Okay, I am no historian or theologian, and I realize that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Having said that, I affirm that, Biblically, Christians are to submit to authorities and render unto governing bodies that which is owed – taxes, for example. What of the American revolution, then, a revolt against an established governing power primarily over, if I have accurately retained my high school American history over the last 30+ years, taxation without representation?

Perhaps this is a simple-minded question, but without regard to the moral character of those who participated on both sides of the conflict and while also unabashedly affirming God’s sovereignty over the affairs of mankind, was it a ‘righteous’ revolution in view of those verses that affirm that we are to submit to authorities as long as such does not lead to disobedience to God?

Part of the motivation behind asking this question arises from my rising consciousness and concerns over the errant synergism of church and state found in some pulpits and congregates, both on the left and right side of ecclesiology and politics. It arises, to, from the nervous hand-wringing of many that precedes recent presidential elections.

As an aside, I recently watched a bit of a local church service on television wherein two or three songs/anthems of a patriotic nature were performed prior to the sermon. Without regard to the tone and content of this post, I am not anti-American or unpatriotic. However, does the national anthem or patriotic tunes have a place in worship? Yea! Another poll for you!

Romans 13:1-7 (ESV)

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

“Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ” Matthew 22:21

by David Wells:

Across much of evangelicalism, but especially in the market-driven churches, one therefore sees a new kind of leadership among pastors now. Gone is the older model of the scholar-saint, one who was as comfortable with books and learning as with the aches of the soul. This was the shepherd who knew the flock, knew how to tend it, and Sunday by Sunday took that flock into the treasures of God’s Word. This has changed. In its placed is the new ‘celebrity’ style. What we typically see now, Nancy Pearcey suggests, is the leader who works by manipulating the feelings of the audience, enhancing his own image with personal anecdotes, modeling himself after the CEO, and adopting a domineering management style. He (usually) is completely results-oriented, pragmatic, happy to employ and technique from the secular world that will produce the desired results. And this leader has to be magnetic, entertaining, and light on the screen up front. (pg. 40)

I am so thankful for the pastors, the scholar-saints, the under-shephards, that remain faithful to the Biblical mandate and calling to feed the sheep.

Perhaps now, after so many posts on ecclesiastic issues, I will move to and graze in other topical pastures in this ‘blogging’ venture…..

…..on leadership, relevance, and the contemporary American church

• I am all for good leadership, both within and outside the church (and I know the following will be misunderstood or considered unreasonably judgmental by by some), but in reading the blogs of more than a few church planters, pastors, and church “CEOs” of ‘relevant’, attractional churches, I perceive something of a leadership ‘fetish’. Sometimes, I will mentally remove any mention or implication of the the Gospel from the blogs and posts of some of these church leaders, and, sadly, very little is changed in the content their published thoughts. Sometimes, all I find among the ubiquitous calls to engage boundless creativity, bold leadership, and cultural relevance is the occasional exhortation to ‘make Jesus famous.’ Many church leaders publish a ‘what I am reading’ list, and it honestly grieves me that most of the titles being read seem to be secular, trendy, ‘flavor of the day’ books on on leadership principles, business practices, and marketing strategies. It would be refreshing, given we are talking about the reading habits of pastors, to see a bit of John Piper, Jonathan Edwards, or Spurgeon, an occasional systematic theology put into the mix. When something of a spiritual nature is listed, it is often a title of questionable theology like The Shack, or Wild at Heart. Too, is there perhaps a bit, a hint, of self-aggrandizement, of unrighteous pride in self and methods, in this hyper-focus on leadership skills? As an aside, I recall reading a post on a web log of a pastor/CEO (his claimed title) of a church I once attended wherein he briefly comments on and unpacks some passages from Romans through, and I quote, ‘the eyes of a leader’. Nice to see something from Romans on his web log, but are the ‘eyes of a leader’ the correct lens through which to filter the inspired words of Paul to the church at Rome? Perhaps the eyes of a repentant sinner, humbled by the Cross, would be a more correct lens. Nothing wrong with leadership per se, but in engaging biblical leadership, it must be affirmed that the church is not a business. Our benchmarks and measurables are not those of the world; faithfulness is not a quantifiable commodity. The Gospel is not a product to be marketed. The first will be last and the last will be first. Christ is not dependent on our skills, but we are dependent on His sufficiency in all things.

• Related to the above bullet point (and I have addressed this subject ad nausea before), I find so many church planters, pastors, and leaders stating that it is their job to lead the flock rather than ‘feed’ the flock. Also stated by some of these leaders is that a leader should not have to feed his staff. In all honesty, my heart is broken and grieves over this unbiblical redefinition of the role of an under-shepherd. The flock needs, I need, a pastor, not a vision caster! The pastors first responsibility is to the flock, not the world. His mandate is to prepare the flock to go into the world, to ‘lead’ his flock into Christ-likeness. I recently spent some time on another post on this subject of pastoral responsibility (or lack thereof) and ’sheep feeding’, but had second thoughts about publishing it. I opted to keep it private. Still struggling with a polemic attitude and perhaps a hyper-focus on my part regarding this subject.

• Relevance, the clarion call of many a ‘contemporary’ church……… This is, in a very broad sense, what the mainline denominations engaged in accommodating the Gospel to the modernists of the previous century or so. Where are those churches now? They abandoned orthodoxy and engaged apostasy and are in death throes. Today, those who seek cultural relevancy are often unwittingly abandoning orthopraxy (and orthodoxy at times, too) to make the church ‘experience’ more palatable to (post-) modern tastes; all to often, many churches, in the quest for relevancy, unwittingly engage strange fire. Corporate worship becomes horizontally focused rather than vertical. Though I do not know enough about him to make any kind of overarching endorsement, I do like this quote by Dean William Inge of St Paul’s Cathedral in London: “Those churches who marry the spirit of the age become the widow of the next.” So many churches will find themselves chasing after wind in their pursuit of relevance, and what they do manage to grasp will eventually turn to dust. Only the Word will remain. Build on that foundation alone. Could have ended here, but one last thought on relevance experienced…….Out of curiosity, I recently listened to a bit (thirty minutes of part one) of a sermon series, from an evangelical community church, titled ‘Theologgins for Your Noggins’ (HT: Pyromanics) wherein the pastor exegeted (more truthfully, as one Pyro commenter stated, engaged in eisegesis of Horton Hears a Who or whatever it was) the works of Dr. Suess for spiritual truths. I am sure the pastor and leadership of the church are nice, agreeable people who act from good motives, but I do not have words to describe the anger (especially during minutes 15.30-21.30) that washed over me as I listened to Dr Suess being mined from the stage/pulpit for spiritual insight. Ultimately, what we find in such stunts is a lack of confidence it the power of the Word faithfully expounded. What we also sometimes find, too, is the bride admiring herself in the mirror and exalting her creativity and relevance while the Bridegroom waits in the adjacent room.

I saw a sign in someones yard today that declared: “Elect Jesus As Your Lord!” Now, I do not in any way shape or form infer anything ill about the character of the person who displayed this sign in their yard. I know nothing about the family that lives in the house that sits behind this sign, nor do I infer that nothing ‘good’ ever comes from such faddish displays of faith.

However, does not this sign, albeit without intention, portray a Jesus that seems a bit weak and needy? Is He awaiting a majority vote before He acts? Is the mighty Lion of Judah, is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords restrained by some political process? Is He not the absolute Lord of salvation, of the created order; is He not a mighty Redeemer? He elected me that all glory should go to Him; I do not elect Him that any glory should go to me.

I think of a sermon I listened to a number of months ago at a moderately sized community church wherein the well-intentioned pastor, after having two members of the church ride their large, loud motorcycles through the poorly ventilated church to park them in front of the stage to make some point, perfumed by carbon monoxide, about God’s timing, declared that Jesus is a ‘gentleman’ who would never force His will on anyone. Is that a biblical understanding of the sovereignty and power of Jesus?

I saw a tee shirt for sale at a large book retailer a few weeks ago. The front of the shirt was a ripoff of the Staples Easy Button. “Jesus” replaced the “Easy” on the button. Wasn’t easy for Jesus.

]]> http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/marketing-the-gospel/feed/ 4 ronclick http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/when-thoughts-collide/ http://ronclick.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/when-thoughts-collide/#comments Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:51:41 +0000 Ron http://ronclick.wordpress.com/?p=162 ]]>

One thing may lead to another. In a previous post , I have voiced my opposition to what I perceive to be unbiblical presentations of the tithe. In other posts , I have expressed an interest in learning more (which wouldn’t be hard given that I know next to nothing) about covenant and dispensational theology. It is interesting that recently, in the course of a couple of conversations, the two issues have collided, and I am still sorting through the fallout.

Here is the back-story: I participate in a small group at the church I have rather recently began attending. In this group, we read through various books on the faith (currently The Contagious Christian by Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church), and in reading these books, we discuss and analyze them, looking for application, all through the lens of the reformed faith. One conversation went a bit off-topic to the subject of the tithe. Giving and tithing was the focus of the previous Sunday’s sermon, one that I missed because I was out of town. In the course of following the conversation, I perhaps was unconsciously telegraphing my discomfort with the direction of the dialog by my body language. Someone said it looked as if I were about to burst, so I voiced my opinion, I think/hope winsomely. I essentially mirrored the thoughts of my aforementioned post on tithing. In the course of the conversation, one that I must affirm was very gracious on the part of all parties involved, I found myself the sole voice for giving by grace rather than by law. In my questions about my understanding of the topic, the leader of the group, a man who I hold in utmost respect, suggested I talk with one of the associate pastors. I called and made an appointment.

I must say, I quite enjoyed the conversation with the associate pastor that followed and was edified by it, and we ended up meeting again to continue the conversation. At the closure of the conversation, we agreed to agreeably disagree on the subject of an obligatory tithe, but what I came away with from our conversations is that my questions and concerns and about the nature and extent of the interjection of the Law into the Church may be illuminated by a better understanding of Covenant Theology (CT) on my part. I will not go into the details of the conversation because, one, it would honestly take too long to put to the written word and I honestly probably spend a bit too much time with this blog thing, and two, I am still sifting slowly through my thoughts. I will, however, speak in some generalities and give voice to some questions and issues and thoughts to which I am seeking clarity.

Before I proceed, please forgive any misrepresentations on my part of CT. I am still in a very formative, embryonic stage of understanding and am quite open to correction. Too, I am beginning to better understand the value of a systemic, holistic approach to understanding the Bible, to understanding the relationship between Israel and the Church, to understanding the relationship between Law and Grace. I am thinking about how the former informs the latter, both the systematic approach informing the particulars and in the Law pointing to Grace. Also and without regard to my stance on the tithe, I believe in giving sacrificially, consistently, and regularly to one’s local church as well as to other groups and to individuals in need. I believe in doing so, when possible, anonymously, not informing the left hand as to what the right hand is doing. Within the life of a disciple of Christ, the nature of our treasure and the nature of our heart are reflective of one another. I also, at times (more often than I care to admit), fail miserably at being a faithful steward. In light of that, I humbly and in repentance thank God that I am not justified by my performance (I am not able to do so), but only by the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, and that He is, over time, sanctifying and conforming me to the image of my Redeemer, Christ Jesus.

One or two parenthetical thoughts before I continue: I do not in any way, shape, or form condemn, rebuke, shun, look down upon, castigate, or judge those who differ from me on the issue of the tithe or in regards to one’s stance on CT or DT with the caveat that I will steadfastly oppose the more egregiously legalistic presentations of the tithe wherein one is led, purposefully or not, to believe that God’s grace rests on our performance. I am also certainly not advocating a discontinuation of consistently giving a certain percentage of one’s income is one is presently doing so.

In light of all the aforementioned, here are some of those thoughts (perhaps sometimes a bit incoherent, errant, repetitive, shallow, and conflicted), questions (some rhetorical, others not), and concerns in a somewhat abbreviated fashion – perhaps fodder for later posts:

Thinking……..

• and wondering if there are there more obscure frameworks, discounting hybrids of the two in predominance, other than CT and DT(dispensational theology)? I know, I know……….. why don’t I just Google the question. Also, am I too simplistic in thinking only in terms of Law and Grace, of new wine and old wine skins, of Old and New Covenants?

• about Seventh Day Adventist verses antinomianism. Where, if any (and we all know there is), is the middle ground?

• about avoiding at all cost any vestige of the 2nd century heresy of Marcion in reference to his rejecting the OT out of hand. I affirm the Law is good. I affirm both OT and NT as authoritative, inspired, and infallible.

• on the somewhat dissonant (for me) interjection of tithing in specific, law in general, into my understanding of justification by faith. As a hypothetical, would a poor, elderly widow, just barely making ends meet and living on social security, with no relatives, be obligated to tithe? If the answer is yes from an outcome and prediction of CT (and that is what I am led to believe), then CT, in my understanding of this framework, died just a bit to me. This widow is one whom I should give to. I think of the poor in Asia Minor taking up collections so that the apostle Paul may give it to the poor in Jerusalem. Note that I do not infer that the aforementioned and hypothetical widow should not be generous even in her poverty.

• about Deuteronomy 14:24-26. Also, many preach Malachi regarding “God robbers” and being cursed. Follow up, please, Malachi 3:9 with Romans 8:1 and pay attention to context, especially with Malachi.

• about distinctions that are made between the ceremonial, civil, and moral law of the OT…..and the assertion that only moral law is for the church. Do I find this assertion in the NT? Does the OT assign or infer such a hierarchy or separation between ‘types’ of law?

• about the book of Galatians and Colossians and also thinking about Acts 15 where the few clear ‘legalistic’ prohibitions are clearly stated.

• in further detail about the tithe and how it is not presented in the Old Testament as simply a specific percentage off the top of one’s income; it was agricultural in nature in a culture that had currency. There were three (a few say four) tithes in the OT and cumulatively, they could add up to over twenty percent. I think of how craftsmen and tradesmen did not tithe though they did offer gifts. I could go on, but I just want to assert my understanding that the tithe as taught by many churches is not how I understand the tithe is presented in the OT. Also thinking about how silly the debate is over determining if that percentage of the tithe is taken off the net or the gross. Brother, please………

• about, as aforementioned, how we are to give sacrificially, about how we spend our money is reflective of what and Who we value most dearly.

• disturbingly about how brothers can apply what seems to be sound hermeneutics and sometimes reach so very different conclusions.

• about how, at this particular place and time in my growth as a Christian, I am not currently in too much intellectual conflict about the relationship between Israel and the Church, a contentment perhaps born out of my blissful ignorance. I do worry a bit, having been drawn into it for a season, about the ‘end times’ mania that seems to have captured the attention of parts of the church that are strongly dispensational. This phenomenon of a hyper-focus on eschatology, however, seems to be waning a bit. Or maybe I am just not paying attention to it anymore……

• about and asserting that, from my understanding, CT (and DT) is not primarily concerned with addressing the relationship of Law and grace, but more about how God works out His will in history and with His covenant people. I assert that my foray into issues of Law and Grace in relation to CT, while not necessarily parenthetical, does not present a fully orbed picture of CT. I affirm that God is a sovereign Maker of covenants. He does not change.

• about my concern that I may be creating heat rather than light with my dialog and questions. I do not think that I am, but I pray for greater discernment and grace and wisdom in all I say and write, that I honor my Savior in words or deeds.

• About how easy it is for me to get long-winded and hyper-focused on an issue

‘Nuff said for now…could polish and refine the post a bit more, but I think I will now release it into the wild.

• Matthew 7:22-23 (ESV)
  On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

What does it mean to be known by the Messiah? How is one known by Jesus that one may not one day be faced with the unmitigated horror of being told by the Messiah, after operating under the false assumption that one had a relationship with Him, to depart from His presence into the outer darkness?

Somewhat tangential to the aforementioned question, does the 21st century American church, with admirable intentions, sometimes inadvertently present Him as a means to an end, as a freely dispensed drug that gives eternal life to those who take it? Does the church sometimes redefine itself to make Jesus and the His church more marketable, more attractive, to an increasingly competitive and post-Christian market? As an unforeseen side-effect of well-intentioned methodologies, do some manifestations of the contemporary America church sometimes seem more obsessed with the bride than the Bridegroom as they engage their bold, creative, and innovative evangelical visions, marketing schemes and strategies?

Too, why and when did those who have not repented and believed in Christ, who have not been presented with the Good News, become redefined as the ‘unchurched’ demographic? Returning to the opening query, what does it really mean to have a ‘relationship with Jesus?’ Has this phrase became just another evangelical cliché? Do we not all, ‘churched’ or not, have a relationship with Him of one sort or another? When did the often-heard invitation for the ‘unchurched’ to have a ‘relationship with Jesus’ replace the biblical call to ‘repent and believe’ in Christ?’

We are called by Christ in the New Testament to examine ourselves. What fruit are we bearing in our lives as we follow Christ? From the mouth comes the over-flow of the heart. What do we think about and what do we talk about most often and most excitedly? What, or Who, are we obsessed with? Hobbies? Sports? Work? The worries of the increasingly difficult economics of making ends meet? Or are we, over time, growing in our love for the Bridegroom? Is He valued and exalted above all, even our families? Or are we noisy gongs and clashing cymbals? We must ask ourselves, do we love the gift more than the Giver? How will our love for Christ manifest itself? Maybe how we answer these last few questions relates to the opening question.

• 1 Corinthians 13 (ESV)
  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

• 2 Peter 1:3-11 (ESV)
  His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Part 1
Stetzer to Dever:”….this is not your normal crowd. I told a friend…..you kind of stuck out here like Joel Osteen at John MacAurthur’s Shepherds conference, but just the other direction.”

Very gracious and interesting interview.
Part 2

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. 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.

What follows is a selection of troubling thoughts I’ve come across from ‘blogs’ of church leaders/planters, a couple of whom are becoming quite influential. As for the first quote, while I respect, encourage, and applaud those who have a heart for the Great Commission, we must not loose sight of the nature and constituency of the Church as defined by the New Testament.

Too, I would propose that the common theme running through the following statements – perhaps unintended, and even denied, by those being quoted – is one of human-centricity, of a reliance on the passion and sufficiency of human efforts in growing the Kingdom. The unintentional fall-out is, unfortunately, often an arrogance regarding methods and results.

As an aside, I must admit I am somewhat uncomfortable with this post and do not have any intention of consciously turning my blog into a ‘watchblog’ or a ‘discernment’ blog. Such posts will probably be quite rare. That being said, here are the aforementioned quotes:

• ‘If I have to chose to make a decision that will cause a non-christian to leave or a christian to leave, I will always chose in favor of the non-christian (short of sinning). If a christian leave[sic], I know they will find another church for their family. If the non-christian leaves, I don’t know that they will give church and God another chance.’

• “I’ve heard it…you have too…”Christians” saying, “I just want to be fed!” It blows my mind! This would be equal to you and I going to an all you can eat restaurant and crying because no one would bring us any food. Food is all around in this environment…but if the person is lazy and self centered, wanting to be waited on hand and foot, then they could possibly starve to death when food is merely a few feet away. ” (Emphasis mine. Why the quote around “Christians?” Also, this issue of feeding is not always that the pastor’s sheep are “lazy and self-centered.” Unfortunately, some restaurants seem to have a menu rich with dairy products and desserts, but seem to be adverse to serving meals that sustain.”)

• “What people say: “I just want some deeper teaching.” Alternate version: “I want the meat.” Alternate version #2: “I need to be fed.” What that usually means (is) Don’t preach practical stuff to me. I would actually have to do something about it.”

• “It’s important to learn from churches bigger and smaller then you. Churches that are smaller have to be even more creative, because their success depends on it ” (emphasis mine)

• “Do WHATEVER It Takes To Grow…and SHUT UP About How Much It Cost! If I hear/see one more pastor/church planter complain about how much a conference cost and/or say they can’t afford something I am going to punch them…in the throat! The Bible says in Proverbs 4:6-8 that we need to get wisdom-NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS US!”

John 21:15-17

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.

Romans 9:16

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Mark 4:26-29

And he said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

Chapter One: Into the Seeker Sensitive Wilderness

I have experienced, over the years, almost the whole gamut of American ecclesiology, of American church culture. I have attended liberal, main-line Protestant churches and have visited churches steeped in the Pentecostal experience; I have worshiped with Southern Baptists and  Presbyterians.  I have also spent much time in a seeker-sensitive mega-church. Within all these churches, I find disciples of Christ being progressively conformed to the image of our Savior, Christ Jesus.

Also, within our unity as disciples of 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.

To validate the prior assertion, I must share observations from my four year long experience with a local mega-church that I believe is quite reflective of seeker-sensitive churches as a whole. I had been a member of a liberal Protestant church for quite some time. Before I continue, I must proclaim without any ambiguity whatsoever, that those in attendance are warm, friendly people. My issues with liberal theology are not with the adherents, but with the system of belief that denies the divinity and physical resurrection of Christ and the atoning work of grace of the Cross. That being said, I went on a search, armed with little in the way of knowledge and insight for a church that was orthodox, and found myself at a seeker sensitive church.

What exactly did I find? I found, for a church in a box, a level of professionalism and marketing that would leave many small (and not so small) businesses in envy. By a ‘church in a box’, I refer to the fact that the church had no building of its own, but rented an auditorium at the local university. It unboxed and set up all the AV equipment prior to the multiple services and took it apart to be stored elsewhere at the end of the day. The church handled the logistics with aplomb, thanks in no small part to teams of highly motivated volunteers. I was greeted by friendly volunteers in the parking lot, at the entrance to the auditorium, and within the auditorium. They helped me find a place to park, greeted me warmly, and helped me find a place to sit. Those with children found vibrant, age specific, programs that allowed parents to sit through the service without dealing with restless little ones. As to the service, the multimedia experience was par excellence. Professional quality video presentations projected on large screens provided a segueway to the topical series of the month. Worship was lead by a talented band playing both contemporary Christian music and topically relevant secular music. Sermons were provided with wit and humor and heavily illustrated with the pastor’s personal anecdotes. I was provided with what seemed to be clever and creative exegesis. The topical sermons were often entertaining and provided the audience with helpful advice on finances, marriage, and dating.

Through the four years of attendance, I had become quite immersed in the church experience. I gave generously, I volunteered my time, I became involved with a home group. The church eventually bought property and had a building constructed. I was quite excited about what I believed the church was accomplishing in the community. I took advantage of every opportunity to invite friends and colleagues to visit my church, whether or not they already were involved in a local church. I was also quite defensive of my church.

I do not wish to name the church; I believe it would, at this time, be inappropriate. Let me use a pseudonym of SSC for ‘Seeker Sensitive Church’ when I refer to the name of this church. I had found myself, and this is a self-indictment, drifting to a point where I was more verbal about SSC than I was about Christ. My conversations were about how exciting SSC was, how great the band was, how wonderful, witty, and transparent the pastor was, about how relevant the sermons were. I was so defensive of SSC. It was so easy to become increasingly, but subtly, focused on SSC rather than Christ.  (addendum on July 24,  2009: Due to questions posed regarding the identity of this church, I will now call SSC by it’s name: it is NewSpring Church in Anderson, SC)

Over time, however, I began to develop a rather vague sense of unease about this church. Before I continue, let me reiterate a previous statement. Those whom I know that attend this church are warm, friendly people. I am not indicting, in any way, shape, or form, those who attend, nor do I infer that the leadership acts with conscious ill intent. That being said, I had begun to notice currents, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, of growing arrogance running through the leadership of this church. I would listen to the pastor’s sermons and read his web journal and find blatantly unbiblical statements and attitudes that made me grieve and cringe. I would find passages from the Bible being ripped from context and intent and used to prop up unbiblical concepts of, for example, discipleship. Therein we find the aforementioned creative and clever exegesis.

There was a time when this church offered Bible studies and content that went beyond the life skills coaching commonly served on Sundays. They are no longer offered, and are now, in fact, seemingly discouraged by the leadership. The things that drew me to the church no longer satisfied. I longed to hear more of Jesus. What I wanted to hear about was the Jesus for whom the 1st century Palestinian Jews and Gentles were willing to die rather than recant their faith.

More discouraging is the growing disdain that the leadership of this church seems to hold towards those who wish to go ‘deeper.’ Those who desire to go ‘deeper’ are mocked. The errant implication and straw man argument, gathered both from the pastor’s web journal and sermons, is that such people would rather sit around gazing at their belly button and debate arcane and meaningless points of theology than actually do something substantive for the Kingdom. Those also who wish to be fed at church are decried as being lazy. I find it interesting that the Greek word for pastor, poiman, is translated as one who feeds, leads, and guides with tender care and nurturing. There is so much that can be said and many verses from the New Testament canon that could be brought to bear to counter this errant and arrogant attitude towards discipling, but let us, for now, remember the Messiah’s command to Peter: “Feed My sheep.” Christ did not tell the ‘lazy’ sheep to feed themselves.

As to the growing hubris of SSC, allow me to illustrate with a few examples. I remember a video introduction to a series in which happy people held up signs with the following message: I was__________ (fill in the blank with lost, depressed, etc), but I was saved at SSC. Think on that for a moment. Where is the focus of those signs? I saw, soon after I left the church, on the churches website, a request for people to give examples, to be used on an upcoming video presentation, of how SSC has helped them in their walk with Jesus. I remember a video introduction wherein new members gave their testimonies; one example involved a lady, an acquaintance, who recently joined SSC. She had children with special needs that some other churches could apparently not meet. Much ado was made in the video of how she was turned away from other churches, but only SSC would take her in and minister to her. She was used in the video presentation as a shill for SSC. There was a video presentation of a baptism where one of those baptized confessed that what he was looking for, he found at SSC. Those that did not conform to or agree with SSC’s methodology were often criticized and lampooned from both the stage and on the pastor’s web journal. I could go much further in offering examples, but I believe the point is clear.

I eventually reached a point to where I was compelled to voice my concerns with someone within the leadership of SSC. I wanted to know if I was in error in my concerns, if my perceptions were skewed. If they were, I would repent of them. I called the church to set up an appointment to speak to someone in the leadership about my concerns. While I hoped to speak face to face with someone, they allowed me an appointment over the phone.

During the phone conversation with one of the associate pastors, someone who I like and respect, I voiced my concerns, giving examples, over what I perceived to be an increasingly SSC-centric focus in the church. I mentioned my concerns about the abundance of human-centric life coaching, but too little in the way of Christ-centric content in sermons. I mentioned my concerns about what seemed to be a cult of personality that was building around the pastor. Also, this call occurred immediately before a month-long evangelical series wherein the pastor was calling for one thousand people to be saved. I was politely told, towards the end of our phone conversation, that I was perhaps self-centered, just wanting to go ‘deeper’, and that if I left SSC, I was turning my back on a “move of God” and would probably end up joining some small church of no more than 200 people where only two people a year got saved.

The response to my concerns validated my decision to leave SSC. While SSC is not overtly intending to dishonor Christ, until they become humbled, I could no longer be a part of the SSC church culture that the pastor and church leadership had, with the best of intentions, cultivated. I respect the pastor’s passion for evangelism, but a church must not let rapid growth stunt it’s humility in the carrying out of the great commission, the going out into the world to make disciples. They must learn that arrogant pride, either in self or in one’s church, is the antithesis of being Christ-like. It is so exceptionally easy, as individuals and as a congregation, to fall into the morass of self-absorption.

I also wish to state that this same associate pastor called me a couple of months later, and we had a short, but pleasant, conversation. I was left with the impression that while we may not be in agreement, my concerns from our initial conversation resonated with him, at least to a small degree. In conclusion to this chapter, I want to be clear that I carry absolutely no personal anger or vendetta towards this church; in fact, I hold out hope and prayer for this church, for its leadership. I sincerely want SSC to be an instrument of grace for Christ. Also, I do not wish to leave the impression that SSC is in complete error all the time in all that it does and all other churches are without error. Such is not the case. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, with all the faults of this church, that many in the community have benefited to some, and often great, degree by the activities and ministries of this church. Much of what is preached from the stage is often grace-filled, edifying truth, and I have no doubt than some have come to know Christ through the ministry of SSC.

While I do not wish to arrogantly place myself in the position of being a theological and ecclesiological Barney Fife, a self-appointed keeper of orthodoxy, it is my concern, as it should be for all Christians, that the church universal hold strong to what is true, and reject, gracefully when possible, what is false, semper reformanda. In the words from Titus 1:9, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.”

A Few Biblical References:

John 21:15

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Luke 10:38-42

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

Hebrews 6:1

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,

Acts 2:42

They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Colossians 1:28

We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.

Acts 15:35

But Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching with many others also, the word of the Lord.

Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

Chapter 2: Good intentions, often errant results
What, then, is the nature and purpose of the church? Who belongs to the church? All are good, pertinent, questions, and while church history is rich with illustrations of divisions over doctrine, over modes of church government, and over issues of ecclesiastical authority, there has been, from my admittedly limited grasp of church history, agreement, in general, over who belongs to the church, of how ‘church’ is to be defined.

With few exceptions, most notably within the Eastern Orthodox Church, the actual building where congregations gather is of no great import. Rather, the church is referred to in the New Testament canon metaphorically as, for example, the bride of Christ, as the body of Christ, with Christ being the head of the church. We in the church are referred to as His sheep and He is our Sheppard. We are the elect, the chosen ones. We are the branches, He is the Vine.

The church is called out from the world. Indeed, the Greek word for church is ekclesia. Ek is translated as “out” and clesia, from caleo, is “called;” the “called-out ones.” The church, without regard to the more liberal strains of Christendom, has historically been exclusive in nature; it is quite biblical to insist that the church not lend the hand of fellowship to those who do not enter into the covenant of faith in Christ. Biblically, we are not instructed to bring the unregenerate into the church as an overarching evangelical methodology, but we called are to carry the Gospel to the world and make disciples, not just converts. We are called to be salt and light, a city on a hill, the primary vector by which the Great Commission of going out into the world and making disciples is accomplished. We are not called to be conformed to the world and be entertaining in order to make the church attractive to the world. The New Testament canon speaks much to the need to be Christ-centric in our approach ‘being’ the church and to ‘doing’ church and discipleship.

There is great potential for unintentional compromise in making church attractive and entertaining, with the best of evangelical intentions, to those outside the church. Please note with absolute certainty that I am not inferring that it is incorrect to bring unregenerate friends and acquaintances to church. What I am stating is that it is wrong, that it is absolutely not biblical, to calibrate church to accommodate the ‘unchurched’.

In contrast to the proceeding statement, the contemporary seeker-sensitive church/movement, by definition, is concerned with meeting felt needs of the ‘unchurched’. It inverts, with the best of intentions, clear biblical mandates of being set apart from the world. Also, when pragmatism and marketing trumps sound doctrine, we find ourselves redefining the nature of the church and often times inadvertently redefining and diminishing the Person of Christ. From the prevalence of life coaching sermons, we find a Christ who exists to repair our relationships, He repairs our finances. We develop a tepid Christology where, much like the old soft drink commercial, things just seem to go better with Christ. The seeker sensitive church becomes seeker centered.

Referring again to the aforementioned creative ‘exegesis’, I have heard, time and time again, seeker sensitive churches justify their manipulative methodology by pointing to ever increasing attendance and the number of decisions for Christ that occur within their services. Much is made by the seeker sensitive church of the numbers that turn to Christ in, for example, the book of Acts. Numbers of decisions becomes the erroneous metric by which a church or evangelical method is judged.

However, 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 exaltation of Christ. We see the apostles proving Christ from scripture. We see the condemnation of sin, the call to repentance, and the absolute falleness of humanity. Solely proclaimed is faith in the atoning work of grace through Christ to restore rebellious humanity to the Savior. Nowhere in New Testament canon does Paul or any other New Testament writer commend or condemn a church on the number of decisions that do or do not occur. Is not boasting of conversions and attendance a form of pride in self and methods?

It can be quite uncomfortable to listen to Christ in His calls to discipleship, to repentance. He states that unless your love for Him eclipses your love for family to the point that love of family seems like hate, you are not worthy to be His disciple. When, at a large gathering, He was informed that His mother, brothers and sisters wanted to speak to Him, how did He respond? He states that those who do His will are His family. He proclaims, in the Gospels, that He did not come to bring peace, but a sword that divides families. The young would-be disciple, one who has striven to uphold the Law, asks what is required to be His follower, Jesus, responding in love, tells the young man to sell all that he has and to follow Him. He walks away from the call because his wealth was a stumbling block. When another seeks to follow the Messiah, but only after he buries his father, Christ tells him to let the dead bury the dead; “Follow Me.” He calls for His disciples to pick up their cross, an instrument of death, and follow after Him. Do any of Christ’s calls to discipleship appear to be seeker sensitive? Remember that the cross is foolishness to the world. I fear that many who follow the Jesus of seeker sensitive Christianity will find themselves, at best, floundering and frustrated in their walk with Christ or, at worst, finding Christ, on the day of judgment, saying to them, as stated in Mathew 7:23, after they boast in their works in His name, “Depart from me, I never knew you.” That is why I write these words.

While am absolutely not implying that that our Abba, Father, does not take interest and intervene in our problems and concerns, I am concerned about the response of an immature Christian who finds his circumstances not improving as often implied by seeker sensitive presentations of the Gospel. How does a faith in a Mr. Fix-it Jesus survive when personal circumstances do not evolve according to erroneous expectations? When a church shuns the deeper things of Christ and discourages going ‘deeper’, the spiritual growth of a believer is stunted. That being said, Christ does care about our trials and tribulations and intervenes therein; He loves us and uses such to bring us to maturity. Indeed, He causes all things to work out for the good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

What is expected of the church is found in Ephesians 4:11-16: “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.”

A Few Biblical References:

John 15:5

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Romans 12:5

For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Revelation 21:9

One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

Ephesians 1:22-2

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

1Timothy 3:15

…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Matthew 5:13-15

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Acts 13:47

For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.”

Colossians 4:5-6

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Romans 9:16

It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

John 6:44

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Chapter 3: The sufficiency of Christ

Below is an essay written soon after leaving SSC. My initial intention, in my search for a new church, was to ask the pastor of the prospective church to talk to me about Christ, and Christ alone, for ten minutes. I also posed the same challenge to myself. After a bit of reflection, I came to understand that my attitude and litmus test was perhaps a bit arrogant, but I continued the challenge to myself. The results, authored on August, 2007, follow.

Let me talk to you about my Messiah, Jesus Christ. Let me open quite controversially. If Christ is just a great moral teacher, He failed, and failed miserably. For all His altruism, His selflessness in serving others, for all His concern for the disenfranchised, for His formidable moral standards, His end is not one that I would consider a glowing endorsement for emulating His life. He was crucified; He died a death quite gruesome and, in death, was associated with criminals. If such is the potential end for emulating Christ the Teacher, then I want nothing of it. If we consider Christ only a moral example, then I cannot endorse Him above the Buddha. I cannot endorse Him above Gandhi. I cannot endorse Him above an Old Testament patriarch. They differ not in kind, but only in degree. His death carries no greater meaning and import than that of Martin Luther King’s. However, if Christ is more than a teacher, if He is who He and His followers claim Him to be, the Son of God whose death on the cross precedes something greater, His physical resurrection, I then must consider Him in an altogether different light.

I read, in the New Testament canon and in early church history, stories of martyrdom. I read, too, of multitudes abandoning the very foundations of their life to turn and follow, often at great personal, and sometimes ultimate, cost, the One whom they believed to be something greater than a teacher. These 1st century Palestinian Jews, the first followers of Christ, had no great need of a Messiah as a life coach, a minister to their finances and marriages. Their lives were, I believe, even if in a time of political tension, quite predictable for the most part. They were tied to the rhythms of the land, of harvest. They were, for the most part, farmers, fishermen, and craftsmen. They were embedded in the life of the synagogue. Too, the individualism, the obsessive focus on self, of contemporary western culture would be, I believe, quite alien to them.

The Messiah that many were expecting and the Messiah that they received were quite different from one another. Again, there was political tension in that time and place. Judea was under Roman rule and before the first century closed, the 2nd Temple would be, as predicted by the Messiah, in ruins. The expected Messiah would be a King, a strong Man who would break the shackles of Roman oppression and return to the Jews self-rule, and Jerusalem, the city of God, would take her place as the beacon of light to all the nations. This did not happen, though. They instead received a Child who would grow up to divide rather than conquer, to turn child against parent, neighbor against neighbor. He would upset the status quo. He would be, for a time, a pauper King, having, as He said to would-be disciples, no place to lay his head. The Messiah was homeless. His family, for the most part, before witnessing the resurrected Christ, did not, I believe, consider Jesus to be anything but perhaps a bit mad. Even his inner circle of disciples could not wrap their minds around Christ’s proclamations about Himself. Rather, they still anticipated a political King who would establish a theocracy. The pre-Easter Jesus, on the cross, left his followers discouraged and defeated. The post-Easter Jesus revolutionized his adopted ones. Easter changed everything.

How can I talk coherently about Easter and find words worthy to address our risen King, words not compromised by cliché? I am humbled by the task. First, Easter is not a metaphysical event having no concrete reality. The resurrection was not just merely a spiritual event; it is more than metaphor. The resurrection actually occurred in time and space. The Creator, the One through whom all things hold together, was willingly brutalized and murdered by His creation. He willingly became our Scapegoat, our blood sacrifice once for all. He is the new Covenant. Everything changed on Easter.

I can give coherent reasons and evidence to help illuminate the reality of the Easter event. It does not, contrary to what most would imagine, require a giant leap of blind faith. I can affirm with as much clarity the physical resurrection of Christ as I can most any event in ancient (and not so ancient) history. Where does this leave me, though? What do I do with this formidable knowledge? What does it mean and to where does it lead? Before we can even begin to address these questions, we must inquire as to the why of the Easter event.

Why did the Word that created cosmos, created humanity, deem it necessary to take on, from the Christmas event to eternity forward, a sinless human nature, and after taking on flesh, have it brutalized and nailed to that tree? Only in the context of that question can we begin to understand the Easter event. Here we find truths both simple and daunting, both compelling and repulsive.

We, as disciples of Christ, are beholden to our Messiah to apprehend these difficult truths to the best of our ability. Because of complacency that often permeates American Christianity, I believe that, as a church, we often worship more a pre-Easter Jesus rather than the post-Easter Jesus. The pre-Easter crowds gathered to the Messiah to receive from Him. The post-Easter Messiah drew to Him those who were willing to die for Him. The followers of the pre-Easter Jesus fell away from Him at the cross. The post-Easter disciples of Christ followed Him to the ends of the earth; they looked to give themselves away, to serve the Messiah, to die to self. I ask myself, which Christ am I following?