I am breathing new life into this old blog. It will be getting a new name, content, and focus.

I haven’t quite decided on the new name but I have got an idea of what direction I’ll be steering this ship.

I want to use this blog to iron out my theology of family and church. That may sound like I’m not making much of a shift in focus for those of you who know me. However, I promise you that I’ll be coming at these subjects from very different angle.

So, please add me to your feed and join in the conversation.

The Lord has taught me, over the last few years, that an incredible amount research needs to be done to effectively live out our Gospel-derived missionary identity in our local context. Many Christians mistakenly assume that this is something that needs only to happen in “foreign missions” but it is just as necessary in the local mission field. We must understand our local culture/context if we are going to relentlessly confront its’ idols with the gospel of Jesus Christ. We research our culture like a doctors researches his patient. We do it so we know where to insert the scalpel. This requires that we actively involve ourselves in the community God has sovereignly placed us. Here are few practical steps that I have personally found helpful.

Read…

•    local blogs
•    local mainstream paper
•    local alternative paper

Pay special attentions to recurring issues, issues that cause celebration, and issues that cause woe. Moreover, be sure to read editorial sections in your papers as they focus on hot button issues and usually seek to draw lines between the opposing sides. This will help you understand the “said” values of your community. Also, it will inform you where the greatest resistance to the gospel will be.

Listen/Watch…

•    local bands (Myspace is a great resource to track them down)
•    local lectures (given at libraries, college, coffee houses, etc.)
•    local concerts (big venues and small venues)
•    local films (mainstream theaters and also alternative theaters)
•    local plays (mainstream theaters and smaller theaters)
•    local sermons (what type of preaching do people hear in your community)

Pay attention to the content of the songs, lectures, and performances as they will not only reveal the “said” values of the performers/speakers but also the “said” values of the participants.

Participate…

•    local bars
•    local pool halls
•    local drive-inns
•    local play groups
•    local farmer markets
•    local coffee houses
•    local clubs
•    local art galleries
•    local wineries
•    local gyms/YMCA
•    local restaurant
•    local parks
•    local governmental meetings
•    local churches
•    local homeowner meetings

Pay attention to the demographic makeup of the local people. Lower, middle, or upper class? Black, white, Asian, etc.? Younger or older? Hip, unhip, somewhere between? Families or singles? How do the speak? Is sarcasm and irony welcomed or considered rude? Pay special attention to the men. Are they ultra-macho (aka thugs), healthy masculinity, or effeminate (e.g. metro-sexual, home-sexual, etc)? This will help you know the actual make-up of your community and will put a face on what would only be a percentage on a demographic report.

Engage/Ask

I could list a thousand questions to ask but it’s more important that I underscore the goal. The point is to investigate people “said” values in an effort to discover their “actual” values. What are their real fears, dreams, and hopes? What are the idols that they worship in place of their Creator? This will inform you in how to share the gospel (i.e. incarnate the gospel) to them. I will give my big three questions that I am trying to get answered as I develop relationships with new acquaintances.

•    Why are you here? (e.g. job, fame, pleasure, family, etc)
•    What do you think is wrong with the world/you? (e.g. lack of education, global warming, mankind’s nature, etc)
•    How do you intend to fix it? (e.g. education, technology, meditation, etc)

Please note that I rarely ask those exact questions. I use lots of “smaller” questions that inch me towards a correct understanding of the people in my surrounding context. God will provide you with opportunities to invite people over for a meal. These shared meals are great time to ask the smaller questions. Where are you from? Why did you move here? Do you have siblings? How were you raised? Did grow up “religious?” Etc…

I hope you find this list helpful. Please share what you to have found to be a good way to research your God-given context.

American Christianity has been severely synchronized to the idol of individualism. This has been clearly illustrated to me time and time again by the numerous amounts of Christians who have a complete disregard for the centrality of the local church. They act as if belonging to a church is an option on par with belonging to a gym or pouring cream in their coffee. They see church as merely an additive that is optional. This, of course, is a lie bellowing up from the smoky pits of hell. I have spent the last few years of my life working hard to confront this hersey. When I speak on this subject I will often cite the following quote from Cyprian: “You cannot have God as your Father if you do not have the church as your mother.”

I love this quote because it powerfully rattles the spines of lone ranger Christians who so effortlessly cast off God’s provision of the local church. Naturally, I have gotten some emotional push-back on my frequent use of this quote from the laity and even pastors. One pastor told me that he doubted Calvin would ever cite a guy such as Cyprian because of his various theological errors. However, Calvin most certainly did use this quote throughout his writings. For example, Calvin wrote:

Shut up as we are in the prison house of our flesh, we have not yet attained angelic rank. God, therefore, in his wonderful providence accommodating himself to our capacity, has prescribed a way for us, though still far off, to draw near to him. (And that way is the) church, into whose bosom God is pleased to gather his sons, not only that they may be nourished by her help and ministry as long as they are infants and children, but also that they may be guided by her motherly care until they mature and at last reach the goal of faith. “For what God has joined together, it is not lawful to put asunder,”  so that, for those to whom He is Father the church may also be Mother. ( Institutes IV.1.1, “The Necessity of the Church.”)

Calvin’s point is that the visible church is instrumental to the maturing of all believers. God uses the church as his vehicle of transfromation in the world. That all seems simple enough, right? But, what is with all this hesitance towards placing a great importance on the local church? Dr. David Calhoun, a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary, gives a few qualifications regarding this quote and makes clear the source of our hesitance in one of his lectures in Ancient and Medieval Church History:

It has also been asked, what did Cyprian mean when he said that you cannot have God as your Father if you do not have the church as your mother? Cyprian and Augustine would always qualify that by saying, “ordinarily.” I think they viewed some possibility of this not being true in rare cases. Generally, where there is the church a person must be part of that church to be a Christian. You cannot really be a Christian all by yourself. Part of the definition of what a Christian is is a person in fellowship with God’s people on earth. So this was their way of discouraging any individual or private Christianity. Calvin also held that, but I think Calvin as well as Augustine thought it was possible — possible — for a person to be a Christian without being a church member, but not ordinarily. And it is certainly possible for church members not to be Christians. Calvin believed that, as did Augustine and probably Cyprian as well. This is a rather difficult quotation to understand, especially for us Protestants in the West. We Protestants tend to diminish the role of the church, to see it as not so important. I think that is a mistake. Then when we hear a quotation like this it startles us that you could say that you have to be a member of the church to have God as your Father.  (Emphasis mine)

Yes, Christians can exist outside the local church. Calvin said there is many true believers without and many false believers within the church. However, that is an extraordinary situation. I think very few of us Christians here in America would qualify for such an extraordinary circumstances. Most of us can find a gospel preaching, albeit flawed, church somewhere relatively close to our home. It is not for lack of a church that we opted out of the mothering of a local congregation. The true motivation behind us isolating ourselves for the local church is that we simply do not think the local church is that important. Calvin, Cyprian, Augustine, Dr. Calhoun, and myself would all disagree. It is as Augustine said elsewhere, “The church may be a whore but she is still my mother.” She will teach us to love the Father as the Father teaches us to love her. Commit yourself to a local church. It is a necessity and not an option.

I despise this not-so-new but ever so popular form of Christianity that prides itself in so carefully nuancing the Gospel that all hearers walk away still thinking that the bearers of the message of the cross are swell guys. It is as A.W. Tozer says:

The church has lost her testimony. She has no longer anything to say to the world. Her once robust shout of assurance has faded away to an apologetic whisper. She who one time went out to declare now goes out to inquire. Her dogmatic declaration has become a respectful suggestion, a word of religious advice, given with the understanding that it is after all only an opinion and not meant to sound bigoted.

This great prophetic voice from the Windy City nails it. The truth is that all our nuancing has little to do with contextualizing the message of the cross and more to do with a wicked attempt to remove the offense of the cross. We don’t want to be labeled bigoted. We want to be labeled reasonable, respectable, and open-minded. We want the praise and acceptance of men. I long for an army of men who will speak the gospel with such a great clarity that no-one can walk away without having their heart shaken by Christ and his cross. We need loud voices crying out in the wilderness of dead evangelicalism. We must speak up and speak clearly. Don’t silence any part of the gospel. Silence is sin. Hear Tozer again:

Could it be that too many of God’s true children, and especially the preachers, are sinning against God by guilty silence?…I for one am waiting to hear the loud voices of the prophets and reformers sounding once more over a sluggish and drowsy church. They’ll pay a price for their boldness, but the results will be worth it.

Give us loud voices, Lord!

Ryan Benhase has put together a great post on everyday missionary methods for the “average believer” called, 7 Ways to Live Missionally in Everyday Life. I really enjoyed this quote from his concluding thoughts:

“I fear that sometimes we’re so obsessed with figuring out how we can turn a conversation into an opportunity to preach that we often forget the importance of meaningful relationships and neglect to invest in building them. However, if we were only better at making friends, perhaps we wouldn’t have to worry so much about coming up with sneaky transitions into evangelism. We need to lay off the bait and switch, knock it off with the marketing, and stop making excuses for our laziness when it comes to programming mission into our daily lives.”

I totally agree. Give Ryan’s blog, Missional Musings dot Com, some love. Also, if you find Ryan’s post helpful let me be ever so bold to recommend my a similar post I wrote a while back called, “Everyday Missionary Methods.”

A while back I read Harold J. Brown’s contribution to a book called, Francis A. Schaeffer: Portraits of the Man and His Work. Brown’s essay was entitled, “Standing Against the World.” I was struck by Brown’s presentation of Schaeffer as a “modern-day Athanasius.” Brown explains:

“Like Athanasius, Francis Schaeffer will not be remembered as the greatest theologian of our day. Others, such as Herman Dooyeweerd, F.F. Bruce, and Carl F.H. Henry, have produced a greater mass of solid scholarship. Yet without Schaeffer’s stand “contra mundum,” the best work of such specialized scholars might have been insufficient to check the temptations to compromise and accommodation that confronted evangelicalism after 1945 just as they confronted orthodoxy after 313.”

Brown gives two examples of Schaeffer going it alone against the evangelical grain.

First, he notes the Schaeffer was unwilling to swallow the theology of Karl Barth that fed a growing movement of neoorthdoxy. At the time, many evangelicals had embraced and place a great deal of hope into Barth’s theology to help them make ground against theological liberalism that nearly dominated all of academia. Schaeffer declared this a great mistake and warned that it would “Trojan Horse” some of Barth’s critical theological errors into the church. Dr. Brown expands:

“A number of evangelicals sought to claim [Barth’s] authority in support of their own views, hoping in this way to firm up the scholarly prestige of their evangelical convictions. As a matter of fact, Barth’s fortunes were already going in the Eclipse on the European continent—in part because they were in fact too close to Biblical orthodoxy, but also because of a weakness that many evangelicals missed, but which Schaeffer saw: Barth denounced liberalism, which had undermined the foundations of orthodoxy, without himself rebuilding the foundations….There is no doubt that Barth was antiliberal, and that he affirmed the central doctrines of the Christian faith. However, his failure to assert Biblical infallibility and the historicity of the Gospel accounts meant his affirmations rested on his own charismatic authority rather than on that of Scripture.”

Second, he notes that Schaeffer was unwilling to be impressed by celebrity status of Billy Graham and the massive “results” his crusades were producing. Schaeffer thought Graham’s approach would, “produce a flock of pseudo-converts” because the appeal was for, “an emotional decision without giving an adequate warrant in history and reason.” This stand against a beloved Christian rockstar led to Schaeffer being tossed aside by many of the prominent Christians of his time such as Carl F.H. Henry and Harold Lindsell. Brown recalls, “They were put off by Schaeffer’s pickiness and apparent intolerance and tended to write him off as they did militant separatists such as Bob Jones and Carl McIntire.”

We all could stand to take a lesson from Schaeffer. Being faithful to Christ will mean not just standing for the gospel but also standing against any diminishing of that gospel. This means we might have to take issue with some or even most of the popular theologians and pastors such as Rob Bell, Tim Keller, and N.T. Wright. This, of course, will get us toss aside and labeled as “picky and intolerant” by many of our peers. Nonetheless, we must not be impressed and drawn into the compromise of a Christianity that is all too often drunk on the worship of Christian celebrity. We must be like Paul who was willing stand alone and to publicly call out the famed Apostle Peter because his actions weren’t in line with the gospel. Our age is in desperate need of voices that are willing to echo the courageous stand of Schaeffer and Athanasius.  

Brown’s closing comments are worth noting:

“Like Athanasuis, Schaeffer took stands—especially in his last years—which some would call intemperate and inflexible…but in Schaeffer’s case, we know the rigor of his convictions was always tempered with love and understanding in person-to-person relationships as well as in public debates…Schaeffer not only held the line for Biblical orthodoxy in his generation as Athanasius had done…[he] showed the next generation not merely that they will need to take stands, but where to take them and how to do so, in Paul’s words, “speaking the truth in love.”

I will start by saying that true reconciliation is an extremely rare bird. I think the easiest way for me to explain this is through a hypothetical situation. Our scenario plays out in the Doe Family’s living room. John has just raced home from a hard day’s work to watch a basketball game. A smiley Jane walks out to the living room just as her “focused” husband sinks into viewing position on their loveseat.

Jane: Hey you! How are you?

John: Hey, what’s up? (Just barely glancing at her)

Jane: So, did you know that our cell phone plan just went up. I called today to pay it because we were past due and they said it was going to be $80 extra every month starting this month.

John: Uh huh.

Jane: They said there will be an interruption in service if we don’t pay it before tomorrow.

John: Yeah.

Jane: Soooo…Should I just pay it or do you want to talk to them first?

John: Sure.

Jane: John, are you listening to me? I need to know what you want me to do.

John: Sweetie, I just got home from a crazy day at the office! I’ve been looking forward to this game all day long. And, here you are nagging me? Come on! Can’t I escape your constant chatter for a couple minutes? I’ll take care of it later. Why do you have to be such a dripping faucet?

Jane stomps off disgusted at John’s attitude. He continues to watch the game but during half-time he starts to feel guilty. He realizes that he needs to apologize to Jane. John lifts off the couch and walks into the bedroom to reconcile with his wife.

John: Jane, I’m really sorry. Work really stressed me out today. I was just worn out and a needed a few minutes to get my bearings. I didn’t really mean it when I said you were a nag. I’ll call the phone company right now.

Jane: Its okay. I know you didn’t mean it. Let’s just put it behind us and make the most of what is left of the evening.

There has not been any reconciliation here whatsoever. John did not confess or repent of his sin. Moreover, Jane did not forgive him of his sin. Say, what? Pay careful attention to what is and is not being said.

Let us start our examination with our scenario’s antagonist, John. He eventually does realize that he needs to apologize but that is about all he gets right. Pastor Doug Wilson writes:

“Once we realize that confession is necessary, we still must learn how to confess and apologize. Tragically, may who need to apologize to their spouses for numerous offenses do not do anything more than hint around the edges.” pg. 70

This is exactly the problem with John. He says he is sorry but for what? All he says is that he was stressed out and tired. This is really just an excuse for his sin. He is saying that he only acted that way because he was under extenuating circumstances. In other words, John never really takes responsibility for having a wicked and rude attitude towards his wife. The real John would never act that way towards his better half.

The natural question would be why then does Jane forgive her husband after such fraudulent apology? Is it because Jane is just an amazingly forgiving and loving wife? I do not think so. Once again, I think Pastor Wilson puts his finger on what is actually happening here. He explains:

“The other person often goes along with the charade because he does not know how to extend true forgiveness any more than the one who sinned knows how to apologize. Forgiveness presupposes genuine wrongdoing. The difficulty is that we have a hard time forgiving genuine wrongdoing. This why people apologize as though the “real me” was not the culprit…This is relatively easy to forgive because the other person didn’t mean it. But sin can only be forgiven when the person did mean it—it is then sin, and can be forgiven.” pg. 71

Ah, do you see what is actually going on? Jane never really forgives her husband. All she does is excuse and minimalize her husband’s sin. She says it is okay that he treated her as he did base upon him not really meaning it. However, this is not true. First, John did mean it. There is only one John. He was not possessed by some demon. The devil did not make him do it. It was he selfish nature that is to be blamed. Second, sin is never okay. God does not think it was okay. Matter of fact, it is “so not okay” that God poured his wrath out unto Jesus because of John’s sin. Jane is going along with this façade because she does not want to believe that her husband is that evil. This is actually most likely a reflection of what she believes about her own nature. Moreover, she does not want to have to depend on the cross as her only empowering means of forgiveness. She is quite fine with just sweeping all of this under the rug. This “type” of reconciliation solves nothing. It will, in time, lead to an even larger problem as resentment builds up under the surface.

What should have happened? I submit the following as an example of true reconciliation:

John: Jane, I’m really sorry. I sinned against you and God. My attitude was completely unwarranted and despicable. I called you a nag because the game was more important to me than you. I need your forgiveness. Will you please forgive me?

Jane: Yes, I forgive you.

That is true reconciliation. It is not easy but God will empower us to do so as we humble ourselves before the cross of Christ.

Jesus commands that we listen to the words of the “Pharisees” who speak into our lives. This may come as a shock or just seem utterly ridiculous to you. The conventional wisdom says that we don’t have to listen to a hypocrite until their words fully align with their practice. In other words, if someone rebukes you regarding something they too are guilty of you can reject it since they are not consistent in their own practice. If you are married I am sure you are tracking with me but just in case others are not let me provide two theoretical examples: 

Example 1

John Doe: I think you are making a bad decision because you are blinded by your pride.

Jim Doe: What? You are the most prideful person I know! Where do you get off criticizing me?

Example 2

Wife: I think you are being way too harsh on your sister for not getting your mom a birthday card.

Husband: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Every time your brother makes even the smallest mistake you are on his case like wet on water! So back off your brother and I’ll back off my sister. Geeeezzzz, you’re such a hypocrite!

Do these exchanges sound even remotely familiar? I hear them all the time. Matter of fact, I am on both sides of them a quite often. Now, I think Jim and the husband’s idea that they do not have to listen to their hypocritical counterparts comes from a misapplication Matthew 7:3-5:

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

It is always important that you note who is being addressed in passage of Scripture. Jesus is instructing the giver of hypocritical criticism not the receiver. He is not saying to the receiver, “You should not listen to the words of hypocrite.” He is just telling the giver to tend to his own sin before they lend a helping hand to their friend. This passage is most definitely for Jim and the wife. They need to practice what they preach. However, I still maintain that this passage cannot be twisted by their counterparts to get out of receiving what might be a very valuable correction. They still must listen to hypocrites.

We cannot play favorites with passages in the Bible. Our theology must seek to integrate all of God’s Word into our practice. You see, Jim and the husband can quote Mattew 7:3-5 but do they know what Jesus said just a few chapters later in 23:2-3? I doubt it. If they did they would be quick to listen and slow to speak. Listen to what our Lord said:

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat,  so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”

The problem with the Pharisees was not so much what they said but how they lived. This is why Jesus said do what they say but do not emulate their practice.  Consequently, you can see where Jim and the husband went wrong in our examples. I hope we will learn from their mistake. A truly humble man can receive correction from a child, the opposite sex, and even a hypocrite. Stop avoiding correction with the misapplication of Scripture. Listen to the Pharisees in your life. God will use the most unlikely instruments to make us more like Jesus.