Carl Shank Consulting

The Manhattan Declaration--What should we do?

2012-01-25T10:00:00.002-05:00

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 7:33 AM

Today I signed the "Manhattan Declaration." It is a declaration prepared by Chuck Colson and others who are not simply annoyed but frightened by the present Administration's limits on freedom of religion in this country. The latest attack has come on the Catholic Church in their stand against the use of contraceptives, requiring them to hire and promote contraception procedures at their hospitals and agencies. This is outright limitation of religious freedom. Even though we as evangelicals may have no qualms about this, Colson asks, "What and Who's next??"

For those who have been following national agendas and politics, there has been increasing limitation on religious liberty in this country. While odd sects and groups have often been targeted for their anti-American or even dangerous terrorist-type tactics, now religious persecution and limitations are being placed on mainline Christian and Judaeo-Christian groups, especially evangelical groups and causes. The fragmentation and demise of our moral values is being united with increasing attacks and open belligerence against foundational evangelical tenets and voices. The gay agenda is winning the day and is being openly promoted in our nation's schools and public places as allowable alternative, even normal, behavior and practice. Gay couples increasingly are given the same rights as traditional couples.

While this behavior and open hostility should surprise no one, I am concerned that evangelical Christians continue to either silently protest or ignore these salvos. We hide behind our first amendment rights, but the meaning and application of those rights are being whittled away day by day. Government interpretation and secular humanism and anti-Christian thought is gaining an upper hand.

So, what should we do? I would invite some critical and biblical thinking about this. Let me know your thoughts and perceptions.

The "Attractiveness" Factor in Church Growth

2011-10-07T15:19:00.000-04:00

In working with a number of churches, and observing my current church assignment, one persistent question has been that of "Why doesn't my church grow?" And, I am talking about visible, sustainable, numerical growth. Let's assume that many of the assumed church growth methods of multiplication have been attempted and used. While many would say this is a gratuitous assumption, I have experienced churches who could indeed say, "Yes, we have tried this and that, but to no avail." Many of these places have good-hearted, Christ-centered, well-intentioned and motivated people who have read and re-read books, articles and internet advice from sites such as those provided by Willow Creek and Rick Warren, to name only two. Many have held sustained prayer meetings and vigils, conducted prayer walks and overall satisfied the "spiritualist" counselor who would advise, "Just pray more." Many have worked at making their facilities and staffing top-notch, engaged at community initiatives and did what their mega-church counterparts have done, but only to result in little to no numerical growth.

So, what's the problem? I would boil it down to in-house attractiveness. Attractiveness is not a function of p;rogramming, of vigorous outreach events and initiatives, of well-qualified evangelistic staff. Attractiveness is a function of the church community. Not every church community attracts people seeking God or seeking a church home. And, I am not referring to dead-end places or churches so polarizingly narrow that people avoid like a plague. A church community can exude attractiveness or exclusiveness. Not that they are trying to be exclusive or to themselves. They simply exude an air, an atmosphere of "you are welcome to attend but beyond that, we don't know." Or, "yes, we want you here, so long as you can find a place to fit in." Or, "we will help you become like one of us."

Attractiveness is the quality of aggressive awareness of the new person with an attitude and atmosphere of, "we really want you here and to stay with us." It is an unspoken, unuttered quality of acceptance, of comfortableness with someone we don't know, of ease of integration into the church body. It is not that attractiveness is easier for larger congregations, or that they have a corner on it. They have learned as a church body how to exude attractiveness. They do it almost not thinking about themselves or their programming or opportunities. Smaller churches who are plateaued or even shrinking, not due to strife or factionalism or lack of dedication and zeal, have to really work on being attractive. It is like a large family adopting new family members. It is the single-cell becoming comfortable with a multi-cell life and experience. It is learning that diversity is good and healthy and desirable. Newcomers become "comfortable" in this kind of environment and want to stay.

Attractiveness is hard to teach and model. Many church health and growth people would say that leaders and key people of un-attractive churches need to visit "attractive" churches and learn from them. That is easier to say than to do. You cannot duplicate that church community or atmosphere and make it your own. You cannot import that atmosphere to your atmosphere. You cannot give five simple rules or a relationship equation that will work. So, what do churches that find themselves un-attractive do?

First, get rid of easy answers and formulas. They don't work. Don't expect an outsider to solve your insider problems. Don't expect another church model to work for you. Too many leaders and pastors I know have been "burned" by the latest-greatest church examples or models. Second, ask God what level of attractiveness He wants for your church. This statement is anathema to many church health experts, but I have found it biblical and true. Not every church is meant to be a Jerusalem or Antioch. There are small house churches and large megachurches. Both can be attractive. The smaller house-sized church has defined itself differently than the large megachurch. Third, look at the kind of people your church has attracted throughout its history. Work with that. While some churches can expand beyond their homogeneous character, many cannot. High brow Presbyterians cannot suddenly become low-brow churches filled with people from the projects. That is not a slam against my high-brow friends. Their identification-atmosphere is different than a lower, middle-class atmosphere.

People will disagree with this latter observation and try to make the case that all churches must be equally diverse, multi-faceted and heterogeneous. I have yet to see that work on a broad scale. Some have achieved this, but only some. A fourth factor will be to understand your attractiveness level. Many churches simply cannot, without major disruption and a major in-house cultural change, become all things to all people. Attractiveness level limits the size and scope of adherents. What is your level?

This is a blog. I would expect people who read it to disagree. Cool. Write on.

Rob Bell -- Who Wins in "Love Wins?"

2011-04-07T10:31:00.000-04:00

Numerous reviews and posts and interviews have been leveled for or against "Love Wins," a new hot-seller by Rob Bell (Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, HarperCollins, 2010), pastor of the megachurch, Mars Hill Bible Church, in Grand Rapids, MI. Interestingly, on the book jacket, no one less than Eugene Peterson says the book tells about the "comprehensive and eternal work of Christ . . . without a trace of soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction in its proclamation of the good news that is most truly for all." I guess he should have waited for the intense firestorm that has erupted in evangelical circles concerning the book. Reviewers have weighed in, and many, if not most, deem it controversial, heterodox, wanting theologically, linguistically, historically and philosophically. (Go to http://www.mlive.com/ news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/ rob_bell_book_reviews_roll_ in.html for a summary of viewpoints, and note especially Martin Bashir's interview on MSNBC). For a most thorough negative review, see Kevin DeYoung's "God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of 'Love Wins'." John Piper simply says, "Farewell, Rob Bell."

I actually think one of the most damaging reviews comes from Julie Clawson at Sojourners who writes, "Christianity isn’t about being right or wrong, it’s about living joyously and transformatively for Jesus — and this is a message we can all benefit from being reminded of." Wow! Now the Christian faith has no universal truths, no propositional revelation, no absolute standards. It's all about how we feel, how we live, how we make the world a better place. It's about US. Thank you, Julie Clawson!!

Unlike other reviewers who dive deeply into Bell's historical and theological wanderings, I want to give a few "overview" notes to readers. First, Rob Bell seems to be well-intentioned. He really cares about people and their journeys of faith and life. He cares about people who have gotten a terrible, misguided view of God and Christianity from past bad experiences or people. The problem, however, is with the approach. If we approach God and truths about God and His Word with people-stories, we will see God through the lens of those stories and through the fog of peoples' experiences, good or bad. Of course, Bell and others would say Jesus told stories all the time to communicate truths about God. But we are not Jesus, not divinely inspired, not equipped with a comprehensive view of truth to be able to extract absolute truths by using a few tales.

Second, to use "word studies" to definitively prove theological truth is tricky to say the least, and foolish to say the most. I know anti-Trinitarian writers who use word studies to show that the One God cannot be a Trinity. Thus, the entire orthodox Trinitarian declarations are wrong according to these studies. Word studies can be and have been used by sects, heretics and people of no faith to contravene Christianity. Linguists and semantic experts have warned about over-using word studies, as if the Bible were an atomistic collection of terms and words. Contextual studies must be used, and sad to say, Rob Bell fails to give such contextual and thorough study of the words for "heaven," "hell" and "love" itself. Simply amassing Bible verses where terms are used does not do the trick. And to the word "love," he assumes everyone knows what the phrase "God is love" means. That is pure presumption.

Third, such a book reveals Rob Bell's lack of respect and wisdom for orthodox formulations and tried-and-true exegetical studies. I had a seminary professor who warned us as fledgling pastors and students of the Scriptures to be VERY, VERY careful of publishing anything in the Christian field of studies, especially when our conclusions disagree with or disapprove of years and years of sound historical, theological and philosophical study of the Scriptures. Rob Bell has plunged in over his head--way over his head.

Fourth, and I add this note for my Calvinistic friends, Rob Bell's book will cause you either wild laughter or the constant no-no shaking of your head. Bell's foray into human freedom and how that interrelates with God's love is ludicrous. He assumes humans have complete, untarnished freedom to choose, reject, or wait to choose God and His love. He assumes unconditional freedom of the will. While many evangelicals have no problem with this, Calvinists have serious reservations. Further, he obviously dismisses unconditional sovereign election, the ravages of total depravity, limited or definite atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints. He has had problems in past writings with the sacrificial system of the atonement as well. Penal substitution and imputation have no room in Bell's musings. No wonder Piper dismisses Bell's book out of hand.

Fifth, I have problems with Bell's insistent questioning of foundational theological Scriptural formulations about heaven and hell. He dynamically interprets "hell" and maintains that hell is here and now for those who commit certain heinous sins and turn their back on humanity. So, here's my questions. If we forsake our humanness or humanity by rejecting God's love, do we become "less human?" What does it mean to be "less human?" Do we become sub-human? And what does that mean? Are we reduced to an evolutionary state of non-humanness? What may be "obvious" to Bell is not so obvious anymore, is it?

Sixth, Rob Bell claims he is not a universalist. And that is true in the historical sense and use of the term. However, his wanting to say that God's love wins in the end and that somehow all people will be loved by God forever begs the question. Other reviewers have ably and amply exploded Bell's wanting view of God and His attributes.

I feel sorry for Rob Bell. Sorry that he felt compelled to write such a book. Sorry for the sticking of his toes into very deep historical-theological and exegetical waters. Sorry that his place in the evangelical world is in question. And mostly sorry, that if he is wrong, he will stand before a holy, just and loving God and be held accountable for his deceiving thousands of people God has entrusted to his care (cf. James 3:1; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Our church and my ministry have used a number of his Nooma video productions, and I have mostly enjoyed his post-modern edgy books and messages. But there are serious problems with Love Wins.

Are We There Yet?

2011-03-11T15:12:00.000-05:00

"There are churches that make a difference, and there are churches (and ministries) that do not. To which do you belong?" These words have reverberated in my heart and mind ever since I heard them from E. V. Hill in the summer of 1988. And, I have sought to be part of ministries and churches that "make a difference." After 38 years in professional ministry as a senior pastor, executive pastor, discipleship pastor, evangelism pastor, youth pastor and small groups pastor, and 12 years as a church health consultant, I must say that I have yet to see the American church making any real, lasting, significant and kingdom-sized difference.

To be sure, there have been pockets of significance and individual churches who have made kingdom-sized differences, but out of the 360,000 or so North American churches, few have made these kind of differences. Yes, I will be cited as a killjoy and someone will whip out the "starfish illustration" (that saving even one starfish in a beach littered with them is important, at least to that one), but we have an American and Western culture going to hell, literally! And the church has mostly failed to engage, challenge, inform and change the value systems, thinking, presuppositions and lifestyle of most of secular culture. If we are not arguing with ourselves, we are attending conferences that don't translate into kingdom effectiveness at home, or we are attending prayer summits that make us feel good but produce little to no fruit.

Specifically, what are the problems? Why hasn't the church made a kingdom impact? Here are several causes I have seen. First, we have "compartmentalized Christians" in our churches. Christianity in many peoples' mindsets has been reduced to getting people "saved," that is, delivered from eternal punishment to eternal life with Christ. Consequently, salvation is seen as a portal to heaven with very little to do with earthly needs and realities, except maybe to escape them. In addition, many churchgoing people really do not have any idea of why they should or how to integrate their faith into everyday thinking and practice. No matter the multitude of Bible studies out there, the vast majority of Christians simply see little to no connection between their vocations or jobs and the Christian faith. The sad truth is most people get up on a Sunday to attend a church service or class not really expecting what they hear or discuss to vitally impact or change or challenge their Monday to Saturday lives. And, they would not know how to do so even if verbally challenged.

Second, churches have preached and taught a "narrowly focused" gospel message. Evangelicals have dipped their toe into social needs, but few have dived into the social morass of today's world. Sermons are either a popularized form of Christianity, Christian psychobabble, or, on the other extreme, a verse-by-verse carefully devised exposition or explanation of a Bible passage. The application of the truth is left mostly up to the minds and inventions of the hearer to figure out. And that is hardly ever done, and when it is, done badly. Visions and goals and mission statements are too narrowly conceived. Out-of-the-box thinking has not been encouraged and adopted.

Third, many Bible-based churches and ministries have a defensive, "against them" policy and rhetoric, with more emphasis on what we are against, rather than what we are for. So, Christians in the congregation know what not to do rather than what to do at work and play and in their schools and gatherings.

Fourth, many Christians are just plain lazy! Rigorous application and infusion of the faith to daily life and work is hard. New paradigms have to be formulated, tested, applied and used. Actual life-changing and life-challenging truth that their secular worlds have to face are not generally known or even available.

So, what to do? How can we tackle the kingdom-sized needs around us? First, we need to grow and migrate our theology to become kingdom-theology. "Salvation" needs to be seen as a whole-life faith-and-obedience to the resurrected Christ as Lord of heaven and earth--and our lives. Second, we need to develop kingdom-minded Christians in our churches. Instead of allowing people to make the same-old, same-old weekly trip to a compartmentalized faith experience, church must become the place where the focus is on how to help them make world-and-life Christian choices in their schools and jobs. We need Christian mathematicians teaching math teachers how to teach mathematics in a Christ-centered way. We need Christian counselors teaching people how to counsel others with the Word of God. We need Christian ecologists teaching farmers and gardeners Christ-centered ecological lifestyles and viewpoints. We need Christian political scientists teaching politicians and citizens how to think and act in Christ-centered ways in our political systems. In other words, churches need to become "equipping places" where Christians are equipped to live for Jesus Christ as Lord of their work, school and play.

And, we need to expect Christian men and women and students to actually follow through in making Christ Lord of their thoughts and lives, actions and desires, attitudes and frames of reference. Lack of expectation now fills our churches. Churchgoers are not accountable to anyone or anything in their daily and weekly lives. Small group accountability helps but does not often get to the root of peoples' lives. Lack of church discipline allows people to get away with Ephesus-like lovelessness, or Laodicean-like lukewarmness, or Sardis-like smugness and deadness.

Will we empty churches with this philosophy of ministry? I think not. I believe God's people want to live for Christ, but don't know how. They want to make a kingdom difference at work and school, but don't know how. They want to be accountable, God-centered citizens of the kingdom of God but don't know how. Let's show them how!

Farewell to a Powerful Christian Model

2011-03-07T16:26:00.000-05:00

A fond Christ-centered farewell to a beloved professor of mine from college days took place last Friday, Mar 4, at Second Presbyterian Church in Carlisle, PA. His name was Philip Lockhart, retired professor of classical languages from Dickinson College. A bit of his bio is included below.

Dr. Lockhart was one of my first Christian professorial contacts at Dickinson College in my freshman year there in 1965-66. I did not know he was a Christian at first, but found out about his love for Christ and for the biblical faith very quickly. With another student friend, I even took an introductory course on New Testament Greek with him--which my friend at the funeral reminded me about, since I had forgotten it. Amazing that now I teach an online introductory course to New Testament Greek!

Dr. Lockhart was much more to me than just a professor and adult friend. He helped stabilize my life as a freshman kid who was literally scared of college, and of a secular institution like Dickinson. I thought for sure I was going to be swallowed up by nonChristian, atheistic thought and that I would lose my faith moorings. He assured me that was not going to happen, and that I could relax and I would "grow up" in my college years to become a self-assured, stable Christian man who would be well-trained by the liberal arts. That really happened! My years at Dickinson were great years, and I look back with fond memories of my classes and professors (most of them anyway) and am thankful to God for the training, insights and help I received from them.

I was sitting at the memorial service on Friday praising God for such a positively oriented Christian professor and churchman. Dr Lockhart lived out his faith on a secular campus--and made friends doing it, as the testimonials showed. I would lke to die this way--by being a real light to Christians AND nonChristians by making the Christian faith a positive, enlivening, powerful witness and not a defensive and destructive one.

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

Philip N. Lockhart, emeritus Asbury J. Clarke Chair of Latin, died on February 20, 2011 at the Forest Park Health Center in Carlisle. Phil is survived by his wife, Elizabeth Ayer Lockhart, son, Dr. Bruce Lockhart, daughter, Betsy Wood, and her husband, Jeff Wood.

Phil, a native of Pennsylvania, earned his B.A. in English with honors, and Phi Beta Kappa distinction, from the University of Pennsylvania in 1950. After his undergraduate work, he received his M.A. in comparative literature from the University of North Carolina in 1951 and went on to receive his Ph.D. in classical languages and archaeology at Yale University in 1959.

Before joining the faculty at Dickinson in 1963, Phil was a missionary teacher at the Ezel Mission School in Kentucky and also taught at the University of Missouri, the Ohio State University and at the University of Pennsylvania. He was appointed the chair of the department of classical studies in 1965 and was appointed the Asbury J. Clarke Chair of Latin in 1971. After 27 years of teaching at Dickinson, Phil retired in 1990 at which time he was awarded professor emeritus of classical languages and emeritus Asbury J. Clarke Chair of Latin.

Phil was beloved by students across the years for his expertise, lively and challenging classroom, and his deep interest in his students. Under his tutelage the study of the classics at Dickinson grew and flourished. He established a curriculum founded on Greek and Latin majors and insisted that the study of Biblical Hebrew be included in the curriculum. This earned him quite a reputation in the field, and he was often invited as an outside evaluator and consultant for undergraduate classics programs across the country.

Phil received many awards and honors during his career including Honorable Mention by the Distinguished Teacher Award Committee of the National Association of Schools and Colleges of the United Methodist Church in 1974. He was also the first winner of the Constance and Rose Ganoe Memorial Award for inspirational teaching in 1969, which he promptly used to assist in establishing the John David Wright III Memorial Scholarship in Classical Studies. He went on to receive the Ganoe Award two additional times in 1973 and 1981, making him the only three-time winner of this student-voted prize.

While at Dickinson, Phil served on various committees and also served as Faculty Secretary in 1966-68. He often assisted in preparing the Latin wording for the honorary degrees that were given at Commencement every year as well as assisted with the planning of the Baccalaureate Ceremony. Phil also established the Philip N. Lockhart Book Prize in Classical Studies that is still awarded to an outstanding graduate majoring in classical studies today. In addition to these and many other commitments at Dickinson, he was president of the Philadelphia Classical Society and the Pennsylvania Classical Association, a member of the American Philological Association, a founding member of the South Central Pennsylvania Chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America, and served on evaluation teams for the Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction.

Phil was a member of the Second Presbyterian Church in Carlisle and served several terms as an elder as well as 40 years as a member of its Sanctuary Choir. Additionally, he taught in the community Sunday School teacher training programs and served on the Presbytery Committee on Christian Vocations and Candidate Review.

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

CHURCH STRATEGIES: A Bag of Chocolates or a Chocolatier?

2011-02-15T16:27:00.002-05:00

I read a very interesting article the other day by Gregg Mader in ImageSource magazine (Vol. 13, Feb. 2011). He was talking about successful business strategies versus struggling or unsuccessful strategies in the business world. He used the difference between an "off-the-shelf, mediocre product" and "a dedicated one-of-a-kind product that meets the individual tastes of their clientele" to point to why managed service providers are the most successful in the business world. The difference between a bag of chocolates and a chocolatier. His points: a program tailored to the client, based on what they know about the client, combined with expertise and creativity.

Churches that are "successful" are those who do similar things. They offer ministries and programs tailored to their target base of people. They work to really know to whom they are ministering and their audience's particular needs and points of interest. They offer programming with expertise and creativity. They are chocolatiers, not just providers of chocolate. Mader says, in the business world, "you have to invest in the client if you are going to truly be a value driven organization." Well, a similar thing can be said in the church world and the church marketplace.

O.K. Someone is bound to cry, "Dumbing down the gospel again!" "Just trying to please people rather than preach the whole counsel of God!" "Making the gospel message man-centered rather than God-centered!" The truth of the matter is that while some megachurches are a mile wide and an inch deep, many are seeking to offer a ministry that takes people from non-faith to fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ. And, the other side of that truth are churches barely surviving or just "getting along" that cry the loudest and offer little in way of teaching the "whole counsel" of God. They are like one-stringed guitars that play as if they have a full complement of strings. Whether it is a particular doctrinal hobby-horse, or a political-sociological point of view, or a specialty end-times philosophy, they claim to teach and preach the whole counsel of God but fall miserably short. Finally, I'm NOT writing from a megachurch, but a medium-sized church. So, with that out of way, let's look at "successful" churches from Mader's viewpoint.

First, they tailor their ministries to a target audience. Whether it is seniors, or young adults, or professionals, or blue-collar workers, or farmers, successful churches have a target and seek to hit it in their advertising, promotions, ministry programming and teaching and preaching. They preach the whole counsel of God couched in terms, language, and venues that meet their target audience. Churches that try to do "everything" or "be everything to everybody" fail. The old adage is that if you try to hit everything, you will miss it! Healthy and growing churches limit their target audience to "clients" they are gifted and equipped to reach. Is that a description of YOUR church? Are you a bag of chocolates or a chocolatier?!

Second, they work hard at really getting to KNOW their target base. They not only exegete the Bible but the culture as well. They understand what ethnographics is all about. They not only DO demographics; they study their client base to understand how they think, what makes them tick, how they respond to certain things, what kinds of music they listen to, how best to help them listen and learn. The VALUE their target or client base. They believe, as Hybels has taught, "people matter to God." And, if they matter to God, whatever our target, they must really matter to us. They value people and their needs. Is this a description of your church? Are you a bag of chocolates or a chocolatier?!

Third, they diligently labor at expertise and creativity. One of the most frustrating things about many churches and their programming is that they "make do." They put the wrong people in the wrong places at the wrong times and for the wrong reasons. They "get by" because they think, "Well, these are the folks God has given us, so we will use what we have and not complain." So people who can't sing, sing publicly (and usually too loudly and off-key). And the congregation takes it in stride because after all, it is the "best we can do." Teachers are mismatched with groups or classes because we "don't have enough of them." Care pastors are asked to do administration, and do so badly, because we "can't (or won't) afford" an administrator.

Successful churches take pains to discover, develop and use the gift-mix of their church population to do ministry with expertise and creativity. They work at not mismatching or misplacing people in ministry spots. They don't do a ministry if they don't have the gifting to do it well. They end a ministry if it has outlived its usefulness to the kingdom of God. They start ministries that better use and distribute their giftedness.

And, successful churches not only do the right things, but they do things right. They place excellence as a high priority and cultural value to their organization. Because God deserves our very best.

Mader is right--both in the business and church world. Is your church, your ministry, a bag of chocolates or a chocolatier?!

Beginning Critique of A New Paradigm for Organizational Theory

2010-12-16T11:56:00.000-05:00

Margaret Wheatley has written a fascinating book, Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (Berrett-Koehler, 2006), in which she employs insights from the "new" science (post-Newtonian physics and so forth) to posit organizational theory change. Using chaos theory and quantum physics as well as self-organizing living eco-system theory, she says that disequilibrium and chaos are good qualities that reveal creativity and organizational life and health. Organizations are unchanged, she believes, by applying mechanistic models that are outdated and don't work anyway. "There is no objective reality out there waiting to reveal its secrets. There are no recipes or formulas, no checklists or expert advice that describe 'reality.'" (p. 9) The earth itself, she posits, has an amazing ability to right itself, to "respond to change and disorder by reorganizing itself at a higher level of organization" (using a theory developed by Ilya Prigogine, p. 12). And, "ethical and moral questions are no longer fuzzy religious concepts but key elements in the relationship any organization has with colleagues, stakeholders and communities." (p. 14) Organizational vision and values may be "unseen but real forces that influence people's behavior" rather than the traditional "picture of a preferred future" produced by a "charismatic leader." (p. 15)

One of the recommendations for Wheatley's book came from a pastor in Canada who was very "encouraged that there is still reason to believe ardently in the great resilience of the human spirit to re-invent itself over and over again, whether we view it fractally or as the first signs of a dawning and long awaited millennium of harmony and happiness for everyone." I have just started reading through this book with my accountability partner. I am interested in new leadership initiatives and organizational theory as well as scientific insights given my background and training in mathematics, philosophy and logic. So this blog is about "first impressions."

First, I am encouraged that this "new" approach to leadership and organizational theory has jettisoned the old mechanistic materialistic science where the human, relational, and even faith elements were forbidden territory. Our old trust that "science [industrial, Newtonian science] has all the answers" has certainly failed us, and failed us miserably. We do live in an interdependent world, and there are forces that cannot be materialistically understood that affect everything. I do church organizational work, and the old paradigms of "adding" faith to organizational theories and structures are wanting. They do not work well, if at all, in many cases.

But I must reserve judgment here. Will this "new" science in organizational theory and life simply "replace" the old science, with all of its anti-faith restrictions? Will the foundational evolutional theory so infuse this new approach that God and faith have nothing to say to us about organizations? Will this simply be another trumping of the "new" realities of the new science over faith? It seems so at first sight.

Second, the internal earth replenishment theories that say the earth and its environment can handle chaos and simply rejuvenate itself without any outside force or help from a providential God places humankind or "mother earth" squarely as the "master or god" of this world. These relational "forces" between people can then be seen as mere evolutionary development of the human spirit, and we have the power, the knowledge and the ability to right a chaotic world by our own intelligence, wisdom and know-how. We don't need faith or God at all in this newly defined world order. That reasoning and perspective should trouble the Christian greatly.

Third, to suppose there are no universal truths or laws and that everything depends "on its context" defiantly goes against divine biblical revelation that says there is a Creator God who has pre-defined everything and orders this world and universe according to His unconditioned and unconditional will. Our "discoveries" are but the unveiling of truths given by God Himself to be found and unlocked for use by creaturely humankind. We don't "create" in these sense of "create out of nothing."

Fourth, the "forces" that Wheatley talks about existing between matter I see as the sustaining power of Jesus Christ as the One who "holds all things together" by His command and fiat (Colossians 1:17, where a very technical term is used). This is not swamp gas or ethereal evolutionary societal understanding or undefined particle forces. This is God-at-work.

I am happy that Wheatley is debunking the old science. What remains to be seen by Christians and people of faith is where she places our hope as we investigate the applications of the new science to leadership and organizational dynamics.

What Works in Church Growth

2010-11-18T16:12:00.000-05:00

In an interesting article by Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, he proposes that the reason why churches do not move out of the 100-300 attendance category is due to a lack of renewal--personal, relational, missional, cultural, and especially structural renewal. He also strongly maintains that to break out of this smaller attendance block requires "exponential thinking" (www.saddlebackresources.com/en-US/CampaignDirector/CampaignCentral /CampaignTraining/Pastor/PastorsIdeaExchange/Exponential+Thinking.htm) and a radical change in structure that involves championing small groups rather than the classic smaller church organizational structure.

The "exponential thinking" precept he rallies for is problematic for me. Of course, once that is said the charge of "little" faith comes creeping into the discussion. Little faith gets little results; great faith gets great results, he would say. Really?! What troubles me in particular is that he hangs the principle of exponential thinking on Bible verses that have little or nothing to do with church growth, church size, and ministry expansion. For instance, just because the Israelites "multiplied" in the desert (Ex. 1:7,12) does not imply God loves large numbers and desires everything to so multiply, especially church attendance!

The issue of "faith" comes up a number of times. The principle he draws from passages such as Matthew 9:29 is "according to your faith, it will be done to you." Thus great, expectant, out-of-the-box faith will produce astounding church growth results. And, he would say he has the stats to prove it and the testimonials to support it. I wonder if Jesus Himself would agree with Rick's use of these verses for numbers of people in church!

In my consulting with scores of smaller churches in the 100-300 range, especially in the northeast, I have found that men and women of significant faith and hope pastor these churches. I have found pastors that "believe God for great things" only to be faced year after year with churches that do not significantly grow, do not significantly change and people who remain content with where they are. It is too easy to blame the lack of growth on "little faith." And it, in fact, angers me that a megachurch pastor has the audacity to say so! No matter how many testimonials to the contrary.

So what does work in church growth? Here's the answer -- Nothing and anything! "Nothing" means that WE cannot make the church grow. No matter how many "40 Day" Campaigns and programs one has, there is never a "guarantee" for significant growth, or even little and lasting growth. GOD alone is the One who sovereignly gives or withholds church growth, no matter how much or even how little human effort is expended. While Rick pays lip service to this precept, it really is an overriding precept for any church leader and for any church. I have seen weak and below average pastors with very little programmatic savvy grow their churches, and I have seen very gifted and talented pastors set grand objectives and never see growth. GOD gives the increase, no matter how much seed we plant!

"Anything" means church growth does not in the end hang upon a well-tuned program or campaign or thrust. If we do a campaign and God grants growth we tend to think it was our hard work, sweat, tears, prayers and so forth that produced it. (Oh. come on! Sure it is!!) If we preach sermons that barely hang together, have administrative nightmares in church programming and yet love people and the church grows, we end up amazed. And, if the church really grows we are asked for our "secret." There is NO SECRET. "Anything" means God often uses weakness for His own glory and purposes.

So then, do we enmesh ourselves in passivity? Do we do nothing about church growth? Do we do away with all the campaigns? I'm not saying that at all. But before we get our heartbeat going on "exponential thinking" we need to understand that God and God alone will either bless the campaign, ignore the campaign, diminish the campaign, or go around the campaign to accomplish His objectives for His church, of which we are just "managers" for a season.

Moral Problems and High Profile Christian Leaders

2010-10-11T13:49:00.000-04:00

In the Atlanta area Bishop Eddie Long has recently been charged with sexual misconduct. Pastor of the burgeoning New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, reports of sexual misconduct and even wife abuse have surfaced. This is just the latest in a series of high profile Christian pastoral leaders succumbing to moral problems. Added to the Protestant problems have been a continuing issue of Roman Catholic priests committing and confessing to moral and sexual misconduct. This blog is not about Eddie Long or any particular pastor or priest. It IS about what happens in high profile Christian leadership and megachurches.

First, we should not be surprised or jaded by such revelations. It is assumed that pastors and priests are a notch "higher" on the moral ladder than others. Not true. Everyone is permeated by a sinful nature and gravitates toward sinful, God-defying or God-denying behavior. Everyone has a tendency and proneness to moral character flaws and transgressions--including church officials. Ordaining men and women doesn't grant them a moral "pass" from their nascent sinful nature and cast. Redemption by Jesus Christ doesn't free anyone totally from sinful tendencies and moral lapses. We still make choices, and many of those choices are not godly, not right and not pleasing to Jesus.

Second, we should not excuse moral failings of high profile pastors and priests. Just because we have a sinful nature does not give license to give in to that nature and commit sinful actions. Eddie Long's statement about his "not being perfect" does not cut any ice or give him a free pass. Choosing to sin, deciding to transgress is inexcusable and denies the grace of God in Christ in us as Christians.

Third, the old adage is unfortunately true--"absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some megachurch leaders do feel that somehow they are granted "extra latitude" from God because of their success and position. This is the result and price of power--in any field, any vocation, any job and any position. Adulation is a most difficult form of temptation, and many succumb to its tendencies to corrupt.

Fourth, EVERY public church official in EVERY position, no matter the amount of people he or she leads, can fail and stumble and fall into moral lapses and worse. I have worked in smaller to midsized churches all my life and have been on boards and committees investigating pastoral transgressions and moral problems. All churches of all sizes have similar problems to high profile megachurches. They simply do not get noticed as much or reported by the press.

Fifth, most congregations and especially megachurch congregations, have little to no idea of the personal and moral life of their leaders and pastors. No report is given on a regular basis to them. No accountability system is in place for many of them. And, sad to say, many "sheep" really act like sheep -- dumb, blind, and fiercely loyal no matter what. It is no surprise that Eddie Long's congregation stands behind him. Not all, of course, but many. Followers follow, without much critical examination or ongoing questions about their leaders. Otherwise they would not be there. They would have left long ago. The early church Bereans in the book of Acts were of "noble character" because "they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11) Where does that happen in church work today?? Not much and not often.

Sixth, EVERY pastoral leader of whatever church size and stature will one day stand before the Perfect Judge, Jesus Christ, and give an accounting of his or her actions and life vocation. Wrongs will be eternally righted. Judgments will be rightly given. Let all of us in those positions therefore serve with "fear and trembling" knowing that the Judge of all the earth will do right!!

A Christian Without Christianity?!

2010-08-12T21:46:00.004-04:00

Anne Rice, the famous author of Complete Vampire Chronicles (1993) and The Witching Hour (1993), has claimed to have made a personal faith turnaround more recently. Her profession of Christian faith is recorded in Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession (2010). She even rejoined the Catholic Church. So far, so good.

In July 2010, however, she formally announced her departure from "Christianity" because it is "quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and deservedly infamous." (See her Facebook postings, and The WiredWord, August 8, 2010 edition) She claims to have Christ as central to her life but eschews the Church (capital "C"). She says that "following Christ does not mean following his followers." She claims to be "an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God."

So, can a person be a Christian while denying Christianity? Obviously, people have already weighed in either with sympathy (Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity) or scorn (Timothy Merrill, pastor, member of WiredWord editorial team). This blog seeks to expand the discussion.

First, Anne Rice is not alone. There are a growing number of "Christians" who have forsaken the Church as an institution. This has been shown by The Barna Group in recent surveys (www.barna.org). People are tired of the hypocrisy, in-fighting, legalism, sillyness, structural denseness, apathy and so forth of many churches. As a church health consultant, I must say that I have seen my share of such things, and I am both embarrassed and ashamed of my fellow believers. Consequently, a growing number of both self-proclaimed and church-baptized "Christians" have forsaken churches, opting for a more personal expression of faith. So, her actions are not new.

Second, a person can be a Christian without the institutional trappings of Christianity. You can be a true believer even if you have never been baptized in a church, never celebrated Communion (The Lord's Supper) or participated in a regular worship service. You can be angry at a local church, a local pastor, local church politics and antics and still be a Christian. You can live alone on a mountaintop isolated from other Christians and still be a Christian.

IF, however, what we mean by the term "Christian" is one who personally, with his or her whole being, believes in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, has repented and confessed his or her sins, and is seeking to live as a Christ-follower according to the biblical mandate, then problems arise, don't they? If a Christian is not merely an emotional, subjectivistic person who "feels" close to Jesus, and he or she actually READS the Bible, one cannot get away from those passages that command Christians not to "give up meeting together" (namely "church") (Hebrews 10:25; cf. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). And, it doesn't help remonstrating that the modern church is corrupt, full of hypocrisy, has moral problems, argues with one another, and so forth, since all of these qualities were plainly evident in the early church and the early Christians. Thus, the New Testament letters of admonishment, rebuke, encouragement and censure.

Third, SAYING I am a Christian does not mean I REALLY AM a Christ-follower. Even Jesus Himself warned us of people who SAY they are Christians and will end up being rejected by Him at final judgment and accounting (Matthew 7:21ff). Plenty of so-called "Christians" are so in name only without the reality in life and walk. Obedience to the Lord and His commands still marks out the true follower of Jesus, the true disciple. We are so very careful of "judging" people who "say" they are Christians that we never confront them. I do not know Anne Rice, and even if I spoke with her and knew a bit about her journey I would not still know the reality and truthfulness of her faith except by her life and whether it evidenced obedience, submission, and reliance on the Scriptures.

Fourth, Anne Rice and others who take her stance miss or neglect or are ignorant of the ravages of sinfulness we humans, even Christian humans, carry around with us at all times. The old saying, 'Except for the grace of God, there go I" can be attested to by every single Christian who has ever lived on this earth. I sin daily in thought, word and deed, and my fellow believers daily sin likewise. What I and they need to do is daily turn from these sins, confess them, and seek by the grace of God and love of Jesus and power of the Holy Spirit to live more consistently, more godly and more closely aligned with the example of Jesus Christ. That doesn't come automatically or easily to sin-permeated beings.

Fifth, true Christians WANT a Christianity that is true. That's why I am a churchgoer, a pastor and a church consultant. I WANT churches to practice the love, grace, and power of Jesus. I want churches full of people with genuine love for one another and their world. I want local assemblies where faith is practiced, loved and kept pure and noble.

If Anne Rice really follows Jesus, so would she.

A Faith Journey! -- Preview Available

2010-03-16T10:15:00.002-04:00

A Faith Journey by Carl Shank

Aberrations in Belief and Practice

2010-02-17T18:37:00.000-05:00

Aberrations. The term comes from a Latin word meaning to "stray." Aberrations can be dangerous, even deadly, if you are driving a car down the road at 65 mph. Going off the road at that speed can be deadly. It's the same with beliefs and practices. I am a Christian minister, a pastor and church consultant who has seen and heard of aberrations in fellow ministers and churches. I received a call the other night about a church I once pastored which went through a number of aberrations resulting in dozens of people leaving. Then a few years ago, two pastors I knew left (the church word is "forsook") the faith and joined another religion altogether. What's going on? Why do aberrations happen in belief and practice? How can we be sure to "finish well" without going astray?

Temptation to be "novel." This is the first reason why people stray from tried and true faith and practices. We have a human, too often sinfully laden, itch to try new things and practice new venues. While this may be looked upon as exciting, stimulating, refreshing and so forth, in faith and practice, aberrations here can be deadly--eternally as well as right now. Humankind's earliest encounters, though novel, were deadly. Adam and Eve stepped out of the tried and true way of God, listened to the master of temptation, and plunged themselves and the human race into sin. This "hankering" may release creativity in us, which can be good and useful, but can also be evil and deadly. Jeremiah 6:16 tells us -- "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls."

Faith for "academic" exercise. The second reason for straying has to do with some theologians and other ministers I have known who have a bent for the academic, the heady, the studious way of viewing the Scripture and faith and practice. Don't misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with theological studies and rigorous study of the Bible. But there are groups of people who have no "faith-gates." That is, "anything goes" in the study and practice of the Word of God. So, for instance, the resurrection of Jesus becomes a myth, or a good story, or a religious encounter, but not true, historical fact. If we can find enough people who say that something "weird" is not weird, then it becomes normal and acceptable. Or, if we can find an obscure scholarly article or paper or book that differs greatly from a tried and true way of viewing and interpreting the Bible, the temptation to be novel and the sometimes itch to be "different" trumps what we may deeply know to be true and right.

So, what's the cure for aberrations? Several helps include: (1) know God as He has revealed himself in His Word and world. Not just know about God, or dabble with the knowledge of the divine, but deeply, really, personally and in a transformational sense, know Him who is your Creator and Redeemer. God will lead you into all truth. (2) Test all things. That's what the Bible says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Don't accept what may be out of the ordinary, tantalizing and different as true and right and healthy. God has placed "faith-guards" in the Bible to help us discern right from wrong and good from bad. (3) Be careful of headiness. Someone once commented that some Christians are "too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." Added to your study of the Bible and the faith, practice that faith deeply, rigorously and sincerely. Get around others who will help you do this. (4) Get someone you respect and trust off of whom to bounce your new ideas. Accountability partners are good not merely for lay people, but also for ministers and theologians. I have been kept from many bad paths by friends, co-workers and fellow ministers and theologians who have helped me stay on the straight and narrow.

Just some thoughts. Don't stray, but instead finish well!

Understanding Your Church's Culture Grid

2010-02-02T11:12:00.004-05:00

Brett Selby, Leadership Development Specialist for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma (www.lifeway.com) along with Eric Wann from Performance Advantage, Inc. (www.performanceadvantage.com) have provided some excellent thoughts and tools for assessing a church's culture. That's right--culture. Every church has a culture--a distinct, well-defined and often misunderstood way they go about thinking, perceiving and doing ministry. For instance, a church I attended in college had, and still has, a well-defined, doctrinally-centered, Calvinistic-oriented, Baptistic culture. To be part of that church, and especially to serve in the church, your understanding of the Bible and its doctrines had to be assessed and approved by church leadership. You had to "fit" their culture. Otherwise, though you could attend services, fellowship times, Sunday school classes, and so forth, you could not even think about vital participation without whole-hearted commitment to their culture of Reformed Baptistic orthodoxy.

As Eric Wann points out, "The three most important elements of culture are the people, the policies and procedures and the organization's value structure. Your people define the organization and communicate your culture to others outside the organization. Your policies and procedures provide the guidelines and structure of what can and should occur. Your values describe the behavioral playing field of your organization." He goes on to say that "it is always much easier to make a culture adjustment when an organization is small and growing. It becomes much more difficult, though not impossible, when an organization is large and the culture is fully ingrained."

Nothing is "wrong" with church culture, unless we are talking about anti-biblical models that violate clear Scriptural mandates and standards. Culture is culture. It is what it is. Failure to understand a church's culture can end up in the dismissal, sometimes sudden, as Selby points out, of a staff leader or even senior pastor. Churches operate out of a very foundational cultural sense of being. They can stand some conflict in competing personalities, differing ways of understanding the Bible (except in the above case), different dress styles and habits and so forth. What they cannot and will not stand for long is violation of their (sometimes unconscious) cultural preferences and conventions.

The Culture Grid above is an example of a church in the Northeast that I would say is more or less typical of many churches I have worked with as a consultant. This church's culture is people-oriented, inwardly driven, with an emphasis on fellowship and unity. Their structures reflect carefulness, orderliness and lack of risk-taking. No, they are not averse to SOME change, as long as it is well-defined, given enough process time, and doesn't upset too many people. But they greatly dislike high impact, flexible ministries that are highly risk-taking and focused on results. Unity among the people trumps outward, results-oriented, creative and innovative ways of doing ministry. While they TALK about sharing their faith, they choose safe, conservative ways of doing so or don't do it at all. The problem is not that Christians are disobedient or sinning against God and His command to "go and make disciples." They simply want to do so in a way that reflects and obeys their cultural norms and proclivities.

Yes, this is an "older" church with well-established boundaries, ministries, patterns and ways of thinking and doing. This is why many church growth people would say the solution for change is to avoid or ignore churches like this and instead plant new, younger churches that are open to change, flexibility and innovation. However, churches like that in the diagram are often then by-passed and dismissed in gospel work. I don't believe this severe dichotomy has to exist. In fact, churches like that described in my opening paragraph and like that in the diagram can serve God and the gospel well with the right kind of leadership, direction and care. Here's a few notes on culture and ministry effectiveness.

Resistance is futile! The words of the Borg to their conquered space foes (Star Trek Generation fans understand) echo in the halls of thousands churches to would-be change agents. Leaders that take a crusade-like attitude of conquering the culture are more than likely not only not to succeed, but to lose their ministry in that place. Books and articles that talk about "changing the culture" often miss this point. It is assumed that church culture can change. My experience tells me such change comes only through a wholesale change of congregants--and that takes generational change or a brand-new church work or a miracle-work from God that touches the very core and definition of church life. And, it's not a "generational" thing. The children of the churches cited in this blog have adopted the conventions of their parents and former, well-respected leaders. In fact, the children of the opening church example are even more severe in their doctrinal examination of potential church leaders and teachers! Pastors and ministry staff coming into a church culture situation need to get to know, really know, their cultural grid. The "getting-to-know-you" one year is often NOT enough time to understand and feel comfortable with that grid. And, if you are a directive, high change agent type of pastor, don't go to either of these cultures!! You will be always frustrated, always discouraged, and maybe always angry.

Not everything that should be done can be done. There is an unwritten "law of the lid" (a John Maxwell phrase) operative in every church culture. If we take a scale of 1 to 10, and 1 is "Our culture is an absolute and will not ever change" to 10 ("Our culture is highly flexible and always open to innovation and change") then in the above two examples their culture "adaptability" would be very low, say 3 or 4 at best. So, advancing the culture to a more flexible, innovative environment will only get to a 5 or 6 maybe. That is still far from a 9 or 10, and it will never be a 9 or 10. A pastor or church leader has to understand what a "5" or "6" culture looks and feels like and be satisfied with that scope of change and growth. If he or she wants an 8 or 9, then they had better go elsewhere to minister.

Remember C & N. No, not the TV network, but "Compromise" and "Network." Before the objections come, I'm not talking about biblical truth or absolutes here. Most of cultural conventions fall within the "gray" area of allowable practice biblically. Thus, a church that requires the pastor to use a certain translation of the Bible because "that is the pew Bible and everyone who attends carries that translation" is a cultural convention. (We might argue here about translations, but for the majority of biblical text, this is not a real problem among good translations.) To "force" a translation change smacks against the church culture, and is not really necessary. "Compromise" here is necessary. Perhaps in a number of years working with the church leadership and carefully and patiently explaining why a certain translation may be "better" will work, but the Word can still be proclaimed there.

"Networking" refers to getting to really know the stakeholders and church "old guard." And really love them and show them you care. The old adage, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care," is still true, especially in the cultures described above. There are a lot of breakfasts (very early in some church cultures!!), lunches, visits, social gatherings, hospital calls and caring events that pastors need to attend and be "happy" about. Again the motivation is NOT to change the church culture, but to love the people for Christ's sake.

Small gospel victories are still victories. What I mean here is that God sovereignly distributes spiritual gifts, talents and churches in His harvest field. Not all of them will reap great numerical or "marketable" results. Not many of them will be published in books and magazine articles. Not many of them will conduct "training" conferences for other churches and ministries. And much of this may be due to the church culture. The first church cited above ministers to a very small slice of Christendom. The second example church does not attract many high energy, directive leader-types. Their cultures limit the type of people they attract, and the kind of programs and ministries they do. God is pleased if a two-talent church doubles to four and not to ten!

Working with your church's culture grid and within that grid is the key to successful and satisfying, God-honoring ministry. You may access a free Church Culture Assessment (4 page PDF 73KB), courtesy Brett Selby and LifeWay.

How To Grow Spiritually

2010-01-15T17:25:00.011-05:00

How does a seeker after God, after Jesus Christ, and the life of faith actually GROW? I'm not talking about an "automatic" procedure whereby we enter a "cup" of verses, add a spoonful of commentary or our Daily Bread, and then mix in a brief prayer, stir it all together and . . . poof!-- we somehow grow. Actually, hundreds or maybe thousands of Christians do this everyday or every other day and get weary of the regimen because they see no life-change. You may be one of these folks waiting and waiting for that one day you will wake up and be "mature."

I'm also not talking about a legalistic study routine, where we set aside x-amount of minutes, or even hours, spend a lot of time looking up terms and concepts, pour over commentaries and say our prayers, hoping again that God will somehow make the "work" work! This type of regimen does become laborious and fruitless after a while. Very little progress in the faith results. If you are one of these very tired people, you know what I mean.

Let's back up a bit and see what the Barna Associates team said about spiritual growth and maturity in their May 2009 survey. They noted (1) a strong majority (81%) of self-proclaimed Christians believe spiritual maturity is just "following the rules;" (2) most churchgoers (50%) are not clear as to what their church expects in terms of spiritual maturity; (3) most Christians offer shallow, one-dimensional views of personal spiritual maturity; and, (4) most pastors in America struggle with what spiritual maturity should look like. Interestingly, 90% of those pastors claim that such maturity is a national problem--except in THEIR church! (If this is enigmatic to you, join the crowd!)

In addition to this dire national problem of spiritual immaturity and illiteracy, many Christians track spiritual maturity using WRONG categories. Thus, Bob Logan and Tom Clegg* noted that spiritual maturity typically is measured by tenure (how long someone has known the Lord), education (perceived knowledge of the Bible), presence (attendance at church and ministry activities), busyness (participation in programs), compliance (agreement with the pastor or leaders), variety (more and different experiences), giftedness (ability to perform), and contribution (how much they tithe or financially give). Instead, the Bible measures spiritual maturity as hating evil (Prov. 8:13), loving the unlovely (cf. 1 Peter 2 & 3), sharing Jesus with others (Matt. 28:18-20; Col. 4:5,6), teachability (1 Tim. 3:2), patience and forbearance (Eph. 4:2; Phil. 2), peaceability (Mat. 5:9), contentment (Phil. 4:6,7, 11, 12), simplicity (Rom. 13:8-14), and joyfulness (Gal. 5:22). Or, just list the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-24, or follow the Beatitudes in Matthew 5.

So here's what I believe really gets us growing toward spiritual maturity. First, don't trust your own assessment! Most of us dislike honest, deep and revealing character assessments from others. Even from our closest friends. Why? Simply because we are selfish, self-motivated and self-centered most of our lives. Yes, that's right--and our pious attempts to say otherwise betrays our true natures. Few of us are really God-centered. Few of us are really selflessly concerned about others. Thus, the first thing we need to really grow is self-awareness given by someone(s) we really and deeply trust has our best and God's interest at heart. This person may not SEEM like a friend. He or she may actually be quite severe on us and our character qualities. But we know the truth when God speaks through that person into our lives. Such an assessment needs done often, rigorously and carefully. Find a spiritual assessor if you really want to grow spiritually.

Second, throw away your "Morning with God" books, pamphlets, tapes, CDs, DVDs and so forth. If you have not graduated beyond these "helps," you will never spiritually grow or mature. The old Puritans understood that maturity takes patient, God-seeking, in-depth pouring over the words of Scripture to hear God speak. This is not primarily an experience, though it may have experiential marks. Weeping, laughing, a feeling of exhilaration and so forth may or may not happen, and if they do, growth is NOT in the experience but what comes THROUGH the experience. Spiritual growth is much deeper than our subjective experiences. When we begin to see more of God than of us, more of what He says and wills and wants, and less what we think He wants, then we are growing spiritually. Consequently, Scripture reading may be limited to a passage, a verse, a word--until God burns His truth into the depths of our minds, hearts, bodies and souls. Yes, you may need to do an in-depth word or passage study, using the tools you have learned up to now. But never mistake the tools and the study for the growth.

Third, forget the pablum in our Christian bookstores and search out and read the spiritual biographies of men and women of faith a century or more ago. Their stories of in-depth searching, praying, studying the Word, life practices and so forth will give you a taste of what spiritual growth looks like. I personally like the old Puritans and their descendants, people like Horatius Bonar, Robert Murray McCheyne, Thomas Brooks, Octavious Winslow, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon and so forth. Many readers of this blog have no idea who these men are, but they have drunk deeply of God's well of spiritual riches and have understood spiritual maturity.

John Wesley gave four questions for weekly small groups that probe the spiritual depths of our being: (1) What known sins have you committed since we last met? If there is such, what shall we do about it?; (2) What temptations have you faced?; (3) How were you delivered from these temptations?; (4) What have you thought, said or done of which you are uncertain whether it was a sin or not? Additionally, he gave a scheme of self-examination asking oneself such questions as, Have I prayed with fervor?, All the time I am engaged in exterior work in private?, Have I at the beginning of every prayer or paragraph owned I cannot pray?, and so on and so on. Spiritual growth flows out of spiritual depth. And spiritual depth comes from shamelessly seeking God to examine, probe, transform and make us into the likeness of Jesus Christ in our deepest being.

Fourth, track your spiritual fruitfulness on a monthly basis. Are you more loving, more gentle, more self-controlled, more joyful and so on this month than last. How do you know? (Remember the first point!) Has God shown Himself to you more glorious, more awesome, more loving, more faithful this month than last? How so? In what ways? Do you sense God in worship more "closely" (an old Puritan word)? Do you increasingly find Him as your "all in all?" Is your expectancy of heaven increasing? Is your prayer life deepening, expanding, growing? Are you praying less words but praying more powerfully?

These are a few hints. There are more but this is enough to chew on for now. Let me know what you think.

*Robert Logan & Thomas Clegg, Releasing Your Church's Potential, ChurchSmart Resources, 1998.

"We've Never Done It That Way Before!" (Value Change in A Church)

2009-12-22T15:47:00.001-05:00

The famous "seven last words" (actually eight!) of a church or a ministry are: "We've Never Done It That Way Before!" Changing the way a group, especially a church, does things requires immense fortitude, patience and skill. These three qualities operate in tandem, and they are systemic to value-change in a group of people. The older and more redundant the church, the greater resistance to and less buy-in there will be toward change. How, then, does a pastor or leader move forward with needed change in a church context? How do we transform the value-systems of people so that they want and value good change?

A lot, of course, has been written on the subject. John Kotter in his book, Leading Change, has outlined a number of helpful items about changing a church. Yet, I find that many pastors and church leaders read the materials, yet fail or refuse to make needed changes. I have seen successful change transitions as well as plenty of bad change transitions. I have seen congregations applaud changes, and I have seen congregations fire the pastor or church leader because of the changes. What is NOT said, or at least not said enough, in the books is on what this blog focuses.

First, agree to live with the PAIN of change. Sociologists and psychologists have pointed out that a major change produces shock or disorientation in our lives. Thinking may shut down for a while. People huddle together, looking for reassurance and information. Fellowship becomes defensive, restrictive and guarded. Anger, sadness and fear become major players in the change process. Sorry to say this, but many pastors simply do not do well with these waves of emotional instability among the people of their church. Additionally, most pastors want to be loving, kind, and well-liked. If a pastor or church leader cannot handle the wealth of conflicting emotions within the people as well as within himself or herself, do not attempt to change! Someone else may need to carry the ball, or the next pastor will have to handle it. I've seen enough broken-hearted, emotionally spent church leaders and pastors who have tried to walk their congregations through change, only to end up in serious depression, and even quitting the ministry.

Second, the change or changes must really, really, really be needed! What you or I perceive as needed change is often flawed, short-sighted, or outside of God's plan or God's timing. Yes, I know we leaders pray and seek God's face. Yes, I know we want the "best" for our churches or organizations, but too often we end up substituting OUR will and wants for God's will and desires. Very few of us hear clearly from God--and that is the problem. We are adept at taking what other churches have done and seeking to import some of these "neat" things to our church or organization. We get the approval from a denominational official or a pastor-friend in a much larger church down the street or across the country. What we miss in the translation of all of this "neat" stuff is GOD'S will and desires for HIS church in OUR place and time. Be honest--how many of your perceived "needed" changes are REALLY directly from God for YOU or YOUR church? They may be great for someone else at another place in God's vineyard, but they are not really for you.

How do you know when God has spoken clearly? The classic Christian answer is three-fold: (1) Does the written Word of God prescribe or imply it? (2) Do mature Christians around you affirm or validate it? (3) Does your inner sense and witness match up with Points 1 and 2? How much of YOU is in the way to really hearing GOD?

Third, carefully develop ownership from the leaders the congregation trust. Whether these are elders, deacons, church board members, leadership team or staff, they need to own the changes. I firmly believe not nearly enough time and energy is given to this factor of ownership. Compliance is NOT ownership. Agreement is NOT ownership. A majority vote is not ownership. Ownership is a matter of the mind, heart and being of a person or group. Other respected congregational leaders need to feel, sense, believe in and want to move through the changes, even if they mean losing some of their best congregational friends.

Ownership is slowly and carefully developed over a time-period (determined by God, by the way) of prayer, of talking, of sharing, of debating, of listening, of maybe gaining some weight due to the number of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners out telling people about the needed change or changes.

Fourth, agree to COMPROMISE what you see as needed for what you will GET from the people. Much church change is not black-or-white, as we all know. Changes come in varying shades of gray. So, you may not get the brand-new, multimillion dollar worship complex you believe is needed, and maybe justly is. You may get a renovation project that costs much less with some creative ways to handle the growing numbers of people. This failure to compromise has led to many unnecessary pastoral resignations. The renovation project, in time, may birth the multimillion dollar addition or center. The timing is up to God, anyway, and the people need to own the project and see for themselves that a new worship center is really needed.

Fifth, do a value-transformation developmental chart for the change to take place. An example. VALUE: We value excellence in worship team participation. REALITY: We use all kinds of willing volunteers of differing abilities and gifts and levels of involvement and participation. A developmental chart outlines a series of steps to get from the REALITY to the VALUE. So, in the case of needing an excellence-driven, Spirit-filled, dynamic worship team go from --

(1) Willing volunteers–to-(2) committed volunteers–to–(3) gifted, committed volunteers–to–(4) excellent, gifted, committed participants.

At each "stage" there are "trade-offs." Thus, from "willing volunteers" to "committed volunteers" the trade off is numbers of people involved in worship teams. I may have to work with a limited amount of people for a while until the value of "commitment" takes root in those interested in worship team involvement. I also have to deal with anger and frustration of people. I have to somehow show that while EVERYONE is valued in the church, NOT everyone can lead singing to God's glory and for upbuilding and witness. I may have to move a willing "terrible" singer to a venue in the church that isn't so demanding of excellence, so he/she could sing for a children's class or activity rather than the main Sunday worship. So, the key is to maintain a sense of unity and togetherness while moving forward. This is not always easy or so transparent.

Trade-offs in moving from "committed volunteers" to "gifted, committed volunteers" would be that I need not only commitment but people actually gifted in musical abilities (vocal/instrumental) who can get the team to "excellence." Thus, adding "auditions" for worship team participation becomes part of the process. I am looking at this stage for a gift-mix that fits my team(s) and that spiritually moves people toward God. The old standby: Chemistry, Character, Competence comes into play.

"Excellence" comes about as the church community begins to "expect" a certain level or standard of Sunday morning worship and participation up-front. Just as they expect a decently crafted, biblically based sermon, that makes sense and has some application to their lives, so they begin to desire and expect singers and instrumentalists filled with the Spirit who help them glorify God and lift Him up.

Most of the time I find that pastors and staff simply do not objectify the steps in culture change or transformation. It's just a muddle they hope to somehow get through or that God would miraculously intervene and make it all work out. This is the hard, nitty gritty work of planning and re-planning and visiting and re-visiting our process.

It's like computer programming. One step leads to another and another until the program is built. Missing steps mean the program will not work. So you have to plan, plan, plan and debug, debug and debug to get it right. It takes a lot of PATIENCE and time commitment from the leadership to make this process work. Thus, at our church, for instance, many people are content with "willing volunteers" who have some giftedness, but are sketchy at commitment. The concept of "excellence" has been rejected out-of-hand by many since that is what they see and know from the mega-church two miles away. Of course, "we don't want to be like THAT CHURCH!!!" in the thinking of many people. Thus, it takes courage and much time to move from one stage to another.

Such change takes a man or woman of God who is satisfied with God's timetable, God's way of working with and in his or her people, and God's adding new people to that staid body who will help provide congregational ownership.

Enculturation of the Church 2009>>

2009-11-03T16:16:00.000-05:00

Has the church in North America and the Western world been "enculturated?" Wikipedia defines "enculturation" as "the process by which a person [or institution] learns the requirements of the culture by which he or she is surrounded, and acquires values and behaviors that are appropriate or necessary in that culture . . . If successful, enculturation results in competence in the language, values and rituals of the culture."

The issue that I wish to raise in this blog is that I believe in general that the North American church has indeed been enculturated. Instead of successfully responding to the secularization and desensitization of moral values around us, we have become people only a "little bit better" than the worldings around us. Oh--excuse me--we should say the "pre-Christians" around us, as if they just need a bit more Christianization to become full-fledged members of our post-modern church fellowships. We have become so intent on dumbing down the church so that we are "seeker sensitive" or "seeker targeted" that we have lost the church! In larger churches, the Sunday morning service is a "show" to watch. Lest church worship leaders and others object, that's what my wife's fellow workers call their megachurch experience on Saturday night--a "show."

While many may say this is just another killjoy naysayer who has an axe to grind, the questions and claim I raise in this blog remain. Where ARE the "fully devoted followers of Christ" (a la Willow Creek's vision) that churches tout as the endpoint of their vision??! Where ARE the "disciples" that Jesus demanded in the Great Commission of Matthew 28? Where ARE the in-depth Christians able to take on this world order intellectually, culturally and powerfully? Where ARE the anointed, Spirit-filled, visibly gifted individuals whose presence carries the "aroma" of Christ to a needy and lost world (2 Corinthians 2)?

I predict that many, if not most, evangelical churches in North America will cave in to homosexuality as an "allowable" lifestyle in the near future. They will do so, not out of strenuous biblical research and exposition, but out of a need to "identify" with them in our church fellowships. Just like many accept young couples "living together" as "allowable" if not preferred. And, to those who say that we need to "accept them where they are so as to lead them to become what God wants them to be," where is the evidence that most of them have in fact become "what God wants them to be??"

Evangelical Christians are blamed for many things and many attitudes--narrow, bigoted, right-wingers, hate-mongers, and so forth. What ever happened to the first century sneer--"They're Christ-followers?!" My desire is for the Church to BE THE CHURCH!--not a shadow of what Christ died and rose again for, but a vibrant, powerful force with which to be reckoned. Isn't that what God wants after all is said and done?

Do we need a weekly sermon in church?

2009-08-22T15:19:00.009-04:00

Another way to ask this question, "Do we need a single person, usually a trained minister, to regularly preach, on a weekly basis, to a congregation?" In the recent issue of Searching Together (Word of Life Church, PO Box 377, Taylors Falls, MN 55084), a Christian magazine edited by a friend of mine, a case is made by David Norrington (author of To Preach or Not to Preach, Paternoster Press, 1996) against having a regular weekly sermon by a single person, usually a minister, as the "norm" of church practice. Instead of such a regularly defined and proscribed practice, the author would vote for a more "dialogical," whole-body, or congregational style of learning together. He believes that the basis for the "sermon" being the main attraction for a Sunday service has no clear New Testament support, nor was it the norm for church gatherings for the first two centuries. Along with the institutionalism of the church came the single paid minister preaching a Sunday-by-Sunday sermon to passive numbers of people.

In this issue of Searching Together, Norrington takes on his reviewers (15 of them), who were greatly negative. Since this discussion took place in Great Britain, little North American church press has been given to the matter. Such British notables in the Christian academic and church world as Ian Stackhouse, J.F. Dunn, Andrew Davies and such magazines as The Banner of Truth and Reformed Theological Journal have given mostly negative and critical reviews. The weekly sermon has become a staple for churchgoers for a long time, and certainly since the Reformation for the Protestant church. This sermon is usually preached by the stated, regular, paid minister of a local church. While guest speakers and so forth may occupy the pulpit the FORM is a one-way, information directed, message given by a single person to a group of people, who are usually passive during the message.

Norrington's view has been criticized as a man who has an axe to grind against expository preaching. His response has been to say that no one has dealt with the New Testament and early church evidence he gives. His thesis is that "in the early church meetings, we see a practical outworking of the priesthood of all believers in which every member contributes freely, maturing and developing gifts and skills to be used for the benefit of all both within and without the meeting (1 Cor. 14:23-40). This paradigm is evident everywhere in the NT (cf. Heb. 3:13; 10:24-25; 1 Pet. 4:7-11). Indeed, the NT provides no other pattern. The notion that these gatherings regularly featured just one speaker and a passive audience is, as E. Schweitzer observes, 'completely foreign to the New Testament." (p. 52 of his book)

Sounds like an Anabaptist diatribe against the institutional church, doesn't it? Norrington is not, however, an Anabaptist, and the Word of Life Church is not a traditional, Anabaptist church in the Mennonite or Amish tradition. As a matter of fact, this magazine has heralded writers from the Reformed or Calvinistic camp many times. But, true to form, Norrington fits this church's belief that the true church is like a house-church with a more open-ended, community-led dialogue and interpretation of Scripture than the average evangelical church practices in North America.

There are many points for me to make. First, Norrington and a number of other evangelical writers have pointed to the tragedy of the typical Protestant institutional church today. Although there are some sterling exceptions, for the most part it is weak, irrelevant, ignored by the unChristian world, and mostly concerned for itself and its own theology and traditions. And I say this as a churchman and minister for over 30 years! Norrington's addition to the criticism of the institutional church is not surprising or earth shattering.

Second, I fully believe and teach a "gifts-oriented" church ministry. I believe, practice and promote a full-orbed, priesthood of all believers, one-body-with-many-necessary-parts type of ministry. I consult with a number of churches and ministers across a wide variety of denominations, and having a "gifts-oriented" ministry is a necessary part of a healthy, growing church. This is not new either.

Third, if the practice of a single Sunday morning sermon actually helps, rather than hinders, corporate involvement and ministry, what is the practical problem with it? Norrington, again along with many others, believes that such a monologue type of teaching is mostly ineffective. Current teaching theory and group psychology would agree with his premise. But theological and biblical illiteracy is rampant, and the declarative form of teaching is still an accepted way to communicate information. Sure, maybe it's not the best "group-learning" method out there, but it is compact, reproducible and has a place in the overall learning scheme. I would be careful not to "throw out the baby with the bath water" here.

Fourth, the desire and drive to "get back" to the New Testament church form and function is a frustratingly fruitless enterprise. And, I don't believe it is possible. What is possible and mandated is to teach and apply the universal principles from the New Testament and the whole Bible to modern people, times and circumstances. It is the Word of God that is binding, not the forms around which that Word functioned. There is a difference between "form" and "function" to be applied here.

Fifth, let's revitalize and revolutionalize the Sunday sermon! Preachers need to learn to be better spokespeople for the Gospel of Christ. People in the pew need to take more of an active role and part in the Sunday services and communication of the Word of God. Principles of group learning need to be studied and applied at the local congregational level. More and more people would agree with these assertions and suggestions. The Sunday sermon then still has a place, maybe not a New Testament mandated bibically required place, but a place nonetheless in communicating the Word of God today and in the future.

Too Old To Minister??

2009-07-17T11:32:00.002-04:00

There is a disturbing trend developing in church and parachurch ministry. That trend is to get rid of "older" pastors, missionaries, workers and replace or substitute them with younger, more "up-to-date" ministers, pastors and church leaders. Lest the reader think I am making this up I have personally spoken to missionary friends and other church leaders and ministers and am finding this to be the case in their lives or ministries.

What is particularly disturbing is that this trend is anti-biblical and simply foolish. The Scriptures exhort us to respect and honor our elders in the faith (Deut. 32:7; 1 Tim. 5:1; Titus 2:2; 1 Pet. 5:5; Heb. 13:7) and their wisdom and years of experience are invaluable to younger leaders and ministers. To be forced out of service at age 65 is not only tragic, but also unwarranted, if the person is fit and able to serve and has kept up on ministry trends, needs and concerns.

All of us have heard stories or experienced older church and ministry leaders that were physically or emotionally unable to effectively continue in ministry. We also know older folks who have not kept up on the times and are unable to appropriately apply the Scriptures to our generation. I am not referring to the obvious. Men or women leaders in their 60s or even 70s should not be summarily dismissed due solely to their age, nor should we suppose that younger leaders are more skilled or equipped simply because they are younger.

I do believe in "age-appropriate" ministry. Thus, a 65 or 70 year old pastor probably cannot effectively attract and minister to twenty-somethings. On the other hand, there are older university professors and people in other professions where their age is an asset to younger people. Why can't this be the case for the church?

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace" -- Perseverance of the Saints

2009-06-11T16:20:00.006-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 10)

This is a final blog in the series entitled the "doctrines of grace." In historical terms, this is the "P" in "TULIP" -- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and now, Perseverance of the saints. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts this final category this way: "They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace: but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved." (Ch. XIX, Sec. 1) Not only are the elect redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit, but they are also kept by the power of God. Nothing can or will separate them from the unchangeable love of God. They are assured of heaven.

What This Does Not Mean

"Perseverance of the saints" does not mean or imply that anyone who ever "professed" faith in Christ will be eternally saved, or is guaranteed a home in heaven. Many make professions of faith that are spurious, temporary or emotional, but not really transformational. True believers do fall into temptations, doubts, fears, may commit grievous sins, but they do not thereby lose their salvation in Christ.

This also does not mean or imply the popular teaching of "once-saved, always-saved." This is not "eternal security" as is popularly understood. That is why the confessional writers were determined to define those who endure to the end as people who are "effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit." The popular teaching of eternal security is often built on the faulty premise of PROFESSION of faith rather than REALITY of faith. Only those REALLY saved are eternally secure.

This teaching does not imply the popular misconception that once a decision is made for Christ a person can then live any way he or she so pleases, and does not need to pursue holiness of life and thought. That is a characterization that is false and misleading. Perseverance of the saints means those who believe will indeed and in fact persevere until the end. Their lives will reflect Jesus Christ. True believers persevere as they are preserved by God.

Biblical Basis

God's people are granted eternal life the moment they truly repent of their sins and trust Christ as their only Savior and Lord. God's love cannot be taken from them (Isaiah 43:1-3; 54:10; John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35-40). Jesus said of his sheep that "they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27-30). Jesus prayed for all believers that His Father "keep them from the evil one" (John 17:11ff). "There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1). In the Golden Chain of Redemption, those who are foreknown are those who are predestined, called, justified and will finally be glorified (Romans 8:29, 30). The great assurance given to true believers is that "nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:35-39).

The beauty of the doctrines of grace is that they systematically and systemically look at a believer's life before God. While the Remonstrants (see previous blogs) wanted to herald a more Pelagian system of thought, the Synod of Dort and others upheld the orthodox faith of the Scriptures. This very compact system of thought in referencing our relationship with God gives a full-orbed and God-centered approach that no other doctrinal system gives. Once truly understood, it is beautiful, satisfying, and most importantly, gives God all the glory.

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace" -- Irresistible Grace

2009-05-29T14:34:00.003-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 9)

Where is the Holy Spirit in this system of theology? True to its Calvinistic formulation, the work of the Spirit is to "efficaciously" call the elect sinner from his or her sinful darkness to faith and life in Christ. The Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those whom God the Father has called to faith. He applies saving power and transformation to effectually save all of the elect of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith states it this way: "All those whom God has predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ . . ." (Chapter X, Section 1). "Effectual" is an older word which indicates two things: (1) the Spirit's work in the sinner's heart and life cannot be thwarted or refused; and, (2) the Spirit never fails to bring these sinners to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Biblical Basis

It is a fundamental Scriptural truth that without God the Holy Spirit and His work in our lives, salvation and the benefits of Christian faith cannot be ours. Children of God are those "led by the Spirit of God" (Romans 8:14). Salvation is "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11). Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again (or from above)" (John 3:3) We are not saved by our deeds or good intentions but "by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). The Holy Spirit makes sinners whom He draws "new creation" (2 Corinthians 5:17, 18; cf. Galatians 6:15; Ezekiel 36:26, 27). The Holy Spirit is the operative source of saving and sanctifying faith.

While the gospel invitation is given to all without distinction, only those specifically "called" by God Himself can and will come to faith. "Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those he called he also justified . . ." (Romans 8:30). The "call" of God is particular (Galatians 1:15, 16; Ephesians 4:4; Hebrews 9:15; Jude 1; 1 Peter 2:9) and not everyone is "called" in this divine and effectual sense. "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy" (Romans 9:16). "As many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

The "irresistible" part of this truth flows from the fact that " all that the Father gives me will come to me . . . No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . ." (John 6:37ff) God's word and work in a person's life cannot falter or fail. An illustration is often given of Jesus "calling" Lazarus from death to life. Just as Jesus spoke life to his body, so Jesus speaks life to our spiritual bodies, with the immediate and effectual result that we "come forth" from death to life (cf. John 11:43).

Solving the Problems

Again, many have problems with such a teaching. The first is its "discriminatory" nature. If not everyone is given a chance to accept or reject Jesus Christ, then we are but puppets. Our free will is violated, many would say. This objection has been dealt with in the preceding blogs on this subject. And, everyone HAS been given a chance through our progenitor, Adam, and IS given a chance through the call of the gospel to "all who will believe." The "catch" is that only those given the ability or power to believe from God actually believe!

The second has to do with the "irresistibility" of the work of the Holy Spirit to come to faith. Can't we, in fact, "resist" the Spirit (cf. Acts 7:51) The Westminster Confession says that all those effectually drawn by the Spirit to Christ "come most freely, being made willing by his grace." WE still responsibly choose to come to Christ for eternal life, yet the "drawing force" is God the Holy Spirit enlightening, changing, transforming and moving us to Christ. The other way to look at this is to ask one who has been "born again" if he or she did not finally WANT to come to Christ for faith and life. Yes, for some this was a "struggle" with internal and external forces and temptations, but for all, once they came to Christ, they were overjoyed and celebrated their new life.

The essential struggle with this and other Calvinistic teachings has been the much vaunted "free will" of humankind. And, the Bible does indeed talk about making "choices" for or against God and being "willing" or not to come to God. One of my seminary professors explained it this way: There are two parallel tracks that appear to run concurrently here on earth, one being God's sovereign will and the other man's choices. Sometimes the one outpaces the other. It might appear that man is able to choose or not choose what God wants, and sometimes it appears that God decidedly is calling the shots in one's life. It is only in heaven that we will be able to see the tracks cross and make sense of this. Or, as the Apostle Paul says, "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and act according to his good purpose" (Philippians 2:12, 13).

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace"-- Limited Atonement

2009-05-18T16:22:00.005-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 8)

There is perhaps no greater misunderstanding and controversy in the evangelical world than on the historic teaching of "limited atonement," or particular redemption. Most evangelicals in the Western world adamantly deny this doctrine. One particular preacher in a town in which I served a beginning church said publicly that this doctrine "came from the pit of hell!" A number of detractors maintain that such a teaching denies the "free will" of humankind and makes the free offer of the gospel to all a joke or a hoax. If Christ died on the cross for only those whom God the Father has sovereignly elected to salvation, then we truly are only puppets and all attempts to offer the Good News to all peoples are not only doomed to failure but in vain. Others go to such passages as John 3:16 and point out that God's world-embracing love is offered to "all who believe." Still others point to 1 Timothy 2:3-6, in speaking about prayer for all, "This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men . . ."

Some have sought in the history of theology to blunt the force of The Synod of Dort's declaration on this matter. They have wanted to side-step it with what is called "Amyrauldianism," a theory of "hypothetical universalism" in which Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), following in the footsteps of his mentor, John Cameron in the School of Saumur in France, maintained that God has a "double will" related to humankind. On the basis of the distinction between God's particular and God's universal will, Amyraut went on to teach that predestination as universal and conditional was a part of providence. It was a part of what are really “two counsels" in God that He took because of the fall. According to this universal and conditional will, God wills the salvation of all men and promises salvation to all upon the condition of faith. It is only because God knows that man is not able of himself to believe that God also wills particularly and unconditionally to save the elect. This teaching supposedly harkens back to what John Calvin himself taught, but most students of historical theology find this interpretation wanting.

Biblical Basis

In order to secure the redemption of those chosen by God the Father, Christ the Son had to redeem them. Jesus Christ thus came into the world, took upon himself human nature, identified himself with His people and acted as the legal representative or substitute before God for their redemption. Christ's perfect righteousness is credited to all who truly believe. They are saved, not on the basis of their faith or what they have done, but solely on the grounds of Christ's redeeming work on the cross.

Christ's redemption is definite both in its design and its accomplishment. Christ actually secured salvation for His people, the elect of God, upon the cross. As David Steele and Curtis Thomas noted in their manual, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub., 1965, p. 39)--"The salvation which Christ earned for His people includes everything involved in bringing them to a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance." Calvinists thus maintain that Christ's death and resurrection definitely saved people, while Arminians maintain that Christ's death only made salvation possible for all, and effectual to only those those believe. The emphasis is on the belief, not on God's sovereign and gracious action.

At first blush, the Bible seems to deny this teaching. However, many verses point to its truthfulness. First, Jesus Christ died to actually save people -- Luke 19:10 -- "The Son of man came to seek and save that which was lost." "Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity . . ." (Titus 2:14). "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God . . ." (1 Peter 3:18). We were reconciled to God "by the death of his Son" (Romans 5:10). "They are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:24, 25). "he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Titus 3:5,6).

Then, Jesus died for those the Father had appointed to salvation -- "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and him who comes to me I will not cast out" (John 6:35-40). "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep . . . I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father . . .The works I do in my Father's name, they bear witness to me; but you do not believe because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me and I give them eternal life and they shall never perish . . ." (John 10:11ff). God the Father's eternal choice of people to be saved is done through the Son-- "He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will . . ." (Ephesians 1:3ff).

There are Scriptural texts that speak of the "definiteness" of Christ's sacrifice -- "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). "The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John10:11). "he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. . ." (Hebrews 9:15) "Christ, having been offered to bear the sins of many" (Hebrews 9:18 with Isaiah 53:10, 11).

Problem Passages

Most of these Scriptural passages use the term "world" or "all." One striking passage is 1 Timothy 2:3-6 -- "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men . . ." Again, the context is the key to all biblical interpretation. As many biblical Greek scholars will say, Paul's point was to ensure that the gospel of truth goes to all kinds or types of people, not just Jews. So, Christ died for all without distinction NOT without exception. The New Testament writers were not universalists in the sense that everyone was going to be saved, but they promoted gospel universalism, that is the Good News goes to all peoples, not just a select few based on nationality or heritage. The Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, whom many revere on all sides of the question, said that "Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved." (Quoted from J.I. Packer, John Owen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)

What This Does NOT Mean

The teaching of particular redemption never limits God or anyone who proclaims God's Good News. The limiting factor is God's business, not ours. We are told to give the gospel to everyone and everywhere. We are not to limit our presentation to "religious" people, or "nice" people, or "potential" Christian people. "God saves sinners" is the cry of all true, biblical people. The selective process is in God's hands, God's counsels, God's decrees and God's business!

This teaching does not mean that anyone can determine beforehand who is worthy to be saved, or who deserves to be saved, or who can be saved. God saves sinners is the only message we really know and can proclaim with full assurance.

This teaching is not merely a logical extension of the doctrine of unconditional election. People who offer this objection to limited atonement fail to note the definiteness and selectivity already referred to above in the biblical text. Sometimes people will say, "I just read the simple Bible which tells me God loves everyone and Jesus died for all. I don't try to 'theologize' the Bible." To read the Bible simply does not and should not mean "simplistically." What makes "common sense" is often not Scriptural sense.

Others say this teaching kills evangelism. Really?!! If I know that God has ordained that a multitude that no one can number will some day most assuredly stand in glory before him singing his praises, then I have full confidence that my witnessing or outreach efforts are never in vain. Those for whom Christ died WILL MOST DEFINITELY be saved, in God's time, at God's call, and in God's plans. I may be an instrument in their eternal salvation--and I don't want to miss that!!

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace"-- Unconditional Election

2009-05-14T16:16:00.004-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 7)

Because of humankind's sinful, fallen and irrevocable state (total depravity), God out of His own mercy, grace and sovereignty decided to save many, not because anyone is worthy of His love and grace, but due solely to His astounding and transformational love and power. This is what is called "election" or "predestination." While most Bible students agree that "election" is taught in the Scriptures, there are a number of differences in theological interpretation. The Remonstrants disputed the commonly accepted viewpoint of the Reformers, positing that divine election or predestination to saving grace is conditional upon the free will decision of any man or woman. God foresees this faith response and on that basis "chooses" such people to salvation. This faith response of the sinner is not generated by God, but freely given by the person's "unconstrained" will or choice. In more popular terms, God gets a vote, Satan gets a vote but we cast the deciding ballot!

The historical Synod of Dort in 1619 turned back this viewpoint with the declaration that God's election to salvation is totally "unconditional." God's predestinating grace is given to people not on the basis of any foreseen faith in them or by them, but solely on the basis of God's self-determined choice and pleasure. God gives faith and repentance to each individual He selects. Thus, God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of God, is the deciding factor and ultimate cause of salvation. The Calvinistic scholar, Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) puts it this way: "It [unconditional election] was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melancthon (although Melancthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of Predestination and taught it with emphasis."

Such is the strength of the biblical evidence for "election" that non-Calvinists usually maintain that the passages cited in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, such as in Romans 9-11, refer to Jewish national election by God, not to God's choice of anyone to saving faith, inclusive of both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, these interpreters believe they can hold to the Scriptural teaching yet maintain an Arminian-based theology and not interfere with the "free will" of humankind. It is exegetically questionable whether their arguments can stand in the context or weight of the whole Bible on this topic.

Biblical Basis

The Scriptural basis for the doctrine of unconditional election can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. It is obvious in the Old Testament Scriptures that God literally chose a certain people to salvation, as seen in Deuteronomy 10:14, 15 -- "the Lord set his heart in love upon your fathers and chose their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day." Israel is often noted as God's chosen people (Psalm 33:12; 106:5; Haggai 2:23, etc). Jesus affirmed the Father's sovereign choice in such places as Matthew 11:27 -- "no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away" (John 6:37). Jesus Himself notes that there are "sheep" and "non-sheep" -- "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay my life down for the sheep." "He [the good shepherd] calls his own sheep by name and leads them out" (John 10:3). And, the classic passage is found in Romans 8:28-30, called the Golden Chain of Redemption, "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son . . .and those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." God's choice was made before the creation of the earth -- "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world. . ." (Ephesians 1:4). Rather than "foreseen faith," faith is the result of God's choice and power -- "as many as were ordained to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48).

What This DOESN'T Mean

Unconditional election does NOT mean that God, like a Robot, mechanically selects a few people to be with Him eternally. That is a distortion on a number of fronts. First, divine election always flows from God's amazing LOVE and compassion for sinful mankind. Second, it is sheer mercy that ANY of us are saved, or are chosen by God to be with Him. We DESERVE eternal death and separation from God (SEE the last post on "Total Depravity"). Third, the NUMBER of the elect, according to the book of Revelation, is immense and to our finite minds, uncountable (Revelation 5:9; 7:9ff).

Unconditional election does NOT mean that God damns those unchosen to hell. This is "hyper-Calvinism," a logical, but unbiblical, extension of the teaching of election. The non-elect themselves choose their fate by continuing in their rebellion and hatred of God. They are "left to themselves" in other words.

Unconditional election does NOT save anyone. It is crucial to salvation, but it is by faith and resultant good works that a person confirms his calling and election by God (1 Peter 1:5-11; Acts 13:48; 2 Timothy 2:10). Election is part of the divine process but it is not the end-all of salvation.

What this DOES Mean

The teaching of unconditional election is a precious and wonderful doctrine to the Christian. It gives the believer great hope and security and peace in knowing that God the Father and Jesus the Son have loved us with an everlasting love. Jesus died for us and through the Holy Spirit gives us that wonderful promise of eternal life. Unconditional election never allows us to "pre-judge" anyone. No one knows the elect except God. Unconditional election actually propels the believer to share his or her faith since we know God HAS definitely chosen many to enjoy and experience His saving power. They WILL respond favorably to the gospel presentation and message.

No, this is not a "cruel" doctrine or teaching. It is God's gift to humanity.

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace"-- Total Depravity

2009-05-04T15:03:00.007-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 6)

"Total depravity" sounds like an unwelcome and antiquated teaching that reminds people of really BAD people and awful human history, like the Holocaust. This first of what are called the "five points of Calvinism" has anchored the remainder of the truths of this system. Without a right and deep understanding of this teaching, there is no real need for unconditional election, the certainly of atonement through the death of Christ, the need for sovereign, Holy Spirit given and irresistible grace and the surety of final perseverance to the end of life. Many people discount the sinfulness of anyone. It is not fashionable, even in conservative, Christian, Bible-believing circles to talk about the extent and depth of human sinfulness. People want to believe they are a bit "defective" but not really damned and doomed sinners without hope, and without heaven as a final end. We always want to believe "the best" about ourselves and therefore hate John Newton's line in the song, Amazing Grace, "that saved a wretch like me." But, that is what we are biblically.

Biblical Basis

The Scriptural basis for the doctrine of total depravity is vast and pervasive. The remarkable statement of God Himself to Noah and the few saved through the flood is astounding -- "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (Genesis 8:21). Spiritual death is the result of the fall of mankind through Adam and Eve (Genesis 2:16, 17; Romans 5:12). Ephesians 2:1-3 tells us that conversion to Christ gives us life from the dead -- "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins . . ." (cf. Colossians 2:13) Psalm 51:5 tells us this condition is from conception -- "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ecclesiastes 9:3 tells us "the hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live . . ." and Jeremiah 17:9 proclaims, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" The death knell is given in Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Many other verses can be cited, but the evidence is irrefutable--humankind without a savior is intensively and extensively in rebellion against God, since that is the essential meaning of "sin." It's not a mistaken condition caused by our circumstances, not an unfortunate set of bad parents or siblings, not a misstep caused by Satan or some other enemy of our soul. It is our settled condition as sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

What This DOESN'T Mean

Total depravity does NOT mean humankind is as bad as it can be. It does not mean that people cannot do, in theirs and others viewpoints, kind and respectable acts. It does NOT mean that people will always act out their "worst sides." But, consistent with this teaching is the doctrine of "common grace." The rain that falls, for instance, falls on the "righteous and unrighteous" (Matthew 5:45). The sun that shines, the food we eat and so on and so forth comes from a perfect and loving heavenly Father without discrimination of a person's faith stance. These are still "gifts" but "common" to all and thus instances of "common grace."

What this DOES Mean

The teaching of total depravity, properly understood and accepted, drives one to realize he or she cannot "earn" or "merit" of "deserve" God's kindness and His salvation. We are intrinsically sinful. We are not sinful merely because we sin. The death-knell to a "merit-based" or "works-based" approach to being right with God rests right here. Everyone who is right with God through faith in Jesus Christ got there purely and exclusively by God's unmerited favor and kindness. If "saved," we are still sinners saved by grace, always to be aware of Bunyan's precious saying, "There, but for the grace of God, go I!" Any other way of looking at gaining God's favor is humanly devised and humanly based.

Depravity Includes Total Inability

The genius of the Reformers was to understand that this depravity is truly TOTAL. Every thought, action, word, deed, desire, motivation and inward longing, apart from an external spiritual renovation, has been permeated, not merely affected, by this sinful nature and reality. We CANNOT choose good over evil by ourselves. Like the leopard which cannot change its spots, the sinful man or woman cannot change his or her nature (Jeremiah 13:23). Jesus Himself said that a "bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matthew 7:16-18; 12:33). He said, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him . . ." (John 6:44, 65). The ability and power to see and do good in God's sight is a gift from God (1 Corinthians 4:7).

The immediate and rather violent, at times, rejection of this aspect of depravity or the extent of human sinfulness is that man has a will that is free. What that means is that this will remains "unaffected" by the depravity that permeates our beings. Clearly, this cannot be the case. There is not a separate "compartment" in our being where a "neutral" will resides waiting to choose between good and evil. We will default to evil, if left to ourselves and our choices without divine intervention. Humankind's will is in bondage to depravity by nature and by choice.

To get around this obvious problem of inability, some theologies have posited a "prevenient" kind of grace that God has given to every person as a result of the saving atonement of Christ.(cf. Wesleyanism) "Christ died for everyone" means, therefore, that God has given to everyone in the world that has or will ever exist enough of undeserved favor that the will is made able to choose right from wrong and eternal good from evil. Such a position cannot be directly proven from the Bible. It has to be "inferred" from a theory that lack of human freedom means and is equivalent to lack of human responsibility. But, responsibility does not need freedom to be valid.

Is humankind then merely "robots" set on a world stage with God as the Grand Puppeteer? Does man actually have a "choice?" Proponents of total depravity decidedly say, "of course." We can freely choose that which is in accord with our nature! God will not "force" us to choose evil, for that would make Him the author of evil. WE freely and responsibly choose what we want. It is the "want" that is the problem. We do NOT naturally want what God wants.

The only HOPE is divine intervention outside of our natures and outside of our possibilities. That brings us to the second point of the Synod of Dort's declaration -- "unconditional election."

Revisiting the "Doctrines of Grace"

2009-04-29T13:02:00.004-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 5)

My wife and I are back from a spring vacation trip on which we were able to spend some time with a good friend from a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) Church. We know each other through my past association in the OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church). The visit brought good memories of quality spiritual times together. We chatted about worship styles, about evangelistic initiatives, about the state of the church today, especially the church in the Reformed or Calvinistic denominations. This all brought a flood of memories and training which I received, and still cherish, from my Reformed Baptist days in ministry. And, with this, a new, and hopefully maturer, appreciation of what are called the "doctrines of grace."

Why would someone who now ministers in a more Wesleyan-Arminian based church fellowship comment on the Calvinistic "doctrines of grace?" Certainly not to criticize or debate them, but to stand in appreciation for their impact in my life and thought. To a great extent, I have not forsaken or supplanted these precious truths even though they technically disagree with the denominational affiliation I now have. They have played and do continue to play a profound influence on my ministry. Moreover, it is often from the "outside" that one can see more clearly what needs to be emphasized in our day about certain historical theological tenets. This is why I am writing this particular blog. I believe many in the Reformed camp have lost sight of the forest for the trees. The debates and interior struggles of many in Calvinistic circles, I believe, have tended to almost de-value these precious truths.

What are the "doctrines of grace?"

The doctrines of grace are the five cardinal truths re-emphasized by the Synod of Dordt in 1618/19 in their response to the five tenets of the Remonstrants, which we now call Arminianism. This Synod simply noted what had been generally accepted in orthodox Christianity up to their juncture in historical theology, that mankind is totally depraved and therefore unable to save themselves, that God has unconditionally elected or chosen those whom He wanted to save, that Christ died for those whom the Father had chosen, that these are irresistibly brought to saving faith by the sovereign Holy Spirit, and that these are the ones who will most certainly persevere in faith unto the end. More popularly, these doctrines are known by the mnemonic TULIP -- Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited (or particular) atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints. Many Calvinistic pastors and theologians know them well and have been trained in their applications to faith and life. In Reformed Baptist history and circles they are known as the "doctrines of grace."

Why revisit them?

In my first 15 years of ministry, I was a zealous advocate of the doctrines of grace and took on all comers who would argue against them. I saw them more as biblical "sledgehammers" to wield against the man-centered, subjectivistic oriented Christian religion of the day, which was mostly Arminian-laced. I read books, papers and pamphlets condemning "decisionistic" Christianity, where a walk to a church altar or to a Crusade front would "save" a person. I railed against the popular notion that God has one vote, Satan has one vote, but we get to cast the deciding vote on our eternal state. I became associated with churches that staunchly defended and preached the "truth" against such humanistic fluff. Until one day I began to realize that all of the arguing and defending and postulating against other Christians missed the grand points of the Great Commandment and especially the Great Commission of Jesus Himself. So I left the fray, but not the essential truths of the doctrines of grace.

These grand truths are not for sale or debate, I believe. They were never drafted to be bastions of spiritual prowess or in-depth theology. Once truly understood and appreciated, they are precious to any Christian, any child of God. They are grounds for a deep and rich and lavish love for God. Contrary to popular opinion and sentiment, they actually bring heartfelt desire for the conversion of those who know not God and have not a saving relationship to Jesus Christ. They secure the believer, not in any mechanical, once-saved-always-saved format (not really the teaching of perseverance of the saints, by the way!) but in the way of hearing, following and loving the voice of Jesus in the Word of God. They bring a believer's heart close in gratitude and desire to the heart of God. "TULIP" is not a sign of protest, defense, spiritual war or a name badge to wear at Calvinistic conferences! The doctrines of grace emphasize God's GRACE, His undeserved and unearned favor toward rebellious sinners, like you and like me. They resonate with Bunyan's oft-quoted quip, "There, but for the grace of God, go I!"

So let's revisit these grand truths once again and enjoy their biblical and practical richness and power. Succeeding blogs will take them on. Let me know what you think!

Deeper Spirituality Desperately Needed!

2009-04-06T11:28:00.003-04:00

When I was in seminary, a professor of practical theology warned us about "Christian psychobabble." This is where we take psychology 101 or what we "feel" is right and good and import it into the Bible and then come out with advice for living and believing. Unfortunately, we have a LOT of Christian psychobabble today.

The books that line the shelves of any Christian bookstore is full of such babble. In fact, at times it seems like the mixed up languages at the tower of Babel!! I am reading such a book now, and will not reveal the author or name prematurely. But it SEEMS like a lot of babble, talking about the "inward journey" and "deeper longings and feelings" and "spiritual transformation" as a "way of life that opens us up to the presence of God in the places of our beings where our truest desires and deepest longings stir." Then the author launches into chapters loosely based on Scripture and mostly based on aestheticism and subjectivism. I know I am being harsh, perhaps, but I need to make a point here.

The point is that spiritual transformation comes from the work of God the Holy Spirit in a person's being, with the channel being a faithful and true understanding of the written text of Scripture. Yes, I have a HIGH view of Scripture and believe it is fully sufficient for everything we need or ever will need in life and thought and desire. It is because we do not REALLY KNOW the Scriptures that we muck around with aestheticism and looking at our spiritual navels. "The Shack" is such a novel. When we venture outside the purview of the Bible and its principles and applications, which by the way cover everything, we tread into dangerous waters of the "self" and our "projections" onto what God really says about true spirituality.

The problem is twofold--biblical illiteracy and postmodern subjectivism. The first is a real problem in many churches. The test of your church or organization is, Do the MEN READ? Not the women, but do the men of your church or group engage in reading the Bible and literature that helps open up the Bible? Many do not, and are therefore unqualified spiritually to evaluate much of anything. (Now don't castigate me with stories of people who have learning disabilities, who are blind, or whatever. There are other well-known ways of reading.) The point is laziness and lack of transformative desire for God to speak in and through His Word. The other problem in this area is bad preaching! Sorry for being so blunt, but biblical, expository, applicatory preaching has fallen on bad times. Few are really trained in the art, and few seek to practice it. Thus, congregations and ministry organizations are failing to "proclaim the Word," adding to the illiteracy quotient of their people.

The other issue of postmodern subjectivism is an extended topic. Suffice to say that postmodern seekers, especially the young professionals, are interested in the Church truly being the Church, and not some show, or performance, or "salvation-factory." Many are also interested in true biblical expository preaching and speaking that opens up the text of Scripture, not with antiquated illustrations or "canned" stories, but with honest, intellectually sound exegesis and illustrations that are relevant, fresh and to the point. This helps make the truth of the Word more applicable and more sensitive to them and their spiritual journeys.

My first in-depth steps into the Bible and its application to all of life came through the Puritan writers. No--not the secular twisted view of the Puritans, nor the uninformed generalized Christian viewpoint that castigates these godly giants of the faith and paints them as morose, hellfire-and-brimstone witch hunters! I'm talking about John Owen, Thomas Manton, Richard Sibbes, Octavius Winslow, William Guthrie, Thomas Brooks and a slew of others. These men delved deeply into the written Word of God and produced volume after volume of rich, in-depth, heartfelt application of Scripture to the darkest places of the human psyche and heart and mind. You can not seriously read these writers and avoid the "eye of God" upon your very being. But who knows of these laborers of the Word today? Too few, I'm afraid.

I'm not advocating a "return to the Puritans" or their era, as if reading old books is the answer to our Christianized churches and people. I'm advocating SERIOUS, sustained and prolonged study and searching application of the Bible to our modern problems, needs, dilemmas and thinking and doing. "Study to show yourself approved" (cf. 1 Timothy 4:11-16) has never lost its persistent and powerful challenge to the Christian and especially the Christian leader. And, please don't tell me that we are "beyond them" today. We have more access to more information with precious little understanding of what is really truth.

People will say, "you are certainly in a minority" on this topic. I don't care. It's time to get deeper, to get more serious with the Word, to honestly and soberly evaluate where we really are individually and corporately. Let me know what you think!

The Great Resurrection Debate

2009-04-01T11:51:00.002-04:00

“I am a Christian. I have served the Church for over 50 years. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and in his resurrection power.” Amen!, we would say. But, wait a minute. The person who said these words emphatically does not believe in the literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, nor does he think that the early disciples did either. They were so overwhelmed by the power of God that they made up a “resurrection myth” to talk about their departed Leader.

On March 20, 2005, the Church Communications Network (CCN) broadcasted a live debate between retired Bishop John Shelby Spong, who made the statements above, and Dr. William Lane Craig from Talbot Seminary on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why is this teaching so very important and vital to Christianity? Why are Bishop Spong’s words deceptively empty and misleading? Who cares, so long as we have an “experience” with God?

An “Experience” Is Not Enough
To some, the resurrection story was an invention of the early disciples. They needed a “living” Savior to excite people, so they made the story up. To others, the resurrection is a simple, child-like delusion. We end up believing what we want to believe, no matter whether it is factual or not. To yet others, the resurrection is a visionary experience of the power of God, the “ground of all Being.”

Many today claim to have experienced God in some way. From the New Age neighbor down the street, to the Muslim extremist killing “satanic” Americans for Allah, all claim to have “experienced” God. But their experience isn’t enough to solve their sin problems and get them into heaven to live in the presence of the real God.

Paul puts it this way in 1 Corinthians 15:14ff: “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead . . . If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is futile; you are still in your sins . . . If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”

Bodily Resurrection Is the Heart of the Gospel
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that the “gospel,” the Good News of deliverance and freedom and eternal life, is wrapped up in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. A New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, has shown that all Jewish instances of the term for “resurrection” specify a literal, physical resurrection, not a vague idea of afterlife.

In the debate, Dr. Craig made the observation that as most honest scholars have accepted the historical Jesus, so they have to admit to the physical, bodily resurrection of Him as well. There are too many resurrection witnesses listed in the New Testament records to believe otherwise. The early disciples made the resurrection of Jesus the centerpiece of their preaching, teaching, healing, acting and life-witness (cf. Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; Gal. 1:1f; 1 Peter 1:18-21).

What’s At Stake?
So, what’s at stake in believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? First, God’s declaration of freedom from the eternal curse of sin and bestowal of true righteousness. Romans 4:25 says that Christ “was raised for our justification,” for our right-standing before God. Second, we need not fear death as our last enemy since Christ conquered death through his bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:55-57).

Third, Christ’s resurrection gives us the power to live in “newness of life” (Romans 6:4). Fourth, we have a living, ascended Christ who now prays for us daily and constantly before the Father in heaven (Rom. 8:34). Fifth, because of Jesus’ resurrection, we are guaranteed of our own future, bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 6:14).

Our life of freedom from sin now, and our hope for eternal life with Christ are founded upon the physical, literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ on that first Easter Sunday.

Are you living in that freedom, that Easter power, that hope and that new life? Trust in the resurrected Jesus this Easter and for a lifetime!

What About the "New Calvinism?"

2009-03-17T11:21:00.003-04:00

Time Magazine recently offered an article on what they are calling the "New Calvinism" (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html) and Calvinist Mark Driscoll has responded in his blog to the article (http://www.acts29network.org/acts-29-blog/time-magazine-names-new-calvinism-3rd-most-powerful-idea/). So what's all the fuss and why should Christians take note?

As one trained in "old" Calvinism (M.Div. (1973) Th.M (1979), Westminster Theological Seminary/Phila), and one who has ministered in "old" Calvinistic circles (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and now in a non-Calvinistic or non-Reformed setting (Brethren in Christ), I have witnessed with some fascination this "new" surge in Reformed theology and churches along with popular speakers and writers, like John Piper and Tim Keller (Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY). Some of my comments on the Time article and what Driscoll wrote are below.

First, it is not at all surprising to me that Calvinism is strong and flourishing today in many circles and venues. I had a non-Christian philosophy professor in college once say that if he ever became a Christian he would have to become a "Calvinist" because of its rigorous logic and philosophic credentials. He noted that all of the other kinds of evangelical faiths were much too subjectivistic and had no rigorous world-and-life view. I would agree with that assessment. Arminian Wesleyanism does not have the rigor or theological preciseness, and Anabaptism has no theology, so to speak. The varieties of Pentecostalism and charismatic groups are much too one-sided in their focus and emphasis on spiritual gifts, prophecy, and so forth. So, for an integrated, tightly-woven and philosophically thought-out theology, Calvinism wins the day.

Second, I agree that Calvinism or Reformed theology appeals to a younger generation and especially young adults. The "me-centered" Jesus-only banter of the 60s and 70s and into the 80s has proved insufficient for their questions of meaning, truth and the nature and work of God in a world gone valueless and post-modern. The "feel-good" Christianity of modern day evangelicalism has left them wanting something deeper, more satisfying and more God-centered. Calvinism fits the bill.

Third, Calvinism is broad-based in its approach to culture, the arts, business and so forth. It's integrated world-and-life viewpoint can successfully challenge the -isms that are brought against the Bible and the church. It can deal with creation and evolution on a deeper and more intellectually satisfying level than any other evangelical thought. It approaches business problems and dilemmas with forcefulness and is absent of fundamentalism's "proof-texting." It offers so much more than "Just trust Jesus!" type of answers to complicated and tenacious world problems. It provides real answers to real problems in a real world because it sees the Scriptures as broad-based and sufficient enough to give those answers, once you understand them.

However, the Time article is correct when it points to Calvinism's perennial and historical problem of exclusiveness and in-fighting among Christians. I left the Calvinistic church fold because of snobbery and petty in-fighting and its rejection of non-Reformed Christians as "less" than truly Christian. That was in the 80s. SO I am glad to see that this "new" Calvinism is much more loving and broad-minded in receiving and working with non-Reformed brothers and sisters. There is indeed a small and vocally present group of Reformed Christians who believe that they "have the truth" and all other Christians must come their way to get it. In my journey, this has ALWAYS been the case with some. And, it is not so much that these Calvinists are mean people as it is that they have drunk so deeply at the well of Reformational thought through the centuries that anything less is almost unScriptural to them.

"New" Calvinism will succeed only if the majority of these new Calvinists stay free from the theological pettiness of their forefathers. Whether a ruling elder is able to read the Scriptures in a Sunday morning service or not cannot become the debating point of newer Calvinists and their churches. "Cessationism" is not any more an option in a church world where the Holy Spirit is needed in power and infusion in the lives and thoughts of its constituents. The next battle will be the "role of women" in these churches and how women can help lead in their churches. If new Calvinists do not resolve this battle in a way that honors Scripture and yet keeps the theological tie with historic Calvinism, the verbal chant and articles against it will not go away. Calvinists have always had the battle armor in their closets, ready for a fight against all comers and any infraction against the well-worn truths of the Reformation.

The other final thing that this "new" Calvinism must get right is their perspective of the Christian life. J.I. Packer is right when he points to the greatest weakness of Calvinism a la Augustinianism as sounding and being "ethically negative and pessimistic to the last degree" (Packer, Keep In Step With the Spirit, 109). Calvinists have not been known as joyful and fulfilled Christians. Their preachers and writers keep telling them, and they are reminded in their catechisms as well, that they are wretched, miserable sinners saved only by grace and that to believe or feel otherwise is to contradict the Bible. No wonder the "T" in their TULIP theology comes first, namely "total depravity." Again, I happen to agree with the Reformed formulations here, but I also believe in a victorious, Spirit-filled, joyful Christian life and experience that radiates the joy of the Lord and the power of the Spirit.

As Reformed Christians everywhere celebrate the 500th anniversary of their namesake and founder, John Calvin, my hope and prayer is that God would continue to help us all grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ as a unified body of believers. I believe Calvin himself would want no less.

Staying Clear of the Three Ss

2009-03-12T14:18:00.003-04:00

(Articles of Faith, 4)

Are You Growing Spiritually?
There comes those times when we can let down our guard when it comes to spiritual growth and development. We believe that we need a rest, a break from the maddening pace of life during the year. The temptation is then to take a break from “all of it,” including our spiritual disciplines.

The problem with this thinking and acting is that positive spiritual momentum can be lost. And, we never stay on center in the race for heaven (cf. Phil. 3). We either gain or lose momentum in this race. Remember the disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane? Jesus asked them to “watch and pray.” Instead, they fell asleep. After all, they needed a break, a rest, a vacation from the spiritual grind! “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” (Matt. 26:41, 42)

There are three “S’s” that we must always, daily, guard against in this spiritual battle for growth momentum. I begin every day with prayer for God to give me victory over these “S’s” in my life.

Sin
It would be nice (and naïve) to think that our sins are all conquered. We still have a sinful nature, not just tainted, but rather permeated with the remnants of the old Adamic nature. An old church catechism says that the “imper-fection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God” (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 78).

Sins include known transgressions, unknown failures to live according to God’s Word and will, presumptuous faults, secret sins, and the bent of our natures against God. Every thought, every desire, every motivation, every act, or lack of action, experiences the hellishness and horror of our sinful nature. Yes, praise God!, Jesus died for all of those sins, but we have the obligation to die to sin daily.

Are you dying to sin daily in the power and love of Christ?!

Satan
The Bible tells us that Satan, our main spiritual Enemy, lies to us, deceives us, entraps us, baits us, tempts us and wants to destroy us. Peter, who understood Satan’s ways better than most, puts it this way: “Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8)

Every day, and every minute of every day, we are in a spiritual battle against Satan and his hosts and forces of darkness. Again, the Word tells us that our struggle “is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph. 6:12).

The solution? “Resist him, standing firm in the faith” (1 Pet. 5:9); “Submit yourselves then to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (James 4:7); “Put on the full armor of God . . . take up the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit . . . and pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests . . . be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints” (Eph. 6:13ff).

Are you daily, consciously, intentionally fighting against Satan?!

Self
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians that Timothy, and Timothy only, took a genuine interest in their welfare. He says, “For everyone looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:21).

Wow!! What about all your other helpers and aides, Paul? No, Paul says under the inspiration of God, everyone looks out for his own interests first! This is you and me. Pride, self-will, selfish desires, ego, call it what you will. We daily need to repent, renounce, and resist the natural selfishness that drives us to be “Number One.”

Do you daily, honestly, deeply ask God to make you truly selfless, others-oriented, and God-centered?

The three “S’s.” How you deal with them determines much of your spiritual growth and momentum in these months. I urge you to daily deal with them!

Gospel Faithfulness

2009-03-02T16:18:00.002-05:00

(Articles of Faith, 3)

From his prison cell at Rome, Paul in 2 Timothy 2 challenges young Timothy to persevere, or to be faithful. “Faithfulness” is one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Yet, we can often feel like the Psalmist in Psalm 12:1 where he pleads, “Help, Lord, for the godly are no more; the faithful have vanished from among men.” Solomon seconds that cry when in Proverbs 20:6 he says, “Many a man claims to have unfailing love, but a faithful man who can find?” How can we walk in faithfulness? In a world castigating the church for its unfaithfulness, how can we be found faithful?

Understand What Faithfulness Is
The term “faithfulness” comes from a rich, Old Testament truth that God is faithful. Faithfulness stresses a practical trustworthi-ness, a constancy, loyalty or stick-to-it-ness. It is reliance, integrity and stability of life.

Faithfulness has an overcoming quality about it. Revelation 2:10 exhorts us to “be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.” Faithful-ness is a mark of a Christian who perseveres to the end.

Faithfulness also stresses action. It gives perseverance its drive and stamina. It turns failures into opportunities and problems into challenges. The issue is not how many times you may fail. It is rather whether you fail “forward” or “backward!” Does your life move toward Christ or away from Christ when you fail? The quality of faithfulness propels us forward.

Christian Workers Especially Need Faithfulness
Those who have been given a “trust” from God are required to be found faithful (1 Cor. 4:2). Paul tells Titus to show “faithful-ness” in his teaching, “so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say” (Titus 2:7,8).

This word of admonition is for all those who have been given an assignment, a “trust” from the Lord of the Church. Whether you are an usher, a custodian, a teacher, a group leader, a church board member, a pastor or a worship leader, you need to demonstrate faithfulness. God wants no quitters on His team. God wants us to be faithful!

Develop Faithfulness In Your Life
Faithfulness is a character-quality. It is translated “integrity” in Titus 2:7. It is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, as Galatians 5:22 points out. But, how does a Christian develop or enhance his or her faithfulness? Let me suggest three practical and workable hints:

(1) Beware of substituting religious works or things for faithfulness. This was the big mistake of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices . . . But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness.” We can never substitute busyness for faithfulness, or tithing for faithfulness, or teaching for faithfulness. The God who searches our hearts calls us to faithful living, faithful tithing, faithful teaching and faithful service!

(2) Do what you say, and say what you do. In spite of what might be the outcome, keep your word to God and to others. This helps build faithful lives.

(3) Live for the “long-haul” as a Christian. In a society where everything from information to coffee is instant, you and I need to commit to life in the “slow” lane.

The famous evangelist Dwight L. Moody once said, “When I was converted, I made this mistake: I thought the battle was already mine, the victory already won, the crown already in my grasp, But I found out that conversion was only like enlisting in the army–there was a battle on hand.” Let us all live and be “found faithful.”

Praying for Your World

2009-02-25T18:16:00.004-05:00

(Articles of Faith, 2)

Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message . . .(Colossians 4:2,3)

How can we effectively pray for our neighbors, friends and relatives who may not have faith? How can prayer really make a difference in our world? The Apostle Paul gives us four clues for effective, outreach-type of praying that can change your world for Christ.

Clue #1: Understand Your World-System
Paul understood his world. Belief in self was at the center of his world, as it is in ours. Christianity was being debunked and replaced by a cult that demoted Christ and that stressed rigorous self-discipline and self-denial as the way to God (cf. Col. 2:16ff). He knew that Jews, even Jewish Christians, would be misunderstood. Thus, he asks the Colossian Christians to pray for clarity for him in conversing and witnessing to those around him. He wanted to be wise in the way he acted around his world. He wanted to seize every opportunity given him for the gospel proclamation.

Similarly, you and I live in a system of non-Christian thought and life. What worked twenty or ten or even five years ago does not work today in reaching those around us with the gospel. Do you know, really know, your world-system? Do you understand the burdens, sorrows, pains and thought patterns of those who do not know Jesus Christ around you and with whom you work with, or visit with, or even live with, every day? If not, find out!

Clue #2: Watch!
The term indicates a cautious and active sensitivity to the deceitful and deceptive nature of sin around us. It is a verb in the present tense, so the emphasis is on a continuous, daily alertness. Christians, the “sin” alert level is beyond orange or red. We must guard against being desensitized by the open disregard for God and what is right around us. We must guard against the tendency for spiritual drowsiness in not clearly seeing the spiritual battles going on around us. We must fight spiritual paralysis in thinking that prayer really doesn’t matter. Watch!

Clue #3: Give Untiring Commitment to Prayer
“Devote yourselves to prayer,” the Bible says. That means persist in prayer, be faithful in prayer, have the courage to persevere in prayer, and do all of this daily! Joseph in Egypt continued in prayer irrespective of his political or personal position. Daniel and his friends persevered in prayer, even directly disobeying royal orders.

In watching the Australian open, I have been impressed with Serena Williams play. She entered the tournament far down in the professional standings. Yet, she continues to win, even when the announcers and others seem to write her off. Why? She knows that winning means never giving up, never letting up, never getting frustrated and angry, never letting her opponent dictate her game. She knows how to win. Do we know how to win in the spiritual arena of prayer?!

Clue #4: Always Be Thankful!
Thankfulness in prayer is actually a conscious consecration of the heart, mind and will to acknowledge the daily mercies of God through Jesus Christ. Lack of thankfulness indicates a heart of unbelief and hypocrisy (Romans 1:21; 2 Timothy 3:2,3). Thankfulness in praying for our world helps us maintain perspective, be consciously aware of our blessings, relieves tension and worry (Philippians 4:6f) and replaces wrong speech patterns as we daily deal with those around us (Ephesians 5:4, 20).

Why pray? As one writer has reminded us: “Prayer is striking the winning blow. Service is gathering the results.” Let’s strike the winning blow for God – and pray!!

IN the world, but not OF the world

2009-02-16T14:41:00.006-05:00

"'In' the world, but not 'of' the world"

An Article of Faith (1)

(Note: Beginning today, and most every Monday for a while, I will be sharing ideas, thoughts, convictions and feelings called "articles of faith." I invite all readers to interact and share their responses.)

Jesus' words in the Gospel of John, Chapter 17, have evoked many discussions and, unfortunately, controversies among people of faith. Christian people are to be "in" the world, not as recluses, not as separatists, not as "holier than thou" but rather as people in touch with God but living out their faith in the nitty-gritty of everyday life, just as their neighbors and friends do. As we do this, we are not to be "of" the world.

A Personal Journey

My wife, Nancy, and I and our family went through a spiritual, philosophical and real-life journey on Halloween dress-ups, Easter bunnies, Christmas trees and decorations and so forth. In our younger days, we attended and served in a very strict Baptist church in northern Virginia for a while where the senior pastor taught that the "holidays" we celebrate were rooted in false and Satanic traditions, or at least the traditions of men and not of God. He refused, for instance, to acknowledge Christmas by the Christmas tree or Christmas ornamentation. He even avoided preaching a "Christmas-type" of sermon on Christmas Sunday lest anyone would infer that the church supported the traditional Christmas celebrations. It was the same with Easter. He truthfully pointed out that we should celebrate every Sunday as resurrection day, not just "Easter Sunday." He also preached against Halloween, due to the obvious and historic Satanic associations.

For Halloween he suggested we write a letter of explanation to our neighbors telling why we did not give out candy or let our children dress up and go around the neighborhood. We did this for two years. We restricted our kids' activities on these holidays, taught them why we did not participate, and basically dreaded the whole holiday thing. While we had a Christmas tree during those days, we de-emphasized gifts exchanges and sought to focus on Christ and His Person and birth.

The downside of this rather extreme position and lifestyle was that our neighbors avoided us, our cars were soaped and egged on Halloween night, and people painted us as severe, critical, unloving, uncaring and so forth. While a few of them cursed, most just ignored and isolated us from their lives. Our witness for Christ took on, to them, the flavor of the "Crusades" of Christians versus everyone else. Our letters of explanation only further fueled their dislike and disgust. Most of the letters and tracts we found scattered in our yard and in the community dumpsters. People no doubt looked at us as "mean-spirited." I did not really care, since we were "defending" the truth and the Name of God! Some neighbors even refused letting their children play with or associate with our children. To say the least, this was not a fun time for the family. We tended to debate with neighbors instead of loving them to Christ.

We shielded our children by having them attend Christian schools, play with Christian and/or church friends, and read only Christian literature. We were the "poster" Christian family, so to speak. And, by the way, those were also the days we held to a very strict Sabbath-keeping, with Sundays being a day bracketed by morning and evening church services, with rest, sleep, reading or hospital visiting in the afternoons. For many in our church, children did not and could not play outside, make any loud noises and had to take naps.

The problem with what we were doing was that we were increasingly becoming more and more divorced from our unChristian neighbors, whom we were desperately trying to win to faith. We also became separated from other "lax" Christians and churches, as we saw them. We failed to build any relational bridges and tore down any that we had built by our very vocal and outwardly critical practices against prevailing tradition. This made me personally and increasingly negative, critical and unresponsive to others, and it made our kids outcasts.

I'm sharing these painful memories with you not to defend Easter bunnies and Halloween dress-ups and so forth. I still have many reservations and negatives to register against these pagan practices. However, I believe we were way out-of-line with Jesus' command to love others. In the name of Jesus we were driving people from Jesus! We certainly do not regret the Christian schooling, catechism and other good and proper things and principles we gave to our children. We do regret, however, their lack of fun and innocence in those early years. We taught them to first be suspicious and then to maybe participate and love. We are thankful that to a great degree those early practices and negative lessons have not been followed by them, though all three may still be much more critical and careful Christians than perhaps they should be.

Reasons To Build Bridges

I see three reasons why we need to have dinner shows in churches without a definitive spiritual purpose or message, Christmas trees and celebrations, and even the Easter bunny. The first is that we desperately need to build bridges to unChristians around us. They already think we are weird, hypocritical and negatively oriented. However, fun is not necessarily sin, and in many instances, Easter egg hunts, Halloween costumes, and so forth, have no thoughtful connections or associations with witches, Satan or heathen celebrations. Most of our unchurched neighbors are ignorant of these things and do not infer by practicing these holiday associations what they might historically signify. They are harmless fun.

Second, we must build a relationship with neighbors and unChristians. We cannot do that by always "defending the faith." Our defensive and negative posture is read first before any words are spoken, any tracts are given or any Bible verses quoted. Our avoidance of them and their practices is interpreted as disgust and lack of love and consideration.

Third, we must focus on the thrillingly positive and helpful reasons Jesus came, died and rose again. To a darkened, sin-soaked world spinning its way to hell, Jesus is the light, the hope, the joy, the inspiration and the reason why we can go on in the midst of tragedy and terror. Most of my unChristian neighbors, no matter where we have lived, already know they are sinners, already know they are judged by God, and already suspect the Christian Church has consigned them to hell. What they don't readily know, however, is that God loves them in spite of themselves, that God desires them in heaven when they die, and that God has given Christian people and churches to herald and show this exceedingly hopeful and positive message.

I agree wholeheartedly with the position against Halloween, the Easter bunny and so forth. But somehow, I need to meet people "where they are" and gently, lovingly, yet firmly and powerfully lead them by the Spirit's power, to where they "need to be." I honestly think that is why we have Christmas celebrations, Easter eggs and bunnies and a host of other religiously oriented kinds of holidays. Not to agree with them or propagate paganism or Satanic ritual or whatever, but to help them see, experience and understand that the God who is Almighty and Holy is also Loving and Good.

That's why I am not now so upset or bothered by a church or a Christian doing some "on-the-edge" kinds of things, or even having the Easter bunny. Of course, I believe we need to teach our children what is right or wrong, what is fictional or real, what problems we might have by "going too far" with these kinds of celebrations. But, as James Dobson himself has said, we need to not be so severe and so critical that the world suspects we have a miserly, unloving God who cannot possibly care about them. Dobson, who with us shielded his young children from these kinds of celebrations and festivals, now says he wishes he would have let his kids dress up on Halloween, hunt Easter eggs and hug the Easter bunny.

What are you and your family doing to either "build bridges" or "isolate" the unChristians around you and your family? What would Jesus do?!

2009-01-19T16:16:00.000-05:00

Hope for A New Year!

"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen . . . Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:19, 32)

AT our recent January church board meeting I led in opening comments and devotions before the meeting began. The above verses impressed me and convicted me. So this is what I ended up saying . . .

I hope we on this board in 2009 and beyond:

(1) Talk well.

That is, we make helpful, useful comments to each other. That we build up and not tear one another down, even in the heat of disagreement or hearty discussion. That we communicate to be both understood and to understand. And that over all our comments and body language and faces show and share what is beneficial for the other person and for the church as a whole.

(2) Listen well.

That we be attentive. That means we do not interrupt and we are respectful. That we seek to understand what the other person is really saying, not what we think he or she is saying.

(3) Forgive well.

That we do not hold any grudges inside or outside the meetings. That we practice openness and honesty about how we are feeling, but have a willingness to say "I'm sorry" when needed and necessary. That we function always remembering how much I have personally been forgiven by God for all my sins and missteps.

As we talk well, listen well and forgive well, I believe God will be honored and we as a church will move forward in unity, real joy and oneness of vision and mission. I would ask all of us to commit ourselves to such a fundamental task.

About Ministry Hires & Fires

2008-12-05T15:38:00.000-05:00

I recently had dinner with a fellow minister and his wife who had been dismissed from his long-term position as a senior pastor of a larger church. He had been told that his current contract would not be renewed at the end of a recent five-year term. What made this so sad was that the congregation knew nothing about this dismissal, and from his perspective there were insufficient reasons for the termination. The one salient fact that stood out was his AGE – he was in his later 60s. Of course, from his Board's and denominational supervisor's point of view there were "reasons" for his departure. However, the "reasons" seemed vague, unclear and inadequate, given his sterling record of ministry within the church and denomination.

How should we hire and fire ministers? What should be the deciding criteria for their coming and going from our churches and ministries? I would suggest four things. First, there must be intentional, clear, viable results-oriented expectations upfront at the time of hire. So much of hiring done in many denominations and their churches lacks definitive expectations at the outset of a ministry term. Character and credentials and even chemistry are not sufficient, I believe, for an adequate ministerial hire. The man or woman needs to come into a ministry situation or church with a clear understanding of what he or she is expected to accomplish in his ministry term. And, this must be spelled out in goals and results expected. We shy away from these kind of terms, but they are used in leadership in the business world all the time, and jobs are gained or lost on their fulfillment or lack thereof. Some might object that the church or a ministry is NOT a business, but I would beg to differ. It is indeed a cause for God, but that cause needs to be fleshed out in very definite strategies, goals and expectations.

Second, evaluations need to be done yearly and then rigorously at midterm. Thus, "he preaches well" is not an adequate evaluation. It must be something like, "he preaches well and the evidence is in thirty transformed lives this year. Ten people found Christ through his pulpit ministry, and twenty people have evidenced spiritual growth and maturity." Such evaluations demand record-keeping, accountable relationships and intentional discipleship, not only by the pastor but also by evaluative boards and committees and the denomination. Or, "he cares well" must become "he has visited five hundred people this year as minister of care, and recipients testify as to his promptness of care, his listening abilities, his follow-up visits and calls and so forth." Encouragement and care CAN be monitored, evaluated and strengthened.

Third, mid-stream corrective help, if needed and warranted, needs to be put in place. The ministerial leader then can take steps to improve his performance as well as his professional prowess. Seminars, retreats, specific reading assignments, tapes and videos can all be used as well as professional and personal coaches, mentors and accountability partners. If the minister is unwilling or believe he or she is unable to improve and meet the expectations of his or her hire, then the Board and/or denomination have some choices. They can either reaffirm their original expectations, modify them, or scrap them and form new ones along with input from the minister, if they desire to keep him or her to the end of term. Or, he or she and the Board and denominational group can help the person transfer into something that is more akin to gift mix and talents. And, this can be done with full knowledge of the congregation or ministry staff, with everyone saving face. This midterm event allows the minister to finish out the term, if he or she so desires, and find something else if that is indicated. There is no problem with termination pay, no secret meetings and plans and everyone, including the congregation, can be kept informed as to the progress or lack thereof. This may be "new" to many congregations, but it's time to "grow up" and act like adults in such a process.

Fourth, the end of term evaluation process reviews the expectations and determines whether the minister has met them. Again, such an evaluation needs to take into account especially difficult times and situations entirely out of the hands of the minister that might have prevented full realization of the expectations. So, this is not some "hard-and-fast" legalistically motivated review, but an honest look at production. And, as at the midterm evaluation, definable standards must be put into place. Hence, for instance, if an expectation from a senior minister was to grow the church population by 25%, then that can be reviewed. If he made 20% then the evaluation team makes a determination whether that is sufficiently close to the goal to allow. But, all things being equal, if there has been only 5% total population growth, then he hasn't met this expectation. This factor is considered among many others as to whether he or she is kept or let go. Again, the point is there are no surprises, no hidden agendas, no back room gatherings, and no excuses.

Wait a minute, someone says! Where is GOD in all of this? Can't God change or challenge our expectations and desires for ministry? Of course! Those are fully considered as the years go by, with changes, additions and deletions as needs be, but all parties are aware of this, work together at this and seek to finally follow what God really wants in this church or ministry.

Such a system, I believe, is fair, just, possesses biblical integrity, compassionate and Great Commission oriented. It helps us all advance the kingdom instead of just falling into a "same-old, same-old" pattern of living, thinking and processing. It also helps improve ministry for all and weeds out those not really called or gifted for ministry. It takes faith, courage to make the "hard" calls at times, and decisiveness. But isn't that what the church has lacked for too many years?!

About Priorities

2008-11-15T12:14:00.000-05:00

I don't know about you, but I am rethinking the whole "setting my priorities" advice. I find the old enumerated listing of chosen priorities insufficient to deal with modern day life and thought. For me, "God" or my relationship to God, is not so much a "priority" as a way of life, a foundation that provides essential structure and meaning. So, having God as a "first priority" makes little sense to me. Added to this is my growing view that setting daily priorities is more of a "dynamic" rather than "static" process, depending on the day and the needs associated with that time in my life. So, today, while God is my foundation or starting point, my wife or family may be primary, but tomorrow, while not neglecting wife and family, my work at the church may be primary. Or, it may be that I have "equal priorities" if there is such a thing!

Introducing myself

2008-11-13T10:49:00.000-05:00

Hello fellow bloggers!! Just an intro note to all who may be interested. I am a pastor and church health consultant in south central PA in Lancaster County. I have an active mentoring ministry to other pastors and interested lay leaders in different Christian evangelical groups and denominations. I am also a licensed church health consultant with ChurchSmart Resources using the Natural Church Development (NCD) method.

I am very much interested in theological and leadership discussions in the ministry world. I would invite all who would like to converse to contact me.

--Carl Shank