Mission Monday: Social Media as a Digital "Mission Field."

In the first church I ever served as pastor, I had a sign conspicuously hung at the exit to the main doors of the sanctuary front.  That sign read "You are now entering the mission field!"  Though well-intentioned, I would realize over the next several years--as most new pastors do--that the real line between church and mission field is not geographic.  Its the line between belief and unbelief--between repentance and rebellion.  And that line can be found within nearly every visible church on the planet.

We now live in a world where lines of segregation with regard to mission are disappearing fast.  One example of this is the line between "domestic" and "international."  More than 120 languages are spoken within a 30 mile radius of my central Maryland home.  And even southern cities like Dallas now boast a foreign-born population that exceeds 40%.  The world is becoming smaller.  And even if you don't live in an area like that, the laptop, tablet or phone you are using to read this article gives you instant access to that world!

With these realities in view, this is a crucial time for churches to understand and participate in the social media revolution.  Last night, the Mid-Maryland Association held its annual meeting, which included a large  breakout session led by my friend Marty Duren on how Christians and churches can be the presence of Christ on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the like.  A few in that room are just getting used to the idea and needed remedial help.  Other more tech-savvy folks received some great principles for how to establish your presence, draw an audience, and incarnate the Gospel into a digital atmosphere.

While Marty said many helpful things, the one principle I wish everyone in Christendom had heard last night was this one:

Don't obsess over anything except Jesus.

As he said this, my mind immediately took me to Paul's second letter to Corinth, where he calls Christians "ambassadors for Christ." (2 Cor. 5:20)  Never has there been a more important time for followers of Jesus to wear that identity and responsibility.  And never has there been a more critical place to live out this principle than cyber-space.

We all have our opinions.  We all have our political positions.  And we all have very strong opinions about a lot of things.  And every so often, its OK to let those be known.  If you troll my social media pages, you can probably find out how I feel about a wide range of issues.  But if I am to honor the spirit of 2 Corinthians 5, I need to ask myself whether people have to look very hard to know what I believe about Jesus.  

What about your social media presence?  If the average non-Christian looked at your Facebook page or Instagram site, what would they see?  When they turned off their tablet or closed their laptop, what would they say is your passion?  Your focus?

If you want to use social media as an outlet for evangelism, this question must always be at the back of your mind.  I'm not encouraging you to log-jam your friends' networks with pithy Christian memes (in fact, I'd say that's not 'mission' at all.  Its just very, very annoying, but that's another post for another day).  I"m just asking whether we talk more about Calvinism, college football, gun control, eschatology, Islam, alcohol, marginal income tax rates, gay marriage, Israel, immigration, the world series, patriotism, or Jesus?

In his first letter to Corinth, Paul put it this way.  "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified."  Perhaps this morning is a great time to commit ourselves to that very same principle on Facebook.

Theology Thursday: The Complementarian Conundrum

One of the most noticeable cultural characteristics of evangelical Christianity are the counter-cultural elements that set us apart from the world, and there is possibly no more hotly debated topic that the issue of gender roles and relationships.  Where these particular issues are concerned, discussion becomes more heated because there is disagreement even within the body of Christ, and most of this heat is aimed at those who identify as "complementation."  

This group--which includes myself--believes that while men and women are created as equal image-bearers of God, Scripture prescribes a pattern in the home and the church that clearly call for male leadership.  Our egalitarian brothers and sisters attack this position from both exegetical and practical standpoints, and often the accusation is made that the complementarian exegetical case is weak, as well as practically untenable.

Admittedly, as a complementation I find much of the "scholarship" aimed at defending the position I hold to be lacking, and I certainly concede that a more hierarchical application of my position can lead to neglect, disrespect, and even outright abuse of women.  So for the next two "Theology Thursdays," I want to address these two issues as they are raised by my egalitarian friends.  Today, I deal with the exegetical case via an article I wrote years ago responding to Dr. Gordon Fee.  Fee's article "Male and Female in the New Creation," was published in the book Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy.  

My apologies for the length and depth of this post.  It is necessary to be appropriately thorough.

Next week, I will speak (with much more brevity) to the practical application of complementation teaching--specifically as it relates to my own daughter.  My egalitarian brothers--and the rest of the world--may still strongly disagree, but my hope is that they are forced to recognize both genuine scholarship and balanced application of "male headship" in the home and the church.

Equal in Essence, Distinct In Function:  A Response to Gordon Fee's Exegesis of Galatians 3:26-28

Gordon D. Fee is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies at Regent College. He is a prolific author and articulate theologian, whose exegetical skills have been frequently utilized, most notably in his contributions to the New International Commentary on the New Testament. He is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, and received his Ph.D. from the University of California.

The classic exegetical argument for egalitarians who believe all ecclesiastical offices and functions should be open to women has its foundation in Galatians 3:26-29. Based on this text, evangelical egalitarians contend that Paul is eliminating all social and ceremonial distinction within the body of Christ and therefore, is eliminating any barrier to service based on the criteria listed in the text. Since the distinction between “male and female” (v. 28) is among the barriers Paul seeks to remove, the classical egalitarian argument has been that to prohibit women from serving as pastors is tantamount to replacing the very wall of separation in Christ’s body that Paul himself sought to tear down.

Evangelical complementarians have historically responded to this rationale by affirming the soteriological implications of gender equality delineated in this passage, while simultaneously contending that the Pauline rationale behind the Galatian correspondence does not address the particular gender functions within the body of Christ. The complementarian hermeneutic of this passage is that while the soteriological principles contained therein require the elimination of distinctions, Biblical principles of ecclesiology place both genders, equal in essence, into distinct functions within Christ’s body. These functions are not described in detail in Galatians because, say complementarians, the primary focus of this letter is not ecclesiological. To discover gender role distinctions in the church, the appropriate place to look is the Pastoral Epistles, which deal more particularly with church order.

In short, complementarians contend that while the Galatians passage indeed makes all of humanity equal in Christ, this equality is only truly realized when men and women work within the church, within their Biblically defined roles. More succinctly, Galatians teaches equality in salvation, while the Pastoral Epistiles commend complementarity within the church.

Yet in his article entitled Male and Female in the New Creation, Fee seeks to overturn the classic complementarian argument by asserting that Galatians is in fact a primarily ecclesiological work. His own egalitarian views are in fact informed by his view that “the specifics of this passage itself indicate that this text has to do with Paul’s ecclesiology” (184). The process by which Fee arrives at this conclusion, and an exegetical response to his contentions, are the subject of the rest of this article.

Fee begins his chapter by introducing the crux of the exegetical debate; namely whether the Galatians passage is “limited to the justifying work of Christ alone, or does it include other aspects of life in the believing community as well?” (172). With this question in view, he proceeds with an isogogical analysis of the surrounding texts as a way of making the case for his view of the primary issue Paul addressed in the letter. Galatians, according to Fee, is Paul’s response to the crisis of “Christian ‘agitators’” who “had infiltrated these Gentile churches insisting that men be circumcised . . .the crucial item of a larger agenda of Torah observance that would have included the Sabbath and food laws as well” (173). On this point evangelicals of both the complemetarian and egalitarian viewpoints agree.

The first point of contention, as Fee sees it, is the particular historical lens through which this text is received. “Traditionally,” he states, “it [the strategy for reading Paul’s response] has been to read it through the eyes of Martin Luther” (173). Fee of course is referring to Luther’s monolithic understanding of Galatians 2:16 as applied to his own 16th century historical context. To view the Galatian correspondence only in this light is, according to Fee, “a slightly skewed reading strategy” (173). While Fee sees the theological concept of justification by faith as a primary theme of the letter, he views this theme alone as insufficient to procure a correct reading of the entire epistle.

As Fee sees it, the larger issue pressed in the letter is that of bringing together Jew and Gentile as one people of God. According to Fee, the bigger crisis in Paul’s mind “has to do with whether Gentiles get in on the promise to Abraham . . .without also taking on Jewish identity; especially those marks of identity that specifically distinguished Jews from Gentiles in the Diaspora (circumcision, Sabbath, and food laws)” (174). In other words, the issue of Justification by Faith is to be viewed within the larger framework of the inclusion of non-“God-fearing” Gentiles among the people of God. To make his case, Paul argues in a two-fold way for the “temporary, thus secondary, nature of the law” (175), and then concludes his argument with the passage currently under consideration, contending that the true heirs of the Abrahamic promise are those who have become “one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28b).

After making his case for the primary purpose of Galatians, Fee then proceeds to cast what he sees as the primary issue of this letter within the larger theological motif of the “new creation.” If Jew and Gentile now relate to God on the same terms, then this reality is grounded in Paul’s own conviction “that Christ and the Spirit have ushered in God’s promised ‘new creation,’ which is now awaiting its final eschatological consummation (Gal 6:15)” (177).

Fee proceeds from this point to describe new creation theology, and then moves to draw implications of this theological method for the gender issue under consideration in his article. Primarily, Fee contends that new creation theology implies that “equality” not only applies to salvation, but to the entire created order. Thus, “one must begin by taking Paul seriously with regard to ethnicity, status and gender no longer being relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation” (179).

Furthermore, Fee asserts that this new order has a strong eschatological tone, which would have been “the primary way the earliest believers understood their existence” (179). Such thinking, Fee contends, is largely foreign to the Western mind, which is mostly accustomed to a culture of equality and thus, unfamiliar to a large extent with how radically counter-cultural Paul’s statements would have been to first-century readers. Fee states that the “nature of this affirmation, its counter-cultural significance, the fact that it equally disadvantages all by equally advantaging all—these stab at the very heart of a culture sustained by people’s maintaining the right position and status. But in Christ Jesus . . .all things have become new; the new era has dawned” (180)

Fee then spends the next several paragraphs extrapolating from “new creation” texts (such as that found in 1 Corinthians 7) how these implications affected the Christian culture of the first century. Within the body of Christ for example, no preference is to be given for kosher meals, and no disadvantage placed because of one’s status as a slave. Such distinctions “mean nothing in the new creation” (182).

Fee then applies the aforementioned new creation principles to the relationship of male and female, and in so doing, begins moving back toward the text under consideration with this assumption. In the newly created and Christ-centered home, the wife is no longer merely a member of the husband’s home, but is “in relationship to him” (184). Because they are both members of the one body without distinction, Fee contends that husband and wife are, “first of all brother and sister in Christ” (184). Fee’s conclusion on this basis is that “either may prophesy or teach (1 cor. 14:26)—which are matters of Spirit gifting, not gender—as long as some cultural norms that distinguish male and female were maintained (1 Cor. 11:2-16)” (184). I

n short, Fee’s logic is that if one is not disqualified from certain church offices and functions because he is a Gentile, or because he is a slave, then neither should a woman be disqualified based merely on her gender. He concludes this chapter by asserting that “to give continuing significance to a male-authority viewpoint for men and women, whether at home or in the church, is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world” (185).

Critical Analysis of Fee’s Exegesis

Before noting the many points of disagreement with Fee, it serves to point out the many places where Fee and other egalitarians find much common ground with their complementarian counterparts. First of all, there is general agreement regarding the overall theme of the Galatian correspondence; namely, the call for understanding that the people of God, Jew or Gentile, are all “one” in Christ. Though it is an oversimplification to claim this as the central theme, Fee will find no complementarian in disagreement with the notion that because of Christ, all distinctions, social and otherwise, become of no advantage or disadvantage. Paul’s declaration that “you are all one in Christ Jesus” (v.28) emphasizes a truth found in both didactic and narrative literature throughout the entire New Testament corpus; all ground is indeed level at the foot of the cross.

Second, Fee is to be commended for his strong emphasis regarding the essential equality of male and female. In Christ, gender is “no longer . . .relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation” (179). Though the Scriptures clearly delineate functional distinctions between male and female in the home and church—distinctions which will be defined and discussed later—Fee emphasizes well that because of the Gospel, one’s gender does not add or take away dignity or value, nor is one gender rendered inferior to the other. Contrary to Fee’s assumptions, complementarian theologians gladly stand with him in this contention.

Furthermore, though he apparently (and wrongly) believes that the complementarian viewpoint is one which generically places men above women, Fee is to be commended for reminding the body of Christ that the Biblical “chain of authority” is never to be understood as all women being subject to all men. Such a contention should serve as a solemn reminder to complementarian thinkers that maleness in and of itself does not warrant authority in the church or in the home. The insipid chauvinism this writer has witnessed in a few evangelical churches is a by-product of this misunderstanding, and those within Christ’s body who subscribe to and apply such a faulty hermeneutic should be strongly rebuked.

Third, complementarians can applaud Fee’s emphasis of the first-century, counter-cultural nature of Pauline thought. “It is difficult,” states Fee, “for us to imagine the effect of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 in a culture where position and status preserved order through basically uncrossable boundaries, and where attempting to cross those boundaries brought shame instead of honor” (180). Indeed, even in the Pastoral Epistles, in the very texts where complementarians make their case for male headship, Paul insists that women “learn” and establishes a discipleship paradigm in which younger women turn to older, seasoned, and theologically-inclined women for instruction. The Gospel injected into a “male-only” culture like that of the first century gives the due respect and honor to being female, and Fee is to be commended for reminding us of this Pauline value.

Finally, Fee’s emphasis on the “new creation theology” of the New Testament and its place in the Galatian correspondence is a necessary reminder that the Gospel brings the male-female roles and relationships into the appropriate balance by redeeming each and setting it back in its intended place. The final application between Fee and complementarian thinkers is very different. Still, Fee’s emphasis on this truth reminds complementarians that the very male authority Fee rejects is given so that men can better fulfill the responsibilities he affirms, and not for the sake of male authority alone.

At the same time, an honest evaluation of Fee’s work on this passage must deal straightforwardly with several inconsistencies and errors. Primarily, Fee’s assumption that the soteriology of Galatians is secondary to its ecclesiology is simply without basis in the text, and when this hermeneutic is expanded, it leads to more error, such as the assumption that the essential equality of male and female in 3:28 predicates the inclusion of women at all levels of service to the church. To be sure, the soteriological themes of the letter naturally have application in the life of the church. At the same time, the letter is written with an almost exclusive emphasis on the restoration of the Gospel at Galatia. How this emphasis informs other issues such as social distinctions and church life are ancillary, if valid, concerns.

Beginning with verse 6 of the first chapter, Paul sets the most serious tone established in any of his letters. In observing the theme of these verses, MacArthur points out the great danger of Jews who had made only a superficial profession of faith, then quickly reverted to Judaism “and sought to make Christianity an extension of their traditional system of works righteousness” (MacArthur 1987, 13). This Judaizing contention that Gentiles must be circumcised was the worst of heresies in the mind of Paul, who cursed those who would promote such a message because it was “another Gospel” (1:6). Thus, the theme of Galatians “is that true freedom comes only through Jesus Christ” (MacArthur, 14). 

Likewise, the late F.F. Bruce contends that Paul’s aim in Galatians is to denounce the teaching of the Judaizers “as a perversion of the true gospel of Christ” (Bruce 1982, 19). These observations, along with a straightforward reading of the text itself, demonstrate that the main focus of the Galatian correspondence is salvation. Thus, Fee’s belief that a supposed ecclesiastical emphasis grants equal access to all offices and functions of the church to both male and female is without textual foundation.

Secondly, Fee contends that the complementarian approach to the gender issue is tantamount to full capitulation to the reality of the fall. To accept male leadership “in the home or in the church is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world” (185). This assumption is shared by other egalitarian authors like Richard Hess, who dedicates an entire chapter to the view that God’s ultimate aim is for equality in function as well as essence, and that any hierarchy is the direct result of the fall.

More specifically, Hess believes that “God’s judgment included for the woman hard work alongside her husband in addition to bearing children. She would also have a desire to rule him, though he would end up ruling her” (94). Fee shares this sentiment, believing that male leadership “usurps the work of the Spirit not only in the wife and her relationship to God but also in the church—the expression of the new order and new humanity that is already present, even while it is yet to be” (185).

Yet the history of the fall in Genesis 3 is precisely the reason for Paul’s prohibition of women from holding a position of church authority in 1 Timothy 2. Though Paul’s later comments in 2 Timothy and Titus seem to negate the possibility that he was seeking to prevent women from any and all teaching roles, Thomas Lea well notes that the “normative principle behind Paul’s directive is that the woman should not carry out the role of senior pastor” (Lea 1992, 100). Furthermore, Paul’s invocation of Jewish primogeniture to establish male leadership in the home appeals to the created order prior to the fall. Therefore, Fee’s contention that asserting male leadership is equivalent to accepting the “norms” of a fallen world is actually found to be inverse to the very logic Paul uses elsewhere in the New Testament to establish male headship in the home and church.

Similarly, Fee’s view that Paul’s instructions regarding male headship were grounded in the culture of the first century is also suspect upon closer examination. As regards male headship in the home, Fee contends that Paul’s ideal is total equality without hierarchy, yet in the same breath states that Paul was willing to concede on certain cultural issues. If indeed Paul intends to eliminate hierarchical roles in the body of Christ, one might ask why he would be willing, as Fee suggests, to “yield on certain cultural matters so as not to predicate the shame on lesser things” (181)? Furthermore, Fee’s belief that Paul capitulates in certain areas on this issue is to suggest, even if unintentionally, that Paul himself is “settling” for the norms of a fallen world rather than embracing the new creation that God intended.

In fact, the preferred and more consistent way to view texts like Colossians 3, Ephesians 5, and 1 Timothy 2 is to see them as their author sees them. Although Fee rightly points out that Paul “radicalizes” the household norms of the first century, he mistakenly views Paul’s establishment of household hierarchy as instruction grounded in the culture of that day. In fact, Paul’s own words put this notion to rest, and clarify that the reason for his emphasis on male headship is that “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Thus, Paul’s insistence on male headship in the home and church is not grounded in the culture of the first century, or even in the fall. Instead, male headship is grounded in the created order itself, and understood best through the lens of Jewish primogeniture.

Evangelical egalitarianism, unlike liberal feminism, deserves recognition for seeking to make its case under the authority of Scripture. Egalitarians of an evangelical bent have no desire to capitulate to culture merely for the sake of culture. Instead, they sincerely believe their position to be grounded in a sound hermeneutic of God’s inerrant Word. Egalitarian theologians such as Gordon Fee strongly affirm Scriptural inerrancy, the deity of Jesus Christ, the exclusivity of Christ as the only way of salvation, the necessity of the new birth, and the promise of the life to come. And like their complementarian counterparts, they care much about the church as God’s vehicle of redemption in the world, and forward their arguments because they firmly believe such arguments will help mold the church into a genuine “new creation” community.

With this in view, there is much on which complementarians can agree with their egalitarian counterparts. There is much that can be accomplished when these two groups work together on issues of common concern. At the same time, this debate cannot simply be treated as a tertiary theological issue tantamount to one’s eschatology or view of spiritual gifts. The issues under discussion in the gender role debate go right to the heart of the created order, and color one’s view of a wide variety of issues crucial to the life and health of God’s church.

Those representing the egalitarian viewpoint in Discovering Biblical Equality, including Gordon Fee, also understand the gravity of this discussion. Hence, the forcefulness with which they each make their arguments. This writer considers it a privilege to interact with a brilliant and dedicated brother in Christ. Yet even more important is that a Biblically-sound response be given so that the church can be led as God intends, and consequently, become the community of “new creation” to which Fee aspires.

Mission Monday: Michael Frost on Listening to Your Community

"Felt needs" has always been a somewhat controversial concept in evangelicalism, and when the issue is discussed, the "heat" is usually generated by the most extreme expressions of both sides.  On one end of that spectrum are those who chafe at any mention of "scratching where people itch," suggesting that we "just need to preach the Gospel."  On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe the church should always be in the business of giving its community whatever the community wants.

As is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

The following clip is from a message preached by Australian missiologist Michael Frost three years ago at Exponential.  I was present for the entire message, and found what he said to be greatly helpful, especially to a western church that too often presumes it has the answers.  And the result is that we often address questions our culture isn't even asking.  Frost's personal story in this clip about American missionaries seeking to engage Australians is particularly convicting.

Approaching any community from the standpoint of a learner is the first step to meaningful engagement.  Enjoy the brief insight this clip provides as to what this posture looks like.

Theology Thursday: Monotheism is Not Enough

"You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble."  -James 2:19

I'm excited that our churches are participating in the upcoming Summit on Faith and Culture!  In our current global environment of civil unrest, ethnic strife and religious misunderstanding, there is no better time for an event that allows us to understand and be understood.  Sometimes I'm asked "why would you invite Jews and Muslims to a conference like this and allow them to talk about their faith? And why isn't this an 'evangelistic' meeting so we can try to bring them to faith in Jesus?"  The answer is quite simple.  Followers of Jesus aren't just called to make disciples.  We are also commanded to work toward environments that promote peace and mutual understanding. (Romans 12:18).  Over the past several years, I've met many friends who subscribe to Jewish and Muslim faith who also want to work toward that environment.  If I am to obey Jesus, I have no choice but to say "yes."

Furthermore, our faiths have much in common when it comes to the practical concerns of life.  During this summit, we will talk about how to stand for each other's religious freedom, how to promote economic justice, and how to combat human trafficking.  And our common concern in these areas is fueled by our common belief in a personal God who created people in His image and likeness, and who desires to bring infinite justice to the world He created.  A friend of mine said to me not long ago, "You guys are forming a monotheistic justice league!"

I'm not so sure about that.

At the same time, we are going to take some time to be fully candid with each other about our differences.  We can work together on a lot of issues where we have commonality, but our differences  are vast and irreconcilable.  I've said many times that I don't believe in "tolerance," because my friends in other faiths deserve more than that.  They deserve my unconditional friendship.  Well, genuine, true friends are honest with each other when they differ--especially when their differences have such eternal consequences.  But occasionally I get a question along the lines of "Why would you even mention your differences in a summit like this?  Why not just talk about where we agree?  Don't we all ultimately worship the same God?  Why not just see our monotheism as sufficient to hold us together?"

My answer to that question is also very simple.  Monotheism is not enough.

To be sure, James' exhortation above praises belief in only one God.  Its certainly the only true starting point for understanding truth and living in freedom.  "You believe that God is one; you do well," James tells us.  No doubt this Jewish apostle from the tribe of Judah has in mind the Ten Commandments, along with the context in which they were given.  God through Moses had just delivered His people out of slavery in Egypt, brought them out into the desert, parted the Red Sea to let them cross, and then drowned their captors.  And here they were in the Sinai wilderness, free for the first time in 400 years.

Problem is, freedom is pretty useless if you don't know how to live as a free person.  And no one among this group had ever seen freedom, or had known anyone who had lived in freedom.  They now have to be taught by a gracious God to live in the freedom they have just been granted, and to enable that freedom, God gives Moses the 10 Commandments.  And the first sets for us the starting point for living in freedom:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me."  -Exodus 20:1-2

The Israelites had been surrounded for four centuries by people who worshipped multiple gods.  The more gods you have, the more you have to serve, the more offerings you have to give, the harder you have to work--and at the end of the day, you are merely working to please the air.  Polytheism is the clearest example of what it looks like to live in spiritual slavery.  Freedom on the other hand, begins with realizing that there is one, and only one God.  Therefore, the highest duty of human beings is to know that God, and worship Him.

But to know Him in the sense that James describes is not necessarily to truly worship Him.  James continues with this warning: "The devils also believe, and tremble."  Satan himself is a monotheist.  He too believes in the existence of only one God, and he knows from his own experience as a defeated vasal the magnitude and glory of his own Creator.  But that knowledge by itself doesn't bring Satan to worship.  It doesn't redeem him.  It gives him no hope.  Because again, monotheism is not enough.

This text is of course couched within a large section where the Apostle deals with the relationship between saving faith and works of righteousness.  Faith without works, James tells us, is dead.  It is fictitious.  It isn't the sort of faith that saves.  1500 years after James, John Calvin would comment on these words with the following phrase; "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone!"  But what kind of faith is it that James contends produces the good works of which he speaks?  The answer is in verse 23; "and the Scripture was fulfilled that says "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to Him as righteousness.'"

In other words, Abraham didn't just believe in one God.  He believed Him earnestly and perceived him rightly, and this faith is what produced the works which James says vindicated his relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

On November 16, three groups of people--all of whom hold to a deep and sincere faith--will converge to speak honestly with each other.  Its what friends do.  We all believe in one God, but we perceive Him in very different ways.  He is either a Trinity or He is not.  Jesus is either God or He is not. You don't have to believe in the Trinity, or the deity of Jesus to love people and do some great things in the service of humanity.  My Jewish and Muslim friends prove that.  But being in a right relationship with God that secures your eternity is a quite different matter.  And where our perceptions of God are concerned, eternal souls hang in the balance.

This is why we develop the maturity to maintain friendships while speaking openly and honestly about our differences. We want peace.  We want friendship.  And we want to work together in areas where we agree and can have a meaningful impact.  But if we truly love each other, we will also talk about our differences, even  if we have to navigate being uncomfortable to do so.

Because monotheism is not enough.

Mission Monday: Speculative Theology and the Great Commission

On October 3, "Left Behind" will debut in theaters across America, and its release will prompt a fresh discussion among evangelicals about our view of the end times.  Additionally, the movie will encourage general discussion about what happens after we die, who goes to heaven, and how they get there.  These are very important subjects, and for that reason, I'm thankful followers of Jesus can use popular movies to talk to their non-Christian friends about the Gospel.

I just hope that's what actually happens.

Full disclosure:  The "Left Behind" movie is based on a particular view of the end times that I don't personally share.  I'm not a Dispensationalist, so while I believe the end of the age will include mass numbers of our Jewish friends coming to realize who their Messiah is, I don't see a distinction in the text between Israel as a nation-state and the church.  Consequently, I don't believe in a pre-tribulational "rapture" of the church.  So it would be easy for someone with my bias to simply dismiss films like this as a waste of time.  But I know too many good and godly pastors whose eschatology matches that of the upcoming film--serious students of Scripture whose theology is far deeper than celluloid and who have a genuine heart for Jesus and the Gospel, and who will use films like this as opportunities to share their faith, and encourage others to do so.

Speculative theology isn't wrong, so long as we realize and admit that it is speculative.  But when it is used in the wrong way, the results can be detrimental to the Great Commission.  For example, if I spend more time pontificating on who the "elect" are than I do calling them out of lostness and into the light of the Gospel, then I've allowed my speculation to devolve into outright disobedience.

This is a particularly dangerous prospect in our current world, where over the last year world events have been the catalyst for heightened discussions about the end of the age.  When does the "rapture" take place?  Who is "the beast" of Revelation 13?  What is the nature of the millennium?  All Scripture is inspired and profitable, which makes these questions valid and worth exploring.  But when set against a 2000-year history that includes three different millennial views, four different interpretive approaches to Revelation, and at least two different perceptions of the prophetic significance of the nation of Israel, we should all hold our opinions loosely.  Otherwise, we risk being driven by speculation rather than by Scripture.  Deuteronomy 29:29 states that "the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever."  In short, explore the unclear, but not at the expense of disobeying the clear!

How should we strike that balance?  I offer the following four principles.

1. Your Primary motivation should be making disciples.  At the end of the day, if speculation about unclear doctrines is more important to you than making disciples of Jesus, you are in a very bad place.  What good does it do to try and identify the antiChrist if you aren't sharing the Gospel so people won't follow him?

Where end times teaching is concerned, it is helpful to remember that these prophecies were originally given to a severely persecuted church as a tool of encouragement.  When Paul writes to the Thessalonians, he speaks of the end when those who have passed away prior to the coming of Jesus will be called out of their graves, after which those in Christ who are still alive will join them in the air, being "caught up" (the phrase that translates the greek term from whence comes the Latin concept of the "rapture") to meet the Lord Himself.  He then concludes "therefore, comfort one another with these words."  I've quoted from that passage at innumerable gravesides for exactly that reason!  Studying the Scriptures to discern when this event might take place (before or after the tribulation, for example) is to seek answers to a legitimate question.  But ultimately, these words are given to suffering people for comfort, not speculation.

Eschatology, like any other Biblical subject, is given for the ultimate purpose of making followers of Jesus more like Jesus.  And we don't look very much like Jesus when we are drawing prophecy charts and fighting with each other.

2. You should have a Passion for all people to hear and respond to the Gospel. Since 1948, differences of opinion have existed between Bible-believing Christians as to whether the re-instatement of Israel is a prophetically significant event.  I have many academic colleagues and fellow pastors who are convinced that this is the case.  Count me among those who have our doubts about that assertion.  But since 1830, dispensational and covenantal interpreters of Scripture  have both faithfully proclaimed the Gospel and made disciples.  The problems occur at the extremes of these views.

On the dispensational end of the spectrum, the problem is a kind of Zionism that presents a God who "plays favorites" where the Jews are concerned--to the extent that utter hatred is expressed toward any other Semitic peoples in the middle-east, including many of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who live in Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.  On the Covenantal end, the problem is a move from seeing the promises of God in the Old Testament as fulfilled in both Jews and Gentiles, to a hermeneutic that sees Gentiles as fully replacing the Jews.  The anti-Semitism that sometimes results from this view is quite frightening.

The bottom line is this:  Both Testaments clearly state that God is not finished with ethnic Israel, and that there is coming a day when great numbers of them will recognize their true Messiah.  I long for that day.  But the same Bible that makes these promises to the sons and daughters of Isaac also clearly reveals a God who loves the sons of Ishmael (see Genesis 16!).  I am for all groups finding Jesus.

3. You must maintain a conviction that all must respond to the Gospel.  Here is where I"m going to speak candidly for a bit.  If you listen to John Hagee, stop!  There is only one label that can be given to a man who has publicly said that sharing the Gospel with our Jewish friends is a waste of time and has intimated that they do not need the Gospel to be saved--and that label is "false prophet." And false-prophecy is always and exactly the result of allowing speculative teaching to overtake the clear teaching of Scripture.

I can work with any follower of Jesus who differs with me on the prophetic significance of Israel as a nation-state.  But I can't work with you if you talk more about Israel than you do Jesus.  Neither ethnicity, or nationality gets you into heaven.  Getting there takes bowing before the reality of a bloody cross and an empty tomb!  Christians have disagreed for centuries about less perspicuous prophetic texts, but Acts 4:12 has never been in dispute!

4. You must remember that its all about Jesus.  Personally, I am wary of any Bible teacher from any school of thought who is not actively sharing his faith with others.  I've known men who spent inordinate amounts of time seeking to "fit" Communism within some prophetic scheme, but who have never crossed an ocean to actually engage someone of that mindset with the Gospel.  I know men who say similar things about Islam, but have spent very little time actually getting to know Muslims. In the end, all my prophetic speculation does nothing to get those people any closer to Jesus, and the last time I read Matthew 28, this was my primary mandate.  So as I explore Biblical prophecy, I need to do so with the realization that all those world events we speculate on have Jesus at the center.  If you don't get to the Gospel, your speculation isn't just useless.  Its sinful.

I don't know exactly how history will end.  But I do know the One who wrote out history before it began.  I may be wrong about the rapture.  Perhaps we will miss the tribulation, or maybe we will go through it.  I don't know.  But I do know that no matter who is right, Jesus gives us the joy to be content regardless of our circumstances.  I have no idea who the antiChrist is.  But I know who Christ is!  So sure, let's have some serious conversations about unclear texts, but let's be sure we don't do it at the expense of our clear mission.

Theology Thursday: Why the days of "Proof-Texting" are Over, and Why They Should Be!

When it comes to the discussion of homosexuality, our culture has rejected a flat, plain reading of Leviticus 18:22 for sometime now. And even Bible-believing followers of Jesus who reject homosexual behavior as sinful should agree with that rejection!  The fact that most don't actually says more about the maturity of our theological method than it does culture's rejection of the Word of God.

To be sure, those who hold a high view of Scripture will simply find it impossible to reconcile its teachings with the belief that sexual activity of any sort outside the Biblical boundaries of permanent, heterosexual marriage is OK.  The problem isn't our firm belief in our authority source.  Its in our approach to our authority source.

In light of this observation, I was delighted to read this post yesterday, penned by the President of my alma mater.  Entitled "Biblical Theology and the Sexuality Crisis," the article rightly points to an immaturity of approach where our interpretation of the Scriptures are concerned.  Though there are many examples of how such "proof-texting" takes place, Dr. Mohler uses the most clear example from our recent discussions on sexuality, and in particular, gay relationships.

I appreciate Mohler's approach in calling believers back to an understanding of Scripture as encased in a clear narrative, and how that narrative can be employed to interpret particular passages, separate culturally and covenantally-bound commands from their eternal principles, and arrive at a much more robust description and defense of Biblical teaching.

The simple fact is that if I'm still eating pork BBQ, or sporting a tattoo anywhere on my body, I look more than a little ridiculous to the gay community if my entire case against their behavior is limited to quoting an obviously covenantally-bound text within an obviously temporary covenant.  On the other hand, when this particular command is compared with similar statements in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, and all are understood in a consistent fashion within the over-arching meta-narrative of the Gospel as clearly told in Scripture, it takes an incredible amount of interpretive acrobatics to arrive at any other conclusion than the sexual ethic which has been held by the Christian church for the past 2000 years.

The same principle holds true when we move beyond the discussion of sexual ethics to cover any number of other issues where the church has, until very recently in the west, had long-settled opinions.  Quoting single "chapter and verse" texts not only doesn't help our message, in many cases it presents an incomplete and therefore inaccurate message.  We must, as Mohler contents, tell the "whole story."

I greatly appreciate this post, and pray it will be widely read by the body of Christ in the west.  And again, it can be found here. 

Mission Monday: Putting the "Personal" Back into Personal Evangelism

If our culture has excelled at anything over the past decade, its polarization.  Offending someone is perhaps the easiest exercise in the west, and navigating conversation, let alone deeper relationship, without making someone angry can be a great challenge.

Even among the body of Christ, the tiniest disagreement can turn into a great offense.  Last week is a great (or maybe horrible) example of this.  I made a public statement about supporting Israel, but criticized some of their recent actions.  While most of the interaction was civil and appreciated, a few vitriolic Zionists accused me of being anti-Semitic.  Meanwhile, more strict Covenantal thinkers accused me of compromising the Gospel because I would be in favor of the continued existence of the Jewish state.  "Hot button" issues sometimes build their deepest heat within the body of Christ.

And this kind of polarization gets worse when we move outside the body to interact with the larger world.  On November 16, various religious, cultural and political leaders will be joining together for the Mid-Atlantic Summit on Faith and Culture.  In helping put this conference together, I've been accused of compromising the Gospel by my willingness to appear publicly alongside leaders of other faiths.  I've also been chastised by those in the wider culture who think I'm too "narrow," because while in the presence of those leaders, I'm not shy about my belief that salvation only comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

The labels we apply to people often don't help matters either.  "Democrat," "Liberal," "Fundamentalist," "Homophobe," "Tea Party," "Pervert," "Muslim," "Republican," and a host of other terms immediately stir strong feelings. And in the midst of this polarized world, very little actual evangelism actually happens because we are too concerned with "what it would look like" if we actually crossed an aisle to befriend someone on the other side.

I"m sure glad Jesus didn't do that.  Otherwise, we all might be burning in hell right now!

And the truth is, Jesus didn't do that.  He didn't stand on the precipice of heaven and preach a sermon of condemnation.  Instead, He became a man, incarnating Himself among people who were in no way like He was.  He lived among us for more than three decades, and then offered His life as a ransom for sinners.  Then post-resurrection, he says this to His disciples: "As the Father has sent me, so also so I send you." (John 20:21)

In other words, Jesus' ministry was personal, and if we want to be servants who truly follow our Master with the same effectiveness, we need to put the "personal" back into personal evangelism!  That requires a few things though:

1. Unconditional Friendships:  I direct cultural engagement and evangelism for a religious denomination made up of more than 560 churches, and with my heavy work schedule among our churches, I still manage to spend as much time outside my work with non-Christians as I do with followers of Jesus.  Our kids play together, we share meals with each other, and we get to know each other.  Would I like them to know Jesus as I know Him?  Of course!  But that isn't going to happen if I turn every relationship I have with a non-Christian into a "project."  Sometimes I get the impression from believers--even pastors--that if I can't get someone converted in a short amount of time that continuing to share life in relationship with them is a waste of time.

That attitude makes me very sad, especially when I consider that Jesus Himself walked with unbelievers for a long period of time. The span of time between "follow me," and "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" was more than just a few days, and as it turns out, one of those guys wasn't even a real follower after all.  Yet he was present for Jesus' very last meal, and the Lord dismissed him in great sorrow.  That is how Jesus treated someone who betrayed Him!  And we aren't even willing to be friends with people simply because they believe differently than us? If you want to know why the church in the west is on a steep decline, this may indeed be one of the reasons!

When you share your faith, it should be more than a sales pitch.  You should be expressing the deepest and most profound part of your being, and that doesn't happen at its fullest outside the context of intimate friendships.  If we don't care if our friends come to faith in Christ, then we don't truly love them.  But if our friendships are conditioned on whether they make that decision, then they aren't really friends at all.  They are just "projects."

2. Seeing People as People.  Every person on the planet is far more than any label that could be attached to them.  If you are a Democrat, you tend to see every Republican in a certain way.  If you are on one side of an issue, and discover someone else is on the other side, both our culture and the church encourage you to keep your distance.

Again, I'm sure glad that wasn't what Jesus did!

Non-Christians, to put it bluntly, are going to have VERY different understandings of a LOT of things than I have.  But when I look at that guy in my neighborhood who practices Wicca, I see a guy who shares my concerns about the neighborhood's future development.  I see a guy who wants to provide for his family and keep his children safe just like I do.  Similarly, I meet with a close Muslim friend of mine about twice a month.  When we sit down together, I don't see only Islam.  I see a guy who made it to the United States, is thankful for the educational and vocational opportunities here that have allowed him to build a family.  The last time we were together, we talked about his plans to buy a home in the near future.  The gay couple at my kids' school?  Yep, we treat them the same way.

Sharing your faith, in most contexts, means sharing life.  And you can't share life if you don't see people, first and foremost, as merely people.  Be determined to look past the labels our culture puts on us.

3. Start your story in the right place.  If the Christian narrative is to be told accurately, it will involve four "chapters," all of which pop clearly out of the text of Scripture:  Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.  The biggest problem I've seen in modern evangelicalism is that we tend to start the story with chapter two.  I'll elaborate more on this in a subsequent post, but for now, I'll just say that when sharing your faith and connecting it with the larger Christian meta-narrative, make sure you start the story in the right place!

To be sure, we can't skip chapter two and still be faithful to Jesus' message.  We are--ALL of us from birth--separated from fellowship with our Creator, and because from the moment we are volitionally able we willfully rebel against Him, we all begin this life at odds with One who promises ultimate justice.  Without that hard truth, redemption through the death and resurrection of Jesus in "chapter three" makes no sense.

But the Christian story doesn't start in Genesis 3.  It starts in Genesis 1 with both out parents being created in the very image and likeness of God.  Though that image has been shattered by the fall, it remains indelibly on each of us--believer and non-believer.  So before I see any other label on another person, I need to see a label that reads "image-bearer of God."  Compassion, love, understanding, and a willingness to walk alongside them in life as Jesus did for us all come from that recognition.

In a world in which various factions are increasingly isolating themselves from the others, perhaps the most counter-cultural thing that can be done by followers of Jesus is to cross those barriers that our culture, and unfortunately many in the church, believe to be uncrossable.  Jesus has already bridged the most impossible gap in the universe--the gap between a just God and those He created who rebelled against Him.  When we intentionally cross barriers to build relationships and demonstrate love to those not like us, we mirror what He has already done for us, and what we hope He will do for them.

But to get this done, we must put the "personal" back into "personal evangelism."

It Takes One to Know One: Evangelical Media and the Plague of Adolescent Discourse

"Duck Dynasty star on Muslims: 'Convert them or kill them,'" read the headline of Jonathan Merritt's social media post last week.  The post contained a link to a Religion News Service article describing Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson's recent appearance with FOX News host Sean Hannity, in which the two discussed how the US and others should respond to the threat now posed to the world by the group known as ISIS.

While RNS deserves credit for a more accurate title than that given by Merritt, any intelligent person should really be asking why this is news.  But more importantly, there are far more serious issues facing the world right now, and Merritt and RNS should recognize that such nonsense is the kind of thing only printed on a slow news day.  And our world hasn't seen one of those in quite some time.

Of course, this isn't the first time Phil Robertson has been at the center of controversy.  The plain-spoken and sometimes graphically offensive founder of a multi-million dollar duck-call company can always be counted on to speak his mind, even if what's on it makes some people wretch.  I've winced myself a few times after hearing him speak, knowing that a more winsome and engaging approach might be more profitable.  But after four seasons on TV, anyone expecting this guy to be erudite just isn't living in the real world.

Phil Robertson is rough around the edges.  If that statement strikes you as "breaking news," journalism probably shouldn't be your chosen profession.

But once you get past the rough exterior to the substance of what the man actually said on the show, there is nothing any good Christian, Muslim, or anyone else of goodwill would take exception to.  For one, the subject of the segment was ISIS (a group that has brutally murdered many Muslims in addition to Christians, Yazidis, et al), not Muslims in general.  Speaking of that group, Robertson clearly stated that his preference would be to open a Bible and share the love of Jesus with them.  I agree.  He also stated that if they continue with their violence they should be eliminated.  I agree with that too, and so do many of my friends who also happen to be Muslim.

Anyone who has followed my ministry over the past four years is aware that I've developed some dear friendships with Muslims in this area, and other places around the world.  I've also  taken quite a bit of heat from a few in my own tribe for those friendships, so it should go without saying that I'm sensitive toward anything that might misrepresent my friends.  I don't believe their faith leads to eternal life, but stereotyping people you don't agree with and making them look as bad as possible is not an effective way to be friends or share your faith.  So you can bet if Phil Robertson had said what Jonathan Merritt claimed he said, I would have been the first to condemn the remarks.

Problem is, that's not what he said at all.  Could he have worded his statements better?  Of course.  But the man was simply expressing the sentiment that while he'd rather make peace and share his faith, he was also ready to defend himself and his family.  Unless you are a pacifist who thinks it is morally superior to watch your wife and children brutalized while you do nothing to stop the perpetrators, you shouldn't have a problem with this either.

What we should have a problem with are religion reporters who morally equivocate between a man who should have chosen his words more carefully and a gang of mostly British punks who are cutting off the heads of women and children--and making such an equivocation in an apparent effort to create something "newsworthy."  The result is to paint a false picture of "Christian vs. Muslim" toward which you feign opposition, when in reality, your misrepresentation of another stirs waters that were still before you stepped into them.

This is the point where the adolescent behavior of some in today's media becomes clear.  Our world is currently filled with  violence and unrest that we should take with deadly seriousness.  The ebb and flow of the Israel/Gaza conflict, the war at the Ukranian border, a civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State, and the various responses to all of the above by various European players should be enough to grab anyone's attention.  Throw in the very real possibility of another terrorist attack on American soil connected to any one or combination of these issues, and a world war scenario becomes a very real possibility.  History demonstrates that prior global conflicts have erupted from far cooler environments than the one in which we now find ourselves.

In times like these, followers of Jesus should be doing all we can to make peace.  And we should be praying for our leaders, and urging them to act in accordance with Biblical principles of justice.  Where ISIS is concerned, we are beyond the question of whether the use of deadly force is necessary to turn back their evil.  But the question of who should dispense that force, how it should be done, and with whom they should cooperate are far more complex questions, and those who govern followers of Jesus deserve more than "click bait" from religious media.  In this context, we need our media outlets and columnists talking to us and our leaders in a way that expounds on a long and faithful history of just war concepts.  Some politicians in recent years have so twisted the concept that virtually no one in American Christianity knows what it means anymore.  And this is a horrible context for that sort of ignorance to be so prevalent.

In other words, we have real problems to discuss.  We don't have time for the cosmetic ones.  So perhaps those who claim to write on behalf of Christ-followers should be less concerned with parsing the cumbersome words of a Louisiana duck hunter, and spend a little more time examining those left to us by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

Such is what we call "adult conversation."  And with the condition our world is in, we need that now more than ever.

Remembering Truett Cathy

Normally, Mondays here at the site are dedicated to various perspectives on evangelism and missions.    Most of the time those perspectives are shared through the lens of well-known missiologists and preachers, but this morning, in light of the sad news of the passing of Truett Cathy, I want to focus on those like him who work behind the scenes in ways that won't be given their deserved recognition until that day when all of us stand before Jesus.

Many years ago as a brand new father, my wife and I took our now-teenage son to a chapel service at my alma mater of Southern Seminary to be introduced to the seminary community.  It was a very special hour of watching faculty, staff and fellow students offer prayers for my infant son.  As we were exiting the building that day, an older man walked up to me, shook my hand, and pressed something into it, saying "congratulations son!  You are now a wealthy man, and I hope you and your bride can use these to celebrate."  In the parking lot, I opened my hand to find what would amount to a month's worth of complimentary meals at Chick-fil-A, and learned later that the man who gave us that gift was the founder of the restaurant chain himself.

It was that spirit of generosity that characterized the man.  For most in this generation, the Cathy family and their restaurant chain are associated with public statements about marriage and boycotts, but this family and its patriarch were serving Jesus long before their business unintentionally found itself at the center of the American culture wars.

Chick-fil-A is the epitome of an American success story.  Starting with a single, small store in 1946, Cathy grew his business into a national franchise that today is worth more than $5 billion--and he managed to pull this off without taking the company public, or making his employees work on Sunday.  Though he was never afraid to speak his mind, Cathy's commitment to Jesus Christ was best expressed by his fulfillment of his own calling in the restaurant and customer service business.  Today, when most think of "calling" they think either of pastoral ministry or Christian missionary work.  But by his actions, Truett Cathy demonstrated his deep understanding of the true meaning of "vocation;" a call from God on each person to fulfill his or her purpose in a way that brings glory to Jesus.  The company's own mission statement still reflects this understanding:  "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us, and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A."

That mission was executed, not by turning the restaurant chain into a "Christian" business, but simply by running a solid, faithful, profitable company that served the public, provided jobs and benefits to communities, and donated millions to charity.  Truett Cathy never sold "Christian chicken," but the work ethic, generosity, servant's attitude and love of Jesus Himself permeated the organization all the way down to each employee, who was trained to take pleasure in serving others.

When I speak to our churches about what "missions" will look like in the future, the picture I draw looks an awful lot like the life Truett Cathy lived.  What if every businessman, every public educator, every health-care worker, every engineer, every farmer, every politician, and every artist who follows Jesus saw their "vocation" as Truett Cathy rightly saw his?  The world would be forever changed!  As those who knew him and knew of him mourn his passing, perhaps the best way to honor him is to emulate his example.  It would also be a great way to honor His Lord, and promote the faith that now gives us the assurance of where Truett Cathy will spend eternity.

Why "Celebrity Pastors" Aren't Really the Problem

There is a legend that has survived for around 30 years in my denomination.  Like a lot of legends, I'm not sure if this conversation actually happened, but it makes for a good story nonetheless.  Rumor has it that a young aspiring preacher once approached Dr. Adrian Rogers--the famous and faithful pastor who served three terms as President of the Southern Baptist Convention--and said to him "Dr. Rogers, my goal is to be like you.  I want to preach to thousands every Sunday."  In response, Adrian Rogers said "young man, you don't know what you are asking for, nor do you know how much it will cost you."

This year has been a bad one for quite a number of well-known pastors and faith-leaders.  Most recently, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll has taken quite a beating even from those within his own tribe in what is apparently a well-deserved period of scrutiny.  But Driscoll is not alone.  Ed Young Jr., John Piper, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Bill Hybels, Francis Chan and Billy Graham have all dealt with their own shares of sharp criticism from the public.  In fact, as I look back at that list of men and in particular view the wide theological diversity in that list, it appears that public criticism may be the only thing they all hold in common.  That, and the fact that all of them are well-known.

Which brings me to the subject of this post.  Regardless of theology, or even whether the criticism is legitimate, each and every time a very public pastor finds himself at the center of controversy, voices emerge from all around evangelicalism blaming the so-called "celebrity pastor" phenomenon as the culprit.  But perhaps the real problem isn't so much who is in the pulpit as it is those who occupy the seats.

The technology available to our generation through podcasts and vodcasts makes the popularity of certain preachers more visible and obvious than in past generations, but while the term "celebrity pastor" is somewhat new, the concept of well-known and admired preachers has been around since--well, the time of Jesus.  And from the Scriptures we know that before the end of the first century, Paul was having to deal with the negative consequences of those who seem to follow their favorite preacher more than Christ Himself.

Think about it this way.  The church at Corinth was witnessing sexual sin in their midst that would have made Jerry Springer blush! (5:1)  They were treating the Lord's Supper like an open bar at happy hour. (11:21)  Their worship looked less like a gathering of saints speaking truth, and more like godless pagans babbling incoherently. (14:26-40).  Yet with all those problems, the biggest threat Paul sees to this church--the thing that he chooses to address first--was the division among them that resulted from various groups of fan-boys.

"What I am saying is this: each of you says, 'I'm with Paul,' or 'I'm with Apollos,' or 'I'm with Cephas,' or 'I'm with Christ.'  Is Christ divided?  Was it Paul who was crucified for you?  Or were you baptized in Paul's name?"   -1 Corinthians 1:12-13

Does this sound familiar?

If Paul were writing this letter today and addressing it to the American church, do you think it might sound something like this?  What I am saying is this: each of you says "I'm with Driscoll,' or 'I'm with Ed Young,' or 'I'm with Albert Mohler,' or 'I'm with Paige Patterson.'  Were these men crucified for you?

Here's the thing.  I think its OK to admire a preacher.  I have a few myself who are regulars on my iPod.  I also think its natural to gravitate toward those well-known voices who best represent your own tribe and doctrinal persuasion.  The problem comes when our allegiance to a person divides us from other members of the body of Christ.  Trouble starts brewing at a church like Mars Hill, and all the Driscoll critics who have hated him for years yell "Fire him!" while those who have had a distant bromance with the guy scream that he's just being persecuted for "faithfully preaching the Gospel."  Next thing you know, twitter can't manage the traffic caused by followers of Jesus yelling at each other.  Then inevitably and predictably, someone steps forward and says "well, the real problem here is the whole 'celebrity pastor' thing."  But the 'celebrity' didn't start the fight.

Truth is, I've been truly blessed, inspired, and fed by Driscoll over the years.  There have also been times when I've turned him off because it became obvious to me that his own biases had clouded his exegesis. I could say the same thing about many other preachers, and I'm sure if asked, those who have sat under my preaching over the years would say the same thing about me.  

The bottom line is this:  No matter how popular a preacher is, no matter how many times his sermons get downloaded, the responsibility of Biblical discernment is the responsibility of those who listen.  If Osteen continues to perpetuate a message that sounds less like Jesus and more like Milton Friedman, its because people gave, people supported, people attended, and people refused to discern.  If Driscoll is indeed guilty of the abuses he's charged with and there are no consequences, it will be because people refused to discern.

Celebrity isn't the problem.  Lack of discernment is the problem.  And it begins when, as the Corinthians, we become more enamored with a man than with the message he is supposed to be preaching.

2014 Summer Reading List

Well, its that time again!  The next three weeks include approximately 20,000 miles of travel, including a short family vacation, and an extended trip to Vietnam with Glocal Ventures.  For that and other reasons, this site will be a bit quiet for pretty much the remainder of the summer, but if you are looking for some great, substantive reading over these hot months, below are five that I think should be on every pastor's reading list for 2014:

1. Matt Chandler, Recovering Redemption: A Gospel-Saturated Perspective on How to Change.  Chandler is Lead Pastor of the 11,000 member Village Church in Flower Mound, Texas, and for many years has been faithfully laser-focused on the application of the Gospel to all aspects of the Christian life.  This latest volume is a great refresher that reminds us of how the doctrine of justification by faith alone should inform our view and practice of sanctification.  Plainly put, "accepting Jesus" followed by "try hard to live right" is not a view of salvation or morality that is in any way consistent with what the Scriptures teach, and such a mindset can actually do great harm to those seeking to faithfully follow Christ.  The real life experiences of people given toward the end of the book whose lives have been changed through encounters with Jesus put flesh on already solid teaching.

2. Alan Cross, When Heaven and Earth Collide: Racism, Southern Evangelicals, and the Better Way of Jesus.  I am honored to consider Alan a friend, and was happy to write an endorsement for this book, which I mentioned on this site just after its release.  Alan writes of a period in American history that illustrates, perhaps more than any other example on this side of the planet, what happens when the church capitulates to the prevailing views of culture in spite of the clear teaching of Scripture.  Certainly there are many examples of this scenario around the globe (The rise of Nazi Germany in Europe and the passive response to it by the Lutheran Church is but one international illustration), but in North America, there is no better, or worse example of cultural capitulation than what we see when we examine southern evangelicalism during the civil rights movement.  Alan's book urges us to learn from history so that we don't repeat it, and offers helpful challenges regarding race relations as we move forward into our national future.

3. Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 Since the release of Bell Curve nearly 20 years ago, I've been intrigued by Charles Murray's keen analysis of issues sometimes considered taboo in our culture.  Murray has a unique way of introducing uncomfortable subjects at the academic level in a way that allows for open conversation and clear explanation, and this latest work is no different.  I did find some of his profiles to be overly-generalized, but as a whole, pastors in suburban areas in transition (and let's be honest--there are more of those kinds of environments every day!) will glean great knowledge and insight, not only from a broad view of the past 50 years in predominantly Anglo environments, but also how that broad view explains the reactions of some in their congregations.

4. Bob Roberts and Ben Connelly, A Field Guide for Everyday Mission:  30 Days and 101 Ways to Demonstrate the Gospel.  I've written before on this site that global missions as we have practiced it for the past 200 years is coming to an end, and suggested a new path forward.  Though I believe there will always be a prominent place for those we call "career missionaries," the growth of the global population, and increasing diversity in all places due primarily to rapid migration patters demand that the whole church be "commissioned" to take the message of Jesus and glimpses of the Kingdom of God with them everywhere they go.  My friend Bob Roberts, together with fellow pastor Ben Connelly, have just released the most practical book to date to help followers of Jesus understand what this approach looks like on a daily basis.  I plan to have this book available for anyone who goes through our mission volunteer training in the future.

5. Thom Rainer, Autopsy of a Deceased Church.  Roughly 3500 churches "die" in North America every year, and this latest research by Rainer gives us sobering insight into the primary reasons for their demise.  Additionally, Rainer just wrote on the one common denominator in all these churches--and inward focus.  Ed Stetzer has famously stated that "facts are our friends."  Rainer's latest volume is full of very helpful facts, but some of these facts will hurt to hear.  My prayer is that churches will endure the pain of change so that their Gospel witness is not removed from the earth.

Missions Monday: Why We Go

As spring and summer approach, mission teams from churches all over America begin gearing up for a busy season. Anyone who frequents airports for either business or pleasure has no doubt seen oceans of identical T-shirts wandering the concourses between connections, and those wearing those T-shirts expect no less than a "great missions experience." Summer has barely begun, and our Association has already had teams on the ground in several different parts of the globe, with our most recent effort just concluding last week, as our disaster relief team continued its work in Long Island, New York.  But why do they really go?

In a few days, I will post my annual summer reading list, give the blogosphere a rather long rest and depart for an Asian country myself.  I'll log quite a few miles between now and the end of summer, and like most who plan for trips like this, my small team expects a "great experience." But several years ago I ran into an article by Dave Livermore that I think should be read by anyone who aspires to go abroad.

Livermore is the Director of the Global Learning Center at Grand Rapids Seminary, where he also teaches Intercultural Studies. He is also the author of Serving with Eyes Wide Open: Doing Short-Term Missions with Cultural Intelligence. In that work, he stresses the importance of cultural sensitivity when doing missions, and Mark Oestreicher of Youth Specialties gives the book plenty of praise, stating that mission efforts by American evangelical churches, while all well-intentioned, have not always been thoughtful. "[M]any of us have been concerned over the years that we've created a monster, doing more damage than ministry."

I share Oestreicher's assessment. Livermore cites research he generated from 250 national pastors who minister in 21 different countries, and each of them, while very appreciative of the efforts of American churches, also clearly delineated 10 things they literally "hated" about American mission projects. Whether your efforts this summer take you to Africa, the Middle East, Europe, South America, or Asia, the following may sting a bit. Nevertheless, if we are truly going to serve....to be "on mission," we need to listen to these guys:

10 Things I Hate About American Mission Projects. (From 250 National Pastors):

1. You act as if the American church is the true trendsetter for how we should all do church.

2. You're so concerned over the evil spirits ruling our land when so much evil breeds in your own backyard.

3. You live so far above the average standard of living and you behave as if you're still in North America.

4. You conclude that you're communicating effectively because we're paying attention when we're actually just intrigued by watching your foreign behavior.

5. You underestimate the effectiveness of our local church leaders.

6. You talk to us about your churches back home in such demeaning ways.

7. You too quickly get into the action without thinking through the implications on our churches long after you go home.

8. You're obsessed with picture-taking and videos during our evangelistic programs. It's really quite embarrassing for us.

9. You call us 'backward' for having little regard for your music, no palates for your green salads, no IQs for your advanced technology, and the list goes on.

10. We are not naive and backward. Instead, we are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Hurts, doesn't it?

Yet this is the way so many of our brothers and sisters in other lands view American Christians. Such things may help to explain why the nation with the greatest amount of material wealth, professional training, and mobilized volunteers accomplishes so little in the world.

The solution to this is, of course, to do a bit of a "gut check" before embarking on a trip of this nature. Take a moment to consider that those who worship Christ in other lands are not our "little" brothers and sisters. In fact, in many ways large portions of them could teach us a thing or two about what it means to follow Jesus. Bob Roberts expresses this same sentiment when he writes "Frankly, we have more need of them than they have of us. . . . .how arrogant we are to think that we must rush our missionaries over to closed parts of the world to tell them how to 'do church.' God, save them from us, and let them help us become more of who they are!"

So before you get on that plane this summer, ask yourself a hard question: "Why am I doing this?" Is this so you can travel to the other side of the world and play the part of the autonomous knower? If so, consider exchanging that ticket to Asia for one to the Caribbean to lay on a beach.   Both you and those you would insult might frankly be better served. But if your heart is that of a servant, who understands that the Kingdom of God is bigger than the west, who longs to learn from those to whom you minister as much or more than you will teach, then you probably understand, and will subsequently experience, what it really means to be "on mission."

This summer, I'll pray to just that end for you, and as I embark for overseas destinations in just a few weeks, I hope you will do the same for me.

Theology Thursday: Our Approach to Scripture, and to Culture

This week, I'm teaching a doctoral seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on current issues affecting the church.  Western evangelicalism faces an increasing number of challenges when it comes to engaging its surrounding culture in a way that is both faithful to Jesus, and fruitful within our current environment.  And sometimes, we find ourselves at cross-purposes with one another regarding an issue.

Whether we are dealing with family, sexuality, ecology, technology, or any other issue which has proven to be a "moving target" in our day, our approaches are sometimes divergent.  Jen Hatmaker and Rachel Held Evans, for example, both talk an awful lot about Jesus and claim a high level of reverence for the written Scriptures, but come to very different conclusions when it comes to homosexuality.  Jonathan Merritt and Albert Mohler likewise, often come to opposing views of numerous social and political issues that currently dominate our national conversation.

Most of the time, our differences in approach are merely that--varied and sometimes contrasting perspectives on how to effectively engage the world Jesus died to save.  But occasionally, the divide is much deeper.  The advent of what has been commonly called "post-evangelicalism" has, on the surface, seemed to be about engagement.  But beneath the surface, it becomes apparent that the issue is far more serious.

Its about how the authority of Scripture is perceived.

As a result, I led our Doctor of Ministry cohort yesterday morning in a discussion of the three prominent approaches to interpreting Scripture that are currently driving a lot of discussion within the western churches.  For pastors and other ministry leaders, this is crucially important to understand, because its not just our belief about Scripture that drives our approach to culture.  Its also how we approach its interpretation.

Currently, there are three predominant schools of thought in regard to how Scripture should be approached and interpreted.  While each approach brings perspectives that can be helpful to those who follow Jesus, some contain inherent dangers that can lead to failure rather than fruitfulness.  What follows is a very brief, and therefore admittedly somewhat oversimplified, overview of these approaches.

The Historical-Grammatical Approach:  Current approaches to this method emerged in the early 20th century in response to European higher criticism.  Like the higher critical approach, this method seeks to understand and respect the literary aspects of the Scriptural texts, and as a result gives heavy consideration to the literary, linguistic, contextual, historical, and canonical factors when seeking to determine meaning.

What sets this method apart however, is the presumption that authorial intent should govern our approach to interpretation.  And this presumption is informed by a view of Scripture that assumes a plenary verbal understanding of inspiration.  This is to say that advocates of this approach (myself included) come to the Bible presupposing that The Holy Spirit ensured that every word left to us in its pages is the fully inspired word of God Himself.  And since this inspiration is expressed through the personalities, writing styles,  and employed literary genres of the more than 40 human authors who penned the Scriptures, the best way to arrive at Scripture's meaning is to ask one simple question: "What did the Holy Spirit-inspired author intend to say here?"

Admittedly, this approach results in some degree of circular reasoning, and some of its advocates have occasionally fallen victim to epistemological idealism.  Nevertheless, this approach best undergirds a high view of Scripture as God's inspired Word, and is therefore the best starting point for understanding appropriate application to any context in which we might find ourselves.

The Postliberal Approach: This hermeneutical school of thought emerged out of a view of Scripture known as "Neo-orthodoxy."  George Lindbeck, Hans Willhelm Frei, and Stanley Hauerwas, all of whom were deeply influenced by Karl Barth (the founder of Neo-orthodoxy), developed this approach to understanding Scripture while the three were teaching together at Yale Divinity School.  For this reason, the postliberal hermeneutic is sometimes loosely referred to as the "New Yale school."

Though this approach employs a non-foundationalist approach to the text, there is a very helpful side of it that recognizes--perhaps more clearly than their historical-grammatical counterparts--the noetic effects of the fall and the resulting inevitability of subjective interpretation.  Additionally, postliberal thinkers do affirm a "normative element" in every interpretation informed by the history of the church, and the way the global body of Christ has approached a given text.  Therefore, this school of thought sees a solemn responsibility of the present church as a "sub-community" which seeks to stand on the shoulders of those who read and interpreted in the past, while simultaneously forming active responses to current issues themselves.  As such, they focus on the community of faith as Holy Spirit-filled and thus competent interpreters of Scripture, further emboldened in their attempts by their brothers and sisters who interpret Scripture together with them in the sub-community.

The problem with this approach is the tendency to see the sub-community as the final authority in itself.  In many ways, this approach is an advocacy of Neo-orthodoxy in reverse.  Karl Barth taught that the transcendence of God meant He could not be fully and finally revealed in human language, and therefore Scriptural interpretation becomes an exercise in "listening past the scratches [human error in the text] in order to hear the Master's voice."  In other words, the Bible isn't the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God  as we encounter it and respond to it.  Conversely, postliberal hermeneutics require that the sub-community impart present meaning to the text, thereby placing the final interpretive authority not int he text itself, but in the sub-community.  In Neo-orthodoxy, Scripture isn't the Word of God until it meaningfully encounters us.  In postliberal thought, Scripture has no meaning until meaning is imparted by the sub-community. Current voices like Leonard Sweet have advocated this approach as the preferred approach--especially when seeking to address issues affected by philosophical postmodernism.  The inherent danger, however, is of a presumptuous sub-community that sees itself imparting meaning, and thus authority to the Biblical text.  The authority of Scripture is inherent.  Scripture doesn't need the church to be Scripture, or to have inherent meaning.

The "Redemptive Movement" Approach.  Canadian scholar William J. Webb is currently the most visible advocate of this interpretive approach.  His 2001 book Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals is a thoroughly researched, comprehensive description of this school of thought, which views Scripture as calling believers toward an "ultimate ethic" To do this, redemptive movement advocates seek to locate common "voices" in the text which collectively call believers toward a "progressive trajectory."  As a result, critics of this view will sometimes use the pejorative term "trajectory hermeneutic."

Webb point to three distinct recognitions that must be ascertained in order to properly interpret any Biblical command.  The first is the specific Biblical command itself.  The second is the cultural context in which that command appears.  The third is the "ultimate ethic" that can be determined by understanding how the command and surrounding culture relate to one another when they are placed together on a "trajectory."

This approach assumes an "arc of history" understanding of human progress.  That is, it views human history as a history of moving forward, becoming constantly more enlightened, and progressing forward in more effective ways.Though positive, this is a rather naive and simplistic view of history that sometimes results in what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery."  Thinking that my grandfather probably wasn't as smart and enlightened as me simply because I grew up 6 decades after he did is historically adolescent and full of hubris.  But thinking I have a better view of the "ultimate ethic" of God than Jeremiah or the Apostle Paul is simply spiritually dangerous.

The biggest issue with this approach is that the "ultimate ethic" is never clearly defined within Scripture.  When you leave the end result open like this, the inevitable result is that culture's prevailing views will determine meaning.  Such is precisely the kind of scenario that can end with entire churches who have their feet planted firmly in mid-air, and ultimately irrelevant to their communities and the world.  Though Webb stops short of full cultural capitulation, many who have come behind him have taken those additional steps, and there is nothing in this approach to interpretation to stop them from doing so.  In particular, when you read Justin Lee or Rachel Held Evans on homosexuality, you are reading opinions that are largely informed by this approach.  One does not have to employ this approach to recognize the culturally and covenantally-bound nature of some Biblical texts.

For followers of Jesus, every subject is ultimately a spiritual conversation, and consequently, a conversation that should take us back to our source of authority.  Understanding the proper way to interpret that authority source is perhaps more important today than it has ever been.