Marketing your morality

I have had the pleasure of engaging dialog on things of faith and science with atheist friends and family on more than one occasion. Either the conversation has centered around the evidence for a Creator, or it has centered on the foundation of morality. I am, in this post, more interested about atheism and inferred foundations of ethics and morality.

A while back, there was an advertising campaign in London, if I recall correctly, that questioned the need to believe in God to be ‘good.’

The question that should follow is this: why be good for goodness’ sake? For the sake of argument, let us assume a materialistic world-view: suppose there is no God. All that exists is matter that has collected itself into different forms by natural processes without any intervention outside of nature. This matter either created itself ex nihilo, from nothing, or has existed for eternity. Those options are all that is reasonably available to the materialist without regard to the cosmological flavor to the day.

Following that matter is all there is, then life must be a product of natural forces and processes, some inferred to be random, and is imbued with no special significance other than that found in the unimaginable enormity of the odds stacked against life rising from said undirected natural processes. We are here, to reiterate, due only to natural selection driven by random mutation and environmental pressures.

The bottom line is this: all there is…is matter. Following inexorably is death. All life ends in death and the annihilation of self, of consciousness, for the self-aware. All that remains is the decayed flesh and the memories of self carried by those who briefly remain after one departs, dies. Those memories, too, will be eventually be erased by time as will every edifice, every proud monument, constructed by the defiant, hairless ape. To assert otherwise is shear irrational romanticism, perhaps itself a survival mechanism born in light of consciousness, of self-awareness aware of death, before a vast, uncaring universe.

So then, we courageously exhort one another, given what ultimately lies before us, to be good for goodness sake. Again, why? How can anything be called evil, or good, in light of mere insensate matter being the ultimate arbiter? Do we call the actions, the effects, of tornadoes, chipmunks, and supernova good or evil? No, we do not. In a materialistic context, we can only say we prefer one action over another. We can only say some things are better for the functioning of society than others. Common good of society becomes the arbiter of good and evil. Again, why? Why should I care about the common good of society? Pragmatism, utilitarianism fail here. Who decides what is the common good? Society, a majority?   What about societies with differing standards?  Why should I, as an individual, even care about the common good? Is survival of the species the most important moral imperative? The earth, the universe, does not care on whit if humanity lives another moment or a thousand millennia. To state otherwise is, again, unabashed, irrational romanticism. Ultimately, there are no consequences for behavior if one can get away with it. Death is the common leveler and materialism is the ultimate reducing agent of morality.

The bottom line is this: humanity has no intrinsic value if we are only products of blind natural forces and process; there is no firm foundation for morality. Atheism, in its reductionism and when honestly examined, places a value on humanity that is tenuous and at very best utilitarian. The question that follow is this, who, or what, imbues us with this utilitarian value? Progressive, secular, egalitarian, compassionate societies in the west engage abortion on demand, infanticide, and euthanasia. Do you remember the circumstances that bought about the death of Terri Schiavo?

I can’t let others off the hook. Just any theism won’t do. Pantheism -belief in a impersonal ‘all is god, god is all’ – , foundational to much of New Age spiritualism, and deism – belief in an uninvolved, impersonal ‘watchmaker god’-, what many embrace, acknowledged or not, in actual function, are really in little better, if any, condition to provide intrinsic value to humanity. Too, what of that errant offspring of orthodox Christianity, the progressive Universalist, those who assert that eventually all go to heaven? Essentially, this is just a weak-kneed flip-side to atheism. In some respects, I would love for Univeralism to be true, but if so, there would be no accountability for moral actions if there is no punishment, no retribution for evil, no justice. Here is an undemanding god of love, but without the absolute holiness of the triune God. Is Stalin in heaven with the god of Univeralism?

Also, I absolutely do not infer that atheists are better or worse than theists in their ethics and behaviors. All I am saying is that their moral foundation is, consciously or not, second-hand, pirated, derived from that which they have rejected. Also, I do not infer that belief in God equals high morality in practice. People obviously act in opposition to what they profess to believe all the time. That many have done evil in the name of religion does not invalidate the assertion that a personal, transcendental God is foundational for morality.

It is only the fact that mankind, even in our fallen state, is created in the image of the personal, holy Triune God of the Old and New Testament that we find any intrinsic value and worth.

I want to end on the following, on the day before Christmas, with these words from an earlier post:

As profound and foundational are the doctrines of the trinity and the physical resurrection of the Messiah, and absolutely in no means do I intend to diminish their import, it is the incarnation of our Savior that leaves me most breathtakingly at a loss for words. That Christ, fully almighty God, immutable and fully in transcendence over creation, Who spoke into existence, ex nihilo, the natural order, should step out of eternity and condescend to take on flesh, a sinless human nature, and, out of love, subject Himself to a fallen creation, leaves me wanting for words. Christ, God almighty, His incarnation realized by His conception and virgin birth to Mary, was obedient to Father God to the point of death on the cross to provide propitiation for sin and, after defeating death, will for eternity forward, walk with us as we behold His cross-scarred body. Here we find incomprehensible truths that followers of the Messiah will feast on for eons.

How unbelievable is this grace to the ears of those who think that God grades us on a curve. How odd to the ears is this grace to those we engage some sort of concept of karma. How unbelievable is the transcendent God is to those who engage a the fuzzy self-deification of new-age, neo-pagan pantheism. How daunting and unbelievable is the true, utterly independent and omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God of the Bible to those who engage those strains of liberal protestantism who travel with the impotent, dependent god of panentheism. How simply unbelievable it is to so many that we simply cannot approach and commune with the absolute holy God of creation on our own devices, on our own righteousness, but only through the cross of Christ.

Here is hope for a broken, sin ravaged world: Repent, acknowledge and turn away from your sin, your rebellion and disobedience to God, and believe, trust, in Christ, fully sinless man and fully God, who physically rose from the grave defeating death, for the forgiveness of sin so that God counts to you the righteousness of Christ when He looks upon you that you may spend eternity with Him. That is the Good News.

Wishing all a Merry Christmas!

On the sometimes ill-defined evangelical metaphor of a relationship and the subtle error of decisional regeneration

Yesterday, I listened to a sermon from a preacher of a church in Georgia, a church that could be defined as ‘seeker-sensitive,’ and the central theme of the message was stated as thus: Jesus Christ came to earth to do away with religion and to talk about and engage us in a relationship. I have heard this man, Gary Lamb,  speak at a church I once attended.

In keeping with the anti-religion theme of the sermon, a major portion of the sermon concerned itself with expounding against the error of legalism and our inability to please God by our adherence to ‘religious’ rules. In general principle, I could not agree more. The call against legalism was contrasted with the call to have a relationship with Jesus. The pastor stated that Jesus wants us to be His friend rather than a slave. I agree, but as an aside, I think of the apostle Paul describing himself as a bond servant to the Messiah. Semantics and definitions…..

Given the pastor’s admirable distaste of legalistic religion, it is interesting that he constantly reinforced the idea that this relationship with Jesus requires an initiating action on our part. The pastor’s flock was told that all we have to decide to enter in to a relationship with Him; it’s a free invitation. Jesus is just standing there waiting patiently for us to do something. He misquoted John 3:16 as “For God so loved the world that who ever believes, who ever decides, who ever makes the action, makes the decision for Him will have eternal life.” This is a verbatim quote from the sermon.

Romans 10:13 was misquoted as “Who ever calls, whoever makes a decision, on the Lord will be saved.”

Revelation 3:20 was misquoted as, and I paraphrase fairly closely, “that Jesus stands at the door of our heart and we must make a decision to open the door. Jesus is not going to kick in the door.” One, this is a verse that is so often and with good intention taken out of context and used evangelically. However, Christ is talking to the tepid church of Laodicea, not to the unregenerate as an invitation to a saving ‘relationship.’ Two, he intentionally misquoted scripture again.

However, in all the talk about entering into some rather ill-defined ‘relationship’ with Jesus, I do not recall hearing a word about despair over sin, about repentance. That is an absolutely breath-taking omission in presenting the Gospel. Perhaps such was inferred, was understood on the part of the pastor, but the biblical call to repent and believe was not verbally presented as the invitation to a relationship with Christ. To give credit where credit is perhaps due, he did mention towards the beginning of his sermon, thought, that he was quite a hellion before he became a Christian. I am not sure if I am to infer a call to repentance from that.

Among the pastor’s numerous personal anecdotes the he used to punctuate the sermon’s main points, there was a long rant about a legalistic ‘King James Only’ type church the pastor once attended. There was another church he spoke against in the course of the sermon, one that he planted and pastored (if I recall correctly), and after calling it by name, inferred it would be welcomed in hell. Following a bit later was a diatribe against sprinkling verses dunking.

While listening to the sermon, I had to remind myself that the pastor is a human being who apparently feels he has been hurt by individuals in the church. Sometimes, and sadly, such happens. There was some real, though veiled, bitterness exhibited in his descriptions of previous churches he had be involved with, and I have to temper my thoughts and words in regards to this man and his church. I have some empathy for him.

Towards the end of the sermon, he presented the ever so ubiquitous and unbiblical refrain of the seeker-sensitive church, the all too common proclamation of how it is not his job as pastor to feed the flock, that it is the flocks fault when they complain about not getting fed at church. His spin on those who want to ‘go deeper’ was that they want the pastor to ‘confuse them’. He stated such cannot handle practical teaching because they would have to do something. These seeker-sensitive preachers and entertainment-driven churches seem to all be reading from the same script. At the risk of sounding judgmental while perhaps speaking from the burden of my personal baggage, arrogance and disdain for the real ‘seekers’ seems to have stepped in to fill the gaping void left by the absence of overt legalism.

In the last few minutes of the sermon, Jesus was presented as a marriage fixer, a relationship healer, but overall, I actually heard very little about Christ the Redeemer.

In all the pastors admirable concern about legalism, what I picked up from the sermon, with all its calls to decide, with all the calls to perform an action both in initiating this relationship with Christ and the call to self-feed, was an ironic invitation to a works-driven legalism-lite. What I picked up, too, was a not-so-subtle ‘thank God I am/we are not like those Pharisees attitude. For brevities sake, I will refrain from further exploring this theme of minor league legalism. I think it could be stated with a high degree of confidence that all who are in Christ are, to some degree, recovering Pharisees.

What I was left with after listening to this sermon was an odd mix of muted anger at and profound sadness for the pastor. I felt only deep sadness for the flock as they clapped in approval. In all honesty, two or three years ago, if I were in that audience, I would have probably nodded my head in agreement and put my hands together along with the rest of the flock. In closure, what grieves me so very, very deeply is that this is probably not an uncommon sermon in many churches. With good intentions from well-meaning pastors, the evangel is reduced to an invitation to an ill-defined relationship with buddy Jesus, a relationship that carries some vague promises to fix our marriages, to fix our money, to fix our psychology. He just wants you to get out there and do something to fill the church seats so other people can meet Him just as you did. And you know what, despite the error being expounded from the stage, I believe some may actually have a saving encounter with Christ in such services, but I also fear many others will be filled with false assurance.

There are some preachers who will tell you salvation is free, that it’s easy, but it’s ultimately up to you to decide, to act, to initiate. I do not think it was without cost for Jesus. I do not think it will be without cost to me, but I have counted them as best I can. I did not initiate this relationship, my Messiah did. I do not think it will be easy, but I will follow Him knowing that I will stumble along the way. Jesus does look after and love His flock with tender care, but He never promised a ‘wonderful plan for your life’ as many would define wonderful. I know, too, that no one can snatch me from His grip.

• Matt. 22:14 (ESV)
  For many are called, but few are chosen.

• John 15:16 (ESV)
  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

• John 6:44 (ESV)
  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

• John 6:37 (ESV)
  All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

• Romans 9:15-16 (ESV)
  For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

• Ephesians 1:4-5 (ESV)
  ..even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

• Acts 13:48 (ESV)
  And when the Gentiles heard this, the began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed

Some thoughts, I hope not too pedantic, on evangelism

A number of posts ago, I indicated that I would, at some point in the future, post some thoughts on altar calls in specific, on contemporary evangelical methodology in general. Now is a good time as any to begin.

I find it interesting how relatively late in church history that it became, for the most part, the de facto contemporary evangelical methodology. Here, a little knowledge of church history illuminates. As far as I have been able to determine, and I am not a scholar, seminarian, or student of church history, the altar call methodology was not widely instituted until the early and mid eighteen-hundreds. Charles Finney, with his ‘new measures’ is most directly responsible for contemporary evangelical methodology. It is somehow ironic that his legacy and influence reverberates ever so strongly and much of the laity has never heard of him.

I think an abbreviated history of Finney and his new measures is perhaps in order. Finney, a lawyer who came to faith on October 10^th in the 1821 after years of unbelief, became a Presbyterian minister. Part of the process of becoming ordained involved professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54]

Finney also rejects Calvinism, perhaps as a response to what may be called an errant strain of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism that he had been exposed to and perhaps by which, ironically, he was led to a profession of faith in Christ. It, too, must be understood that the great revivals, the Great Awakening, had been through preachers and theologians such as Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, staunchly Calvinists in their understanding of grace. Finney also entertained ideas errant and dangerous. Essentially, from what I gather, he denied the scope of the Fall and taught what seems to be a justification by works. He appears to constantly downplay God’s sovereign role in salvation. His theology turns the eyes of the heart from God to a focus on a seemingly ‘not-so-fallen’ humanity. Finney essentially denied the atoning work of Christ on the cross.  Therein we find egregious harm and error, the seeds of which seem to be in full bloom in this age and time. While evangelicals would reject Finney’s errant theology if they were aware of it, they heartily embrace his evangelical methodology.

What Finney popularized in his aforementioned ‘new measures’ was the precursor and close cousin to the altar call, the ‘anxious bench’ and ‘mourner’s bench’. What Finney taught was that revival could be ‘worked up’ through psychological and emotional inducements. Revival did not need to be altogether prayed down as much as worked up.

Going back to altar calls, which are just one expression of an overarching methodology of psychological and emotional manipulation, those who have been in conservative evangelical churches, be they mega or small, be they Baptist or charismatic, be they traditional or contemporary, have often been exposed to calls to come forward to the altar. Many have responded to altar calls, sometimes more than once. Some have come to a redeeming faith in Christ through altar calls. Often, those who give altar calls present the Gospel message completely and without compromise.

What many altar calls and variants thereof do, however, is often introduce non-biblical language, non-biblical conditions, and non-biblical calls to salvation. What some altar calls do, also, is offer an easy grace, a salvation seemingly without cost, without an inferred need for repentance. What altar calls may sometimes do is give those who respond a false sense of security because they were actually never presented with the Gospel and therefor never actually came into a redeeming relationship with Christ. Also, many studies and statistics have shown that only a very small percentage, mostly in the single digits, of those who respond to altar calls during crusades and revivals actually remain actively involved in the faith for more than a year. They simply seem to drop out of sight and fall back into their ‘pre-decision’ lifestyles. We must remember that the biblical call to evangelize, the Great Commission, is to make disciples, not just converts, real or otherwise.

Following are a few examples of misleading evangelical methods. Many calls to the altar proclaim that Jesus has a wonderful plan for your life if one would just respond to the call, raise your hand, or say a prayer. Well, Jesus may not have a wonderful plan for your life as many would count wonderful. Such is never promised in the canon of Scripture. His plan for you may be quite difficult and not without cost. The Messiah’s calls to discipleship were not easy calls. What would the martyr Steven say about Christ offering you ‘your best life now?’ Would such an inducement work in the Sudan? Would such and inducement work in China? We are not called to press an ‘easy button’ for redemption. Sadly, I have actually seen, on more than one occasion and at more than one location Jesus being referred to as the ‘easy button’ to salvation.

I have heard other calls to salvation go thusly: “If you cannot remember the moment you were saved, now is the time to ‘nail it down.’” Such is not a biblical call to salvation. The only times that I recall the New Testament calling one’s salvation into question is the lack of observable growth, of spiritual fruit, over the long term in ones life. What is introduced in the context of the call to ‘nail it down’ is a false, unbiblical condition for salvation. To emotionally manipulate someone into making a decision based on doubts about the veracity of or inability to recall an earlier decision bought about by emotional manipulation is both ironic and unbiblical. If you have repented of sin and trust in the grace and redeeming work of Christ alone for salvation, you have it ‘nailed down’ and will persist in His grip whether or not you remember the point in time you first came to trust in Christ.

I have heard other calls to salvation infer that if one does not respond to this particular call, you may never get another chance to ‘decide’ for Christ, that this particular ‘move of God’ must be acted upon now for you may never get another opportunity. What is inferred in this manipulative scheme is that there is a time stamp on the grace of God. If you do not come forward now or raise your hand or say a prayer, you may never be wooed by the Holy Spirit again. At best, this is unbiblical. The call to grace and redemption through Christ only expires when one departs this tent of flesh.

I could go on with more examples of unbiblical and emotionally manipulative methods that I have personally witnessed, but my point is clear. Too, I am absolutely not inferring any ill will is intended by those who use such methods. I am not intending to cast doubt on their love and commitment to Christ. The use of such methods is more born out of perhaps ignorance and perhaps out of a denominational tradition. Without regard to intent, what is happening, though, is that the Gospel is all too often presented in an often unbiblical way, much like the hard pitch of a used car salesman. Do people sometimes come to redemption, to a saving knowledge of Christ through such methods? Sometimes, perhaps more than one would expect, this methodology produces fruit. God can and does sometimes use the one drop of truth in an ocean of error. Sometimes one may run around holding a metal rod during a thunder storm and not get struck by lightening. Does this mean that doing such is a good idea?

More recently, perhaps in the last couple of decades, we have seen the nature of the church being inverted and redefined in some quarters of western Christendom. Rather than going out into the world to make disciples, Christ’s call to the Great Commission and the nature and constituency of the church had been turned upside down. Now, congregates are now often being instructed to bring the world into a recalibrated church so that a charismatic (not using the word in the theological and Pentecostal sense, but referring to a commanding personality) pastor can present what is hopefully a faithful call to the Gospel. Bring in your ‘unchurched’ friends and family and we’ll get them saved is the inferred contract. (Note with absolute confidence that I am definitely not saying that is wrong to invite the unsaved to church.) Inducements are introduced to the church to make it more attractive to the ‘unchurched.’ Topical and often entertaining sermons that cater to one’s felt needs replaces sound expository preaching. Give away everything from IPods to motorcycles during the service to draw people through the doors. There is actually a church that gave away an Orange County Choppers custom motorcycle to induce people to come to church. The question is this: Is the clarion call of the word of God, faithfully proclaimed, not enough? Did the apostle Paul deem it necessary to give away camels and tents to bait people to the Gospel? The apostles fished with nets.

Why is it that many advisers to church planters (and sometimes the pastors, themselves) appear, as evidenced by their websites, to be more instructors on marketing and product placement than proclaimers of the Gospel? What has happened with the best of intentions is that more and more churches, modeled more on secular business and leadership practices than on biblical mandates are becoming more and more consumer driven. If a service conflicts with the Super Bowl, then the church will reschedule so that attendance does not decline. Increasing numbers of churches are opening up coffee shops in the church to draw in the crowds. Churches put up fountains that dispense chocolate and give massages to moms on Mothers Day to draw people into church. What ends up being engaged, again with the best of intentions, is a ‘bait and switch’ evangelical methodology that plays to our self-indulgence. Can such a church survive without creative and witty video introductions to topical sermons that constantly draw on popular culture references? Can it survive with a less than professional band? Can it present a message of hope and reconciliation with God through Christ without framing everything between a pastor’s personal and often humorous anecdotes? Does such a church depend too much on human creativity and effort and perhaps not enough on the power of His word? When all that is peripheral is stripped away, what is such a church left with? I remember running across this quote from another blog: “What you draw people with is what you draw them to.” How do I reconcile Christ’s call to die to self in the face of chocolate fountains and easy buttons in church?

Perhaps I am way off base, but much of contemporary evangelical and ecclesiastical methodology, in all its applaudable zeal, seems at times, unintentionally, to treat Jesus as a means to an end rather than an altogether and absolutely wonderful end in and of Himself. It as if Jesus is a prescription being dispensed a sick world. It is as if I have a fatal, systemic infection and am given a wonder drug, an antibiotic, and I am being told that all I have to do is take this drug and I will be healed. I may not develop an all encompassing love for this drug; I may love not being sick more than I love the drug. I may become more enamored with and focused on the one who gave me this drug than the drug itself.

I have stated, perhaps ad nausea, what I believe to be wrong with much of American evangelical methodology. What then do I propose is correct? I believe it is this: In the times the Gospel is preached in the New Testament where we have details of what is said, there is not one single example where anyone is told that the circumstances of their life will necessarily improve when they become disciples of Christ. What is recorded, though, is an absolute focus on and exaltation of Christ. We see the apostles going out into the world proving Christ from scripture. We see the condemnation of sin, the call to repentance, and proclamation of the absolute falleness of humanity. Solely proclaimed is faith in the atoning work of grace through Christ to restore rebellious humanity to the Savior. Such leads to a selfless life focused on Christ.

Again, as stated in a previous post, we must remember that Christ, incomprehensibly loved by the Father and Holy Spirit and sharing an incomprehensible unity within their Trinitarian relationship, condescended to take on human flesh and then looked down both barrels of Father God’s holy and incomprehensible and righteous fury over our sin; He faced Father God’s white-hot anger that should have been directed at His redeemed ones. He, the all mighty Creator of all, was beaten and scourged by the created. He was nailed to that horrific Roman torture and death machine, the cross, naked and shamed. He then gloriously defeated death by physically rising from the tomb. Why did He do this? He did it that we, His flock, may be, through His grace alone, clothed in His righteousness, that He may be glorified forever.

Some rather disjointed thoughts regarding an afternoon walk, my conviction of self-indulgence, and an encounter with a homeless man

I have a routine of walking for about thirty minutes or so after I arrive home from work. The usual route takes me down a road, one not much more than a stones throw from my home in a lower-middle class neighborhood, that is mostly framed with wetlands, beaver dams, lush woods, and an old, abandoned railroad spur off of a railway, still in use, where gravel was once off-loaded from the train cars into dump trucks. Here, along this road, I have watched egrets and hawks in flight; I have observed a doe with fawn crossing the road, and I have seen beaver swimming in pools formed by dams of their own design and creation. I have also encountered other things.

I remember, perhaps three years ago, while walking this road on a particularly windy March afternoon, a splash of color, what looked like a red sheet, caught on low branch of a pine tree along the edge of a clearing. The next day, I noticed another splash of color at another point along the meadow. I, being of a somewhat inquisitive nature, decided to soon investigate.

A couple of days later, rather than turning onto the aforementioned road as I usually do, I walked a bit further and entered a clearing via an old access road that took me through the yard where, years ago, dump trucks would leave with loads of gravel. Past the old yard, I walked along a deep perimeter of pine trees behind which lay the train tracks. Near where I saw the splash of color the previous two days, I saw a small tent hidden away in the trees, along with evidence of current habitation. It was surrounded by empty bottles of soft drink; there were shirts and pants hanging from cords strung between pine trees, and well-defined paths meandered through the stand of pines.

I walked a bit further and found something a bit disconcerting. I saw a man, his back to me and apparently unaware of my presence, who seemed to be having an animated conversation with parties unseen. Now, he could have been talking on a cell phone for all I know, but that is not the impression I was left with. He also, seemed, at the time, to be about six and half feet tall.

For self-evident reasons, prudence seemed to be the course of action, so I quietly left the area, drawing as little attention to myself as possible, and quickly walked home. Before my current employment, I had worked for a few years as a non-professional in mental health care. My experience, reinforced by common sense, led me to believe that I had witnessed someone with either a drug abuse issue, a mental heath issue such as schizophrenia, or perhaps a combination of both. The story could end here, but it does not.

I rolled the events of that day over and over in my mind for a couple of days, and developed a strong conviction that I should revisit the scene. To be honest, I really did not want to. This tension was, however, beginning to be contextualized in my mind within the framework of my confession of Christianity. What of the authenticity of my trust in my Messiah if I let my concerns over potential danger override what I felt to be a real and true prompting?

After a few days, I went for my afternoon walk and, with mixed emotions, revisited the campsite. I called out a greeting out as I approached and was met by a man who seemed to be about my age, about my 5’9″ height, and weighing about 150 pounds, quite a few pounds shy of my weight. He also seemed to be quite pleasant and in full possession of all his facilities. Where was the six and a half foot tall maniac I witnessed a few days before?

After speaking with him a bit, I began to feel a bit more comfortable with the situation. I found out a few things about him, but out of courtesy, I did not pry too deeply into the how and why of his circumstances. Over a year or so, I would often visit him for short periods of time. I helped him as I could; I would bring him food and articles to make his life more comfortable. I made calls and tried to arrange the logistics of getting him into a shelter, but he seemed quite resistant to leaving his tent. I also called a couple of churches to elicit help, but none ever materialized. Also, his name was Joel.

He spoke of a relative, a brother who lived nearby, with whom he would stay when the weather turned heavy and cold which alleviated my concern about his well-being to a small degree. Occasionally, we talked about things of faith and he spoke of his confidence in Christ, and he spoke in a way that left me no doubt about his understanding and sincerity and trueness of faith. Among his possessions was a Bible and a radio that he used to listen to religious broadcasts. In all my conversations with him, I never saw any evidence of mental aberration in any of his speech or behavior. It is interesting that our conversations would often take up, almost to the sentence, where we had left a week earlier. It was as if there was, for him, no lag or gap in our conversation.

Over time, especially during the more temperate days of late summer and early fall, I saw less and less of Joel. Sometimes I would visit, but he would be elsewhere. Sometimes, I honestly just did not make a concerted effort to visit. Driving home from work one evening, I saw, at the entrance to the clearing leading to his tent, a couple of trucks with two or three people standing nearby. The next day, a Saturday, I walked to his tent and found the area cordoned off with yellow tape; what used to be a unobtrusive camp, a hidden refuge for a homeless man, now had the appearance of crime scene. Joel’s tent was in shambles. The trucks I saw parked at the entrance to the clearing belonged to EMTs.

I called a the sheriffs department a couple of days later and got a little bit of information, and my worst suspensions were confirmed. His body was found in an advanced state of decomposition. I was told his death, though the coroner did not have much to work with, was probably by natural causes.

From the aforementioned experiences, the furniture of my mind has been shuffled around a bit. One, least it be thought that I take any kind of spiritual pride in my interactions in helping a homeless man, forget that immediately. What I am is convicted and chastened. What I did not give freely was my time. What I did not give freely was myself. Followers of Christ are often taught, sometimes wisely and sometimes in ways that are quite erroneous, that how they manage their money is reflective of their spiritual state, a metric of their spiritual maturity and affirmation of the lordship of Christ. I would also say that how we spend our time is reflective of our spiritual maturity. I mentioned before how a conversation interrupted by my departure would be taken up by Joel at the point we left off upon seeing him again a week later. This is a man who did not have much contact with others and, and though a bit of a hermit, seem to relished what contact he did experience.

I have also learned than my expectations of outcomes, be it from prayer or be it from my effort, may not always be harmonious with the will of the One to Who I pray. One thing that I often petitioned God for was that Joel find shelter. Now, I entertained the idea of bringing him into our small house, but I will be honest. As much as I trusted Joel, I did not think it prudent to bring him into my home, nor do I think he would have accepted such an offer; I did not know him that well that I should take any risk in endangering my family, my wife and young son.  That being said, I did discuss that option to him  once or twice and he refused.  He had also resisted my attempts to obtain for him a bed at a shelter. He also had family nearby. I managed to assuage my middle-class guilt a bit.

I wrestled with the fact that I fervently prayed that he find shelter, and, at the risk of sounding trite and sentimental, he did, thought perhaps not in a way that I assumed and hoped. I wrestled with the fact that a child of God died homeless and unattended till little was left of his now empty tent of flesh. Going back to redeeming our time, I wrestled with the fact that I sometimes sinfully neglected his well-being while I pursued my own sometimes self-indulgent interests. I still wrestle with that tendency.

Life goes on. I still walk that road, and when I walk, I use that time to reflect, to pray, and to think thoughts that may, from time to time, find themselves on this web journal. In the intervening days and years and in ways that I do not clearly understand, I have developed a deeper, more profound assertion, understanding, and acceptance of God’s absolute wisdom and sovereignty. I understand a bit more clearly, too, that the travails of this present age cannot begin to compare to the unspeakable joy of one day finding myself, as did Joel, forever, by His redeeming grace, in the presence of our Savior.

A note of irony with which to end: Joel’s brother whom he sometimes referred to in our conversations turned out to be, as I found in Joel’s obituary, my next-door neighbor.

Philippians 1:6
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

1 John 4:11-12

Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

John 13:35

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

An Ecclesiastical Journey

Chapter One: Into the Seeker Sensitive Wilderness

I have experienced, over the years and to varying degree, almost the whole gamut of American ecclesiology, of American church culture. I have attended a liberal, main-line Protestant church and have visited, on a few occasions, Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches.  I have also spent much time in a seeker-sensitive mega-church. Within all these churches,  one can find Christians being progressively conformed to the image of our Savior, Christ Jesus.

Also, within our unity as Christians, I find doctrinal disagreements, most of which are quite peripheral and hardly worthy of note. I sometimes find profound variation in doctrine, especially within the liberal currents of ecclesiology.

However, of all the aforementioned experiences, I have come to see that the seeker-sensitive church of the 21st century, while outwardly proclaiming orthodoxy and acting within the best of intentions, is a potentially dangerous and subtly heterodox perversion of biblical ecclesiology. While liberal churches often deny the basic doctrines of Christianity, they are, for the most part, forthright in their proclamations, and they are consistent with, and able to clearly articulate, their theology. Those who align themselves with liberal theology also comprise a very small percentage of overall church attendance, and, with no insult intended, have increasingly little influence over the affairs of culture. I also find an ironic commonality between the liberal branch of contemporary Christianity and the seeker-sensitive movement. Both are quite human-centric. Therein one finds egregious error.