by millions of fans on television each week, but he's not an actor. He's an evangelical pastor from Houston named Joel Osteen. They call him "the smiling preacher," and Osteen has a lot to smile about. He's the head of the largest church in America, the author of a best-selling book, and the religious leader for a following of faithful, often frenzied fans. He's achieved all that with an approach critics call "Christianity lite" — no sin, no suffering, no sacrifice, replacing fire and brimstone with a motivational message.

Barbara Walters asked Osteen why that message strikes such a chord with people. "My message is that God is a good God," said Osteen. "And if we all … have the right attitude, he'll take us places that we've never dreamed of."

Further down in the interview Osteen said this regarding the 'prosperity gospel' he preaches:

Osteen has been criticized for focusing too much on the almighty dollar. Walters asked him about preaching what is called "the prosperity gospel."
"I think the word rich is all relative," Osteen said. "I think down and deep in our hearts, we believe that God does want us to live the abundant life that we can. To me, prosperity is health, good relationships … and money, of course, is part of it."


There it is. This is the gospel of the postmodern American church. A God who deals justly with sin can't be 'good'. Sin is negative, let's all be 'positive'. God does not deal with us by His grace through the work of his Son on the cross, but by our attitude. If we have the right attitude, we'll good earthly stuff. And wealth is indeed measured in bodily health, good relationships, and, uh, well, yeah, uh, duh-- MONEY!!!

This 'gospel' is so contrary to the gospel of the Bible, I'm not sure where to begin.

Remember, this is a man that stands in front of a church of thousands and thousands week after week. This is a man whose 'gospel' of having the right attitude and focusing on bodily health and monitary wealth is broadcast to SEVEN MILLION weekly. It is just and right and necessary for the body of Christ and her shepherds to examine, confront, and refute such blatant, however saccharine and smiley-faced, false teaching.

It is interesting that Osteen says this, "Deep down in our hearts we believe that God wants us to live the abundant life..."

Yes. But, the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure (Jer. 17:9). The sinful heart measures this 'abundance' in accordance with the affluence and desires of the world and the flesh. The man who is filled with the spirit measures wealth in accordance with the Word of God and an eternal perspective. 'For here we have no enduring city...' Blessed are you who forsake homes, jobs, relationships even, for the sake of the gospel. What of the millions who live in persecution today precisely because of their faith in God? What of those dear ones who will die today in a prison camp in North Korea? Are they forsaken of God? Is their life not abundant? Or is their life abundant because God will multiply his work and his sovereign grace through their suffering?

Barbara asked Osteen why his message 'strikes such a chord with people'. And Osteen's answer says it all.

Because he gives them what they want to hear.

And this admission is in line with the prophecy of Paul, "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3)

Osteen, and many like him are holding forth another gospel. And people are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Remember, on the last day, many will say, "Lord, Lord"...

Seven Reasons to Refuse a Hollow Ecumenism

In my preparations for last week’s time in Psalm 133, I went to the chapter on ‘The Unity of the Church’ from Robert Culver’s recently published Systematic Theology. Culver synthesized the basic thrust of an article in the Ecumenical Review from way back in 1963. In the article, E.O. Smith (not to be confused with Captain E.O. Jackson, of Epcot fame) sought to isolate some of the main objections of evangelicals to the prevailing ecumenical spirit taking hold in the more liberal, mainline churches. Culver lists the six objections that Smith discovered, while adding a seventh of his own. I am struck by the reality that, though over forty years old, this striving for ‘ecumenism’ still abides in the liberal quarters of the ‘church’ and so do these main objections of us more conservative evangelicals. Perhaps the color of the jerseys have changed, that’s all.

Here’s Culver’s ‘big seven’:

1. The ‘ecumenical’ churches have not maintained purity of doctrine and are therefore more to be shunned than joined in any sort of unity.
2. Evangelicals should not join with churches which make no effort to insure genuine conversion among believers.
3. The parochial and sacramentarian orientation of some ‘ecumenical’ churches is inconsistent with biblical norms.
4. The indifference to discipline among ‘main-line’ Protestants and Roman Catholics manifests indifference to doctrine also, hence there is a suspicion of insincerity in the several orthodox-appearing statements issued by World and National Councils (of churches).
5. The emphasis of the ecumenical movement seems almost entirely on organizational unity having no real basis in shared unity in the bonds of the Spirit, of the truth, and of new birth and faith.
6. The inclusivism of the World Council of Churches seems to imply a doctrine of universal salvation, especially since many of the ablest ‘ecumenical’ theologians past and present are Universalists.
7. [Here’s Culver’s added point] Millions of biblically oriented evangelicals (and even some biblically minded Roman Catholics) find an oppressive, false church organized on a world-scale under a final, personal pseudo-Christ predicted in many passages of the Bible. They therefore want no part of what in their opinion might be a large-scale foreshadowing, preparatory for that event.

-Culver, Systematic Theology, p. 887

Sadly, I feel that these points are still valid in my assesment of many broadly ecumenical movements. It is a good question...to what degree and for what end are we to pursue an organizational unity between churches, denominations, and parachurch organizations?

Plagiarism in the Pulpit

Go check out an enlightening and disturbing article on the rash of 'sermon-stealing' that has besieged the pulpit these days:
http://www.uu.edu/news/InTheNews/pdf/95.pdf

The article reports that not only are pastors borrowing stories, illustrations, points, power point shows, and whole segments of actual narrative from another sermon source- but there are several websites, run by churches and preaching gurus (like Ed Young, who is kind of creepy, and the illustrious purpose driver himself, Rick Warren) that profit heavily from this sketchiness.

Now, mark that the article was published in none other than the WSJ! What a pathetic state of affairs for the tattered bride of Christ when her ministers defend their woeful inattentiveness to the Word of God, not to mention their blatant defense of deception.

Over at Desiring God you can check out a great article that defines and describes plagiarism. Just go to their resource library and search 'plagiarism' under the 'Questions and Answers' section. Here is how the DG staff defines plagiarism for us:

"The essence of plagiarism is to give the impression that the ideas or words of another person are actually your own. This can be done intentionally (in which case it is outright theft) or unintentionally-but either way it is wrong.

The tenth edition of Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary formally defines the term "plagiarize" from three different angles:
"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own"
to "use (a created production) without crediting the source"
"to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source"

In a nutshell, you have committed plagiarism whenever you use another's ideas or words without crediting or acknowledging the source."

The article begins with one preacher defending his plagiarism and admits that he used 75% of Ed Young's sermon from the creativepastors.com (ironic title, wouldn't you agree?) website run by Young and his church. One critic of this sordid state of affairs, Thomas Long (a professor of preaching) hits the nail on the head, "Our churches have turned into theaters and our preachers have turned into witty motivational speakers with high entertainment value".

The real problem is plain. Our pulpits are full of men, and women (sadly), that are simply unequipped and unwilling to obey Paul's exhortation to the young pastor Timothy, "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

There needs to be a revival in these fellowships of 'biblical exposition'. In exposition, your first duty is to present the Word of God to people. You are all under a passage, driven by its meaning, following its logic, and unpacking its truth. As it stands today, most preachers are presenting their own wit and hipness to their flock, the people are under his rhetorical concoction, they are driven primarily by his own agenda, following whatever logic he assumes, and have to unpack the mysteries of his own feeble mind.

Exposition demands exegesis. Exegesis is simply laboring to draw out meaning. It is true that there is nothing new under the sun. That is the beauty of expounding God's Word. You are not giving your people 'new and exciting' sermons- you are presenting to them the ancient, abiding, and thrilling truth of the living God. I want people to find a pattern for exegesis that they might do themselves as they open the word of God on their own.

Let me give you a snapshot of what exegesis to exposition might look like: (I am giving you this not to blow my horn, but to assure you that I am not plagiarizing on Sunday)

First, there is what I call 'raw' study: I spend at least two - three hours in the passage I'm preaching on Sunday with no helps other than original language tools (dictionaries, lexicons, concordances, etc.). I read the passage, often committing it to memory. I read it again and again. I will often translate the passage for myself, if it is a long narrative I'll only translate a few portions of the text. I am thankful for my time spent in the study of original biblical languages in seminary for this part of study and preparation (you don't necessarily have to have the languages to do this- you can skip to individual word studies with the help of Strong's Concordance and Vine's Dictionary, and a solid inter-linear bible at your side). I'll pull out key words and do a 'word study'- finding its lexical reference, its use elsewhere in Scripture, compare the ancient use with its contemporary counterpart, etc. Then I'll make my own outline, read and study the 'context' of that passage: reading the entire chapter, the entire book, and making notes on how that passage fits into this broader context. I'll jot down ideas, pull out principles that catch my eye, pray over the passage asking for help and insights, sketch outlines, brainstorm ideas. I do as much of this as I can before looking at any secondary resources.

Second comes what I call expositional research: I'll pull down my top three commentaries. There are 'critical' commentaries that put a great deal of emphasis on the text and the original languages. Without a good grasp of the Greek or Hebrew, these can be difficult. Then there are what I call 'expositional' commentaries- they often go passage by passage, verse by verse commenting on the Word. They will provide historical insights, critical language insights, outlines, word studies, grammar notes, etc. Then I'll pull the more 'devotional' or distinctly 'pastoral' commentaries- these are easier to read, often they read like a sermon, and they are a bit more of a narrative, with illustrations, preaching points, etc. (commentaries by Boice and MacArthur are usually in this category). I'll read or glance over these, making notes, jotting down references, tweaking my outline with this new info, etc.

I'll then look up some key theological themes in my systematic theologies (everyone should own a couple of good systematic theologies: I suggest Grudem, Culver, or Erickson) and read through them. I'll look up info from the web. I'll do as much 'theological research' as I can.

Third comes Expositional Outlining: After all this spade work, I then try and make a good working outline to preach from. I try and organize all the above study into a sort of preachable outline- a skeleton that orders my thought, trying to logically put this together in a way that can be easily followed. It is at this point that I often sit and stare at my notes, at my outline, at the wall. A lot of thinking, mumbling, and pacing happens here. I'll plug in illustrations, quotes, thoughts, etc.

After I've done this, I often try and have the sermon preached to me. I'll go on line and see if I can find a sermon on this very passage that I can read or listen to (my first two go to guys are Ray Stedman- search Stedman discovery papers and you'll get a wealth of some 40 years of biblical exposition neatly categorized, script or audio; and John Piper- all his sermon scripts are on the web with audio as well). I don't do this until much of my work is done- this way I do not 'steal' ideas- though I will often pull a quote, or borrow an illustration (and be sure to give a reference in my sermon!).

The Fourth stage is the Delivery stage: Once I have pretty good outline, I'll try and memorize the basic points, write out portions of what I'll say under this or that point, practice, make a power point slide show, arrange my notes for delivery, etc. Then I'll preach it.

It is important for there to be a fifth stage- the 'assessment' stage. This is where you are able to review your sermon, get leadership input, and outside assesment so that you are accountable and constantly being sharpened in your calling to preach and teach faithfully.

I try my best to go through these steps, or some modified form of them, in order to do the hard work of preaching. I pray that God would revive biblical teaching in our churches. I pray that God will convict these shepherds of this practice of plagiarism that denigrates the pulpit, despises the Word of God, devalues biblical preaching, and slowly destroys the soul of the bride of Christ.

Do You Get the Joke?

Doug Wilson has a great post on the use of humor in the culture war and more importantly in the spiritual war. Check it out: http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=1870

I'll pull a few of his comments at length here, with a few comments of my own thrown in for good measure:

But we live in a day when Christian men have too readily (and in a wholesale fashion) accepted what the world says about discussion, debate, discourse, and the clash of faiths. And as a result, many Christians would rather be "nice" than right. But by "right," I do not mean correct opinions coupled with a nasty attitude. I mean holding to the truth in a truthful way, advancing the claims of beauty in a lovely way, and holding up the good in a way that is genuinely good.

Femininity is creational glory. But effeminacy in men is a grotesque parody of this. Equally troubling is the attempt on the part of women to be masculine. A few days ago I put up a post that revealed my view that Scripture prohibits training women for combat (for those interested, I have a detailed discussion on this in Federal Husband). Apparently, from what I have heard, a local listserve went nuts for a time over this Calloused Insensitivity on my part and, once again, I was a Bad Person. This is because I am a Christian who believes that Scripture teaches that women were not created by God to be warriors. If I were a Muslim who believed something comparable and I made my wife wear a burka out to the mall, then I would be praised by these same people for contributing to the rich diversity of our small little town. And if I were a Christian again who pointed out this discrepancy, then I would once again be a Bad Person. Since I can't win for losing, then I will content myself with a chuckle.

...One of the most marked features of compromised Christian men in our age is an effeminate failure of masculinity, seen notably in a failure to engage in spiritual warfare like Christian men. There are many symptoms of this, but one marked feature of it is humorlessness. But it is not humorlessness arising from a lack of native wit; rather it is humorlessness coming from fear of having to go out and actually fight with the giants or dragons. A close corollary is the fear of having somebody on your side behave in such a manner as to provoke the giant. But David did not just fight with Goliath, he spoke to him first and his manner of speech was not in keeping with contemporary academic standards.

John Frame, in his recent review of McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, insightfully hits this failure of McLaren to recognize the reality of the spiritual warfare we are in, and the responsibility of Christians to be actively engaged in that warfare.

So my contention is this. Our sense of cultural maturity and masculinity is so far gone that there is no way to recover it without controversy. In other words, any person doing exactly the right thing, the one thing needful, will be thought by many to be troubler of Israel.


I have discovered this sort of humorlessness in the pew over and over again. And it comes, for the most part, from a misplaced evangelical 'sensitivity'. And, dare I say, it comes from women (with cowering husbands in tow). Churches are filled with Christians that are very concerned for the feelings of the 'hurting'. They are very concerned with those who would take offense, misunderstand, or be thrust further into the hurting abyss. Yet, ironically, and this has been my experience, it is primarily the fearful and 'seeker' sensitive Christians who are filled with offense by their active imaginations of the concerns of the hurting or the 'offended'.

Don't get me wrong- I know there are people with 'hurts' out there (it would serve us well to ask exactly what we mean by this- ah, another day, another post). I understand fully that there are many that take offense. But Jesus told us this would be so. And Paul. And Isaiah and all the prophets, for that matter (Jeremiah was such an insensitive oaf as he shouted at the worshippers in the temple courts, all spiffed up in their sabbath go to meetin best). And we should care for the bruised reeds, we should bind up the broken hearted. Amen. But never at the expense of a prophetic voice. I heard a preacher say, "Hard words make soft hearts. Soft words make hard hearts."

Folks, the world is crumbling around us and people are bound for hell while Joel Osteen smiles unctiously and gives us all a psuedo-spiritual pep talk. Preachers everywhere take note and follow suit. Hey, it gets the butts in the seats and the coins in the coffers. We all know what Jeremiah's, Jesus', and Paul's preaching got them.

I'll wrap this up, for the two of you still reading, with an example of this humorless evangelical concern for peace and unity at all costs. This past Sunday I preached on Acts 4:32-37. As I briefly mentioned some of the evangelical arguments against tithing (which are for the most part silly dispensational myths- like angels folding our clothes at the rapture- and if the image of an angel folding my undies whilst I am caught up to meet Him doesn't tickle your funny bone...well, then I don't know what to do for you). I made the joke that whenever someone asks me whether or not they need to tithe from their net or their gross, I no longer respond like the average gracious Ned Flanders-esque shepherd I know I should be ('Lest ye offer thy gifts with a cheerful disposition, tis best to not give at all'- or something like that). Rather, I look them straight in the eye and say with a straight face and prophetic tone, "Gross plus 2%".

Praise God, most people in my flock laughed. Yet, after the service a visitor, a long time Christian, came up to me and offered his concern over my flippancy. Some people might misunderstand. Some people might take offense. And then he began to offer an argument in favor of tithing only on one's net.

I reminded him of God's promise to His people who insist on robbing Him that he would rub poop on their faces and then throw them out with the trash (Mal.2:3).

Now, that's offensive!

Emerging Paradigms and Consumer Spirituality

“It appears to be correct that evangelicalism is stagnant. Seeker-sensitive churches are picking up on only one aspect of this: the fact that conversions are not increasing, and even here the assumption seems to be that more conversions can be engineered by the right approach, which is really quite doubtful. It is, after all, in the hands of God to impart new life and not in our hands at all. Beyond this, however, the motivating factors appear quite improper. This is undoubtedly a seeker culture, but seekers in this culture cannot come to Christ on their own terms and cannot have the gospel preached to them as if they could. It is true that the Church is in the marketplace of ideas, products, and experiences but to play by the rules of this marketplace is to invite disaster. It is true that society has reorganized itself into regions but why should this be the determining factor as to whether we move from neighborhood churches to megachurches? Should that not be decided by how best to meet the Scriptural objectives for the local church? And the fear about becoming obsolete is a fear that only those truly enculturated ever suffer and it is a telling indication of how deep and pervasive evangelical belief has become.” [David Wells, Above All Earthly Pow’rs: Christ in a Postmodern World, pp. 292-293]

More on Burke and Consumerism in the Church

Alright, shall we continue to beat this dead horse?

Sadly, the horse is far from dead and is, in fact, running amok through the fields of the church.

Let me say a few things about Burke's comments on the glories of a possible TiVo church:

“Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle. They could watch some of the world’s best speakers on TiVo, DVDs, or download resources for their iPod, then gather in smaller groups to discuss and apply what they’ve heard. A church wouldn’t necessarily need its own teaching pastor on the payroll anymore, and people wouldn’t need to leave their community in search of better teaching.”

What is really behind a statement like this? Does this in ANY way reflect the word of God ANYWHERE: 'Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle.' Let's all accept the 'indigenous' principle of ministry- the 'all things to all men' principle that Paul sets forth in 1 Cor. 9:22. But this is in order to 'save some'. This describes the missionary efforts of Paul. And, yes, there is a very real sense in which we aren't to too strongly divide who we are in mission from who we are as a worshipping community. But there IS a division! What Burke seems to be talking about is conforming our ecclesiology according to 'our lifestyle'. So, in this paradigm, there will be no room for Romans 12:1-2, "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God-- this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is-- his good, pleasing and perfect will." Is the church as a redeemed community of worshippers and disciples able to preserve its corporate identity with such cries for community that fits 'my lifestyle'?

There is also that typical lust for 'the best speakers' brazenly paraded about. Are we to laud this 'cult of personality' that drives our culture? Are we to ape this in our church communities? Go read 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Read it again. And again. Point out to me where it says, 'Go find the best teachers.' Yes, there is that qualification of the elders that they are 'able to teach' (1 Tim 3:2). But this qualification is given in the context of a slew of character qualifications that can only be discerned in intimate community with continued accountability. And yes, there are to be elders "whose work is preaching and teaching"- and these are not the world's 'best teachers' but those in your community who are qualified in character, piety, and gifting to do this labor as shepherds in our midst. The idea that this intimacy of local church fellowship and discipleship would be eagerly cast aside for the talking heads of postmodern evangelicalism is really biblically untenable.

I love to hear great teachers. I am thankful for the blessings they bring to so many in teaching the Word through a far reaching format. But, that we would forsake the calling and ordaining of pastor teachers and godly leadership in our local churches (look again, Burke applauds the idea of getting these guys off our payrolls!) for the next sexy and hip communicator we find on channel 99 (God forbid!) is harlotry. Really, 'harlotry'? That is a hard word, Erik.

Burke says, 'then people wouldn't have to leave their community in search of better teaching.' The church is the body and bride of Christ. Your commitment to the daily relationships and ministries of the LOCAL church is a kind of barometer for your faithfulness to Christ. Leaving the bride that God and Christ have called you to labor for and with, with all its warts and flaws, is spiritual 'marital' fidelity. To leave these relationships in search of some sexier, funnier, more sensitive, more courageous, more 'effective', more relational, more passionate (insert your own word) is called over and over again in the Scriptures as idolatry and harlotry.

"If Christ loved the church enough to die for her; we can love the church enough to be patient with her." [Isn't that the quote, Paul? I can't remember it exactly]

Wilson on Sanctified Satire

"As we read through Scriptures carefully, without a pietistic set of blinders, we find that satire, mocking, godly taunting are routine weapons of choice whenever God’s people confront idolatry. Of course sometimes a fool is not to be answered according to his folly (Prov. 26:4), and those who contradict are to be answered in all gentleness (2 Tim. 2:24-25). But in other situations a fool must be answered according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits (Prov. 26:5), and those who oppose the truth are to be rebuked sharply (Tit. 1:12-14; 2:15). If idols are for destruction, and they are, those who bring the tools of destruction to bear will not likely receive praise and kindly words from the idolators.

Our Lord Jesus, when confronted with ecclesiastical obstinacy, showed us this godly pattern for giving offense. "Did you know the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" (Matt. 15:12). "Yes, I did," He replied in effect. Mission accomplished (v. 13). The Lord attacked the scribes and Pharisees for their long robes, sanctimonious geegaws, prayer habits, tithing practices, their ways of greeting, their seating arrangements, their hypocrisies, their gold-painted chairs on TBN, and so on. After one such exchange (Luke 11:43-44), one of the lawyers said that Jesus was insulting them in His indictment too (v. 45). And in effect Jesus said, "Oh, yes, thanks for the reminder. You lawyers . . ." (v. 46). In short, Jesus was seeking to offend. This is not because Jesus was petty -- what He was seeking to offend was the spirit of pettiness."

-from Wilson's 6/9/2006 post over at Blog and Mablog
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=2435

Burke on Consumerism in the Church

Well, I’m pretty sure that I’ve cancelled my Leadership Journal subscription but it just keeps on coming. The latest issue has a very interesting article by emerging/emergent ‘leader’ Spencer Burke on consumerism and the church. Burke is bemoaning the fact that the church bemoans the fact that there is such a consumerist mentality in our church culture (as in the culture at large).

This is one of many articles that I have read by Burke, and in every piece I read by or about Burke (who now calls himself a ‘spiritual guide of an online community’ called theOOZE {theOOZE.com}) I hear his inspiring story of how we left a prominent southern California megachurch in order to bravely break forth into new terrains of ministry. It strikes me that perhaps, like so many emerging pastors and leaders, Mr.(Rev.? Pastor? Father? Brother? Guru? Maharaja?) Burke is simply reacting to and critiquing a sub-biblical (the Hybels/Warren/Stanley megachurch foolishness) model for ministry rather than seeking to pursue and develop an essentially biblical model for ministry. While I heartily agree with Senor Burke regarding the failings and weaknesses of the modern megachurch mentality (and this includes all the ‘little’ churches that would love to be ‘mega’), I cannot abide with his solutions. Why? Well, like so much in the emerging movement, it just doesn’t wash biblically. And no wonder, considering the fact that so many in these emerging ranks have essentially abandoned the inspiration and authority of the bible for a sort of squishy post-foundationalist alternative (ah, but that is for another blog).

Let’s look at Burke’s assessment of the current climate of consumerism in the church, and his proposal for dealing with it.

“When I was leaving Mariners (Mariners Church of Newport Beach, CA), the buzzword was relevant. It’s what every church was striving to be, by changing their music, their marketing, even their ministry philosophy. Church leaders are still pursuing relevancy in order to reach more people. When those efforts don’t pan out as expected, leaders are quick to blame ‘consumerism’. The problem? People. They want too much, and they’re never satisfied.”

I concur. The pursuit of ‘relevance’ is like grabbing the tiger by his tail. If you hang on you’re in for a terrible ride, but if you let go that sucker will eat you alive. And in actuality, most of these churches that strive and fight for some sort of market driven relevance just wind up looking lame. If there is one thing we can learn from the market, and it’s a lesson from our flesh, people will NEVER be satisfied. That is why it should never be fundamentally about music, marketing, nor should our ministry philosophy ever be developed along anything but biblical lines. We do well to take heed to God’s prophet:

"Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare. Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David. See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples. Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor." Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. (Isaiah 55:1-6)

Burke continues:

“But is that really it? Is the problem that people in the pews keep upping the ante on their demands, or is it that the church leaders don’t comprehend the real source of their discontent? Is it that people want too much, or that they just don’t want what the church is currently selling?”

Amen again. The church is selling a lame MTV version of the gospel and the MTV generation continues to move on to something else. All the while the church fails to see the plain fact that if our people wanted MTV, then they would watch MTV and skip church. And so our churches become cultural dinosaurs as fast as the market moves on to the next American Idol. Further, in all this striving for relevance we fail to heed the biblical imperative to engage the culture and not merely give way to it. In a real sense we are not to scratch the itching ears, and so heal the wound of this people lightly. We are not to package and re-package the gospel in our own market driven image.

Now, it is the OOZE-man’s solutions to this crisis of relevance that should bring dismay. I am immediately struck by the reality (as in so much of the content in this ‘journal’) that the article is totally bereft of any reference to or discussion of the bible. There is a rather naïve reference to the Reformation, and a few nods to ‘rely[ing] on the Holy Spirit’ and ‘being willing to follow Jesus’. But other than that, we just have the assessment of some guy. And here is what Burke has to say:

“The situation reminds me of the banking industry. At one time, if you wanted to deposit or withdraw money, you had to go to the bank and stand in line. You had to fill out a slip and wait for someone to serve you. Today, there are independent ATMs capable of instantly dispensing cash everywhere—from grocery stores and restaurants, to sports stadiums and bars. I can’t remember the last time I actually “went to the bank.” It’s not that I’ve stopped needing money; it’s just that I choose to get it in other ways.”

This analogy breaks down at so many points. And before I make a few criticisms let me say that I don’t fundamentally disagree with this analogy. I do believe, to a degree, in ‘decentralizing’ church in terms of geography and locale. Not to diminish the importance ‘body-wide’ corporate worship and teaching on the Lord’s Day (such questions like, ‘what impact does all this have on our local church communities in terms of the fourth commandment?’ sadly, are not even on the emergent screen). But to emphasize the ongoing, daily, intimate nature of biblical fellowship and accountability.

We must remember, though, the church is totally unlike anything else in the world. Hence the New Testament name, ‘ekklesia’, or ‘called out ones’. It follows revealed patterns of government, it is ordered, and assessed in spiritual terms according to God’s own Word. So it is just fundamentally wrong to say that the ‘forms’ of the church (Burke calls them ‘programs’) are essentially human and outside biblical authority. Or that somehow the bible just gives general principles that we apply in a variety of programmatic ways and contexts. Of course this is true to an extent. To an extent…Nonetheless, Churches are not banks. Churches are not grocery stores. Churches are not like the muliplex. We must admit that there is a strong biblical priority for the church to be distinctly UNLIKE all of these man made, transitory, and earthly artifices. It is a community of the redeemed. Shame on the megachurch, seeker model to capitulate to these consumerist demands in the past 30-40 years. Shame on the church for becoming spiritual shopping malls and Super WalMarts. But shame on US if we simply react to these former models and create our own bastardized version of community. We are to react to all of these models by searching earnestly through God’s Word and finding the pattern, purpose, and nature of the church there.

Burke continues:

“But the church seems largely oblivious to this trend toward flexible, on-demand service in our culture. We still expect people to come to us, at our buildings, to do transactions with God or make deposits in their spiritual account.”

Now we are getting to the real problem I have with both the seeker and emergent models of ministry and ecclesiology. The church as I said above is the community of the redeemed. We are to be submitted to one another, we are to not think of ourselves more highly than we ought, we are to gather with one another at appointed times for the sake of worship (which is serving and glorifying God, not simply getting pagan butts in the seats, though I am all for pagan butts- wait, that came out wrong). Yes, I expect people- and by people I mean my brothers and sisters in Christ- to come to us, at our buildings, to do transactions with God (whatever Burke means by that). But we have turned the church- the called out ones- into a group of people that meet for the sake of unbelievers. And this being so, we MUST become marketeers or we will not fulfill this purpose. But if we meet as a body for the sake of worship, and live for the sake of unbelievers, that they might worship, then we will be back on a more healthy and biblical track.

It gets worse, I’m afraid:

“Imagine if people were encouraged to do their spiritual banking in ways that fit their lifestyle. They could watch some of the world’s best speakers on TiVo, DVDs, or download resources for their iPod, then gather in smaller groups to discuss and apply what they’ve heard. A church wouldn’t necessarily need its own teaching pastor on the payroll anymore, and people wouldn’t need to leave their community in search of better teaching.”

Oh boy… well, let me hear your thoughts on this last quote before I chime in later.

Earnest Contenders

I am often accused of being mean and contentious on this blog.

And for those of you who think so, go take a hike.

Hey! I'm kidding. All who know ole pastor Erik can attest that I am just a big teddy bear stuffed with love and joy.

But, suffer the teddy bear of love a couple of important points.

In the comment strand on my post 'Save the Human Embryos!' this was said in reference to the idea that Christians get sidetracked in pursuing righteousness by debating and fighting over this issue, doctrine, practice, etc. or that (Meagan, count yourself honored to get a whole blog post devoted to you! I don't mean to harp on you, but I thought this an important issue for us all to consider):

"His [Satan's] distraction is getting us to not really take action on anything because we're too busy arguing over the intricacies of it all."

Yes, we must heed the Scriptures to be gracious, patient, and loving in all of our interactions. We must not be contentious:

As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife.
-Proverbs 26:2
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness-indignation and wrath.
-Romans 2:8
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
-1 Timothy 6:3
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
-2 Timothy 2:24
Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.
-2 Timothy 2:14

We say amen and amen to these Scriptures.

Saying the amen to such warnings against endless striving, bickering, contending over words for the sake of contending, etc. and so forth - must NOT cause us to capitulate to the vain and invertebrate doctrine of 'tolerance' that is everywhere lauded in our age.

With specific regard to the nature of the embryo, and the current debate over embryonic stem cell research, 'taking action' is in fact 'arguing over the intricacies of it all'. The minute the debate steps up a notch, the stakes are increased, or the complexities of the argument deepen- the evangelical Christians put on a milktoast smile and ask us to all just love Jesus and get along.

But, the intricacies of the argument are exactly what must be discussed. And because life itself is at stake, we can expect the debate to be a bit heated, and for there to be a great struggle. At that point of struggle, let us be those who contend for truth and not shrink back.

Consider these Scriptures:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
-Jude 1:3

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
-2 Corinthians 10:5

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
-Titus 1:9

Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.
-2 Timothy 2:25-26

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
-2 Timothy 3:16 -17

It is the job of Christians to argue. It is the job of Christians to debate. It is the job of Christians to fight, struggle, and contend for truth. The world doesn't like it. The world never has. It won't make for comfortable dinner chit chat. It might cost you some friendships. It might not make you 'deacon of the year'.

But we must be about this business. Especially for those who innocently suffer when we remain silent for the sake of secular peace and feigned tolerance.

Blasphemous Billboards

Driving down the road this morning I saw another one of those billboards at a main intersection. You know the ones- black with white lettering. This one read,

Read my #1 best seller. There will be a test. -God

I've seen a bunch of these, here are some of the ones I can think of:

You think its hot here? -God

Don't make me come down there! -God

What part of 'Thou shalt not' didn't you understand? -God

I have a few issues with these billboards:

-They are not funny.

-Some nimcompoop (and I use that term with all due respect, and since little respect is due- well, you get it) is spending a lot of money on these things.

-Who is giving these people permission to speak for the rest of us thinking Christians?

-God has not said any of these things. So this person is not just speaking for God, but is putting words in God's mouth. This is a violation of the third commandment and a heinous sin.

-These billboards treat lightly some very important matters (the eternal destiny of the lost, the Law of God, the authority of His Word, His return with judgment) in order to make unbelievers think we are a bunch of slappy happy fun lovin characters (he he, isn't the perdition of the pagan under the wrath of God super funny?!) This is perverse. In actuality, I think most unbelievers are confirmed in their initial impression of us Christians when they see these billboards- that we are a bunch of petty fools.


God does indeed 'rest lightly' on the Church today. We treat His glory with contempt, his gospel like a slogan, His Word like a self help book. May he have mercy on us.

And, if you know who is funding these stupid billboards, please tell them to stop.

There. . . the venting session hath ceased.

For a moment. . .