Growing in Blasphemy

I thought to myself "surely, my wife misunderstood him." One morning last week, she came into our bedroom as I was getting out of the shower to tell me that a pudgy, middle-aged Hispanic man from Miami was on NBC's Today Show claiming to be Christ-incarnate, declaring all other Chrsitian faiths false, proclaiming that there is neither sin nor Satan, and vowing to bring an end to all man-made governments and religions.

But a quick perusal of his ministry website, along with a July 22 edition of the Miami Herald, assured me that Amy had heard correctly, which means only one thing: Satan is gunning for the Hispanic population in North America!

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, a 60-year-old native of Puerto Rico, was for a time an evangelical pastor. But 20 years ago, after founding the ministry Creciendo en Gracia (Growing in Grace), his message began to become more nutty with each passing year, until finally reaching official nut job status in 2004, when he claimed that the spirit of Jesus Christ had been reincarnated in his body. In short, Miranda now refers to himself as "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords" with ever increasing frequency.

An examiniation of Miranda's message clearly vindicates Solomon's wise reminder that there is nothing new under the sun. Part ancient Nestorianism, part new thought metaphysics, part Prosperity Gospel, and part Liberation Theology, Miranda's "gospel" is tailor-made to a 21st century Latin-American immigrant culture.

There are a few differences, however, between Miranda and the Christ whom he presumes to be. First, having declared that sin and Satan are both myths, Miranda has conveniently forgotten that messages like those preached by his ilk are conceived by an enemy who disguises himself as a good guy (2 Cor. 11: 13-15), as well as the fact that those who say what Miranda says are devoid of truth, and lie to themselves as well as everyone else (1 John 1:8).

Second, in his quest to found "God's government on earth," Miranda is taking quite some time to accomplish this goal. The real milennium is established with one word from the real Jesus. (Rev. 19:20-21) With over 100,000 worshippers, Miranda has certainly established a following. But Scripture tells us that when He returns, the real Jesus will be able to take care of assuming control of all the Kingdoms of this world quite well on his own.

Third, The Herald noted that Miranda travels everywhere wearing a bullet-proof vest and surrounded by a tight security detail; a fact that in retrospect seems a bit absurd if his contention that sin is no more is really true. Again, the real Jesus needs no such protection, but instead comes back as a white-haired, fiery-eyed warrior wearing a robe drenched in His enemies' blood, with a tatoo up his thigh, to slaughter all who oppose Him. I read nothing in Revelation 19 that would suggest the neccesity of a security detail.

Fourth, Miranda claims that he never opens a Bible (hey, I might have found the problem here!) or prays, rhetorically asking "who am I going to pray to?" The real Jesus, by contrast, was filled with Scriptural wisdom (Luke 2:52, 4:4-13), and constantly prayed to the Father.

Perhaps, if Miranda would pick up the very Bible of which he claims to have no need, he might see a clear picture of himself there, and as a result, recognize his true identity:

Let no one deceive you in any way, for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God . . . .For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming." (2 Thess. 2:3-8)

Or maybe he would find himself here:

"See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will lead many astray." (The real Jesus, quoted in Matthew 24:4-5)

In short, although claiming to be the Messiah, Miranda is but one very insignificant antiChrist in a long line of antiChrists that Jesus warned us about. Worse yet, God in the Scriptures has condemned Him. As such, he is the most pitiful of the pitied.

These incidents should trigger pity in the hearts of genuine Christ-followers. Furthermore, they should call our attention to our evangelistic impetus. Hispanics will likely be the majority ethnic group in North America within the next half-century. As they go, so our culture will likely go. Men like Miranda should serve as a solemn reminder to the church that if we don't reach the lost with the Gospel, some accursed individual or group will reach them with an attractive alternative (Galatians 1:6-9)!

One day, in the not-too-distant future, Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is going to come face-to-face with the One who has marked him out beforehand for damnation (Jude 4). In that moment of truth, how many of his growing number of followers will join Him in hell? The answer to that question may very well depend on our commitment to engage our immigrant friends with the message of the real Jesus.

Further resources:

Alexandra Alter, "Divine or Dangerous: He's got Disciples" The Miami Herald. July 22, 2006

http://www.creciendoengracia.com/

http://www.growingingracespanish.com/

The Mainline Mess

Even a far-left publication like the Los Angeles Times gets it! But apparently, the most liberal wings of the church are still in denial about their imminent demise. Hemmoraging mercilessly for the past four decades, The mainline arms of the Episcopal, Presbyterian and Methodist Church continue on a trajectory of slow and agonizing death. In a July 9 Religion column entitled "Liberal Christianity is paying for its Sins," LA Times columnist Charlotte Allen points theological liberals to the writing on the wall, describing their current condition as a "meltdown of liberal Christianity." And in a recent blog post, Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll reminds us that no church is exempt from the possibility of having their candlestick removed.

In commenting on the Times column, Driscoll offers, among other things, 10 ways to destroy your denomination, and the same principles hold true for individual churches. His list is below:

In summary, here are ten easy steps to destroying a denomination:
1. Have a low view of Scripture and, consequently, the deity of Jesus.

2. Deny that we were made male and female by God, equal but with distinct roles in the home and church.

3. Ordain liberal women in the name of tolerance and diversity.

4. Have those liberal women help to ordain gay men in the name of greater tolerance and diversity.

5. Accept the worship of other religions and their gods in the name of still greater tolerance and diversity.

6. Become so tolerant that you, in effect, become intolerant of people who love Jesus and read their Bible without scoffing and snickering.

7. End up with only a handful of people who are all the same kind of intolerant liberals in the name of tolerance and diversity.

8. Watch the Holy Spirit depart from your churches and take people who love Jesus with Him.

9. Fail to repent but become more committed than ever to your sinful agenda.

10. See Jesus pull rank, judge you, and send some of your pastors to hell to be tormented by Him forever because He will no longer tolerate your diversity.

The rest of Mark's post can be found here: http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-08-21_now_the_mainline_churches_make_sense

Since he writes more eloquently than I could on this subject, I encourage all of you to check this one out. Let us never seek so hard to become "relevant" to our culture that we become irrelevant to God and His Kingdom!

Matt Chandler, and More Thoughts on Trying to be a Hero!

A great paradox regarding pastoral ministry is seen in the way pastors claim that they realize they aren't "Superman," while simultaneously trying to walk on water. Early in my ministry, a well-respected African-American pastor once told me "son, Jesus already died for your people, and there is no need for you to do it too!" It was good advice! Yet the statistics clearly reveal that pastors are still dying, at least professionally if not physically, for churches. 1500 pastors leave the ministry each and every month due either to moral failure or burnout, and in spite of ample warnings, the hemmoraging hasn't slowed down. Perhaps this is why Matt Chandler's latest post, and recent sermon, is so timely.

Chandler assumed the pastorate of First Baptist Church, Highland Village, Texas, in December 2002. Almost four years later, the church has a new name (The Village Church), a totally new structure, and has grown from 160 to over 3000 in 6 weekly services, while almost killing its new pastor.

At 32, Chandler already seems to have the wisdom of a guy with decades of pastoral experience. Of course, hearing his testimony leaves you thinking that the last four years have advanced his life by at least that many decades! While in Seattle this past May, I had the privilege of being blessed by his testimony, and reminded of my own limitations.

Evidently, the casualty rate in ministry has fostered an issue dear to Chandler's heart, and his recent post at Resurgence illustrates this concern. He states:

Why does this keep happening? Why do we keep losing sharp, young, godly men to bitterness and despair? Am I in danger? I found myself praying and thinking for the next few hours. I always want to go back to the life of Jesus when it comes to questions of surviving ministry.

This post, and his recent message "Gravity: The Weight of Pastoring and the Knowledge of Christ," will be required reading and listening for my Pastoral Theology students at Capital Seminary this fall. If you are a parishioner seeking to understand the heart of a pastor, the blog and online message will give you a brutally-honest inside look. If you are a pastor, your heart will reasonate with Matt Chandler, and if you heed his words, they just might save your ministry!

Read the blog at:
http://www.theresurgence.com/mc_blog_2006-08-10_alpha_males_and_the_messiah_complex

Hear the sermon at:
http://www.theresurgence.com/r_r_2006_session_nine_audio_chandler

Visit The Village online at:
www.thevillagechurch.net

Mel Gibson and the Myth of Christian Heroism

Less than three years after producing a phennomenal depiction of Christ's death and resurrection, Oscar-winning actor and director Mel Gibson was arrested for drunken driving, and castigated by the media and general public for strong anti-Semitic remarks he made while being placed under arrest. Once again, Hollywood and the media are simmering over "Mad Mel's" racist tirade, and this latest debacle again brings to the surface two struggles that have seemed to perpetually plague the A-list actor, the other being alcohol abuse.

While the national media debate Mel Gibson's fate, the church has largely remained silent and somewhat paralyzed by an event that has obviously caught us off guard. After all, two and a half years ago, Gibson was touring evangelical churches all across the world peddling his new film The Passion of the Christ as a tool of evangelism. Once again, someone the church at large held up as an icon of strong faith has fallen. But this isn't the first time the church has been surprised by bad behavior from those celebrated as strong believers, nor will it likely be the last. And in the midst of the media frenzy, Christians must ask deeper questions about our propensity to look to men rather than to God.

From TV evangelist Jim Bakker's arrest to NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon's divorce to singer Michael English's extra-marital affair, the list of men vocal about their faith who have fallen is a long one. I remember hearing about Gordon's rumored extra-marital affair and subsequent divorce, and immediately recalling his strong testimony before thousands of people in Indianapolis at a Billy Graham crusade just four years earlier. Likewise, many who idolized Michael English during the early nineties were crushed when it was revealed that the singer had kept secret an ongoing affair with a fellow Christian artist. Given our experience with placing people on pedestals as role models, one might think evangelicals would learn from history. Such is, regretably, not the case.

Unfortunately, our penchant for the idolization of men (and women) can be credited in large part to our hermaneutic. From the cradle, evangelicals have taught their children that the stories in the Bible are about "good guys" vs. "bad guys." Abraham is the father of a nation who, with his strong faith, was willing to filet his only son. David is the strong King of Israel who slaughtered Goliath. Solomon was the wise King who arbitrated a scenario between two mothers that would have otherwise been impossible in a pre-DNA testing age. Elijah is the great man of God who called down fire from heaven and killed the prophets of Baal. John the Baptist was the great preacher who called all to repentance. Peter also was the great preacher at Pentecost.

We teach the Bible as if it were full of stories about heroes, when in reality it is simply a story of sin and grace. Perhaps this is why, when men like Mel Gibson demonstrate that they are, well, men, we are so shocked. We forget that Abraham was, at heart, a liar, David an adulterer, Solomon a pervert, Elijah a whiner, John a doubter, and Peter an indecisive hot-head. We forget that their moments of greatest strength were so because of God's empowerment which overcame their depravity.

From beginning to end, the Bible has one hero, and that hero is God! He is the grand protagonist throughout both testaments, and the human "heros" are essentially no more than His enemies whom He has brought near to Himself and made friends.

Paul echoes this when he tells Timothy in his first letter to preach that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost." Paul understood that from the perspective of the cross, there are no heros, but only those who have been saved by grace. Therefore, as he ministers, he does so not as the great missionary-hero who sweeps in to save the heathen, but rather, as a trophy of the same grace he proclaims to those who will listen.

This perspective will put an end to the myth of Christian heroism. Even in his brightest moments, Mel Gibson is no hero. All good things that resulted from the Passion are so by God's design and power. Conversely, the recent Gibson episode doesn't make him any worse than he has always been. Anti-semitism and alcoholism are simply two expressions of a sinful nature that plagues each one of us. Such a realization will produce the right response from followers of Christ: forgiveness and restoration to one who claims to be our brother, and who has asked for help.

With that said, don't read between the lines that I think we should take Gibson's actions lightly. This is not my point at all. In fact, the restoration process is one that can only properly take place within the bounds of church discipline. The point however, is that what sets the Christian story apart from all others is that it isn't about heroism, but grace. We should expect that adherents to other religious faiths would be shocked by Gibson's actions. Their teachings all appeal to human goodness and human works as a means of acheiving salvation. But true Christianity realizes that apart from God's common and special grace, human goodness is a myth. Therefore, when professing Christians fall, we should condemn the behavior, but not the person. We should express dissapointment, but not shock. We should administer discipline, but not wrath.

"Mad Mel" messed up! Rest assured, he won't be the last! May the church use moments like these to remind ourselves that none of us wear a cape, and only One wears a crown!

The Harvest we Don't See: A Call for a Renewed North American Missiology

Over the past two decades, Evangelicals in North America have been very effective in reaching the lost, discipling them to maturity, and as a result extending the Kingdom of God into darkness . . . .that is, if you are a white, moderately-educated, middle-class, middle-income family! If you belong to any other social strata, any other socio-economic level, or any other ethnic and/or language group, you are simply not even on our radar, and it's high time that changed!

Largely due to the phennomenon of globalization, the ethnic and cultural landscape in North America is becoming more heterogenous every year, with the anticipation that by 2050, there will no longer be a majority Anglo culture in our nation. Major North American cities now share more in common with their sister-metroplexes across the ocean than with the small towns located just a few miles from city limits. In my own mission field of central Maryland, over 160 different languages are spoken, and in some places, such as the Howard County seat of Columbia, all ethnic categories are outpacing Anglos in population growth by double-digits!

Given these striking realities, one would think that those who claim the most commitment to the propogation of Biblical truth would be modeling that commitment via an aggressive missiological strategy to reach all people. Instead, the past two decades have seen Evangelicals basically ignoring those whom God has sent our way, and crying out for the next most effective strategy for reaching people who are just like us!

Such ambivelence toward those of other cultures is not new. In fact, Jesus contended with such cultural myopia in His own disciples. In John 4, He leads His disciples through Samaria toward His ultimate destination of Galilee. Samaria was definitely the wrong side of the tracks, and as far as the disciples were concerned, it had been that way for over 700 years. During the 8th century B.C. the Assyrian army had invaded this same area and scattered 10 of Israel's 12 tribes to the furtherest corners of the earth, leaving only a few in this area who eventually intermarried with the Assyrians, resulting in a new mixed race called the Samaritans. To the Jews, these were "second-class citizens." The disciples of course want nothing to do with this area, or the people who occupy it. But Jesus has other plans, which include a divine encounter with a woman at Jacob's well. Yet in spite of this life-transforming event in her life, the disciples still don't get it, and their ignorance and missiological near-sightedness become the impetus for one of Jesus' greatest challenges: "Look I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest."

In short, Jesus says "you think the harvest is in Galilee, but I have brought you through this place you don't like, and to a people with whom you will not associate, to show you that the harvest is here as well . . . . right in front of your eyes! Look!"

As Reggie McNeal well notes; "It's amazing what we don't see when we aren't looking!"

Fast-forward 2000 years, and we find the same problem. Those we are successfully reaching in North America are, for the most part, exacly like us. As for the few other groups that are successfully being reached (i.e. Asians, Hatians), the credit belongs less to an aggressive North American missions strategy and more to the indigenous evangelical history out of which these groups come. But what kind of attitude causes such a disjointed approach to mission?

For years, Evangelicals have required International Missionaries to learn the language, adopt the dress and cultural practices, and immerse themselves totally in the culture of the people they aspire to reach with the Gospel. But when similar moves are tried in North America, a double-standard results, as many churches simply trying to contextualize the Gospel are accused of compromise.

The cause of this double-standard is multi-faceted, but at the source is an assumption that the United States, unlike every other geo-political nation-state in the world, is monocultural. Because terms like "multiculturalism" were hijacked early-on by the political left in an attempt to bless sinful behavior, Evangelicals have reacted sternly against any suggestion that the term just might have some redeeming quality. One well-known seminary dean even exclaimed that in America "We have ONE culture," and in a moment of imperial superiority invited all to "come and join it."

This is the common misunderstanding: This dean, like many Evangelicals, believes that because our nation shares the same system of government, a common currency, a lingua franca, and a geo-political boundary that we as a result are all a part of the same culture. Nothing could be further from the truth! These boundaries alone do not define a culture.

Further complicating this issue are those on the other side of this debate, who seem to find "people groups" in just about every sub-strata of American life. The result of this kind of thinking is the manifestation of "cowboy churches," "biker churches," "Gen-X churches," and "35-to-40-year-old scored-greater-than-120-on-18-holes-bad golfer churches." Phillip Connor of the Center for Missional Research rightly states that while innumerable affinity groups could be identified in our culture, "it is a stretch to say that each of these population subgroups constitutes an actual 'people group' as defined in the original Greek text found in the Great Commission."

In short, as a biker, I can freely attend the church of which I am a member, and find teaching, encouragement, ministry, and friendship from those who have never availed themselves of the priviledge of mounting a Harley! To put it succinctly, the singular fact that I ride a motorcycle does not produce a significant barrier to my ability to hear and understand the Gospel.

What then does cause significant barriers to hearing and responding to the Gospel? Being a biker in and of itself produces no significant barrier. But what if I am an Hispanic biker immigrant who works two jobs to support my family? To such a person, a church full of white people speaking English, driving Lexus' and meeting at 10:00 on Sunday morning might be an issue! What follows is but an example of the investigation that should be taking place in and around every major metroplex in the US:

The language they speak: Several years ago I was working in North Africa. I was to land in southern Spain, receive briefings on the work to be done, and then cross the Mediterranean Sea to the African continent for a week. After many hours of delayed flights, I found myself re-routed from Chicago and Madrid to Newark and Zurich, Switzerland, finally touching down on the costa del Sol some 12 hours past my scheduled landing. Moreover, my contact had given up on meeting me and had returned to Africa. Of course, being an American, I spoke not one word of Spanish. I had no national currency, no way to get to my destination, and no guidance. After finally locating the phone number of my contact, it was wonderful to communicate with someone who understood me, and who I understood. To me, the English language had never sounded so beautiful!

Likewise, while those from other nations usually come to our shores with some working knowledge of our language, hearing their own dialect instantly removes all communication barriers! It is imperative, as we begin to investigate the various people groups in North America, that we identify the common languages, both official and tribal, that exist among these people. Furthermore, North American missionaries called to reach these people should do all within their power to make the Gospel available in the "heart language" of the people. Connor notes that those living in North America who represent the most unevangelized areas on the globe (i.e. the Middle East, Eastern Asia) appear to have the fewest number of indigenous churches available to them. While a number of barriers must be breached for this to change, the language barrier is, to many of these groups, primary.

The demographic context in which they are found: This of course, addresses a host of issues such as race, income, education, marital status, living conditions, and even age. While much criticism has rightly been leveled at "generational theory," I find that many are throwing out the baby with the bathwater by stating that a person's generational grouping is of no consequence. While it is correct that much of what was published in the past concerning generational theory was aimed primarily at white suburbanites, I still contend that this is still an important factor in determining an appropriate missiological response. For example, African-Americans born prior to 1964 had much different experiences than African-Americans born after 1980, and these various experiences will affect both the metaphysical and epistemological grounds of their respective worldviews.

Likewise, there has been an increasing dichotomy between residents of rural areas as opposed to those living in the nations' cities. Much of the world and life view of these two groups is formed, at least in part, on the basis of their location. Such a factor cannot be ignored when considering how best to reach people. In fact, most of the church planting failures I have witnessed came as a result of missing this key differentiation. If you are in a socially-conservative rural area, you simply cannot "copy-cat" a ministry model perfected in the city!

The questions they are asking: Ed Stetzer has observed that while 20% of the US population still wonders about what will happen to them when they die, the other 80% are largely ignored by Evangelicals because our canned evangelistic approaches are only addressing the question of life after death. While a person's eternal destination is one of the most important reasons we practice evangelism, we must meet these people at their point of concern, and for many, that concern simply isn't about the afterlife. Our task as missionaries to North America is to discover the questions that disturb the various groups we are trying to reach. No matter what they are asking, the Gospel is the answer! But in order to know how best to present that answer, we must make sure we are reaching them at their point of greatest perceived need.

The bottom line of all this is simple: We excel in reaching people who are exactly like us, stink at reaching anyone else, and as a result, at least 2/3 of the 320 million people living in the US are without a relationship to Jesus Christ. If we want that to change, we must stop deceiving ourselves into thinking that we are still a "Christian nation" with one culture, one voice, one purpose, and one set of beliefs and values. Over the past half-century, Jesus has been in the process of bringing the nations right to our door. And unlike the church in any other nation, American Christianity has the means and resources to take the Gospel to them all. But the one thing required for this is that which we have not yet done: Lift up your eyes and see the harvest!

Further Resources:

Discover more helpful information at the Center for Missional Research by clicking the link below:

Connor, Phillip. 2006. A Biblical Missiology for North American People Groups. Accessed 16 July, 2006 at www.namb.net/cmr

McNeal, Reggie. 2003. The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A Blogging Break, and Five Books Every Pastor Should Read this Year.

One of the more ruinous aspects of my seminary education is that I emerged with both a degree and an addiction to books. As one who reads seven to ten books per month on average, I often find myself "going through the motions" of merely transferring information from pounds and pounds of former-trees into my fallen brain.

Occassionally, I read a book or other resource that piques my interest enough to reccomend it to another. But rarely do the contents of a book move me to reccomend it to any and all. This is why I find 2006 an odd year, because less than months into the appointments in my PDA, I have found at least one book per month to be (in my opinion) indispensable to pastors and church planters.

For the next two and a half weeks, I will be attending the Southern Baptist Convention, and then helping lead a team of over 300 volunteers from Maryland to Mississippi to help with hurricane relief. There are many others who will be "live blogging" from the Convention. (see www.sbcoutpost.com, and www.stevekmccoy.com, for just two examples) While I appreciate each of their unique perspectives, adding my own to cyberspace would likely only clutter up the place. Plus, I want to take the time when I'm not working on my SBC committee assignment and spend some quality time with the family, and I've discovered that laptop computers can pose a great barrier to familial intimacy.

To be sure, there are things worth writing about that I will address soon enough. Look for this site to become very active again around the first of July. For now, let me leave you with the following reccomended reading, which in sum is far more substantive than my own feeble contributions.

Each of the resources below is reccomended for various reasons, and I am certainly not endorsing all that you will read. But the information and inspiration to be gleaned from the following resources will be invaluable to pastors trying to get their arms around their ministries, as well as their contexts. Therefore, I reccommend the following as "must-reading" for the remainder of 2006.

Barna, George. 2006. Revolution.
I know, I know. The biggest complaint about this book is that is touts a very weak ecclesiology, and this complaint is legitimate! But sense when do we expect a statistician to articulate a robust understanding of such things?

The same rule that holds true for Barna's other works hold equally true for this one. If you read Barna as a theologian, you will either finish the book very angry, or very confused. However, if you read him for what he is (i.e. someone with his finger on the pulse of both the church and the culture), you will glean much-needed knowlege from his "descriptions", while taking his "prescriptions" lightly at best. Like his past works, this one is dead-on in its description of the context where the western church currently finds itself.


Murrow, David. 2005. Why Men Hate Going to Church
Anyone who thinks the church is "masculine" enough will find this book by Discovery Channel producer David Murrow very frustrating. But if you, like me, believe that many local churches have been stripped of their "guts," (or maybe even stripped of other body parts a few inches south of there), you will find this work a breath of fresh air. With breathtaking candor, Murrow speaks of why men don't lead, don't attend, and honestly don't care when it comes to local church participation. The careful theologian will find himself at odds with Murrow on a few points. But over all, this book presents a much-needed clarion call for the church to get back in touch with its masculine side!


Mahanney, C.J. 2004. Humility: True Greatness.
If you are wondering which book will best compliment your Bible as you do your private devotions this summer, I'd give this one a look. C.J. Mahanney is the embodiment of the very thing about which he writes, and the challenges he issues will have you looking beneath your manners, your public prayers, and your fained humble spirit in order to kill every last vestige of pride in your being.

Why is he so passionate about slaying this particular sin? If his definition of pride is anywhere near accurate, you will strengthen your focus to slay it too! Pride, according to Mahanney, is "when sinful human beings aspire to the status and position of God and refuse to acknowledge their dependence on Him." In short, Mahanney skips right past the "symptoms" of pride, which we so often mistake for th real thing, and helps the reader face the ugly nature of this gross sin for what it is.

Roberts, Bob. 2006. Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World.
If you are a pastor trying to grow your church and have Kingdom impact with a spiritually "empty tank," this book contains jet fuel! And Bob Roberts isn't just casting a vision for community transformation and global impact. He and his church are living it! You will be challenged afresh to reorient your thinking and that of your church concerning God's definition of "success" and "obedience." This book lays out solid and real pictures of the Kingdom of God on the move, and will be one of the most pleasant drinks you have ever had from a fire hose.

Stetzer, Ed and David Putman. 2006. Breaking the Missional Code.
I'll be finished with this one by week's end, but I'm already praying that pastors in my area will get this book so that they can "get" this book. Stetzer and Putman remind readers in chapter after chapter that our North American mission strategy now must be taken from the pages of veteran foregin missionaries. More than this, they give readers the practical steps neccesary to know their communities fully, and thereby reach them more effectively.

Look for a more complete review of this book in particular on this site later in the summer.

Well, one more day of work and I'm off to Greensboro! I hope to meet many of you there. As for the rest of you, pop in from time to time to post and say hello, or continue sending email my way. I hope everyone has a great summer!

Calvinism and Contention: Who is Stirring Up all the Trouble?

So that you will know up front, this post is about Calvinism, and the next will be about the place of women in the church. I thought, since I am about to leave for two weeks to attend the Southern Baptist Convention and help lead a mission team to Mississippi, that I would like to guarantee a full mail box upon my return!

Every once in a while, urban legend makes its way into the church via an imagined controversy. While such conspiracy theories are usually harmless, they can also sometimes stir up needless strife within the body. With regard to the issue of Calvinism and all the noise recently made about it across Southern Baptist life, I am wondering whether this is a true threat as many contend, or simply a scapegoat so that we don't have to examine the real issues behind our problems.

I was reminded of this today after coming home from the office and picking up my latest copy of National Liberty Journal. (Yes, I admit to getting, and sometimes even reading this monthly apologia for the Republican party.) On the front page, Dr. Ergun Caner, President of Liberty Seminary in Lynchburg, Virginia, forwards the idea that one of the biggest threats to the unity of Baptist churches is Calvinism. Caner states that "it has become so commonplace in Baptist life, many of us just skim past the articles. In a Baptist paper recently, I read: "Another Church Splits Over Calvinism." Baptist news agencies have begun to investigate this mounting issue."

I hear similar things from pastors from time to time, but have yet to find anyone who can point to a definite example of a church that literally split over this issue. And one would think, given the large numbers of Baptist churches rent in two each year, that at least one tangible example could be presented.

Adding to these thoughts, I should probably reveal at this point that I personally lean very heavily in the Reformed direction. But I've never been angry about it, never attempted to convert a church to it, and honestly detest much of what has been said over the past decade by BOTH sides of the debate regarding this issue.

This is not to say that when I get to texts like Romans 9 or Ephesians 1 that I simply skip over them for the sake of "peace", and I would hope that those who have a different view of these texts would resist that temptation as well! It is however to say that I have always challenged my people to be good Bereans, examine the text for themselves, and draw their conclusions, not based on their pre-conceived notions, or on my opinion, but on the text as it stands. And what has been the result of this approach? In my first pastorate, the church doubled in average worship attendance over a three-year period and saw 60% of its growth come from people turning from their sins and placing their faith in Jesus Christ. I later planted a church that continues to make Kingdom impact, and has helped to birth two other churches. Presently, I get to ride the wave of what I truly believe will become a church planting movement in central Maryland. How did my understanding of the "doctrines of grace" affect this? Well, for one thing, I understand that I didn't accomplish any of the above. God by His grace chose to do it through me even though I didn't deserve it!

To be sure, I'm aware of the fact that there are a few Calvinists out there, "green" in the ministry, usually just out of seminary, who can cause quite a stir. But I have yet to see any examples of such young bucks tearing into a helpless church and leaving them broken. In every case like this I have seen, the congregation, showing much more spiritual maturity than their young pastor, simply fires the guy, and the trouble is over! Al Mohler (himself a five-point Calvinist) has wisely said that any seminary student who becomes convinced of Calvinism should immediately be detained in prison cell for a "cooling off" period! But while I appreciate all the perceived angst over what some believe to be false doctrine, I'm simply not convinced that this threat is real. To use a southern metaphor, I think it is highly possible that the whole "Calvinism debate" is no more than a theological "snipe hunt."

That said, I was surprised to hear Dr. Caner speaking of this "threat" as if the destruction of the entire Southern Baptist Convention were imminent because of it! But frankly, the more I read of his front-page article, the more I came face-to-face with categorical fallicies, undefined and mis-defined terminology, and broad sweeping generalizations. Honestly, given Dr. Caner's past track record of "debate," I should have expected no less. But I was hoping for much more from a seminary president who touts himself as the "intellectual pit bull of the evangelical world."

Caner's latest article is but one of a long string of vitriolic outburtsts at those who have differences with him on issues secondary to the Christian faith. Initially, I thought it best to leave this one alone. But if you are a baseball fan you know that sometimes its hard to resist when the pitcher keeps trying to get you to swing at a pitch in the dirt. Sometimes you have to pick the ball up and throw it back in his face!

Therefore, what follows are responses to a five-fold description Caner gives of "Hyper-Calvinism." My reason for this is not to prove one side or the other. The relationship between divine sovereingty and human responsibility has been debated for over 500 years, since before the Reformation, and we aren't about to end that discussion in a single blog entry! Still, my contention here is that if there is trouble over Calvinism in the Convention, it might possibly be caused just as much by those on the other side. And mischaracterizing a person's position is certainly a way to stir up trouble! So let's take a look at Ergun Caner's description of this "danger" called "Hyper-Calvinism."

Says Caner: 1. Double Predestination. Simply put, they believe that a small group of people are predestined, even before the Creation, for heaven, and that the vast majority of the world is predestined, even created for, hell.

This is an interesting way to present this doctrine. First of all, Ephesians 1: 4 states clearly that election, whatever you believe about it, happened "before the foundation of the world." To put it bluntly, Caner's problem with God acting prior to creation isn't with the Calvinists. It's with the Bible
Second, I know of no one holding this view who believes that the saved constitute only a "small number." In fact, when I read Revelation 7, John tells me that the number of the redeemed is so great, mathematics fails at keeping track of them all! Conversely, of those who go to hell, Caner speaks as if these were somehow OK with God until He made a decision to send them there. He forgets the simple Biblical truth that ALL are born dead. Therefore, while a Calvinist may technically believe in what is called "double predestination," no serious student of Scripture believes that "election" and "reprobation" are both active steps of God. "Reprobation," or the sending of someone to hell is done passively. God doesn't actively predestine anyone to hell. He simply allows them to follow their own self-made path of destruction which ends up there. If I die lost, God doesn't have to "predestine" me to hell, because I've been on my way there my whole life!

Furthermore, the contention that the majority of humanity will go to hell is in fact Biblical! Jesus repeatedly states throughout the Scriptures that more will be lost than will be saved (Matthew 7:13-14). This has nothing to do with Calvinism. It is clearly taught in the Bible.

2. Not all babies who die go to heaven. They do not say outright that 'non-elect babies who die go to hell.' They simply say that they leave such issues to the sovereignty of God. This raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?

For the record, I personally believe that all who die in infancy go to be with Jesus. I make this claim primarily on the basis of David's statement in 2 Samuel, where he looks forward in faith to the moment when he will see his newborn son in heaven.

That said, I have friends who do in fact believe what Caner has described above. While I do not agree, I do appreciate their struggle with this issue, and their refusal to ignore the truth that we are all born dead in our trespasses and sins, and that the "age of accountability" is nowhere to be found in the Biblical text. My own answer to this is that God regenerates the infant prior to death, and I admit that this is an incomplete answer, because it does not address how God does so apart from repentance and faith.

Caner contends that to even discuss such an issue "raises the issue of the very nature of God, doesn't it?" No it does not. It does however, raise the issue of human nature, which Caner seems to completely ignore here. Trite answers to hard questions like this help no one. And lest you think I'm simply living in an ivory tower, I'd remind you that you are reading the words of a father who has six-year-old and eight-month-old sons! What would I do if something happened to one of my boys? If I am given the choice between wringing my hands over whether they were old enough, knew enough, believed enough, or simply placing them in the sovereign hands of the Judge of the Earth whom Scripture tells me always does what is right, I choose the later!

3. God's "love for mankind" must be redefined. Yes, they will say. God does love the world. But His love is a matter of degrees . . .They do not believe that God wants a relationship with everyone. That would go against their system and theology.

Where do I even start? Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists believe that God truly desires a relationship with every person! 1 Timothy 2: 4 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." The problem however, which Caner has completely ignored, is that not all are saved, and both Calvinists and non-Calvinists have their own understanding as to why this is. Neither side would say that there is something or someone more powerful than God who is keeping Him from saving all people. But BOTH sides believe that while God values the salvation of all men, there is something else that He values more. Calvinists say that God values the full display of His glory in both His justice and mercy more than the salvation of all men. Non-Calvinists say that God values man's free will more than the salvation of all men. But neither side, including the Calvinist side, says that God does not have a genuine love for the whole world, nor does either side deny that God is full of sorrow when the wicked refuse to repent. (Ezekiel 18:32)

4. Invitations are an insult to the sovereingty of God. Disturbing as this may sound, some ministers of this stripe have stopped giving invitations in their services.

Caner may be unaware that many non-Calvinists are also jettisonning the formal "invitation." No such presentation is given at Marathon Community Church in Easley South Carolina. Yet this church has grown to over 5000 in nine years without such a man-made practice. His myopic sense of history may in fact be prohibiting him from realizing that this formal way of inviting people to come to the front of a church building is a quite new approach, popularized by the revivalist Charles G. Finney.

Do I personally think "invitations" are an insult to God? In general, no. I came to faith in Christ by responding to just such an invitation.

However, do I think "mood music,"turning down the lights, appeals empowered more by emotionalism than truth, shouting over the music, "programming" people to come forward in order to "get it started," 493 verses of "Just as I Am," and marking such a time as more "sacred" than the previous half-hour spent in the Bible is an insult to God? Yes I do! In fact, I believe such actions border on the blasphemous!

5. Calvinism is the only Gospel. they believe that Calvinism, and only Calvinism is the preaching of the Gospel.

This is simply not true! I have rejoiced to hear the Gospel preached by Methodists, Pentecostals, Free-will Baptists, Nazarene's, and a host of others who would reject the "doctrines of grace." Such a characterization may be rightly fitted on the recent seminary graduate I mention above, but I know of no serious pastor holding to Calvinism who would say such a thing.

I found it interesting that, given all the "differences" Dr. Caner claims to have with someone like me, his description of the Gospel was identical to my own. He writes: "I believe Jesus Christ died to save mankind and offers salvation to every living soul. I believe in the 'whosoever will.' I believe that His love and salvation are extended to every person who will repent of sin and trust in Him."

To the above, I can only say "AMEN!"

So then, what is the problem? From whence comes all of the "trouble" Caner laments?

My own experiences after nearly a decade and a half in ministry have taught me that many times, the issue isn't about doctrine so much as it is about attitude. In a sense, Caner has a point. There is a vast difference between being a "Calvinist" and being a "Calvinazi." But this same point could be turned back on Caner himself. It is one thing to reject Calvinism on what you perceive to be Biblical grounds. It is quite another to mischaracterize, mallign, slander, and build "straw men," and then turn around and blame the other side for "stirring up trouble" or for "causing division," or for "splitting churches."

As a pastor, I have nearly fired staff for pushing Calvinism in the church as if the continued life of the congregation depended on their admiration of TULIP. I have also passed over otherwise qualified and talented staff who were non-Calvinists, and wanted to make an issue of it! In short, I've never hired or fired anyone because they were, or were not, a Calvinist. I have however, put my foot in the hind parts of staff members because they were jerks!

So in the end, I would contend that one side is stirring the waters on this issue every bit as much as the other side. And the sad part of this is that NEITHER side can be as evangelistically productive while yelling across the aisle.

On a more personal note, what can I do to quell this unneccesary struggle? Aside from making corrections as I have done above, I can continue to work with those who disagree with me on this issue, because making Jesus known is more important.

I can also continue to recognize that those who differ with me on this issue are my brothers in Christ . . .and when I say that I don't mean to imply that they are my "little brothers." Some seem to approach this issue in exactly this way: thinking they are promoting "unity" because they "tolerate" the other side even though the other side has what they believe to be a "warped view of God." Such a view is built on sinful pride, and will never put an end to the contention.

John Wesley never thought that George Whitefield didn't really mean it when he called sinners to believe in Christ. Whitefield likewise, never accused Wesley of not believing in a sovereign God. Maybe we should try to learn something from these two men who, while they could not have been further apart on this issue, continued to labor together in the same harvest field.

Since 1845, Southern Baptists have had robust debate about the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsbility. What has kept this discussion healthy is that we have kept it "in house" and "off" the mission field! My call here is simply to stop the madness! Both sides have to stop marginalizing each other, calling each other "extremists," viewing each other as a "threat," and believing that the other teaches heresy.

Both sides preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Instead of continuing to tear each other down, maybe we should try working together to lift Him up!

Welcome to the Real World! (A Review of Driscoll's "Confessions...")

Reading most narrative resources on church planting is very much like trying to leave reality and live in a dream world. The inspiring but atypical stories found in books by Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley have the capacity to make a church planter dream big, but they can also lead him to fall hard! Yet Mark Driscoll's latest work introduces aspiring apostolic leaders to the hard realities of church planting, as well as the glorious finish line that can await all faithful servants of Jesus.

In 2001 when my family and I began planting a church, I read all the resources that were at the time considered "required reading." I still remember reading about the Real Estate broker who found Rick Warren a rent-free home for a month and simultaneously joined his church. I remember rejoicing as I read about the rapid growth of Willow Creek, and dreaming big while reading Stanley's success story known as Northpointe Church. Six months later, with no building, no money, and struggling to gather a core group, I felt very much like the special needs student who had accidentally signed up for the AP calculus course. I honestly wondered what I was doing wrong, not thinking about the possibility that Rick, Andy and Bill might be telling stories of extraordinary moves of God . . . .the exception rather than the rule.

Five years later, that church which began as a vision from God came togetherwith an older, established congregation, and by His grace continues to worship on Parkins Mill Road in Greenville South Carolina. It has helped to birth two other congregations in the Greenville area as well, but not without almost killing me first! My experiences there taught me that while it is OK to dream big, reading stories about airplanes full of people coming to Jesus can sometimes produce unrealistic expectations.

Now I have the privilege of overseeing the work of church planting in one of the most affluent areas in the country, and God is allowing me to share my limited experience with the guys who are now doing the work. While I want them to dream big, and expect God to do big things, I don't want them to think that growth comes without blood, sweat, tears, demonic oppression, temptation, fatigue, and a host of other impediments. Now that Driscoll's book Confessions is finally in print, I have a resource that will help them see this.

In the book, Mark Driscoll chronicles the birth and growth of Seattle's Mars Hill Church. Each of the seven chapters details a segment of growth within the church, which began in Driscoll's living room in 1996 with 12 people, and has since blossomed into a congregation of over 4,000. Throughout the book, there is a healthy balance of inspirational accounts of conversion and discipleship with brutal honesty concerning the sacrifice neccesary to bring about such spiritual development. Not content to allow you to see only the present worship center after a Sunday morning, Driscoll takes you into his living room where 12 people gathered initially, into the upstairs youth room of a fundamentalist church with 70s shag carpet where the church met for a period of time, into his bedroom at 3 AM for a rather blunt and personal "counseling" phone call with a porn-addict, and even into his own mind as he recounts his personal experiences with sexual temptation, spiritual warfare, sleeplessness, marital discord, frustration, anger and fatigue.

The stories come to life in a way only Driscoll can communicate, and each of his personal experiences leaves the reader with valuable lessons that will prove useful during the church planting experience. As I was reading, I found myself consistently asking "where was this book five years ago?" After reading this work, I have come to the conclusion that either Mark and I are both insane, and the only two people who have experienced such things, or his experiences represent the "norm" of church planting with much more accuracy. While I admit that my sanity is a point of debate among some friends of mine, I will opt for the second possibility.

There are a number of reasons this book should be on every church planter's shelf. First of all, there is a very helpful introduction in which Driscoll asks ten very probing questions that will help pastors and church planters alike shape the vision of their church in a way that will glorify God. Affectionately entitled "Chapter Zero," this section deals with the balance between "Gospel," "Culture," and "Church," and seeks to pull the reader from thinking of church planting solely in terms of "attraction," to thinking missionally so that their church will permeate its community with Gospel presence.

Second, Driscoll is an unabashed theological conservative, and helps today's church planters not lose sight of the fact that our programming, strategies, theological understanding, and ecclesiological foundations must be taken solely from the text of Scripture. One exerpt serves as an example:

At the time, it was becoming increasingly popular for young pastors to have churches that were not called "churches," but rather silly things like "new monastic communities," and leaders that were not called "pastor," but rather silly things like "abbess," or "spiritual director." As our mission began to develop, the New Testament teaching on church leadership and church discipline seemed increasingly wise and urgent to implement, before we ended up like the church at Corinth, divided and off mission because of folly and sin. Over the years, I have become increasingly troubled by the frequency with which young pastors simply dismiss the New Testament teaching on church leadership and discipline, so that if four guys are drinking beer in a pub, they can call it a church." (p.47)

Driscoll also takes the opportunity at one point in the book to distance himself from much of the aberrant theology coming out of Emergent. Recounting his experiences with Brian McLaren, Driscoll says "though I sincerely love Brian and appreciate the kindness he has shown to me, I generally disagree with many of his theological conclusions . . . .His pacifism seems to underlie many of our theological disagreements since he has a hard time accepting such things as the violence of penal substitutionary atonement, parts of the Old Testament where God killed people, and the concept of conscious eternal torment in hell . . . .I find it curious that, from my perspective, he is using his power as a writer and speaker to do violence to Scripture in the name of pacifism." (p.99)

Third, as I mentioned before, Driscoll's story is a "real world" story, that will likely be much more reflective of the average church planter's experiences. Angry core group members walking out, theological heresy causing the resignation of staff, and immature Christians seeking to lead before they are ready are but a few of the experiences Driscoll shares that I suspect will cause almost everyone who has planted a church to say "I remember that!"

Fourth, interspersed between these brutally true experiences are stories of grace. Driscoll is careful to note that even in the middle of the toughest times, God was working to save people at Mars Hill, and the stories are moving to say the least. Each chapter is prefaced with a one-sentence testimony that reminds the reader of the work of God, even in the midst of apparent chaos. These testimonies reveal such things as:

-God saved me while I was living with my lesbian mom and my dad was in prison for murder. I am a founding pastor.

-I was a pothead until I got saved and now I am the president of the chamber of commerce and the executive pastor.

-I was not a Christian when I came to the church. Today, I am a pastor.

Finally, Driscoll is abundantly clear throughout that the success of Mars Hill is owed to God alone. While no one who has planted a church would deny such a statement, many books on the subject seem to leave the reader with the impression that "our church grew because we . . . .[fill in the blank]." To be sure, Driscoll relates the lessons he has learned the hard way in the hopes that others will choose a less rocky path. But in the end, Mars Hill is shown to be totally the work of God. Driscoll admits from the very first sentence when he says, "I have made so many mistakes as a pastor that I should be pumping gas for a living instead of preaching the Gospel." And of the end result of his labors he states, "basically, we are a kite in God's hurricane, which is an absolute joke for reasons that will become apparent as you read through the book." (p.9)

Two cautions are in order. First, his comparisons of congregational ecclesiology with Senior Pastor and Elder ecclesiology is an exercise in oversimplification, and assumes these leadership models to be mutually exclusive. His rationale against "majority vote" decision-making in the church is worthy of a strong hearing, but in the end, he throws the baby out with the bathwater by seeing "congregationalism" as synonymous with "democracy." I agree with Driscoll that the latter has been syncretized into the local church in America, but the former has Biblical merit, and should be given more careful consideration.

Another caution is that some will find the way Driscoll sometimes expresses himself to be offensive. Many reviews have already been written that chide Driscoll heavily for what is perceived to be "coarse and offensive" language that occassionally appears in the book. But in the end, I would encourage the reader to resist straining at this gnat so that you can be blessed by hearing the heart of this pastor-missionary.

Mark Driscoll is a God-send to the emerging church. His newest book is Biblically sound, brutally honest, and cross-centered. This will be required reading for any of our new church planters. I am confident that the book will encourage them to equip themselves for the task ahead.

Driscoll, Mark. 2006. Confessions of a Reformission Rev. Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

On Cash and Cooperation

Since the nomination of Arkansas pastor Ronnie Floyd for President of the Southern Baptist Convention two weeks ago, much noise has been made of the percentage his FBC Springdale gives to the Cooperative Program. Many of those calling for closer scrutiny of Dr. Floyd's financial commitments to the Southern Baptist machine are dear friends of mine, and people with whom I largely agree regarding recent events that have taken place in Southern Baptist life. Admittedly, $32,000 in total CP giving seems a paltry sum on the surface, when compared with a total church budget of nearly $12 million.

Still, before casting stones at Ronnie Floyd, a closer examination must be given to the overall commitment Springdale First possesses to missions. And one other observation is also in order: namely, the reality of "postdenominationalism" and its practical outworking, even in more established congregations like Floyd's.

Maybe in order to see the entire issue more clearly, both sides of this discussion need to tone it down a bit. For instance, one side needs to recognize the difference between tough, up front questions and character assassination. Marty Duren links to an excellent example of this confusion as one blogger writes "One thing that has troubled me lately is the amount of slanderous chatter going on via the blogosphere. I cannot understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and then go out and attempt to demolish the character of a fellow laborer of Christ. Someone please explain that! I can tell all the naysayers this: Ronnie Floyd is a man of God who is, in my mind, unmatched in his committment to preaching the word of God for what it is without apology."

Perhaps there are some postings in cyberspace which are more jaded than they should be, but I know of no serious thinker in SBC life, including many "younger leaders" who would disagree with the above statement. I too admire Dr. Floyd for his service to FBC Springdale, and for the impact that he has no doubt had on our culture through his broadcast ministry. The question at hand has nothing to do with Ronnie Floyd as a person, or Ronnie Floyd as a man of God. The question at hand is one of comparing recent SBC lamentings about the pathetic giving records of many of her elected leaders with the giving record at FBC Springdale.

Southern Baptists have a right to know why a candidate for the SBC presidency gives a sum to the Cooperative Program comparatvely as small as a fundamentalist's Sunday afternoon tip at Dennys. That said, I personally don't feel this issue is enough to warrant looking toward another candidate, and over all, I think Ronnie Floyd would do a superb job as the next SBC President. Still, to accuse those asking tough and neccesary questions of character assassination is to skirt the real issue, to say the least.

On the other side of this conversation are those who simply want to know the reasons behind a .27 percent CP giving record. While this is a fair question, consideration must also be given to the overall missions and outreach emphasis that is taking place in Springdale Arkansas. In addition to the $189,000 given in total to Southern Baptist causes (1.6% according to Florida Baptist Witness contributor Michael Petty), Floyd's church has partnered to plant many churches both in the US and abroad. And FBC Springdale is but one example of a host of churches doing this very same thing. Richard Cimino and Don Lattin predicted eight years ago that even theologically conservative denominations will face both downsizing and de-centralizing in years to come.

Driven by the Biblical conviction that the local church decides its own destiny and mission under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, churches will begin alligning themselves with multiple entities of like affinity that they perceive will help them to accomplish their vision. This is a trend that actually began more than a decade ago, with organizations like the Willow Creek Association. Today, other networks like Acts 29 are enlisting partners from a variety of denominational backgrounds. Each of those churches remains affiliated with its denomination on doctrinal matters, but alligns itself with other networks that will more effectively help it to reach its goals.

That said, I'm grateful for the guys out there asking the tough questions about Ronnie Floyd. But although we all have a right to know, we also need to consider the possibility that maybe, by contributing to many different streams of missions, Ronnie Floyd embodies the kind of multiple-allignment predicted by guys like Camino and Lattin, and rightly celebrated by guys like Steve McCoy.

The real crime here is that there appears to be somewhat of a double-standard on this issue. For example, when we enlist and fund guys to plant churches, we require them to give a certain percentage of their undesignated funds to the Cooperative Program (and its a lot more than .27 percent!) Had one of my church planters given a percentage close to that of FBC Springdale, I would have pastors asking me to defund his ministry. Yet it is possible that the SBC President elected this year could be pastor of a church that gives less than one half of one percent to the Cooperative Program. The bottom line is that we have no consensus on what it really means to support Southern Baptist missions.

Maybe it is at this juncture that we can learn from the emerging networks. Some, such as Willow Creek Association, have set dues depending ont he size of one's church. Others, like the Acts 29 network, require a certain percentage of a church's budget for that church to remain affiliated. Although I am not in favor of requiring "tithing" to the CP by SBC churches, I think a baseline requirement for CP giving in order for a church to remain SBC is not out of order. Personally, I would reccomend at least 2% of a church's budget given to the Cooperative Program and Association combined in order to identify as a Southern Baptist Church. I anticipate that there will be cries about "congregational autonomy," if and when such measures are suggested. But how would baseline giving criteria threaten the autonomy of the local church? If the church doesn't want to give, they are in a sense already declaring that they don't value being a part of the SBC, but they haven't lost their right to decide their own direction under the Lordship of Jesus.

My guess is that all the noise about Ronnie Floyd is due to the fact that we have no idea what it means to be a "committed Southern Baptist." We need a serious discussion about what this does mean. We need to come to consensus on what is and is not an appropriate level of Cooperative Program support. And when this is done, let's be consistent with how we apply our conclusions. The standard applied to Ronnie Floyd ought to be the same standard applied to an unknown church planter in suburban Baltimore. What's good for the goose . . .

Spiritual Authority and the "Memphis Declaration."

This week in Memphis Tennessee, Calvinists sat down to eat with Arminians. Premillenialists spent time in prayer with Amillennialists. Cessationists teamed up with Continuationists. All Southern Baptists, this diverse group, made up of roughly thirty pastors and laity, came together in a time of prayer and repentance, and left Memphis with a unified statement calling for cooperation under the Lordship of Jesus Christ to advance His Gospel in the world. In doing this, they not only provided Southern Baptists with a glimpse of the kind of unity that should permeate our denominational culture, but they also exemplified the epitome of Southern Baptist's deepest and most pressing need: Spiritual authority.

I admit at the outset that when I first heard of the meeting that would take place in Memphis, I was concerned. I know personally many of the men who participated. I share their strong conviction that narrowing the parameters of cooperation in our Convention will be detrimental to the advance of the Gospel, and deadly to our continued participation in extending the reign of Jesus Christ in the world. I'm also convinced that while a course-correction away from such a tendency comes primarily from planting and growing healthy churches, systemic change cannot take place apart from addressing the system as it exists. Yet while working in Chicago this week, I prayed often for my brothers, that their meeting would not be perceived as an attempt to grab power and control. After seeing the results of their time together, my concerns are not only alleviated, but I have a fresh hope for where Southern Baptists can go from here.

Presently, the Southern Baptist Convention is in danger of falling prey to theological and ecclesiological myopia. The recent policy and guideline moves at the International Mission Board, while the most visible examples of this danger, are merely symptoms of a greater problem. When you are the largest Protestant denomination in America, it is easy to think that your size indicates your superiority and significance. Those meeting in Memphis understood that there is a fine line between standing resolutely on your own convictions, and aggressively, or even passively, degrading the convictions of others. Within, our arguments have been over whether God's election is conditional or unconditional, whether the milennium is literal or figurative, whether the "sign gifts" ceased with the closing of the canon, or have continued to the present day. Since 1845, such arguments have not only remained "in house," but also "off" the mission field. Our brothers and sisters who met in Memphis want to keep it that way.

Still, it is possible for one to be right in the wrong way, and the wrong approach to addressing these volatile issues could have easily caused a schism within our ranks. Given the strong convictions that exist regarding these issues within the Convention, the Memphis Declaration could have resulted in the taking of "sides," and forwarding another theological battle similar to the inerrancy debates which took place two decades ago. But those writing the declaration chose not to take sides. To be sure, they stated their convictions with clarity, but not in a polarizing way.

Instead, in the tradition of Ezra, this group of faithful Southern Baptists wrote a public statement of repentance. Realizing that the Gospel is the great unifier, this group wrote a declaration that resists looking at all the current issues as a division between "heroes and enemies" and instead forwards a statement that emphasizes the sin in all of us that causes ungodly conflict, and the grace of God that empowers us to unity in spite of our differences.

This is refreshing for several reasons. For one, the Southern Baptist Convention for the past two decades has been led primarily by "positional" authority. Yet all this time, I have been convinced that "spiritual" authority has been thriving beneath the surface, empowering the SBC to continue its Great Commission task. Spiritual authority, as Gary Mayes describes it, is "quality found in leaders who speak with an authority beyond themselves." Examples of such authority are seen in the Apostles (Acts 4:13), and Jesus Himself (Matthew 7:28-29). Mayes goes on to state that to possess spiritual authority, one must surrendered to God, alligned with His will, broken before His presence, and vulnerable to the point that His spirit can work through us with complete freedom. As I read this document, these are the characteristics that I strongly sense. I know a few of the folks who were in Memphis. Though I love them, and though they are good men, I can assure you that such a humble statement did not come from them alone (and had I been there, they would have said the same thing about me). It is obvious to me that these men and women literally spent two days with Jesus.

The Memphis group has stood only on Scripture, only against darkness, and is seeking to stand with as many Southern Baptists as will agree to join them in repentance. And this is one Southern Baptist who will. Shortly after the public release of this document, I was contacted and asked to sign it. I declined at first, not because of any objection I have to its contents, but in order to do some introspection. After taking the time to do this, I am willing to own my part of the sin in our denomination. In the past, I have been guilty of marginalizing people without personally meeting them. I have spoken before having all the facts. I have used the label "liberal" because it was easier than getting to know someone who differed with me theologically. I have allowed "guilt by association" to deter me from developing genuine friendships with people who have turned out to be godly and righteous. I admit to my own contribution to the problems present in the SBC. As a result, my signature will soon be affixed to the document.

Spiritual Authority is what turned the disciples into commandos. It is what permeated the hearts of the martyrs. It has been at the heart of all the great revivals the world has known for the last 2000 years. And spiritual authority can empower the SBC to be a leader among other evangelicals to transform the world for the sake of the Gospel. But if we want to be first, we have to be last! This is, I believe, at the heart of the "Memphis Declaration." I join my brothers and sisters in endorsing its content, and invite my readership to do the same. To add your name, send your request to Mary Duren at martyduren@yahoo.com, with your name, church membership, and city. The Declaration is pasted below for your review.

There are lots of folks expecting a fight in Greensboro. Pray instead for spiritual authority that will take our theological, methodological and missiological diversity, and create a unity that glorifies God.

_____

MEMPHIS DECLARATION: MAY 3, 2006

We, as men and women who share a heritage of Southern Baptist identity, declare that we stand together and confess Jesus Christ as the one Lord to whom we must reckon an account for our words and motivations in this gathering.

We further acknowledge that the Word of God is the sole basis of our confession and cooperation, and we are confident that God has sufficiently revealed in it all that is needed to direct Southern Baptists in fruitful cooperation toward Kingdom ends that bring glory to Jesus Christ, who is himself the focus of divine revelation.

We publicly declare before all Southern Baptists that we believe the unity, mission, and witness of our denomination is seriously threatened by the introduction of the narrowing of cooperation through exclusionary theological and political agendas that corrupt the healthy and mutual fellowship we enjoy as Kingdom servants. We believe that the parameters of Baptist cooperation in missions and evangelism must be consistent with our rich theological heritage, and that all attempts to impose excessively restrictive criteria on participation in Southern Baptist missionary work are counterproductive to the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because we desire to be and to remain faithful to our confession of Jesus Christ and his Word, we do not keep silent, nor shall we, since we believe that we have a common message to speak in this time of great need for unity and Kingdom focus in our convention. In view of this shared conviction, we declare the following:

1. We publicly repent of triumphalism about Southern Baptist causes and narcissism about Southern Baptist ministries which have corrupted our integrity in assessing our denomination bureaucracy, our churches, and our personal witness in light of the sobering exhortations of Scripture.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to integrity demonstrated by accountability in our denomination, both before God and each other, lest in preaching the meekness of our Lord to others we ourselves will be found guilty of wicked, sinful pride.

2. We publicly repent of an arrogant spirit that has infected our partnership with fellow Christians in the advance of the gospel of Jesus Christ, without the hearing of which men are incapable of conversion.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to a renewed pledge to partner with Great Commission Christians for the glory of Jesus Christ, who is proclaimed with power when his disciples are at peace with one another.

3. We publicly repent of having condemned those without Christ before we have loved them, and that we have acted as judge of those for whom Christ died by failing to live with a redemptive spirit toward them.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to engage culture actively at every level by living redemptively as the Body of Christ in the world.

4. We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to building bridges where there have been none, in listening more and talking less, and in extending the hand of fellowship to all who share our confession of Christ and our commitment to extend His Kingdom.

5. We publicly repent of having turned a blind eye to wickedness in our convention, especially when that evil has taken the form of slanderous, unsubstantiated accusations and malicious character assassination against our Christian brothers.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to confront lovingly any person in our denomination, regardless of the office or title that person holds, who disparages the name of our Lord by appropriating venomous epithets against our brothers and sisters in Christ, and thus divides our fellowship by careless and unchaste speech.

6. We publicly repent of having misplaced our priorities on the building and sustaining of institutions of secondary and far inferior importance than the local church.
Therefore, we renew our pledge to the local church as the primary focus of our ministry and service to advance the Kingdom of God and bring glory to his Son.

7. We publicly repent of having disrespected the sovereign grace of our Lord Jesus Christ by falsely presuming that our strength as a people of God is found in uniformity rather than unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority.
Therefore, we commit ourselves to honor our identity as people of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, whose affirmation of biblical authority does not necessitate absolute uniformity on all matters of doctrine or practice.

8. We publicly repent of our inattentiveness to convention governance by not seeking to hold trustees accountable to the body which elects them to preserve our sacred trust and direct our entities with the guidance, counsel, and correction necessary to maintain the integrity of those entities.
Therefore, we covenant with one another to assist in the preservation of our convention's sacred trust and fulfill our biblical responsibility to hold those trustees elected to serve our entities accountable, and to pray for them as they seek to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

Finally, we believe the conversations that have begun in these days express our desire to preserve the Southern Baptist Convention should God, in his providence, so choose to sustain our witness and strengthen our commitment to these ends. We pledge, therefore, to one another that we will continue this dialogue by inviting others in our respective spheres of influence to participate with us by seeking to renew our commitment to denominational accountability, institutional openness, moral and ethical integrity, and properly prioritized Kingdom efforts.

The Power of the Resurrection: The Easter Story as Apologetic

The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the lynchpin of the Christian faith. Take it away, and the entire Christian worldview collapses under the weight of its own foolishness. The Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that if someone produces the body of Jesus, our faith, our prayers, our preaching, and our very way of life are to be pitied above all others.

This Easter season, a new set of challenges faces the church, and seeks to undermine historic Christian teaching. Every challenge throughout the history of the church has been met with various apologetic approaches. But each threat has ultimately and finally been defeated with three profound, simple words: "Christ is risen!"

Three very distinct threats to the Christian faith can be noted this Easter. Just this month, National Geographic released a series of TV specials surrounding the "Gospel of Judas," a document that dates back to around 150 A.D. and supposedly gives a "different angle" to the relationship between Jesus and the disciple who betrayed Him. Notably absent from this series is the fact that even using the most liberal dating, this document is predated by the latest of the New Testament Gospels by 50 years, making its comparative reliability highly questionable at best. Along with "Judas," wide discussion of the "Gnostic" gospels has risen, even within the ranks of Christendom. And this May, the world will have the opportunity to see the silver screen version of "The DaVinci Code" in theatres.

Patterned after the best-selling novel by Dan Brown, "DaVinci" posits the theory that historic Christian teaching is, in fact, the product of a grand, ecclesiastical conspiracy. Such a notion is popular with our culture, which pants like a bloodthirsty wolf at the thought of uncovering a conspiratorial plot. In fact, the whole idea behind "DaVinci" is so popular, our culture has all but ignored the enormous historical fallacies present in the book, many of which were made by one of the main characters, a historian! My dear friend Spencer Haygood has eloquently stated that any Oxford-educated history professor who made such gross mistakes would immediately be stripped of his terminal degree and be sent back to History 101. But such mistakes are glossed over by the wider populace, who prefers to think of Christianity as "DaVinci" presents it: an institution founded by conspiratorial action and maintained by continued cover-up.

Certainly such claims should be answered by the church, and the arsenal of information against "DaVinci" grows by the day. But if we answer a story full of error only with the facts, the story still wins! Ultimately, confronting the latest attempts to undermine historic Christian faith must be empowered by the greatest of all stories! Our culture is now steeped in narrative. As such, they require a narrrative apologetic. Solomon was right: there really is nothing new under the sun! After 2000 years, the Easter story is still the greatest defense of the Christian faith. Therefore, the answer to the latest threats against Gospel integrity is ultimately that which has finally answered all other attempts to undermine Christianity: We must confront error with the story of the resurrected God-man!

And let's be honest: part of that truth is that the church has had her conspirators! Roman Catholicism is the result of the theological collapse of the Christian church in the third century, which itself resulted in the return of a spurious and unneccesary "Priesthood." Christian Hierarchicalism in all its forms is the result of women being seen as essentially inferior to men, and as a result, barring them not just from the Pastoral office (a Biblical position I believe), but also from any form of leadership in Christ's church. Denominationalism, in its worst form, is the result of individuals within particular expressions of church life claiming that theirs is the only "true church." The list of attempts to hijack the mission of the church could go on and on. As Greg Caruso of CRM Ministries well states, "When it is disfunctional, the body of Christ is a hideous thing!"

Nevertheless, throughout all of this, the true church has continued to stand, and with it, the power of the Gospel it is called to preach. For 2000 years, the church has answered her critics, and after 2000 years, the message of the Gospel remains undefeated! In light of this, are we really so afraid of "DaVinci"? For two millenia, the Gospel has withstood the attacks of Marcionism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Doceticism, Donatism, Imperial Catholicism, Hyper-Calvinism, German higher Criticism, Neo-Orthodoxy, Hyper-Landmarkism, and Postliberlism. After all of this, do we really believe it can finally be brought down by Tom Hanks and Opie?!

Certainly we need to be prepared to discuss the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of "DaVinci." Followers of Christ should, as Peter exhorts, be prepared to give an answer for what we believe, and why we believe it (1 Peter 3:15). But the greatest way to defend the Christian faith is to proclaim the greatest story of all; the story we remember this weekend. The ultimate proof of the truthfulness and superiority of Christianity is that while the tombs of all other religious leaders are occupied, we can proclaim with confidence that a dead man rose from the grave and has commissioned us to tell His story. The Canadian scientist G.B. Harding said that in searching for a religion, he asked himself two questions: 1. Has anybody conquered death? 2. Have they provided a way for me to do it? After searching the world and finding the tombs of Mohammed, Buddha, Confucious, and others respectively occupied, he found the tomb of Jesus Christ empty, and subsequently read the New Testament, finding the words of Jesus which said "Because I live, you shall live also!" In the words of Harding, "my search is over!"

This Easter, let us stand on the shoulders of our brothers and sisters who have come before us, face the present challenges to our ancient faith, and say with the confidence of our Orthodox brothers and sisters . . . .

"Christ is risen!. . . . .


. . . .He is risen indeed!"

The Wonder of the Blogosphere

Working from home today, I took a moment to surf over to SBC Outpost an congratulate Marty Duren on surviving (barely) an entire year in the blogosphere. Later this afternoon, I realized that my own weblog is exactly one year old today!

Much has been said over the past year about the advantages and liabilities of blogging. Many have joked that until last December, most Southern Baptist leaders didn't even know what a blog was. I must admit myself that until late 2004, I was only faintly aware of those underground currents of information which rapidly release information, and promote discussion, fellowship, and even evangelism. Now, exactly 365 days to the date of my first online post, I'd like to think I'm a bit more informed, both about blogs, and because of blogs.

Information regarding recent denominational contentions were publicized through the blogosphere in a way no major news source could have ever released such information. In light of this, many who were caught in the middle of such contention lamented the very existence of such a technology. Some, still speaking from ignorance, equated blogs with "internet pornography." Others saw the blogosphere as merely a more rapid way of spreading gossip among the body of Christ at large.

While such concerns are legitimate, the issue that should drive them should not be the technology that is admittedly used sometimes to forward inaccurate and even slanderous information. What should drive concerns about online gossip is the same issue that drives concern about every other kind of gossip; human depravity.

Ed Stetzer has spoken eloquently to the tendency to confuse form with meaning. Meaning is what matters, while form is simply the vehicle used to transport meaning. Stetzer of course uses these concepts to speak of Christian worship, evangelism and church planting. But such concepts can just as easily be applied to recent discussions about blogging. Blogging in and of itself is amoral, neither good or bad. Throw human depravity into the mix and you get gossip, slander, misinformation and false accusations released at beyond-lightning speed all over the world. Still, this isn't any worse than the juicy stories disguised as "prayer requests" at your average Baptist church.

On the other hand, inject God-given human insight and creativity into this form of communication and what you end up with is an awesome tool of evangelistic and ecclesiastical collaboration! Given the reality of globalization, there has never been a more immediate need for followers of Christ to engage cyberspace than now!

Like it or not, the blogosphere is now in full swing and gaining speed. Sure, some will (and in fact, already have) use this tool for evil. But many will (and in fact, should) use it for the building of the Body, the announcing of the Kingdom, and the pursuit of God's glory.

My hope is that as a result of my own weblog, I will grow at least at the same rate this coming year that I have in the past year. Whether it was from thinking through exactly how to communicate what I want to say so as to minimize misunderstanding, or from addressing questions poised to me publicly, challenging my positions and opinions and forcing me back to the Word of God, I know the blogosphere has been a powerful tool of God for my own growth. My prayer is that you have grown too, and that I will continue to use this powerful form of communication to speak on meanings that really matter!

Oh, and congratulations again Marty! (see www.sbcoutpost.com)

Red and Blue Politics: What Would Jesus Do?

With the Senate poised to take up the divisive issue of immigration next week, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York has become one of the leading voices against suggested legislation coming from the other side of the aisle. The fomer First Lady said that proposed legislation criminalizes undocumented immigrants (as if being here without documentation isn't already criminal according to existing laws), and boldy proclaimed that Republican-sponsored bills were not only in opposition to Democratic values, but were antithetical to the views of Jesus Himself. The proposed legislation, in her view, "would likely criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself."

Needless to say, many in the evangelical community are shocked to hear Senator Clinton appeal to Jesus as an authority for anything! But Clinton isn't the only politician, and the democrats certainly aren't the only party, claiming God is on their side. And the propensity on both sides of American politics to play fast and loose with the person and message of Jesus Christ should cause His followers grave concern.

But efforts to shape Jesus into our own image are not new. In the 19th century, amidst the rise of classical liberalism and the demytholigization approach of Rulolph Bultman and David Strauss, German theologian Martin Kahler expressed concern that the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" was in reality simply a re-making of Jesus into the image of those who sought to critique His person and message. Though Kahler himself rejected the authenticity and historical accuracy of the New Testament Gospels, he was reticent to accept Bultmans approach of re-interpreting Jesus' message in light of history. As a result, Kahler sought to promote a total separation of the "Jesus of faith" from the "Jesus of history." As a liberal, Kahler understood that if one rejects the veracity of the Biblical text, the only other option is to separate faith from history, otherwise, the "re-interpreted" history that results would be far less historical and far more convenient to the views of those seeking to do such re-interpretation.

Kahler had a great analogy for this. He compared those looking for the "historical Jesus" to those looking down into a well, and claimed that it is no surprise to find that the Jesus they construct in the end looks very much like the reflection they have been observing.

In the case of the Jesus Seminar, our Savior comes out as an arrogant academic seeking tenure at an ivy-league school. Coincidental?

The above review of this small but significant part of Church History allows us to see a very similar parallel in remarks such as those made by Senator Clinton yesterday. Instead of starting with Jesus, and being conformed to His image, many start with themselves and seek to conform Jesus to their own image.

But there is no reason why evangelical Christians should have to even struggle through such an issue. We do not distinguish between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of faith. We believe both are described with perfect accuracy in the text of the Bible. Yet so often, even Bible-believing Christians yield to the temptation to form their Savior in their own image. Though forthcoming descriptions have been published in similar form in far more eloquent fashion, it is helpful to examine the "Blue" Jesus, and the "Red" Jesus, and compare them both to the Jesus of Scripture.

The "Red" Jesus. This Jesus is a "gun-totin' redneck," and proud of it! His definition of a tax is "legalized theft." He cares little for the environment. After all, the whole planet is goiing to burn under God's judgement one day anyway, so why not help things out a bit? He is anti-abortion, but simultaneously anti-charity. If she got herself into that mess, then she can get herself out of it. The "Red" Jesus also takes his cues from John Calvin when it comes to church-state relations: The state should simply adopt policies as they are dictated by the church. This of course includes immigration policy, which, according to the Red Jesus, can be articulated clearly and sufficiently with two words: "STAY OUT." The preaching of the Gospel is accomplished through the acquisition and retention of power, and is spoken in the most offensive manner possible. Let's face it: most of the world is going to hell anyway, so why should we care about how our message "sounds" to them?

But what about the poor? Red Jesus doesn't care about them! Red Jesus writes them all off as simply lazy and uninitiated, Sure, they are the "least of these," but that is most likely because they contribute the least! This of course includes the people of China. Its not America's fault that they won't take the initiative to rise out from under their oppressors, so Red Jesus will normalize trade relations with them because it doesn't matter how the Chinese treat their women and children, so long as we can use strategic partnerships with them to make a buck. Heck, the Red Jesus will use those monies to fund "faith-based initiatives." Yeah, that's what we need: government using the tax dollars of Baptists to fund the work of Mormons! Makes perfect sense!

To be sure, what I have described represents only the worst of Republican politics. But the above should be well noted, and sufficient to substantiate that Jesus is not a Republican. This is admittedly troubling to me, because I am a Republican. As such, I'd sure be more comfortable if I knew God shared all of my political views. I could take the Hillary Clinton approach and define Jesus on my terms of course, but I think there is something about the second commandment that would make this wrong.

The "Blue" Jesus: This Jesus is a liberal, bleeding-heart, tofu-eating, PETA-supporting socialist who believes that government is the answer to all things. The blue Jesus doesn't need to carry a gun. Guns are dangerous, and if we could get rid of all the guns, we would get rid of all the violence. Of course, Blue Jesus can't afford a gun anway, because the politicians he has elected have raised his taxes to the point that he can barely afford groceries, let alone a gun!

Blue Jesus believes that the government needs those taxes to help the poor. After all, the problem of the poor isn't laziness, or sinfulness. Its a bad environment. In fact, that is everybody's true problem: bad environment, or abuse as a child, or not enough attention, or economic disenfranschisement. Therefore, Blue Jesus works dillegently to ensure that the government provides and access and funding to what these people need.

In the event of an unplanned pregnancy, this would of course include abortion. But this can't be limited to the first trimester. A girl should have the entire term of her pregnancy to decide whether she wants the baby . . .em, excuse me, I meant to say fetus. Actually, the later she makes this decision the better, because late term abortions, especially of the DNX (i.e. partial birth) variety provide huge amounts of grant money to doctors and research hospitals, as well as fetal body parts on which to experiment. Sure, this may involve piercing the back of a baby . . . .excuse me again . . . . fetus' neck and sucking out its brains, but we have to sacrifice the one to serve the many!

Blue Jesus also thinks the whole attempt to define marriage is stupid. If two men or two women want to get married, that should be their right. After all, people should be able to believe what they want, and act the way they want. Blue Jesus encourages Muslims to remain Muslim, Hindus to remain Hindu, and so on. Blue Jesus would certainly not claim to be the "only way" to God. How arrogant! And of course, Blue Jesus would say that, with regard to immigration (or any other area for that matter), that the law of the land really doesn't matter, so lets just keep ignoring the problem. We will not take the intolerant road of telling an undocumented worker that he or she has broken the law, and then enforce that law. Blue Jesus doesn't even bother with changing the law to make the immigration process less cumbersome for those who want to make a better life for themselves. Blue Jesus just ignores the law. Changing it would take up too much valuable time that could be spent saving another spotted owl.

"Red Jesus" and "Blue" Jesus are prime examples of what Dr. Kahler warned us about over one hundred years ago. Worse yet, Red Jesus and Blue Jesus are idols: gods that we have fashioned in our own image. So why is it that our culture, both inside and outside the church, continue to define Jesus only as they would like Him to be, like some wierdo spiritual angle on Extreme Makeover?

The answer? I believe it is because the real Jesus; the Jesus who historically existed, born of a virgin, dying in time and space for human sin, and being historically and literally resurected by God the Father, that Jesus is hard to handle! The Jesus of Scripture isn't confined to a political agenda or any other box. This Jesus is unplugged!

-He creates the entire world in six days.

-He destroys that same world by flood over forty days, violently drowning every man, woman, boy, girl, and baby not in the ark.

-He kills the first-born sons of an entire nation of people, including the Princes.

-He destroys Sodom and Gommorrah by fire.

-He is born in a barn, and raised in a blue-collar household.

-He hangs out with prostitutes, drunks, cheats, theives, and worst of all, employees of the Internal Revenue Service!

-He grows up within Judaism, only to vehemently condemn the leaders of His own faith, calling them "whitewashed tombs."

-He gets angry, REALLY angry, at those who use faith to take advantage of others. He gets a whip, cracks it across a few backs and trashes the entire joint.

-He calls out Judas in front of all the others, revealing in His omniscient understanding Judas' intent to betray Him. Then He basically says to Judas "Do what you gotta do, but when you're done, you are gonna wish you were never born!"

-He dies in a bloody mess on a Roman cross.

-He rises bodily from the grave, demonstrating that the "box" called death can't hold Him either.

-He advocates, as a nation-building strategy for His eternal and indestructable Kingdom, the suffering, persecution and death of those who follow Him.

-He is coming back as the strong, powerful, white haired, tatooed warrior to kill all His enemies.

To sum it all up: The Jesus of the Bible can't be domesticated! And since this is the real Jesus, any other "Jesus" who perfectly fits our understanding, worldview, or political persuasion is by definition a false god.

Hillary Clinton an idolater? Who would have thought that? But she isn't the only one. And this kind of idolatry happens every time we emphasize some things about the Savior to the exclusion of others.

Check the Great Commission. Jesus doesn't speak for us. We speak for Him. Jesus doesn't support our views. We support His.

And Jesus has no desire to identify as a Republican or Democrat. Rather, Jesus expects . . . .indeed commands . . . .those of all political parties to bow before His sovereign goodness. There will be no political parties in the Theocracy that Jesus will soon return to establish. Those who want to be counted as belonging to Him had better realize this, and begin living as if it is true.