"Viral Churches"

I was recently given the book Viral Churches. The book remains unfinished as reading with my daughter definitely slows down my typical pace. However, the first 50 pages have been inspiring, challenging, and thought-provoking. The premise of the book (the best I understand it after 50 pages) is that the current model of planting a church is both small-minded and not in keeping with the Scriptural precent. Our goal should be towards the frequent and widespread multiplication of churches rather than being content with the addition of a single church.

I'll try to post a more complete review later, but so far it's been fantastic. I feel like I've been reading a more intelligent, better researched, and passionate version of myself. The book's emphasis on leadership development is right on!!

Here's an excerpt from the book:

It's very possible to plant a church but not enlarge God's kingdom or to limit Satan's domain. Churches based on worship preferences and musical styles, or built around celebrities with the Christian subculture, reinforce consumerism and promote church shopping among those who are already believers (34).

Do you think this is an accurate assessment of some segments of American Christianity?

Panic in Fundamentalism

Winds of conern seem to be blowing through the ranks of Fundamental leaders. "Where are all the young people going?" In the last week I have heard noises of these concerns from several sources. "Why are young people leaving Fundamentalism?" "Why are they going to Evangelical seminaries?" "Why is a young man hard to find at the FBF meetings?" And I think all these "why's" are simply an attempt to find one "What?" "What do we do to stop it?"

Unfortunately, I think the motivations are complicated, the reasons are varied, and the situations are unique. Chris Anderson posted a insightful answer as to why young people are leaving fundamental churches, suggesting that the question itself might be the wrong question. Here is an exerpt from his answer:

My two cents? Kids are leaving their churches because the churches are unhealthy, not because they’re too conservative. Sheep who are shepherded well don’t tend to wander. Most don’t, anyway. So rather than blaming young people, or Christian colleges, or music, or John Piper, or Calvinism, labor to have a healthy church. And rather than preaching on why people shouldn’t leave, give them reasons to stay. Take care of sheep. Endeavor to be a good shepherd. See worship as a call to adoration, not a call to arms. Exalt the Chief Shepherd. Minister grace.

Make sure you read the rest of his article.

Personally, I'm glad the problem is getting noticed and publicly discussed. For too long it has been denied or ignored, hoping that it will go away. Recognizing that a problem exists is always the first step to solving it.

What do you think the problems are, if they exist? If they exist, should they be solved? If so, how?

A Perspective on Separation and Church Discipline

Lately I've been absorbed with writing and touching up my doctrinal statement in preparation for ordination. Thus, no blogging. While you might have been interested in some subjects, others, such as supralapsarianism, may have bored you just a touch.

I'm currently working through a section on church discipline and separation. I ran across the following perspective and I'm really curious to know your feedback. Is it good, but incomplete? Absolutely right? Wrong? You are welcome and encouraged to post any perspective that you have if you would kindly tell me Scripturally why you think that. That is, unless you don't want me using your name as my defense of your view when it comes to my ordination! :)

The Unity of the Church—Jesus wants his church to be unified (John 10:16; 17:21-23). This unity is possible because Jesus baptizes believers from vastly different backgrounds into the same body and the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:12-14). “Those who cause divisions” must be avoided (Rom 16:17). Those who practice separation where there should be unity should be confronted (Gal 2:11-14). Separation should be practiced in the case of an unbelieving false teacher (Gal 1:8-9; 2 John 9-11). If someone is living in sin and refuses to repent upon confrontation (Matt 18:15-17), he should be warned as a brother (2 Thess 3:6, 14-15). Persistent stubbornness in sin exposes him or her as an unbeliever (1 John 2:19). Based on this understanding of church discipline and purity, the church is never to separate from other believers.

Happy reviewing!

Christian Carnage

Ever since the days when flying projectiles were added to the standard battle armament of clubs and swords, "friendly fire" has been the unfortunate result. It's kind of hard to know where an arrow will fall or what hot lead will ultimately pierce (just ask Stonewall Jackson about this). Modern warfare has done much to reduce the number of "friendly fire" victims but it remains a terrible reality.

As much as "friendly fire" is hated on the battlefield it seems to be a quite cherished part of Christianity. We often seem eager to turn our clubs (blogs), swords (sermons), artillery (websites), and nuclear weapons (blacklisting) from the enemy around us against our brother next to us (like the allegory? :) ). We spend so much time and energy beating the daylights out of our own team that we have little fight left for the enemy. We slash those more "liberal" than us and jab at those more conservative. Why?

I'm not always sure why. Pride maybe, thinking that I have arrived at all the right conclusions and everyone else must be beat into thinking my way. Insecurity with what we believe or the reasons that we believe the way we do? Tradition and the refusal to look at something a different way? The love of change and refusing to consider that perhaps a certain tradition may be correct? A variety of explanations may explain this propensity, none of which are flattering.

I have learned a lot from my pastor in this regard and greatly respect his wisdom and maturity. He is comfortable with what he believes, is humbly continuing to learn and grow, knows who the Lord has called him to be, and spends his time on doing what the Lord has called him to do rather than blowing up anyone who disagrees. No matter our position or theological persuasion, maybe we would all do better to follow this example. Maybe we need to accept the fact that God has included a variety of people in His army. The army doesn't attack the navy just because they aren't doing the same job. Perhaps we should let God be the general and just focus on the task that He has given us to do. Learn from the other units, keep your focus on your task, and leave the rest up to the General.

No, I haven't been smoking some pipe left over from the 60's. I don't expect the church to all come to agreement on Calvinism, Bible translations, worship styles, and eschatological views all in this decade. We need to be well studied, and constantly studying. However, it should be possible to also think the best of others and unselfishly give ourselves for our fellow army buddies (I Cor 13). At the very least we must learn to rejoice wherever and however the gospel is proclaimed (Phil 1:18). Mark 9:38-40 addresses such a situation. John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." But Jesus said, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us."

Remember that the order "Ready, Aim, Fire" is important. "Ready, Fire, Aim" can cause a lot of unncessary carnage and pain.

"Jesus wants everybody happy, happy, happy and He doesn't want anybody sad!"

These are lyrics from a common kids' jingle. Any thinking believer obviously would agree that there is more to Christianity than just being happy all the time. This Easter I've begun to wonder how much this sort of kid's theology has permeated mature Christianity. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are rightfully the climax of the year for believers, but how do we present it? How do we think about it? I wonder if we are so eager to get to the joy of the resurrection that we unwittingly mitigate the impact of the crucifixion.

The gospel of John is largely an account of Christ's last few weeks on earth. Chapters 13 through 19 climax towards the crucifixion while only 2 chapters cover the resurrection and the events following it. Maybe it would be better to sit for a while and let the full impact of the worst day in history to really sink in. Do we really understand the betrayal of a closest friend? The reversal of popular opinion in Jerusalem? The confusion and desperation of Pilate? What about the heart of Mary being shredded as she helplessly watched the inhuman treatment of her first son? The pounding regrets Peter felt as the last moments with his friend and leader were vehement exclamations of denial? The fear and bewilderment of disciples who expected to follow Christ to a kingdom, not a cross? And what about Christ? How deeply do we feel the utter abandonment He experienced from his friends, disciples, and even His Father? His silence at the rigged trial by his countrymen? The humiliation and pain experienced at the hands of calloused soldiers? Do we understand Him being hated for His perfection and being crucified for His love? Is it even possible to understand His concern for his mother's well being and for the soul of a thief while dangling in utter agony from a tree? This was the worst day in human history. The blackest. The end. Deicide. Those in bondage killing their only Savior. It was finished!

Then came Sunday!! The cry "It is finished" now screams hope and salvation rather than desperation.

I'm not arguing for a diminishing of the resurrection. It should be everything to us (1 Corinthians 15). However, it would do us well to spend some time absorbing the darkness of John 13-19 before basking in the light of John 20-21. I believe the incomprehensible miracle of the resurrection will appear more spectacular as we absorb the darkness that brought us there. The sun is always more radiant after a spell of rain. The flowers of spring are always more beautiful after a long, cold winter.

What is Really in a Name?

Kevin Bauder's blog In the Nick of Time lit up much of the FB and blog kingdom recently. The content and spirit of the post were like the warm spring breezes that envelope you after a cold winter. The spirit of love and respect for other brothers in Christ was refreshing. Here are a few excerpts from his blog if you have not seen it yet.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Dave Doran responded to Kevin Bauder's article stating that he agreed with much of what Bauder had to say. Doran correctly pointed out that labels are not always quite as accurate as we might wish. There is a wide variety of men and beliefs within conservative evangelicalism (as there is in fundamentalism). In a more recent article Doran suggests that we "throw away the labels and ask these two questions: Of what are you in favor of? To what are you opposed? Agreement on those two items will more likely produce workable partnerships and real fellowship."

I don't know that Doran is actually suggesting we throw away the label "Fundamentalist" since it has been hijacked by those vehemently claim the inspiration of the KJV. I certainly don't wish to put words in his mouth. However, it does make you wonder. Labels are supposed to be helpful... I think. An applesauce jar should contain applesauce, and a baker would be quite disappointed if the flour bag actually contained baking powder. So what about the label "fundamentalist?" Historically, I couldn't agree with it more!! I have the utmost appreciation and respect for many of the men who have proudly worn the label before me and who have given me my spiritual heritage. But how helpful is the label now? Unsaved people likely think of compound polygamists, underwear bombers, or sadly enough, Bible burners. It is understandable why some believers hold the label "fundamentalist" with some hesitancy (see Bible burning). Granted, the label has been hijacked. But if it cannot be reclaimed, what is most expedient for the sake of the gospel?

What really matters is the gospel! I am a wicked sinner, saved by the precious blood of Jesus! The labels I should claim the most fiercely are "child of the King" and "a sinner, saved by grace!" How quickly my renegade heart turns its focus from my Savior to earthly associations. God, keep my focus on you!

In Search of Worldliness (or at least a definition)

Worldliness is the trump card used against offense that not clearly stated in the Scriptures. Is worldliness spiking your hair or wearing clothes that are in style? Is worldliness catching a decent show at a movie theater or is it using a more modern translation of the Scriptures?

I'm sure there are some helpful definitions of "worldliness" or the "world" around, but I am still searching for them. Sidwell defines worldliness as "an attitude of friendship toward, a desire for, and a wish to be recognized by the world system." What, you ask, is the "world system." Well, the world system is "the unregenerate people of this earth as organize and dominated by Satan." Condensed, worldliness becomes friendship with or the desire to be recognized by unsaved people. This definition is far from satisfactory though. Christ accused of being a friend of sinners in Luke 7:34 (an accusation he never denied) and He loved sinners so much that He died for them.

Here is another definition of worldiness by Driscoll. I think it is much closer in some regards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NWsGavd0A8

I plan to thoroughly study out the issue myself and post my conclusions here, but until then, what do you think worldliness is? If you have done some study on it, please post your results. Make sure you take the poll since it's National Sensus time!