Sunday, December 21, 2008

We celebrate our family Christmas today

The cold is getting more and more unbearable for me. Of course the snow is beautiful, but at what cost? Shoveling—backaches. Vehicles to scrap—and break because of the cold. But it is Christmas time and I get to give presents (of course a smaller total this year). My daughter visits her mom and Minnesota family every other Christmas, so she is joininng them, flying out on Tuesday. My stepsons are going to their dad’s on Christmas Eve. So, as a family we all decided that we’d celebrate Christmas on Sunday, today. So the tree is lit and there are presents under it. I just finished putting the stockings together. I love doing stockings. Smaller, more thoughtful presents, some needed, some cute, some gag-ish, but always fun and well appreciated. Stockings are my family’s Christmas trademark. And then there is always the grouch pills that show up in someone’s stocking—the top prize of the year! I always give the “kids” (now teenagers) comic books and a cast model car of some sort. This year Amanda gets a Volkswagen camper, like the one I used to go camping in with my grandma-Kay and pop when I was a kid. Michael gets an old wagon with a surfboard on top. And, Robert (the one who actually collects them) gets an old fashion Pepsi-Cola truck. My daughter always gets something Indian (she is part Delaware Indian from my side of the family) each year. And we’ve started a father-daughter tradition of collecting coins—not so much for value, but for some form or significant reason or memory. So, I have a set of coins, some old (as far back as 1800), some new for her in her stocking. My folks and Lisa’s step-mom will be here; our oldest step-daughter, too. It feels like Christmas. We’ll do church this morning and then after around 2ish everyone will be over and it is present time. Of course there will be food—just a little finger stuff. I already cried, holding my daughter and telling her I love her and am so glad she is my daughter. She was the best present ever! After all the presents are open and stories are told why someone got whatever for someone, there will be joy in the Anderson house this afternoon. Not unnoticed, nor forgotten will be the reason we do all this. We will remember that somewhere out there, long ago, in the back of an inn, in a stable, a young once out-of-wedlock pregnant girl, probably 13 or so years old, with the world on her shoulders, and nearby her faithful husband who kept her from social shame, with the cows and sheep and chickens and the unwashed tired shepherds will worship in amazement at a small, helpless new born babe in a feeding trough who will bear the burdens of this world on his shoulders one day. We will not forget this in the midst of our joy today as my family celebrates our Christmas.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

L&S Quote - They will not their lives for a question mark

“Young people will give their lives for an exclamation point, but they will not give their lives for a question mark, not for very long anyway” ~Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck in Why We’re Not Emergent

Friday, December 19, 2008

Taking the poor and meek out of the poor and meek (2 of 2)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).

In the previous post, I suggested two overlooked aspects to consider when reading Matthew 5, verses 3 and 5.  I continue with two more points:

3) I use the New American Standard Bible above, where in Matthew 5:5, the word under consideration is translated gentle.  The New International Version and the King James Version render the Greek, meek.

NIV—“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth”

KJV—“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

The Message, a paraphrased interpretation, not a translation of the Greek—and sometimes a poor one at that—destroys all of Jesus’ intention and causes barriers to any original understanding or historic meaning:

TM—“You’re blessed when you’re content with just who you are—no more, no less. That’s the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can’t be bought.”

The TM rendering makes me ill, actually.  Not only does it take the poor out of “poor” and the meek out of “meek,” it tells the actual poor and meek to accept their status and us poor rich folk and everyone else should, too.  (The more I dig, the more these verses really deserve a Rough Cut exegetical essay—but, still, for another time.) The word used here (Matt 5:5) for meek/gentle is praus (πραΰς) and its Old Testament (Hebrew) equivalents are ΄ānî and more generally ΄ānāw.  The sense of meek/gentle for both the Hebrew and the Greek is actually poor, afflicted, humble, and meek.  Never “strong,” nor “strong under control”!  The connotation is of one who is disenfranchised, someone without a voice to advocate on one’s behalf, without means, and functionally, one who lacks owned property.  (I won’t go into the word in Matt 5:3 for “poor” (πτωχοὶ), which I only hope is somewhat self-explanatory at this point—the πτωχοὶ means poor!) An OT example of meek can be found in Psalm 37:11 and 14:

“But the humble will inherit the land and will delight themselves in abundant prosperity” (v 11).

“The wicked have drawn the sword and bent their bow to cast down the afflicted and the needy, to slay those who are upright in conduct” (14).

The Hebrew understanding gives the sense that the poor and meek were those in Israel who were without property (read through Exodus and Deuteronomy!).  They are wrongly disinherited and deprived of status, even of the appearance of God’s blessing.  They are often victims of exploitation (Isaiah 32:7, Job 24:4, and as mentioned already, Ps 37:14).  In OT language, the poor and meek change from being the earth’s needy to those who humbly cry out for the help only God can give, or the ones who have found that help.  In Matthew, some commentators have posited that the poor of verse 3 and the gentle/meek of verse 5 are both actually the poor (I agree actually).

4) We understand that Jesus became poor on our behalf.  In Matthew 11:29, He also explains that He is “gentle” (meek) (ὅτι πραΰς εἰμι) and “humble in heart” (ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ), and by yoking ourselves to Him and learning from Him we will “find rest for our souls” (probably a reference to Isaiah 66:2).  The attributes of humility and meekness attributed to Jesus are, not because He is strong, yet controlling His attitudes, but because, in His messiah status, He too is without inheritance, “with no place to lay His head” (Matt 8:20).  Like Jesus, those who follow Him, that is His disciples, will find that they might be bereft of status and place in this life, but theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven and they will inherit the earth.  This is why they are blessed, namely because eyes of flesh and the pride of life offer place and status in this life, but those—even those who are without status and place—who follow the Messiah and His ways will find ultimate reward in the end of days. 

The Sermon on the Mount turns everything in this earthly life on its head.  I am wondering why we keep turning it back?  I believe we, as modern American Christians, are so far from the intentions of Jesus’ words here that we need to take out the sting and replace it with modern, more comfortable concepts.  Perhaps we are afraid that these verses might not apply to us because we are the opposite of the actual poor and meek who are refrences in the Sermon on the Mount text—namely we prize and treasure ownership of the things of earth and crave the status we have “in the flesh” in the world.  No wonder we change the meaning of the verses and words and the intentions of Jesus.  We like our status in this world and want to feel good about it—and we make the Sermon on the Mount affirm that good feeling we need to continue in our comfort, turning it 180 degress away from where Jesus directed it on that mount far away.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Taking the poor and meek out of the poor and meek (1 of 2)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

“Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).

Deserving a more thorough Rough Cut, suffice here to say, it is wrong to take the poor out of the poor in spirit and to make the meek anything but the meek.  I have heard from those speaking in God’s place and from the “Beatitudes” that the “poor in spirit” referred to by Jesus on that hill far away were not really poor (economically), but those who are poor in their spirit:

“blessed are the poor in spirit who are depressed and feeling bad about themselves, for the kingdom of God belongs to them.”

And to make matters worse, I heard that the meek referred to by Jesus on that same hill were really not the meek but “the strong who are in control of their attitudes”—it will be those who will inherit the earth.  These changes to the meaning of the words and to the objects of Jesus’ description changes everything that Jesus said and meant.  We are now to understand the Sermon on the Mount wholly different—just to suit our needs and times and ease and middle class life…

“Blessed are those who feel bad about themselves for the kingdom of God belongs to them…Blessed are the strong who control their attitudes for they will inherit the earth.”

This poor interpretation and the exchanging of the meanings of poor and meek turns Jesus’ words on their head, making them actually the complete opposite of their original intention.  A few factors are overlooked, forgotten, or even ignored in hearing these texts.

1) First, we know from Luke’s account, the “Sermon on the Mount” took place as Jesus was finishing up some direct-contact ministry:

“Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place; and there was a large crowd of His disciples, and a great throng of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon, who had come to hear Him and to be healed of their diseases; and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were being cured. And all the people were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all.  And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God…’” (Luke 6:17-20).

We know from Matthew’s own account that Jesus had attracted crowds that followed him, multitudes made up from the sick, those suffering from diseases and pain, those possessed, and the lame.  Both accounts tell us that there were even those from Gentile (pagan) territories such as Tyre and Sidon and Syria:

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them.  Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan” (Matthew 4:23-25).

The crowds who listened in that day would have been surprised to find out that Jesus wasn’t speaking to them or about them, nor promising them anything.

2) Jesus wasn’t speaking to a 21st century audience of self-reflecting, introspective Americans.  No, he was—as the above indicates—speaking to the crowds of people who were attracted to his ministry and words who lived in that day and time.  We know the crowds were the people of the land, the politically weak and powerless, the voiceless, and economically dependent on the alms of two governments with powerful structures for the elite and privileged (i.e., the Roman and the other, the Sanhedrin).  These who gladly heard His voice were those who didn’t who were without landed property, those without status or without a stake in the land.  It would be to them the Kingdom of God belongs and it was promised to them that they’d inherit the earth.  It was to them, and their poor and humble status, that Jesus spoke of a new kingdom for which there would be a place for them.  Jesus promised that they’d “inherit the earth,” not the rich and powerful.  Jesus, the new king, would turn everything on its head.

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? (3 of 3)

As I conclude my thoughts on this thread, I am drawn to the familiar story of the “Rich Young Property Owner” (or more commonly referred to as “the Rich Young Ruler"):

“As He [Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, ‘Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.  You know the commandments, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’ And he said to Him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.’ Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, ‘One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.  And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!’ The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!  It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’ They were even more astonished and said to Him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Looking at them, Jesus said, ‘With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’ Peter began to say to Him, ‘Behold, we have left everything and followed You.’ Jesus said, ‘Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life.  But many who are first will be last, and the last, first’” (Mark 10:17-30).

In the “rich young property owner” lesson above, there is a progression of thought that most overlook or ignore—which is actually kind of scarey.


  • what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
  • how hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!
  • how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God
  • then who can be saved?

  • We obviously start with how one inherits eternal life, but we end with the disciples questioning who, then, can be saved.  Sandwiched in the middle here is the concept of the Kingdom of God.  So—either Jesus is changing the subject in order to get the rich young guy to ask the right question or Jesus (and Mark) is linking the concepts of “eternal life,” “the kingdom of God,” and being “saved” as basically the same thing.  Either way, Mark, here, has linked for us entering into the Kingdom as being the same as or at least the means for one being saved.  Once settled on this, the rest of the parable clearly sets out that one cannot be a consumer and enter into the Kingdom (at least easily).

    As I have written in the 1 and 2 posts of this thread, I doubt very much that a consumer of the Gospel is actually a saved individual in the biblical sense.  But, rather than appearing too judgmental, let me say it this way—there is no assurance that a consumer of the Gospel who makes some form of confession of the Gospel and perhaps is in regular attendance at a church is a born-again Christian.  The problem is our churches are filled with consumers of the Gospel.  The question should be, how do we reach those, who are by nature and cultural conditioning, consumers (of everything) and turn them into disciples?  Or, how do we turn consumers into, as my pastor likes to repeat, “faithful followers of Jesus”?

    The “commodity” of the Gospel is not purchased by anyone; but one’s citizenship in the Kingdom is noticeable.  When Jesus responds to the nice rich guy, at first He reminds him of keeping the Law.  This wasn’t far from the idea found in Deuteronomy where Israel understood that keeping the Law leads to “life.” Israel had understood that the Law made them who they were and were to be, and agreeing to it provided the means of life and prosperity in the land they were about to inherit.  At the end of the story, while on the banks of the Jordon on the far side of the land of promise, Moses reminded them:

    “When Moses had finished speaking all these words to all Israel, he said to them, ‘Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law. For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess’ (Deuteronomy 32:45-47).

    Eventually, as perceived by the rich young man, Israel came to understand that “living in the land of promise” foreshadowed “eternal life.” So to juxtapose the keeping of the Law with the quest for eternal life was not a surprise to him.  But, he was sure he had kept them since childhood.  So Jesus pressed that matter—not so much adding to the Law or spiritualizing it (or even giving a post-Christian, New Testament spin), but reminding the rich young man that there are stipulations “in the Law” that are needed to be kept as well:

    “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

    Besides my interest in “the poor” and issues of poverty, for the wealthy guy asking the question these were perfect stipulations for Jesus to draw from—which are scattered in various texts throughout Exodus (e.g., 22-23), Leviticus (e.g., 14, 19, 22, 25), and Deuteronomy (e.g., 10, 14-15, 24).  The implication, in my estimation, to inherit eternal life, to enter the Kingdom, and to possess salvation it is not what is gained (i.e., a good or commodity to possess), but what is given away.  (Apparently, so did Jesus.) Of course there is nothing one can do to gain God’s favor or merit His salvation—that is a gift, both in the Old and in the New (by the way).  But the illustration set forth in this story is clear that what God possesses—His Gospel in Christ Jesus—is not a commodity or good to be purchased by a consumer, but a life exchanged for one that leads to death so that it may lead to life.

    Extending, proclaiming, and receiving the good news of Jesus Christ is not like shopping at Wal-Mart or at the nearby Mall.  Churches are not like the chain of stores that attempt to make deals with you, to imply superior products, or less costly goods so you will enter their store and purchase their product.  Being in the Kingdom (i.e., being “saved”) means giving away, not acquiring.  This is why it is difficult or improbably that consumers of the Gospel are or can be disciples. Making disciples out of the consumers that have come to your church—because you sold something to them that is other than, less than, or not even the Gospel—might mean making them converts first.  No wonder in almost every book I read this past year on the subject of evangelism has chapters or portions given over to “evangelizing the churched.” So in the end, how do you—the pastor/church leader—repent of selling the Gospel or selling church as a commodity or good for someone’s personal use and at the same time make disciples out of the consumers that have bought your product?

    Hopefully, unlike the young man, we do not hear these words (at least the Words in the Gospel) and become saddened and walk away grieved because we are too rich in things of this world.



    Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? 1, 2, 3

    Tuesday, December 16, 2008

    Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? (2 of 3)

    I think most readers of this blog can tell I hate (really, not a strong enough word for how I feel about) the term “consumers,” let alone applying term “consumer” to the non-believer and the unchurched.  What makes it worse, although never really talked about or admitted is that when we view the potential church-goer as a consumer, we also mean those in other churches who might prefer our church/gospel product better and be willing to change dispensers (i.e., change churches) of the product.  It happens—but church leaders will not admit openly to it.  So we know who the consumer is—unbelievers, the unchurched, and believers in other churches.  But what is a consumer?  The typical dictionary offers three basic definitions

    1. A consumer is a person or thing that consumers.
    2. Within an economic sense a consumer is a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
    3. Within ecology a consumer is an organism (or animal) that feeds on plants or other animals.

    I hope we are not considering the 3rd choice and define the unchurched, non-believer, or believers in other churches who might like our product better as organisms that feed on the product we are trying to sell.  Certainly hope not.  But the other two (1 and 2) are within the scope of possibilities.  One dictionary stated that a consumer is “someone who purchases a good for personal use.” Okay, then, what is a consumer purchasing, consuming, or using?  Is the Gospel a thing or service to be purchased?  Is the Gospel something that is consumed?  Is the Gospel something to be used, a good for personal use?  We can make a play on all these words (i.e., purchased, consumed, used, services, product, etc.)—and plenty of church-marketers and pastors do, but in the end none of them, with whatever play on the words is made, ends up actually being the Gospel as set forth in the New Testament.  David Wells, in his, The Courage to Be Protestant, rightly says:

    “…the product we will seek naturally will not be the gospel.  It will be a therapy of some kind, a technique for life, perhaps a way of connecting more deeply with our own spiritual selves on our own terms, terms that require no repentance and no redemption.  It will not be the gospel.  The gospel cannot be a product that the church sells because there are no consumers for it.  When we find consumers, we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel” (Wells, p. 53).

    This is another reason to doubt that consumers of the gospel (since it is not actually the Gospel) are not saved, and thus cannot be disciples.



    Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? 1, 2, 3

    Monday, December 15, 2008

    Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? (1 of 3)

    “Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits. For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned” (Hebrews 6:1-8).

    “Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:1-3).

    Previously in a post on “Emptying the truth out of the Gospel” I asked a rhetorical question, Are consumers of the Gospel really saved? I asked to provoke the issue, not the issue of once-saved-always-saved eternal security, or if a once made confession of faith is good enough for one to be forgive of sins and saved, but to bring up the issue of, well, can consumers of the Gospel actually be saved—can they have made a true confession of faith? On the one hand I will content No they cannot, simply because what they are receiving (really what a consumer of the Gospel has asked for in that confession) is not the Gospel, but some form or self-help measure for some part or parts of their life. On the other hand, rather than being considered too judgmental here on this issue, I recognize that in many—if not most—cases conversion is a longer process than we usually acknowledge. With this said, rather than asking if “consumers can be saved,” I’d like to entertain the question, can consumers of the Gospel be disciples?

    I quote two passages at the head of this post, for I find in them some support for my qualified answer to the question: can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? These texts (Hebrews 6:1ff and 1 Peter 2:1ff) present that Christians ought to be growing in their faith (“press on to maturity,” He 6:1; “may grow in respect to salvation,” 1 Pe 2:2), and second, that it is possible and probably that a confession of faith or conversion can initially result in a limited understanding of the Christian faith and/or in limited change (repentance) and minimal sanctification. And, as well, these texts suggest that there are doctrinal items that are elementary to the faith that are basic, rudimentary, introductory for converts to understand, grasp, acknowledge, and/or commit to as part of the conversion. However, I am curious if someone comes to confess Christ as a consumer of the Gospel, it does not reasonable follows that the elementary things are necessarily agreed to. What is agreed to is why the consumer bought the product—i.e., the gospel they are receiving, not necessarily the Gospel as presented in the New Testament. And furthermore, does the product come through on the exchange for the consumer? What happens when it does not?

    I am wary to say the product is the Gospel as revealed in the New Testament, for if the product the consumer is “buying” (i.e., signing up for, exchanging something for) is less than the Gospel or non-the-Gospel-at-all, then the product is not the Gospel as revealed through Jesus Christ. That is as simple as I can put it. This does not mean that a consumer can’t eventually respond to another step, another alter-call, another bid for further dedication (and in that step actually find Christ and the salvation offered in the Gospel), but we confuse “the consumer” with a repentant, confessing sinner who receives Jesus as Lord and Savior. They are not necessarily the same thing…not necessarily the same person.

    Before one decides whether a consumer is even a Christian, we should be looking into what the consumer is accepting/buying (confessing, believing) when the object of the consumer’s purchase (or exchange) is referred to as the Gospel.



    Can consumers of the Gospel be disciples? 1, 2, 3

    Sunday, December 14, 2008

    The gratefulness and disappointment of a father of an almost 16 year old daughter

    I am continually impressed, and grateful for my daughter, Amanda, as any good father should be of his own daughter.  But I have been disappointed over the years, not with my daughter, but with how she has been treated or missed out on a few important church things every young girl should have the opportunity for.

    I was not a Christian during my teenager years.  Far from it.  Not in a rebellious way—although my mother might want to disagree with that.  More so in simply an atheistic worldview way.  I wasn’t much for drugs or alcohol—I enjoyed control too much to let uncontrollable things happen to me.  But I did form a worldview—or a teenage outlook, at least—that there was no God to deal with.  No drugs, but certainly attitudes, emotional baggage, a calculating for advantage and control of destiny, as well as distrust of people were some of the consequences and badly formed habits.  But, enough about me.  I actually want to write about my daughter, Amanda.  A recent Rock the Sound concert provoked some thoughts I’d like to share (be careful, some not so pleasant).

    As my Amanda grew up, I offered her a world I didn’t have as I was growing up—a Christian family, a believing father and mother, and as well as a Church life.  I remember thinking what a blessing this was and had anticipated that she’d hopefully not fall prey to some of the things I had formed as an unbelieving child and teenager.  Despite some setbacks, as my daughter approaches 16, I am blessed and grateful that she has a worldview and a personal faith that is strong in Christ.  She made a personal decision when she was around 7 and was baptized when she was 9, openly confessing Jesus as her Lord and Savior before our church family.  She is active in her faith.  I have seen fruit of her confession, as well as growth as a person of character and as a Christian (not that the two are mutually exclusive).  But I have some disappointments and some blessings that I think matter to a father of a soon to be 16 year old daughter.

    First a rather big disappointment:  My daughter has grown up to be a smart, independent, and resourceful young lady, filled with compassion, a sense of right and purpose, and a strong Christian character, despite being let down by both the church and adult Christians on a regular basis.  I was hoping throughout the years, as Amanda grew up, that she’d find support and especially older Christian women who’d disciple and at a minimum spend time with her.  Although there were a few ladies when she was younger who gave her direct encouragement and even spent some time with her (thanks Emily!), as she approached her teenage years the pool of Christian women and older teen examples did not produce any who’d take on the task.  In fact I watched as she was left behind by so-called female Christian leadership and watched her deal with hurt from so-called Christian relationships.  Even now, I find that the pool of Christian women—and that pool is readily available and plentiful I have made sure—still has not stepped up to disciple or spend time with her.  (At this point, I doubt she would trust anyone at that level, giving the fact that some of the supposed Christian female leadership in her life have been hurtful rather than, well, godly.)

    I am not sure of the cause for this.  I am comforted that God knows best and despite His allowance for the lack, there will be women before the throne of God who will answer for this area I am sure.  Nonetheless, despite repeated disappointment and hurt by older Christian people and especially females, Amanda has held on to her faith.

    Now some good observations: On her thirteenth birthday she held a sleepover for about a dozen girls, half from her suburban church youth group and half from her school (an urban school and mostly from unchurched families).  She felt she wanted to introduce her Christian friends to her non-Christian friends.  Without going into details, I watched the evening through the morning hours and was amazed at both how Amanda hosted in such a way to make sure the two groups interacted in positive ways and watched at how unresponsive most of the Christian girls were to Amanda’s non-Christian friends.  In the end, with a one or two exceptions, it was the non-Christian, urban girls who were polite and civil and reached out to the other girls, not the other way around.  At the end of the sleepover, I saw the disappointment in Amanda’s eyes and heart.  She knew the world in which she was more accepted, respected, and placed in high regard was her secular, non-churched peers from her urban school and not her middle to upper middle class, suburban youth group.  It wasn’t long afterward she stopped attending youth group.  (Don’t get me wrong, she still has some acquaintances and casual friendships from the former youth group, but her real friends are her non-churched, even hostile to Christianity peers from school.)

    This was driven home at the last Rock the Sound concert here in Bridgeport, Connecticut on November 15th.  Rock the Sound is an attempt at developing Christian entertainment to Bridgeport, Connecticut and over the last few years this has happened.  This year a specific group, Skillet, was among the bands to play at the concert.  Amanda was able to convince three of her close unchurched friends to joining her at the concert.  Plus, I had offered tickets to my stepsons to bring at least one non-churched friend as well.  So there, as a result of my daughter wanting to expose her friends to the Christian world and message, we had a row of twelve seats with 6 unchurched school friends of our kids.  As my daughter sat there with her friends, I wondered how many Christian young ladies had actually brought their unchurched, unbelieving, skeptical peers to the concert?  I wondered how many could, would, or even had non-believing friends that they could invite in the first place?  And if they had any non-churched friends who’d actually say “sure” to going to a Christian concert?  I render no judgment, but given the crowd of screaming youth at the concert, it was a very homogeneous group of Christianized young people—not “outreached-into-the-unbelieving-community-of-young-people.  But there you had my daughter who planned and was able to invite (and got them to say yes) non-Christian friends to a Christian concert.  Of course I was proud, but more so I was so grateful that despite the lack of adult Christian discipleship in her life, she was about doing God’s thing…and is well respected enough among her non-churched peers to be able to get some to join her at a Christian event.  (And this wasn’t her first time—she had done this before at Church events, plays, etc, inviting non-churched school peers.)

    It has been and still is hard seeing so-called female Christian women, and especially so-called leaders, pass-by my daughter on a regular basis over the years.  As her father, of course I have done my best.  But I am not a woman or the measure of a godly female character for her.  (Thank goodness for a godly Christian grandmother!) Amanda is about to turn 16.  She has shown, despite having been ignored, hurt, and even ostracized by older Christian females (both teens and adults) over the years, a growth in Christ, a strong maintaining of her Christian faith and character.

    I share this obviously because it does matter to me.  But also since now many eyes fall on the Wordsntone site and I hope some Christian ladies will take it to heart and not overlook the young Christian girls who need discipleship.  Also, I wanted you to know how proud and blessed and grateful I am that, despite some hurt, my daughter is entering her 16th year as a godly Christian lady who is able to maintain her witness amid her secular, unchurched peers.

    Saturday, December 13, 2008

    L&S Quote - Reigning over the world of hard facts

    “Karl Marx said, ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world…the point, however, is to change it.” The Bible might similarly tell us that theologians try to explain evil, while God’s plan is to destroy it” ~Christopher J. H. Wright, The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith

    “…unless Christ can be said to reign over the world of had facts in which Christians must live their lives, he can hardly be said to reign at all” ~G. B. Caird, from his commentary on Revelation quoted by Wright in The God I Don’t Understand

    Friday, December 12, 2008

    The Book of Revelation: a minority report

    Many people read the Book of Revelation (from the Bible) and read into it “escape.” Others, and I take their side, read a message quite different: no compromise, no accommodation, repent from cultural accomodation and idolatry, overcome, stay faithful, and “live through it.” In John’s Revelation, one interpretive outcome is, “We get out of here” (raptured) and is very escapist in mentality (i.e., not of the world, but not in it either I might say).  The other interpretative outcome is less a geographical relocation (i.e., rapture off the planet completely, or leaving the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, or the archetypical city of Babylon, which is really Rome in Revelation) than it is a re-orientation of the community of faith’s social location within the culture of the very communities in which they live (i.e., in the world, but not of the world).  A commentator once said Revelation is

    “a minority report on how Christians related to the larger Roman society.  The seer is apparently advocating attitudes and styles of life not compatible with how most Christians were living in the cities of Asia” at that time (Leonard Thompson in The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire, 1990).

    It is the same biblical author who wrote down the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:1) who also gave us Jesus’ own words that His people are not to be of this world and are also to remain in this world (John 17:14-21).  One would think that Revelation’s message, since it, too, comes from Jesus, would affirm and not say the opposite to His own teaching (in John’s Gospel).  What kind of minority report would we, the Christian community, have?  Would we have one at all?  Or, if we did, would our report just be an affirming report of how to live comfortably in our culture?  The Christian community is the minority report.  We should be offering a different reading on our situation, especially advocating for those who cannot or do not have a voice to offer their own report.  That is one way to live in and not be of this world.

    Thursday, December 11, 2008

    L&S Quote - We have first vulgarised Christmas

    “Moving step by step, in the majestic march of Progress, we have first vulgarised Christmas and then denounced it as vulgar.  Christmas has become too commercial; so many of these thinkers would destroy the Christmas that has been spoiled and preserve the commercialism that has spoiled it.” ~G.K. Chesterton

    Wednesday, December 10, 2008

    Emptying the truth out of the gospel

    “…the marketing model, if followed, empties the truth out of the gospel. First, the needs consumers have are needs they identify for themselves. The needs sinners have are needs God identifies for us, and the way we see our needs is rather different from the way he sees them. We suppress the truth about God, holding it down in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). We are not subject to his moral law and in our fallenness are incapable of being obedient to it (Rom 8:7), so how likely is it, outside of the intervention of God through the Holy Spirit, that we will identify our needs as those arising from our rebellion against God? No, the product we will seek naturally will not be the gospel. It will be a therapy of some kind, a technique for life, perhaps a way of connecting more deeply with our own spiritual selves on our own terms, terms that require no repentance and no redemption. It will not be the gospel. The gospel cannot be a product that the church sells because there are no consumers for it. When we find consumers, we will find that what they are interested in buying, on their own terms, is not the gospel” [David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, p. 53].

    Dr. David Wells is always putting the right words to what I have been thinking. When someone like me takes a contrary position to the trendy ways of the building-centered, market-driving church, I am accused of everything from being an antiquated fuddy-duddy to someone who misunderstands the needs of the modern person. Dr. Wells points out well “marketing the gospel” to meet the needs of our fellow modern-day sinners empties the truth right out of the Gospel.

    But okay…let’s return for a second to what we perceive the needs of our surrounding unchurched and unsaved. Although I am not opposed to the idea that meeting a physical or social need might lead someone to Christ, it is also true that doing so can—and many times does—lead them away as well. Plus, meetings needs isn’t for getting to church or even to the Gospel--that model doesn’t exist in the New Testament as far as I can read. Meeting people’s needs is simply a good Christian thing to do and is supported by plenty of Old and New Testament passages, especially meeting the needs of the vulnerable and the poor.

    Are consumers of the Gospel really saved? Now that’s a question for debate. (And really for a future post.) I will not judge here, but I will say this question presents a dilemma for the Church who seeks to “market” the gospel. I’d rather think we are to do the Gospel and let the foreknowledge of God and work of the Holy Spirit fall where they may. It is a curious thing that the New Testament spends almost 100% of its words on getting the Church to do the Gospel and be the Church and virtually zero on how to market the Gospel—we’ve invented that, sadly. Now, now, don’t get me wrong…in a bland or neutral sense of the word “market” we can present a pitiful gospel which is handedly rejected, not because of what Christ has done but for what we represent. But that’s not “marketing,” that’s presenting the wrong Gospel. There is a difference.

    And then you have the problem of turning consumers of the Gospel into faithful followers of Christ, disciples. At what point do you train or turn your consumers at church into disciples. And what do you do when they choose to be consumers and never disciples. Good for church numbers (attendance perhaps), but not good for the building of the Church and expanding the Kingdom. If you get them to church as consumers, is there any wonder that you can’t get them to grow-up in the Lord while they are there?

    Tuesday, December 09, 2008

    L&S Quote - Huddled in terror their song had ceased

    “We might fancy some children playing on the flat grassy top of some tall island in the sea.  So long as there was a wall round the cliff’s edge they could fling themselves into every frantic game and make the place the noiset of nurseries.  But the walls were all knocked down, leaving the naked peril of the precipice.  They did not fall over; but when their friends returned to them they were all huddled in terror in the centre of the island; and their song had ceased.” ~Chesterton, Orthodxy

    Monday, December 08, 2008

    The emerging fallacy of diminished certainty (3 of 3)

    “We’ll repaint Christianity in a light that will make it appeal to postmoderns” (Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), p. 61).

    “’Post-evangelicals are less inclined to look for truth in propositional statements and old moral certitudes and more likely to seek it in symbols, ambiguities, and situational judgments’” (p. 73 quoting, Dave Tomlinson, The Post-Evangelical, p. 94).

    “The whole movement seems to be built on reductionistic, even modernistic, either-or categories” (p. 75).

    Have you ever noticed that those who do not believe truth is available as a category use propositional statements to argue their view? How silly. You can’t use propositional truth to clobber propositional truth. I understand my atheist friends arguing for allusive truth. I can even understand my skeptical friends believing “what’s truth for you might not be truth for me.” But for those who are supposed to take God and His Word seriously, I have the hardest time fathoming this turn away from revealed truth and the devaluing of the Bible itself. Understandable from unbelievers and strains of liberal theologically oriented; but those claiming some direct correspondence to the Church found in the Bible, this is very hard to accept for me. First, I don’t believe they grasp the danger in their own fallacy of diminished certainty. Second, isn’t it really idolatry to fashion a “faith” out of the contemporary, cultural influences? And third, ultimately the Christianity the emergent church is attempting to fashion will not be something people will give their lives to—for long.

    “Young people will give their lives for an exclamation point, but they will not give their lives for a question mark, not for very long anyway” (p. 127).

    Sunday, December 07, 2008

    The emerging fallacy of diminished certainty (2 of 3)

    “Arguing for the inherent uncertainty of knowledge causes problems when you write books trying to convince people to believe or behave in certain ways. That is to say, radical uncertainty sounds nice as a sort of protest against the perceived dogmatism of evangelical Christianity, but it gets in the way when you want to [sic] prove your point. At some point, no matter how often you rag on certainty and boast in the great mysterious unknowability of God, you will want people to be clear about your beliefs” (Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be), p. 41).

    “So intrigue and ambiguity are good when the ideas in question are ones emerging leaders don’t particularly care for or care about, but when it comes to making their point, clarity is key” (p. 42).

    “What is so frustrating, then, is when emerging authors claim the postmodern high ground that supposedly eschews reason, logic, and certain truth claims” (p 42).

    I also find it humorous when those who downgrade truth or disdain truth as a category argue their case. How in the world can they do that? It is obvious that they want to be believed, understood, and seen as positing something, well, true. Truth obviously exists somewhere, or they would be quiet, for they would have nothing to say. They expect you to understand their words and their meaning, to have some clarity on their use of language, and ultimately that you would agree they have something worthwhile to say. Furthermore, it is very frustrating when those who go by the name “Christian,” who claim a dependence on the apostles, claim to know better than anyone else that “truth” is relative, unattainable, and allusive—except of course what they are teaching as true. No matter the false humility, they still want you to hear them clearly, understand what they are saying, and to know it is exclusively true compared to another argument—say, for instance, that truth is knowable and that God’s true Word is revealed in the Bible’s words. Eschewing truth and downgrading certainty, like poison, kills those who use it themselves. (I am so clever.)


    "My conscience is
    captive to the Word of God"
    ~Martin Luther~

    ____________

    "Anyone wishing to save humanity must first of all
    save the Word"
    ~Jacques Ellul~


    Words’nTone is a weblog promoting faithful biblical interpretation, significant preaching, and sound Christian thinking in order to demonstrate that the Christian faith is reasonable and relevant for our moment in time.
    What is Words’nTone?
    Chip’s bio & profile
    Rough Cut exegetical essays
    Chip's publications & papers


    Words'nTone Facebook Page
    The New England School of Theology
    Contact Words'nTone


    NEW BOOK - Wasted Evangelism: Social Action and the Church’s Task of Evangelism, @ Wipf & Stock


    Chip's lay-commentary on Philippians

    Download chapter, “Putting Jesus Back into Our Potential (Phil 2:1-11).”


    Categories


    My lay-commentary on Philippians


    The Words'nTone Book Shelf




















    Statistics

    • Total Entries: 1083
    • Most Recent Entry: 07/20/2014 10:40 pm
    • Most Recent Visitor on: 07/24/2014 04:23 pm