Campus Charade for ?

We have all played the game of Charades. You try and represent what you are without actually telling people what you are or without actually being who or what you are representing. You do this in hopes that your actions will lead people to discover who you are trying to represent but in the end knowing you are in fact someone or something else. Sound confusing even though you have played the game? Well it is.

So is the recent decision of Campus Crusade for Christ to change its name (at the advice of a marketing firm) to cru. The argument for the name change lie in the fact that a minority of people found the name offensive - specifically "Christ" and "Crusade". This evangelically and politically correct way of thinking is steeped in a mentality found in Paul's statement in I Corinthians 9 where he states:

"I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

Paul's statements here have been turned into a theology by modern day evangelicals; particularly the emergent church and those who have similar practices whether admitting it or not. Such efforts have obvious shortcomings evident in an unspoken "the ends justifies the means" attitude, but this is not the most insidious problem in my mind. The most insidious and deceptive problem lies in how the modern day evangelical church (which does not consider itself emergent, but does consider itself fully biblical) has such a shallow notion of "save". It seems to me that salvation these days is viewed as primarily a one time spiritual and emotional event. This mentality (whether spoken, unspoken, subtle, overt, admitted, not admitted) leaves us with a definition of winning that is instantaneous at a specific point in time.

But Paul's idea of "saving" or "winning" most certainly encompasses more than this and certainly engages more than just the spirit and the emotions, and I would argue that the emotions are not even primary to his concerns. How many times did we see Paul arguing and debating in his attempts to win Greeks? Indeed, it seems that this was Paul's primary method of "winning" people to Christ. Thus, the winning" or "saving" primarily had a "mental/theological" aspect to it that was not instantaneous, but rather a "process". Paul "won" some to Christ over time through reasoning.

Even if Paul's statement is to be taken at face value and fleshed out as modern day evangelicals do, where is the balancing theology of the church being an institution "set apart" and "a light on a hill". These are not concepts of blending in with society or whomever you are trying to "win", but rather of bring distinct, noticeable, and noticeably different.

So what about the Campus Crusade name change? The first problem is obvious to me: why do you need a marketing firm to make this decision? When I think of marketing firms, I think of an entity who's main purpose is to sell a product, to make a product more "sellable", and to help who it is serving to become more successful. It just seems that CRU is more concerned with "end results" and being successful -and this through subterfuge rather than putting a stake in the ground by stating who they are (which is my second concern). They seem more worried about "offending" a minority of people than with biblically "offending" people with the Gospel.

Has evangelism really turned into a game of charades where you try not to reveal who you really are to those you wish to reach so that they may become someone who will in turn become someone who will not want to reveal who they really are to others? It just seems certain parts of evangelical Christianity have started to become more concerned with being productive and end results than with the unabashed honest truth about who we are as Christians, the process of sanctification, and that salvation is more from God that us. We cannot get sucked into the illusion that we as evangelists are the primary force behind salvation putting techniques and philosophies of reaching the lost ahead of the Almighty God Himself. God told Moses to tell Pharaoh "I am that I am" (Yahweh) sent him. It was meant to offend and fly directly in the face of unbelief. There was no thought as to how Pharaoh would receive the message. I don't think Jonah, who was given the message from God, worried about the approach of his message to the Assyrians.

I am not talking about being completely insensitive to the listener or to the person or persons you are trying to witness to, but I am asking the question - is truth enough to bring about salvation, it is the primary means, or do we really need more than the truth (techniques and marketing firms) to reach people for Christ?

Seed That Falls Upon the Rock

I have wondered over the last decade as to what type of Christians the evangelical church is producing. Now, the idea of pondering on this in a lot of contemporary, evangelical Christian circles would be deemed as "unloving" and "judgmental", and responded to with notions that "we all fall short and cannot measure up to God" (which, in essence, creates an image where God's perfection skews the graph so much that there is no distinction between sinner and saint). Indeed, it seems the mentality often becomes "let's get the short term gain (afterall, might not Christ be coming soon) and not worry about the long term effect". "I mean, who after becoming a Christian would turn away completely and, besides, they have their entire lives to grow in Christ - they'll catch on eventually."

Then I stumbled onto this article in Christianity Today -http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/november/27.40.html?start=5

This article talks about how 20-30 somethings are leaving the church at higher rates than normal. I can't help but wonder whether or not part of the reason is that a lack of discipleship and Christian education in the church for the sake of evangelism and ministry (and wanting to make people feel good about themselves) produces Christians similar to those described in the Parable of the Sower; where the seed fell among the rock, grew up, and then withered away (they had no foundation). Hardcore evangelical Christianity doesn’t seem willing in some cases to dial back its outreach and ministries to establish a wholistic and balanced church. The notion of doing so seems even blasphemous, but when Christian education and discipleship suffer, we don’t produce generational Christians. Thus, those who come to Christ in what has tended to become a more emotional based conversion rather than a theological based conversion, may find it difficult to maintain a faith that is based on emotion rather than fact, and a faith that is propogated only to the point of conversion and not to the point of sanctification. A faith that becomes a point in time rather than a journey. With no foundation, seed that falls upon the rock grows quickly and dies.

Has evangelical Christianity tended to throw the theological baby out with the unemotion belief in God for the sake of being seeker sensitive to a culture that makes decisions based more on emotion than fact.

Why do churches not see how the pendulum of error has swung from the primarily inwardly focused church to the primarily outwardly focused church? Where is the balance?

The Chief End of Man - To Love the Poor & Needy and Evangelize Them Forever

I heard a sermon this past Sunday where the pastor is going through Catechisms, Covenants, and Confessions. It was very refreshing as today's evangelical church has tended to become all about emotion and evangelism. Not that I believe the Westminster Confession to be all encompassing or infallible, but I do believe there is a lot of truth in its statement that the chief end of man is "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever." Yet today's evangelical church seems at least in practice to turn this statement into the chief end of man being "To love the poor and needy and evangelize them forever." I see more and more of a tendency for evangelical Christianity to become an end in itself; that notions of having a holistic church take a back seat to ministry and evangelism - enough so to where church resemble social organizations more than a church, but would deny that this is so. It just seems like the pendulum has swung in a lot of cases from a completely inwardly focused church during the 70's to a completely outwardly focused church in the 00's. Hence the need for truly balanced, holistic, and properly faith centered beliefs that guide the church as to what its central behavior should emulate and encapsulate. Basically, foundational truths upon which the church should base its operations.

I just wonder sometimes if evangelism and ministry have sometimes become a sort of false asceticism whereby those who purport it do so at the cost of having a balanced church and as another means to earn their salvation.

Blaise Pascal "Fleshed" Out (Literally) - The Evil of Confession

Let's revisit the first quote and subsequent translation from my last blog:

Pascal: "..we want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we are constantly trying to make impressions. We strive to embellish and improve our image, and so neglect the true self. So if we are at peace, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to let it be known so that we can attach these virtues to our imaginary existence. Indeed, we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to project them upon the other. Cheerfully, we would be cowards if that was the way we could acquire a reputation for bravery!"

Translation in the St. Gregory Vulgate: "Even when we try to aspire to do good, there is still inherent evil present - an evil that looks to attain righteousness through works, to justify ourselves apart from the grace of God, and to basely make us feel better about ourselves. Regardless of whether we want to admit this or not. And the minute you say or think - "Now, that time, I did it completely selflessly!" - you are in complete denial.

This holds true for confession as well. I know, I "fleshed" it out!

I had the recent necessity to confess my sin to someone whom I had been vilifying in my mind. And if I may say so myself, I did a damn good job of confessing! I showed the logical progression of how I had mentally worked my way into the sin following the logical conclusions until I arrived where I did. It was brilliant! I put so much lipstick on my sin that you could not even recognize that it was my sin when it was all said and done. I think ultimately I was able to inconspicuously pin the sin on my mind - it was my mind that had sinned, not me! Heck, it was such a work of art, I'm not even sure that the person I had confessed to felt like I needed to apologize. And I think I even talked myself out of proportional remorse for my sin (to a degree) and maybe even convinced the offended party to a lesser level of degree of needing to be asked for forgiveness. That's what it felt like whether this actually happened or not. Maybe I am being too hard on myself, but I think I understand even better what Blaise was getting at!

My cowardly attempt to acquire the appearance of holiness by showing my willingness to confess - and this in a way that would make me look good?

Blaise Pascal for Modern Day Saints

I've been reading "The Mind on Fire" lately which is an anthology of the writings of Blaise Pascal including the Pensees. Pretty "heady" stuff, but here are some of my vulgar translations of a few excerpts:

Pascal: "..we want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we are constantly trying to make impressions. We strive to embellish and improve our image, and so neglect the true self. So if we are at peace, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to let it be known so that we can attach these virtues to our imaginary existence. Indeed, we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to project them upon the other. Cheerfully, we would be cowards if that was the way we could acquire a reputation for bravery!"

Translation in the St. Gregory Vulgate: "Even when we try to aspire to do good, there is still inherent evil present - an evil that looks to attain righteousness through works, to justify ourselves apart from the grace of God, and to basely make us feel better about ourselves. Regardless of whether we want to admit this or not. And the minute you say or think - "Now, that time, I did it completely selflessly!" - you are in complete denial.

I find this particularly interesting in a postmodern Christian culture where Martha is held in higher regard than Mary. In other words, in a Christian culture where "doing" is held in higher esteem than "being".


Pascal: "The aversion for the truth occurs at differing levels, but it exists in all of us to some degree because it is inseparable from self-love. It is this false sensitivity which makes those who have to correct others choose such devious ways and qualifications in order to avoid giving offense. They have to minimize our faults, pretend to excuse them, and to mix this with praise and marks of affection and esteem. Even then, such a medicine still tastes bitter to self-love, which will take as little of it as possible, and always with disgust. Often it will also have a secret resentment against those who administer it."

Translation in the St. Gregory Vulgate: "I need to tell you something that I think is wrong about you. I will try and be sensitive in conveying this under the appearance that I care about you, but I really care about me - specifically, you liking me. And even though I know that you will notice that I am doing this, I will go ahead and do it anyway. And even though I list enough things you are doing well before I tell you of the one thing that you stink at, you will hate me for doing it anyway even though I had hoped you wouldn't, but I won't know that you hate me for doing this because you won't come out and say it because you want me to like you."

I find this interesting in light of the current Christian culture's desire to be "understanding" and "sensitive". I do believe we can be more concerned with hurting people's feelings than speaking truth into situations. But if there needs to be a side to be erred on here, I would think it would be the side of truth. I would have to ask - "At what point do men need to become men again?" There is nothing evil or sinful about vociferous and/or heated disagreement or criticism. Only the way we deal with such - and this goes for both parties involved.


Pascal: "That is why the more promotion we seek to have on fortune's ladder takes us further away from the truth, because people become increasingly more wary of offending those whose friendship is deemed most useful and see enmity as most dangerous...This is not surprising. For telling the truth is useful to the hearer but harmful to the those who tell it, because they will incur such odium."

Translation in the St. Gregory Vulgate: "We typically will not speak truth to (or hack off) those who can assist us in increasing our power, our income, our sphere of influence, or our overall reputation, but especially those who already have alot of each of these things. For doing so would be suicide to us (or so we think). So we more often than not abandon truth for false peace and prosperity and hope that truth will come to light in some other way - by God working through someone else."

Do we take the easy path or the hard path when it comes to conflict that is created by reality and truth? Do we sacrifice the greater good (truth) that is on a path of greater conflict for the lesser good (false harmony, personal prosperity, etc..) that is on a path of lesser conflict?


Pascal: "Vanity is so deeply rooted in a man's heart, that a soldier, a criminal, a cook, or a porter will boast and expect to have admirers. Those who write against such will themselves want to enjoy the prestige of having so written, so that they too are seeking from their audience and really saying "I want the same thing, but this time from my readers".

Translation in the St. Gregory Vulgate: "Everyone is fair game when it comes to criticism, but especially those who think they know it all or are sure they know it all. These type of people think that they are God's gift to man."

I think this as well, but if you want criticism of me then start your own blog." ;)

Evangelism & Ministry: Having the _________ of Christ

I have blogged before about the postmodern church culture and how it seems (in it's "seeker sensitiveness") more focused on emotion as opposed to truth. In other words, we are much more focused on not offending a non-believer in hopes that his/her salvation might be won, than we are with focusing on truth and letting the truth offend where necessary and leading to repentance where spoken. It’s focusing less on the offending holiness aspect of God and focusing more on the friend and buddy aspect of God. There is a huge mentality difference here – one that I think is critical to the proper conveyance of truth – a truth that is “holistic” as opposed to “slanted” or “skewed”.

That being said, I completely understand the lack of evangelical involvement by the majority of those attending church. It’s not happening to a large degree. The question is why? And the unspoken answer that seems to be coming from the pulpit is “because we are not preaching it often enough and emotionally enough, we are not emphasizing it enough, because if people heard us preaching it enough and emotionally enough and emphasizing it enough, they would be moved to action.” What’s the old saying about trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

I heard a speaker at an Urbana convention sponsored by IVCF some (20) odd years ago talk about the need around the world for Christ. This was a missionary who had travelled the world evangelizing. She uniquely depicted the need around the world - not by describing individual accounts of pain and suffering that would evoke and well up emotion within us (that may last or may be fleeting), but rather she systematically laid out factual, statistical figures that were irrefutable and stood on their own regardless of what you thought about them: 800,000,000 million Muslims in the world who didn’t know Christ, 12,000,000 Hindus in the world that didn’t know Christ, 6,000,000 atheists who didn’t know Christ (these numbers are not exact – I cannot remember the exact figures, but you get the idea). And then so many millions of people who called themselves evangelical Christians who do nothing, go to church on Sunday, don’t engage the outside world, and seemingly turn a blind eye in the comfort of their own churches. Keep in mind that this sermon was given in a point in history where the postmodern evangelical movement was just getting its legs in reaction to the majority of American churches that remained (to that point) inwardly focused and, to a large degree, did not engage the world outside.

So what do you think her ultimate conclusion was as to why most evangelical Christians did not engaged the outside, unbelieving world? I was struck both by what her answer WAS and what it WAS NOT as well as how the answer relates to how we try to get the laity involved in ministry today! Her final conclusion as to what will move us into engaging the world around us in need:

“Having the __________ of Christ!”

Now, I am not going to fill in the blank for you yet. I want to see what your natural proclivities are here. What is the first thing that comes to mind here that would properly fill in this blank? Be honest!!! I could even give you a 50/50 multiple choice and I’ll bet most of you would still not guess correctly (but I can’t do this because now the 50/50 option would give the answer away). But seriously, shouldn’t the obvious answer be having the heart of Christ? It’s so obvious isn’t it.

Well, that’s not the answer. Her final conclusion was that we must have the mind of Christ – not the heart of Christ. The Scripture she used by the way was I Corinthians 2:10b-16 - "But we have the mind of Christ." And doesn’t this really make sense? Not that having the heart of Christ is not important, but rather that it comes and goes as our emotions come and go. Emotions are the basis for nothing. But truth – truth resides in the mind and is irrefutable. All proper actions must be based on truth. It is only when we completely comprehend this truth that we will act. Doesn’t sound very spontaneous does it? But rather like cold, calculating love (if it can be called love at all - right?). But is love an emotion? I don’t see where in Scripture it says that we are to feel good about His commands for evangelizing the world and caring for the poor, merely that they are the true Word and we are to obey. I’m not saying that emotions do not play a part, but they are a by-product and not the impetus by which we act.

Now, how do we typically try and get people involved in ministry today. I don’t know about you, but I hear sermons that are designed to draw and evoke emotion. A sermon that talks about little Mtubu in Africa that has to walk 20 miles a day to get to a well just to get water and he has no shoes. The pastor’s voice probably gets very pleading and weepy at this point. The intent is to engage people on an emotional level so they will become involved and care. But that emotion doesn’t last and is fleeting because, well….emotions are exactly that: fleeting and they do not last!

So it almost seems to me that when people do not become engaged that we try and preach to them more and more and emphasize more and more the need to do this, but again, all based on emotions. I see this appeal to emotion throughout the church service – not just for trying to get folks involved in ministry, but for evangelizing the unbelievers attending – that’s what we call being seeker sensitive. What seems to have happened is that the entire worship service has tended to become more of a vehicle for stirring emotion rather than speaking truth. So we are more prone to gain converts based on emotion than we are truth and we leave them right where they started – trying to constantly reproduce this emotion rather than discipling and training folks in truth to spiritual maturity. Sunday becomes a emotional recharge of one's batteries rather than a worshipping of the Almighty God.

So we seem to focus more on trying to give people the heart of Christ as opposed to giving them the mind of Christ.

It just seems that we are going about this the wrong way. Yes, more people should be involved in evangelism, but preaching this over and over again in my mind is a short term approach based on emotion. It seems we need a long term approach of teaching and discipling – basing what we do on what Christ commands and thinking the way Christ thinks. We need the foundational work of teaching and discipling before we can move people further down the line to evangelizing. It is more important for people to understand "why" they are doing "what" they are doing rather than "how" this should make them feel. Same with their Christianity. How God makes us feel is much less important than what God is trying to do and how. Proper acting and proper Christian living (this includes ministry and evangelism) will only come from a proper understanding of one’s faith and not how that faith makes them feel, and it just seems that there is a lack of Christian education being pursued which will enlighten the laity to what God is thinking.

Are we focusing way too much on people having the heart of Christ rather than them having the mind of Christ, and in doing so, really nurturing emotionalism? Are we neglecting our minds and proper thinking and theology that will lead to sustainable action? What is biblical and holistic here?

Where There Is No Vision...

Proverbs 29:18 states "Where there is no vision, the people will perish."

In an increasingly individualistic society, the notion of a corporate body within the church has suffered greatly. As notions of individual rights have taken center stage in our culture as ideas based in the concept of "the greater good for the greater number of people" have waned, these mentalities seem to have bled over into the church. We seem more focused on the development of our own personal growth than we are the corporate growth of the body of Christ. We are more prone to think in terms of what we would like to be involved with than we are with what is the overall vision of our church.

We hear words like "intimacy" and "fellowship" tossed around like these are the end goals in our Christianity. I am not saying that it is not important to have intimate relationships and accountability, but these have become end goals in and of themselves rather than things that are natural by products of pursuing a common cause. The notion of "men's fellowship groups" has nauseated me lately and I have been trying to figure out why. I have come to the conclusion that it is because they seem "forced". It is like we have determined that men need to be in fellowship so we try to create these intimate groups. We try to manufacture intimacy by trying to put men together to "share". Right or wrong, good or evil, I have no desire right now to share with anyone whom I do not already have a relationship. I don't see the need for myself. I don't see the purpose for myself. But does that mean I do not think these relationships should exist - "no". But it does mean that I do not think they should be "contrived" either. What is the purpose? How does it further God's Kingdom? These groups seem to be an end goal in and of themselves and, as such, I do not see how they further God's kingdom.

Now, give me a "cause" or a "vision" with which I can come along side other men and fight for, and I can get excited about that, and fellowship will naturally follow from this higher purpose and higher goal rather than us trying to manufacture that fellowship. The focus is completely different here. The focus is the vision of advancing God's Kingdom where corporate fellowship is established as a by-product rather than trying to establish fellowship for its own sake. I don't want a place to share my emotions! I want a cause for which I can fight alongside other men.

Where there is no vision, the people will perish. This perishing is not a sudden death. It is not a dramatic death. No, rather it is a drifting in life without the rudder of vision. It is a "lukewarmness" without the fires of a cause. It is a seemingly eternal floating without the gravity of purpose.

Why are we going to church? Is it because we like it? Because we like certain aspects of it - the worship, the preaching, the fellowship? Because we feel cared for? Or is it because we have a common vision as that of the church itself and we want to come along side others who have this vision and we want to fight for a common cause - the "corporate" progressing of the Kingdom?

This is most probably not my best thought out argument, but hopefully there is some truth to be gleaned here and as always - is hopefully thought provoking.

No Time To Blog

It's amazing how buying and selling a home eats up all of your time! I have zero time to blog right now. And I see no end in sight. I hate not finishing what I start so eventually I will get back on topic.

Prophets - Defenders and Offenders of the Faith

I am still going to finish my contemplations on Christian Counseling (it takes longer to write). Life has been busy lately, and I was prompted to blog on some other musings.

I've been thinking a lot about the prophets lately based on the fact that most of my postings are critical observations. Similar to a prophet, I have never really posted anything "cheery". No warm fuzzy stories. No "see how God worked in this instance" stories. Most all of my posts have been critiques on the inner workings of today's evangelical church (at least, how I see it). A lot of this is based on where I have found myself over the past year or so - struggling with my own church, its vision, and where I (if at all) fit into that. This blog has primarily been a place where I can sort out my own thoughts and vent.

I never remember reading about a prophet who proclaimed to Israel, "40 days and you shall have blessing upon blessing. If you continue in your current behavior, then the Lord will continue to be pleased". No, the very function of the prophet was to point out to Israel where they were failing or lacking in their behavior and attitude towards God. By default (because they primarily only spoke into situations when they saw something wrong), they became known as preachers of "doom and gloom". God did not use them as "encouragers" for their personal edification, but rather he used them as "discouragers" for the edification of the corporate body of Israel. And I don't particularly see any sense of compassion toward their audiences. I don't see any instance where a prophet tailored his message based on how his audience might interpret the message - whether they would be offended or their feelings would get hurt. Indeed, Elijah actually mocked the Baal worshippers when their God would not light their sacrifices by shouting at them to yell louder because Baal might be sleeping and might not hear them. And I don't think killing off all of the Baal prophets would be considered "exercizing tolerance" or being "seeker sensitive". No, the overriding concern was not how each individual would emotionally respond to their message, but how Israel as a corporate people would actively respond to their message.

I initially wondered how lonely these guys lives must have been. Always criticizing, always "complaining" - I can see the Israelites thinking to themselves as one of these guys approached - "Oh no, here comes ole so and so again. What are we doing wrong this time? Why can't he have a more balanced message? How about some encouragement once in a while? Does he really think we feel loved when he comes screaming at us like this? Does he really think he is exhibiting God's love by always preaching to us about what we are doing wrong? Doesn't he know by always preaching to us about God's wrath that we are developing an unhealthy and unbalanced theology? How are we ever going to get to know a loving God if he keeps harping on our faults?" But then I think, I doubt the prophets even thought this way. And on top of that, I wonder if the Israelites thought this way as well. This notion of personal well fair as opposed to corporate well fair is a modern day notion. One that I think ultimately Christian counseling unwittingly feeds into.

Regardless, lets continue this line of thinking.

Is there really anyone who would have wanted to hang out with a prophet? I can't imagine they would have gotten invited to many parties. My guess is that most people crossed to the other side of the street when these guys showed up. But I guess we can't always assume that prophets never exhibited compassion or love to others just because we do not hear about this in Scripture. But if this is the case, then God certainly left us with a lopsided view of the prophets in Scripture. The prophets might similarly argue that they got a raw deal when there was no mention in Scripture of the amicable things they did. It sure appears from Scripture that God was a lot more concerned with what He had in mind for a group of people than a group of individuals.

Now, in NO WAY do I consider myself a prophet. And ESPECIALLY in NO WAY do I think that I am 100% correct on everything I expound upon. But all this to say that I do feel like it would be easy for others to view my blogging in the way I have described. And I think that when you are critical and seemingly "unloving" by constantly commenting on the current state of affairs because you see potential problems and that is all you comment on, it becomes easy for others to potentially view you as a "complainer", a "whiner", a "malcontent". And justifiably so! I am certainly all of those things right now!! But I guess my point is that I am not ONLY those things even though that may be the perception given. But more importantly, the major thing is not what others might think of me or of my constant complaining, but rather whether or not there is any truth to be found in anything that I may be found complaining about. I see God more concerned about His plan for His people and His people having a proper understanding of what that plan is than I do with Him being concerned for individual people and how they are particularly treated and whether those people "feel loved" - myself included. Are we more concerned about advancing God's plan for the world or advancing our own agendas? Are we more concerned about God's plan for the world or making sure that everyone (myself included) feels loved? Are we more concerned about how others make me feel or how I make others feel, or about God's plan for the world?

We live in such a hypersensitive society that constantly inclines us toward "reaction" rather than "proaction"; where we are more concerned with feelings rather than truth (I believe Christian counseling has contributed to this as well). We take things so personally (I am certainly prone to this and desire to be less so) like things are always an indictment on us! It's always about us! And these reactions/feelings tend to make us pigeon hole others (similar to how we can view prophets as only preachers of doom and gloom) and classify them as we see them in a certain instance of time (especially if they have offended us). But no one is a "snapshot". In turn, we often times become so focused on not offending someone that we sacrifice truth for the sake of relationship (in a unhealthy way) - as if the second commandment of "loving each other" (again, in a skewed and unhealthy way) was to be placed ahead of the first commandment of "loving God".

I ask again - are we more concerned about advancing God's plan for the world or advancing our own agendas? Are we more concerned about God's plan for the world or making sure that everyone (myself included) feels loved? Are we more concerned about how others make me feel or how I make others feel, or about God's plan for the world? I am not talking about offending for the sake of offending, but rather offending for the sake of truth and the searching of it.

These are questions for you to muse upon! These are questions for me to muse upon!

Broken Beyond Repair?

Is there ever a point in time when you just need to let something fall apart so you can start all over again? There are eleven holes in the dike and more keep popping up. After using all of your fingers to plug the holes, do you start using your toes or do you finally say, “It’s over! Enough is enough”? I ask these questions amidst all of the bank failures that we see in our economy where physical currency has been lost by the billions, and where physical currency is going to be taken from Peter to pay Paul in order to plug the economic dike.

But financial institutions are not what’s on my mind, but rather spiritual institutions. Is there ever a point in time where it would be appropriate to say, “This church simply needs to be put out of its misery?” Seems like a sacrilegious notion. How could one wish that there be one less institution for God in our world, in our city, in our neighborhood? But yet we’ve heard laments for years about how decadent America is and yet America has a church practically every other block. The insinuation here is that some (if not most of) these churches must not being doing an adequate enough job else there wouldn’t be discussion of a decadent America. So the notion of letting a church that is leaking like a sieve simply fall apart completely is not the most outlandish thought.

What do you do with a twenty year old church that has become completely removed from its original vision? A church that started out with good intent, but ran into some of the traps and snares that befall many churches: the church becomes popular and grows too fast; the pastor has an extra-marital affair and steps down; a church with no affiliation to any denomination from which to draw support; a church that cannot seem to find much less communicate a vision to its congregation; a church where doing things a certain way is so engrained in the culture that change is hard to come by; a church that has a large attendance, but only 10% of the attendees actually do the work because other attendees do not feel, see, or understand the need or are not called and commissioned to service; a church where interpersonal relationships are lacking and impersonal emails are the standard mode of communication; a church where there is no established system of Christian education; a church where the bulk of the time is spent on trying to resolve pastor and staff conflicts; a church where the theology is driven by love and care for the congregation in an unoffending style and not driven by truth itself whether that offends or not; a church where more concern and care is placed upon those whom the church doesn’t know or barely knows to the complete neglect of its own congregation (some who have attended for 20 some odd years); a church that does not give a second thought to those longstanding covenanters who choose to leave as they are so focused on those who might attend; a church that is so concerned with offending its congregation to the point of losing attendees that it refuses to establish and communicate a vision for and to its congregation; a church where you can come and go, never engage anyone and never be called to anything; a church whose pastor has tremendous passion and evangelistic skills, yet has been placed in the position of teaching and vision casting which is not the best use of his skills.

Is this a church that needs to fail and completely start all over again? Is it worth the energy to make repairs? Can God still work regardless of this church’s future - fail or succeed? Does it make sense to keep doing something over and over again when you always get the same result (that being a negative one)? Is there something unbiblical about a church failing?

Should “church” be this hard? What is the will of God here? Is there anything wrong with tearing it all down and starting from scratch?

Christian Counseling - Sacred Cows, Holy Grails & the Feminization of Christian Men (cont.'d)

HOLY GRAILS

You've seen the Milwaukee's Best commercial where there are several guys standing around and a small dog walks up. One of the guys walks over to the dog and starts talking to it and asks the dog (in “baby talk”) "Do you want me to rub your little belly?" At that point a giant-sized beer can falls from the sky and crushes the guy. The announcer then says - "Men should act like men!"

Maybe I am sinful in thinking such thoughts, but there is a part of me that wants to duplicate this same commercial for the hypothetical small group in my blog entry on February 27th. Instead of a giant-sized beer can falling from the sky, there would be a giant-sized grail (a holy one at that – I need some religious symbolism here) that would fall (in Monty Python fashion) and crush Myron (and while I’m at it, add a few more grails for men who ONLY pray in wispy voices. As an aside here, I’ve never understood why some people only equate soft voices with “reverence” during prayer, yet some of those same people feel the need to “scream” at God during a “contemporary” worship that should be partially, if not primarily, “reverent”).

Now, I know what you’re going to say. I am being judgmental. I am showing a lack of compassion for those who struggle. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to encourage and build up someone rather than to tear them down? And you could argue that I am doing what I typically rail against – and that is completely condemning someone/something that has both good and bad aspects to them/it throwing the baby out with the bath water. But you would most likely argue not only that, but also that what I am criticizing (Christian counseling) is predominantly a good thing in its current state.

Is my attitude sympathetic? No. Is my attitude compassionate? No (unless you are thinking primarily about the welfare of the other people in the group who would have to tolerate such behavior – sorry, that slipped out). What would Jesus do? Would he give Myron the General George Patton slap across the face or would he give him the Stewart Smalley “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone people like me” lecture?

Now, obviously, a Patton response and a Smalley response are the two extreme ends of the spectrum – neither or which would be completely appropriate. So truth (and the proper response) must lie somewhere in the middle. The question is which response, Patton or Smalley, is more likely to resemble the proper response? And, depending on what conclusion I come to, am I standing up for Christian manhood or am I standing up for what some call a false sense of manhood? Hold that thought! I’ll get back to this (although it may not be until the next blog entry).


1980’s – THE ADVENT OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELING

When I reference Christian counseling, my mind pretty much gravitates toward self-help books that are readily available on the market. But actual Christian counselors are included in my thinking as well as there has also been a rise in the number of Christian counselors over the past two decades.

I remember being in IVCF at Appalachian State University when I was first exposed to Christian Counseling. It was around this time that Larry Crabb became prominent as his book Encouragement seemed to take off in IVCF circles and many of his lecture series were produced. This book, as well as other of his works like The Marriage Builder and Inside Out, looked into the emotional and psychological aspect of Christian and human behavior. Crabb provided insight into how we think and why we feel and respond the way we do. He provided people hope at becoming more like who God created them to be. Crabb provided people a practical means by which to better themselves through self-awareness. Crabb provided a means by which people could deal with their hurt.

I personally benefited greatly from Crabb’s writings. As I’ve alluded, I grew up Wesleyan. Although I still struggle from the guilt produced from “hell fire and brimstone” preaching, IVCF provided to me the balancing weight of “grace”. Coupling the ideas of a “holy and transcendent God” learned from my Wesleyan roots with the “loving and immanent God” of IVCF, as well as the well founded education in Scripture from my Wesleyan roots, provided a sturdy foundation from which to grow spiritually. I was finally finding balance in my spiritual life. I fully believe that all three of these elements were necessary to provide a necessary foundation for my Christianity. A foundation from which Christian counseling could build upon.

Like all things that seem to catch on, Crabb (as well as other Christian counselors of the time) was “scratching an itch” (in a good way). He evaluated where Christians were at that time and tried to take them further down the road of personal sanctification. This is not an uncommon occurrence. There are always people who are re-evaluating the state of the church and trying to move it and people in directions that have seemingly been neglected. Like new attempts to mobilize the laity into evangelism and ministry, the advent of Christian counseling was an attempt to move people into a deeper understanding of themselves emotionally with the intent being the sanctification of those emotions. If we could understand ourselves and our emotions better, then we might be able (through the implied aid of the Holy Spirit) to change harmful behavioral patterns that hampered spiritual growth.


25 YEARS LATER

But something just doesn't seem right to me these days. Today it feels like Christian counseling is not being used as an aid to the Spirit, but rather as a replacement for the Spirit itself. And as such, the primary goal seems to more and more be gradually shifting from sanctification through the work of the Spirit to saving ourselves through a self-sanctification process of self-awareness that seeks less and less of the Spirit. If this is true, are we in essence unwittingly trying to become gods unto ourselves as we solely rely on what our self-awareness tells us? And this raises numerous other questions. Has Christian counseling (in its good intentions) sometimes created an atmosphere where the emphasis is on “me” rather than “God”? Have we in any way created a new subtle commandment that trumps loving God first and loving people second - a new commandment that says – “love me first”? Can it sometimes create a mindset that says I have to fix “me” before I can properly live as God wants me to live? Is it more biblical to act on what God commands before we are “emotionally” ready (allowing God to show us our shortcomings in the process as we fail and ask forgiveness) or wait until we have personally fully understood our emotions and sin and overcome them, and only then engage in what Christ commands? In other words, does Christ call us to obeying through sanctification or sanctification through obeying? And is this just another way we attempt to clean ourselves up before we come to God? Are God’s primary goals for us to understand our emotions and our hurt?

If any of this is true, then how did something intended for good (Christian counseling) that has helped myself and many others, become an instrument for unintended evil? I know the term evil sounds strong here, but if the focus is “me” and not “God”, then I am an idol as I have forged a golden “me” in my image. I think there may be two problems. Secondarily, I certainly think Christian counseling has some faults and areas it needs to question itself on as well as some inherent pitfalls, but I think the primary problem might lie elsewhere. There was nothing inherently good or bad with the gold that went into making the golden calf. And, similarly, it may not be Christian counseling that is the primary problem here, but rather what a similarly “ignorant” and “uninformed” people have “fashioned” with it.


To Be Continued… NEXT: WHERE THINGS MIGHT HAVE GONE WRONG

Christian Counseling - Sacred Cows, Holy Grails & the Feminization of Christian Men

(Now back to the explaining of my original blog entry from February 29th).


SACRED COWS

In Exodus 32, God led Moses up onto Mt. Sinai where He gave to him (and ultimately the children of Israel) the Ten Commandments along with other various laws and observances. While Moses was away for forty days and nights, Scripture states that the children of Israel feared that Moses would not return. As a result, the unbelieving and sinful nature of the Israelites surfaced as they ordered Aaron to create for them a golden calf so that they might worship it. I guess you could say this was the first evidence of a society establishing a “sacred cow”.

Today, the term “sacred cow” is defined as “an individual, organization, institution, etc., considered to be exempt from criticism or questioning”. The phrase is a reference to the tradition in Hinduism where cows were held to be “sacred” as a sign of abundance and emblematic of the sanctity of life. The term (in and of itself) is neither good nor bad, but can only be revealed to be good or bad based upon the legitimacy of the “sacred” status placed upon an institution or practice.

With every generation of Christians, there are always ideas or principles that are considered “off limits” with regard to the questioning of any aspect of their legitimacy. I (personally) have not seen a lot of contrarian articles written about Christian counseling and as such, “Christian counseling” could easily fall into the category of one of today’s sacred cows.

Now, a knee jerk reaction would most certainly question what I am doing here for fear that pointing out one negative aspect of Christian counseling might bring down a whole house of cards. But understand that I do not think this is a house of cards situation. Christian counseling certainly has its benefits. And there is much to be learned from self-awareness; self-awareness that can lead to sanctification. However, the seeming acceptance of Christian counseling at any time and in any and every situation seems to have given it a “sacred” status that I think is unhealthy and unwise, and maybe in some cases unbiblical. And there is certainly the notion of “the good” and “the bad” here. And when I predominantly see “care groups” replacing “Bible study” groups within the small group framework of the church, then I think this speaks volumes as to where we have come in relation to what our Christian culture values and emphasizes. And if this is indeed the case, then would it be legitimate to ask the sacrilegious question as to whether or not we have come to worship and “idolize” this “sacred cow” of Christian counseling in any way, shape, or form that would replace true worship of God?

I will expound more on this in my next few blogs entries. This has the potential to get lengthy.

What Is More Harmful - Something That is Half Right or Something That is Completely Wrong?

I promise I will certainly get back to “Will, Max, Ara, Larry, and Myron”. But something else spawned inside of me this weekend.


BONSAI!

You are going bungee jumping. This is you’re first time so you are pretty excited as well as pretty clueless as to what you need to do. You know that there is a shock cord (rope) involved as well as a harness, but the adrenaline you are already feeling makes you incapable of thinking much beyond that - like thinking about what you should do before you jump, how to put on the harness, etc.. Thankfully, there is a professional there to help you. He helps you into the harness and checks to insure that nothing in the equipment has become compromised since the last jump. But as he begins his "checks", he notices that the main screw-link has fatigued. The professional replaces the faulty screw-link with a new one, finishes doing one more check on the equipment, and then gives you the thumbs up that it’s OK to jump. He comments that this particular faulty screw-link was not very easy to spot as there was only a “hairline” fracture present and the metal had yet to disfigure in any way. He goes on to say that these types of metal fatigue can always be detected, but you must be thorough in your inspection. He assures you that the new screw-link is good as your courage begins to wane. Now comes the time for your foundational trust that the equipment will actually work and sustain your weight as you take your leap of faith.


JUST ANOTHER SERMON?

I was in church this Sunday listening to the sermon. Our outreach pastor was preaching this particular day. He used a verse I have mentioned recently in my blog as the basis for his subject matter:

“Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matthew 28:10

This is passage is known as the Great Commission. I highlighted three words above – “disciples”, “teaching”, and “commanded”. Now, keep in mind, my goal here is not to be critical of the particular pastor here, but rather what I feel is emblematic of today’s evangelical preaching. Indeed, the speaker rightly spoke of God wanting us to be involved in evangelism and the need to reach the entire world: our own community, our own neighborhoods, our own country, and the world at large. The major theme being that we need to be leading people to Christ – which is certainly accurate. The second half of the sermon focused on people acting on the fact that God wanted us to do this. He rightfully spoke about needing to do this regardless of our fears or our particular giftedness. He spoke of a “tug” that God would put on our hearts that was the Spirit prompting us to act and that we needed to listen to the Spirit.

All of this is certainly true. So is there a problem? I think there is. The problem (in my mind) is what I think is a “hairline” fracture in the truth we are presenting to our congregations and the non-believing world.


“TOPICAL” VS. “SCRIPTURAL”

I believe that we are currently in a state of preaching where a majority of sermons are topical in nature as opposed to Scriptural. We seldom go through Scripture verse by verse any more with the only intention being to understand what the text actually says and what the listeners of the text understood it to mean in their time. And the rare times when we do attempt to this, we do it with a haste that seems to say “we have to quickly get beyond the plain meaning of the text and apply hermeneutics so that the congregation can properly understand and apply this in today’s culture”. It’s almost as if we ourselves do not believe that the Bible is relevant to our culture (which is a scary thought) unless we make it so and we have to expound on Scripture in a way that our congregations will receive it and not reject it. We have to make it “palatable” to a non-believing world.

Now, I understand the desire to be “seeker-sensitive”. I have no problem with some of these efforts. Although I might question whether or not Sunday worship is to be “primarily” about being “seeker sensitive” or should primarily be concerned with being “congregation sensitive”, but this is another blog. But what I feel has happened is that this “seeker sensitive” mindset has bled over into our preaching.

One of the primary goals of being seeker sensitive (whether admitted or not) is “to not offend”. Offended people will not listen. Offended people will not attend church. And offended people will not accept truth. So you have to present the Gospel in ways that are non-combative. Instead of slapping someone up side the head with the truth of “you are a fallen creature, born in sin, and in your inner most sinful and fallen being you would rebel against God and destroy him if you could”, we now must insist that non-believers initially and primarily know that God loves them. We start in the middle of what should be the proper linear understanding of the Gospel (I’m fallen, I’m sinful, I need a Savior, and God died for me because He loves me, now I am justified and glory be to God). We preach to them first the part about God loving them. As such, their salvation/conversion becomes more of an emotionally based conversion. And since the church cannot preach the part about being fallen creatures to a seeker sensitive crowd (since that would be offensive), those who become Christians are left on their own to figure out the complete truth about their pre-Christian status and post-Christian status and how the two relate. Indeed, if they never come to this full understanding, then the church has essentially given them a half truth and not the whole truth. I am digressing and this is another blog.

My point is this: remember, in a seeker sensitive setting, the goal is to not offend. But if you are viewing your worship service as a seeker sensitive service (and, again, I would debate whether this is biblical or not), then you cannot distinguish between the seekers and the Christians. If your goal is to not offend seekers, then by default your goal becomes to not offend Christians because they are hearing the same message. Which means your goal is essentially to not offend anyone.


BACK TO THE SERMON

Remember the three words I highlighted: “disciples”, “teaching”, and “commanded”. And remember, I had no problem with anything that was spoken in the sermon. My problems lie in what wasn’t spoken. The entire sermon was centered on evangelizing and bringing people to faith. But as I have stated before, the verse does not say “Go therefore and make converts of all nations...” It says to go and make “disciples” of all nations. And there is more to discipleship that just bringing people to faith. We are not only to bring people to faith, but we are also to bring people to spiritual maturity. I have already expounded on how I feel there is an unhealthy imbalance of stressing evangelism and ministry over discipleship and teaching in today’s evangelical church. This is just another way I see this happening. This unbalance is evident in our preaching – not by what we correctly say, but by what we incorrectly don’t say, leave out altogether, or under emphasize. And if there was any doubt as to Christ’s intent in his directive, He follows up by stating that this “Going” and “discipling” should indeed include “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”. You cannot separate the witnessing and evangelizing from the teaching and discipleship. Both MUST be emphasized to present a full understanding of what Christ is commanding.

Which leads me to my last word – “command”. Remember I said that the second half of the sermon dealt with the inner “tug” of the Holy Spirit that is God convicting you that you need to act on His desire for you to evangelize the world. Again, this is all true. But there is a prior and more primary truth here that needs to be stated first. And that is that this is a “command” from God. Yes, “commanded” here deals with observing what God has taught the Disciples specifically, but the Great Commission itself is a command. We are not to “Go” primarily because we feel like going. This is obvious. But we are not to go primarily because we have a “tug” either. This is not so obvious – especially to non-believers or new converts. And I would question how many new believers could readily distinguish between a spiritual “tug” and an emotional “tug” that is based on feelings. No, we are primarily to go because God said to do this. It is a command. But remember, our postmodern culture does not like rules and, as such, also does not like to be told what to do. So they certainly will not like commands. So we appeal to them where they are and, as such, most all of our appeals to them are based on emotion and not what are perceived as the cold, hard facts of the truth.


USING THE BUNGEE ROPE TO TIE ALL THIS TOGETHER

Someone once said that “the road to hell was paved with good intentions”. I think most all would agree that the worse case scenario in the bungee jumping example above is where there is a “hairline” fracture in the screw-link because it is not as readily detectable as one that is visibly broken and frayed (somewhat broken or half broken is worse than completely broken in this scenario). The bungee professional’s attempt to insure that everything in the equipment is true to its design intent and completely intact is with good intentions, but regardless, leaping off of a cliff with a “hairline” fracture in a screw-link that appeared to be good could indeed be fatal regardless of the bungee professional’s intent.

The intent of most evangelical churches is most certainly good in their attempt to draw people into ministry and evangelism. But is (unintentionally?) preaching half of the truth here for the sake of appealing to the audience's "bent" creating a “hairline” fracture in the believe system of the new believer? - the belief system that is supposed to sustain the new believer as they take that leap of faith in believing in God.

And I would have to ask – in this scenario – what is more dangerous to the body of Christ as a whole – something being half right or something being completely wrong? What is more dangerous - the existence of non-Christian beliefs in the postmodern culture that can be readily identifiable by the Church as false, or the Church itself preaching what seems to be truth to the non-believing postmodern culture (stressing and emphasizing certain aspects of Scripture over and above other aspects simply in order to evangelize that same culture) but really isn't the entire truth? Are we really going to argue the latter based on the fact that at least we are gaining converts? Sure, you might win individuals for Christ, but the end does not justify the means. And is the winning of a few (or numerous for that matter) individuals worth the very foundation of the Church itself. Are we sacrificing the health and well-being of our congregations for the sake of evangelism? And more importantly, if we are less than thorough with our presentation of the Gospel now, what types of Christians are we producing who will be trying to convey this same truth to future generations of future believers. What type of truth will be passed along to the next generations of Christians? Are we sacrificing the well being of future generations of Christians for the sake of converts today? Are we the trading the converts of tomorrow for the sake of the converts of today?

I know these sound like dire and urgent questions that have seemingly arisen from one sermon – one that was well intended and whose motivations were honorable at that. The pastor certainly did not intentionally leave out portions of the truth and did not have our postmodern culture at the forefront of his mind as he was preaching. And he was most probably trying to be faithful to his calling. But remember, I am not attacking a person here. I am not attacking a pastor. I am not attacking motivations. I am not attacking intent. But I am attacking what I feel is a spiritually flawed and unbiblical mentality that I see that is subconsciously creeping into the Church from all angles of society. And this particular sermon is just another small (but significant) way I see this happening.

Holistic theology and holistic truth are the spiritual screw-links that hold the believer firmly in the harness of their faith, and allows them from this secure foundation to confidently leap into ministries which may seem fearful to them and may not seem pleasant, but yet can still be entered into by having a proper mental and theological understanding of what Christ desires.

The Chief End of Man - To Glorify Worship, Ministry, and Evangelism Forever

Yes, I am well aware that the title might make you question (at best) where in the heck I am going with this. Am I really going to criticize any effort to minister and evangelize when the trend still seems to be that 10% of the people do 100% of the work and the majority of our congregations are still disengaged? This time am I going to “completely” condemn today’s contemporary worship when it is only recently that it has been revamped enough in our churches to actually draw in non-believers even if it might be lacking in some areas? And (at worst) you might begin questioning whether I have completely lost the Spirit (depending on your position concerning the idea of “once saved, always saved”). But I see nothing wrong with putting anything under the microscope that can potentially create unhealthy and/or unbalanced scenarios within the church and, as a result, create a “skewing” of the Gospel truth.


WHERE TO START?

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy strength." Mark 12:30.

These are the words of Jesus as He is asked by the scribes what is the first commandment. It seemed fitting to me that since Jesus started here, it might be a good place for me to start as well, and to carry it a step further, it seemed like a good place for the Church to start also. But we will get back to this verse shortly.


THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF JOHN WESLEY

I have been trying to sort out in my own mind what a healthy church should look like, or rather, what elements are critical and necessary to exist to have a healthy and balanced church. I grew up Wesleyan and believe me I have no desire to hold up the church of my youth as a model church. But as I have stated before it is easy to reject completely the traditional church on the basis of its glaring weaknesses instead of rejecting the weaknesses and keeping the strengths.

John Wesley (in my opinion) seemed like a pretty balanced guy from what I see. He was theologian, a hymn writer, someone concerned with social justice (such as prison reform and abolitionism), someone concerned with missions, and someone concerned with accountability and instruction as is evidenced by the religious societies he established. I then try to take an objective look at the church of my youth and see if I see these same concerns being exhibited. Here’s the check list:

1. Theology – Check.
2. Worship (Hymns) – (Of course) check.
3. Concern for accountability and instruction – Double check. Heavy emphasis on Sunday school and the theological education of youth. Wednesday nightswere particularly geared for the more “meaty” subjects.
4. Concern for missions – Most definitely. Especially in terms of mission support and mission awareness and in creating missionaries as well.
5. Concerns for social justice – X. Pretty much non-existent.

As a side note - It’s item number 5 (in my opinion) that ushered in the rejection of the traditional church. I am no church historian here so cut me some slack, but I remember the 70’s as being a decade of increasing social activism. Actually it could go back to the late 60’s when there was great protest over the war in Vietnam as well as the push for Civil Rights. Issues such as these seem to have helped birth social activism (in general) and add a heightened and increased sense of awareness toward social issues as people felt they really could evoke change. At this point, it was pretty easy for the non-believing world to finger point and bring into the light some of the ways the church was neglecting its responsibility in engaging in social activism and interacting with the disenfranchised. And there was legitimacy to this accusation. But the problem is that this became the overriding issue for that culture and the basis for culture to reject Christianity. At this point, I wonder whether or not the pressure placed upon the Church (as that culture tried to dictate to the Church what its primary concern should be) led to the rise of non-denominational churches which began to focus more on social justice issues.

Regardless, looking at the things that seemed to be important to Wesley, I see a pretty thorough list of things (maybe not all encompassing) that should be present in order to have a healthy and balanced church (assuming we are engaging in all of these activities).


WHAT ABOUT TODAY’S EVANGELICAL CHURCH

Back to our verse.

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Mark 12:30.

Notice anything different about this verse this time around? If you look at the first time I posted this verse above, I purposely left out the part about loving God with all your mind. Did you catch that? If you did, then “kudos” to you. If you didn’t catch it, then my point is two-fold:

1. Does today’s evangelical church really know Scripture well enough to know when it is misquoted? Or, for those of us who do know Scripture, how much do we take Scripture for granted (having already read most of Scripture over our life times) with the mindset of “been there, done that” to the point that we do not readily catch an incomplete Scripture verse (or even worse an incomplete theological idea).

2. The first erroneous quotation of Mark 12:30 that omitted the part about “loving God with all of our minds” is what I feel that most of today’s evangelical churches (especially the non-denominational churches that have arisen from social, ministry, and evangelical concerns) are actually practicing which is the neglect and/or absence of helping people to love God with all of their minds.


COMPARING WESLEY TO CHRIST

Now, I go back to Christ’s directive and Wesley’s concerns to see if there is any symmetry there.
1. Theology – (Mind).
2. Hymns – (Heart, Mind).
3. Concern for accountability and instruction – (Heart, Mind).
4. Concern for missions – (Strength).
5. Concerns for social justice (Strength).

I think that ultimately all of these would fall under loving God with all thy soul. The last two items actually fall under what Christ subsequently stated was the second commandment:

“The second is this: Love thy neighbor as thyself”. Mark 12:31a

Essentially, what Christ has done in Mark 12:30,31a is to sum up the Ten Commandments. The first four commandments deal with our relationship to God and the next six commandments deal with our relationship to others. I do not think it is coincidental that the 10 commandments are structured in this way. And I think that Christ reiterates this by the way He prioritizes loving God first and then loving others. There is a logical progression – before you can love others, you must love God. How do you love God? With Heart, Soul, Mind, and Strength. So it stands to reason that for the Church to properly love God it also must be concerned with holistically loving God with Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.


NON-DENOMINATIONAL, EVANGELICAL CHURCHES BORN OUT OF SOCIAL CONCERN

If I had to prioritize the list of Wesley’s concerns for today’s non-denominational churches that have arisen out of a concern for social justice, it would look like this:

1. Concern for social justice.
2. Concern for missions.
3. Concern for worship (hymns).
4. Concern for accountability and instruction.
5. Concern for theology.

Again, not that Wesley’s concerns are all encompassing or are the final say-so in the matter, but rather we simply need something pretty standard and historical with which to measure the state of the current church. Notice the things that jump to the top of the list. The top two items would fall under the second commandment directives. Again, this is not surprising if our original assumptions are correct that our culture’s finger pointing at the lack of involvement of the Church concerning social issues has provided an impetus for the creation of these churches. Worship remains high on the list because it has tended to become more about the heart than the mind – a fact that I have pointed out before in my analysis of contemporary Christian worship. It’s no coincidence that the content of worship songs has changed significantly when you move away from worship songs being written by more “theological” types (like Wesley) to “artistic” types like today’s contemporary Christian artists. And worship also serves more of a dual purpose today – to love God and to love thy neighbor. We worship God, but the nature of the music itself is designed to draw in non-Christians to worship. Bottom line: in my mind, you cannot have a healthy church if all of the first commandment directives are not fulfilled before implementing second commandment directives.

And that leads us to my biggest concern: it seems that accountability and instruction, and also theology, is at the bottom of the list of priorities and these are first commandment directives. I would venture to say that theology, and accountability and instruction (“discipleship and teaching”), are indeed not the primary focus of a lot of these churches and in some cases are completely non-existent. The directive to love God with all of our minds is increasingly being ignored. I know of some churches where there is considered to be vibrant worship, there is ministry to the poor, there is heavy involvement in missions, but yet have no systematic and established Christian education. There is no established discipleship. There is no Sunday School. And Christian education is pretty much left to Small Groups where there can really be no monitoring of what is taught. I feel like these churches are risking a lot by leaving the education of the laity pretty much to themselves. Add the fact that most small groups these days are more focused on “sharing/emotion health” than “Scripture study” and you have the situation where Christian education and discipleship have seemingly entered a black hole. Take inventory of your own church – how many pastors are considered to be along the lines of outreach pastors or missions pastors and how many are considered to be Christian education pastors or theology pastors. Do you have any pastors concerned with Christian education?

If we do not love the Lord our God with all of our minds, then we are not fulfilling one aspect of God’s primary directive. And if we are not following one aspect of God’s primary directive, then how can we go on to fulfill the command to love our neighbor as ourselves? The church of the 70’s and ‘80’s was not holistic. Though it may have adequately fulfilled Christ’s primary directive of loving God, it failed to move on to the second directive of loving thy neighbor as it neglected social concerns. But a lot of our evangelical churches are no better off, and indeed may be worse off. Some have jumped ahead to the secondary directive of loving their neighbors while rejecting the aspect of loving God with all of their minds in the primary directive. The secondary directive is what drives these churches, and without a theological foundation of properly and holistically loving God (which includes the currently missing aspect of loving God with our minds), these churches will not be healthy at all. At this point, are we building our churches on sinking sand or are we anything more than fire insurance salesmen as we develop mile wide and inch deep Christians?

The Reformists say that the chief end of man is to “Glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Though all may not agree with this statement, it certainly seems to align more closely with Christ’s primary directive of loving God as described in Mark 12. And any attempt to reverse the order of Christ’s commands can be an attempt to glorify ministry and evangelism (loving our neighbor) over and above, and to the marginalization of, theological education and discipleship (loving God with our minds).

The Emerging "Para-Church"

I think most people are familiar with the phrase “parachurch organization”. "Parachurch" is the name given to organizations that work collaboratively inside (in theory) and outside (in reality) of the Church in order to engage the world in social welfare and evangelism. Most of these organizations have arisen in response to the seeming failure of the Church to adequately mobilize its laity into ministry and evangelism. Some of the most notable parachurch organizations include Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade, and Young Life. It’s not difficult to understand why these types of organizations would be vibrant and thriving as they offer a ready and purposeful outlet for people (particularly young adults who are frustrated with the church of their youth) to become actively involved in ministry.

Over the years, the evangelical church at large has become increasingly aware of the productivity of parachurch organizations as some of their members have gravitated away from ministries directly sponsored by (and within) the Church toward ministries sponsored by these parachurch organizations working outside of the Church. This phenomenon has forced the Church to react (which could be a good thing) by trying to draw church members back within its walls to minister in order to have a healthy, vibrant, and properly working and interactive church.

In order to do this, the Church has adopted a lot of the elements from parachurch organizations that have made these organizations effective: upbeat worship, being more "seeker-sensitive" and evangelism focused, "inclusiveness", and a having a more concerted effort in ministering to the poor and needy. A lot of the church's reaction has been intended for good, but by the very the nature of the "denominational" church, change can only come about so quickly; and this not nearly quickly enough for our "results now" oriented post-modern world. As a result, you have a breeding ground (especially in our colleges) where college students involved in such parachurch organizations are transitioning into the "college afterlife" (and back into the church) with a desire to be free, unencumbered, and urgent in their ministries. Thus, the continued rise of non-denominational churches with the intent to do just that.


THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER

My contention is that not only do we have “parachurch organizations”, but we also now have actual “parachurches”; churches that have become parachurch organizations unto themselves with no denominational oversight and no accountability to anyone but God (and those in power). These churches are own an island. And I can’t help but wonder as to whether or not this is at best “unhealthy” and at worst “unbiblical”. Regardless, I think everyone needs to understand and contemplate what we have here.

Are we throwing any part of the baby out with the bathwater in rejecting the church we knew, say, in the 70's and 80's? It just seems that in rightfully rejecting certain negative aspects of the church during that time frame (such as being too inwardly focused to the detriment of evangelism and ministry to the outside world), we have also rejected most every other facet of those churches - some of which are healthy and relate to the historical church (including being rooted and tied to the history of the church). It seems that anything that would remind us of the stodgy, old, isolationist church of the 70’s and 80’s (such as hymns, stain glass, suit and ties, etc..) we have rejected because they remind of this negative aspect of isolationism and not because they are, in and of themselves, "bad" or "unbiblical". Why are hymns deemed bad (or less desirable) than contemporary Christian worship? Because of content? Of course not. It is because they are slow and unanimated. Because we associate slow, unanimated, and methodical hymns with the slow, unanimated, and methodical church of our youth. The same goes with church “denominations”. We tend to label "denominations" as bad because of the memories and images conjured up in our heads of fundamentalism, TV preachers, and simply being “institutional”. "Institutionalism" is bad because it reeks of rules, red tape, and a seeming rudimentariness. It also reeks of "authority" which in today's postmodern society is rebelled against in most all forms.


HISTORY 101

Regarding this last aspect of "authority", I think it is ironic (and even could be called hypocritical) that one of the primary aspects discussed in what I am now calling parachurches is the importance of "personal" accountability (say, through small groups) and yet a lot of our “parachurches” operate without “corporate” accountability to any particular denomination; and this without the compasses of tradition (in the good sense) and of history to link us to the past and allow us to draw from the vast knowledge of experience of prior churches. But we have completely rejected every aspect of the church of our youth and in essence thrown out what I feel are critical aspects of the church. Do we really think that the way we do church now is more "biblical" than the way we used to? I understand that within our parachurches there is a more concerted effort to evangelize and minister to others (which is a good thing), but at what cost? The loss of denominational affiliation, while freeing up churches to operate more expediently, has also left the church rudderless in the sense of having a foundation from which to build and properly evaluate their own actions. The saying goes that if we do not study history then we will be doomed to repeat it. Experience that comes from prior generations of Christian churches is the "baby" here that is discarded with the "bathwater" of historical Christian evangelical inactivity.

There is a reason for the Passover: for God's people to remember where they are going and from whence they came. To remember God's kindness and provision in times of helplessness. What are focused upon here are not the actions of the people involved in this history, but rather the acts of a faithful God in this history. Similarly, though we may not agree with or condone all of the actions of a certain denomination's history, we can celebrate the faithfulness of God through that history and draw some solace from that history and use it as a compass for future actions related to a certain past. Non-denominational parachurches are on their own with no denominational history to draw upon for guidance or direction. They have no authority as a safeguard against futile thinking and poor decision-making. There is no sense of being part of a larger body of Christians, but rather there can be more of a sense of another type of isolationism created by the pride that comes from a subconscious sense that "we are the only ones ministering as Christ would have us minister". And there can become subtle shifts in thinking that are unhealthy. For instance, the focus on evangelicism and ministry has tended to create an unhealthy balance where personal holiness and discipleship are greatly overlooked. It becomes really easy at this point for the Great Commission to become "Go into all the world and make converts" (inclusiveness) as opposed to "Go into all the world and make disciples". Again, a subtle shift in thinking, but an important one. And there are other similar shifts as well.


MY OWN REBELLION AND COUNTER-REBELLION

I've been through this. I grew up in a denominational church that was rigid and inwardly focused. There was backbiting and attempts by several to control and gain power. It has shaped me greatly (a lot to my detriment still to this day). My college involvement with Intervarsity Christian Fellowship was a breath of fresh air to me as I experienced God's grace, was given an outlet to minister to others, and really experience what God's intent for ministry was really about. I, too, rejected hymns, suits and ties, stodgy worship, and all of the stereotypes of the church of my youth. After college, I was then fortunate enough to have been able to immediately join a church whose intent was specifically to minister to the poor and needy, and to bring people of all backgrounds together to worship: black and white, rich and poor. This church was non-denominational and still is.

Now I look back 20 years and look at where we are. Our original intentions were good, but being on an island and not having any guidance on how to accomplish what we desired, we have drifted rudderless with no vision. I feel we cannot see the future because we do not have a past to draw from. There is no authority over us and we conversely have no one to ask for guidance. We have focused on ministry to the detriment of discipleship. Our worship has evolved as parachurch (IVCF) worship has evolved. Our ministry has evolved as parachurch ministry has evolved (IVCF and Young Life).

Our church has become (and probably always has been) a "parachurch". I find myself longing for numerous elements of the 70's and 80's church of my youth. The new mentality in today's evangelical church is one of "doing", "productivity", and "progress". In this, we have confused and wrongly tended to equate "meditation" with "inactivity", "sanctification" with "non-productivity", and "being still and knowing I am God" with "stagnation". The rejection of stained glass, suits and ties, and stodgy hymns has led to the subconscious rejection of quiet dwelling in God's presence, the notion of a holy and transcedent God who is to be feared, and quiet meditation. Our churches praise Martha and spurn Mary.

I find myself longing for the historical aspect of the church of my youth not because I particularly see things in the past I like, but because I need an anchor. I want to know that I am not just a train stop in the history of Christianity. I want to know that I am part of the train itself. The thing that makes Christianity relevant is that it IS history. There is a link from us to Abraham. From Abraham back to Adam. Church history maintains that link. It's OK to for the church to critique itself and to try and make itself better, but we cannot completely reject our past.

The church of our youth is not entirely bad and the church of the here and now is not entirely good. We are and were part of both. And they both matter. The Church's current mentality has swung completely in the other direction to an unbalanced focus on ministry and evangelism. Scripture provided by Paul is used as the biblical foundation for this as Paul states that he would become all things to all people in order to win some. While embracing this verse, we have seemingly completely rejected other Scripture that speaks of being a light on a hill and in the world but not of the world. We desperately need to balance these two concepts to have a proper and holistic Christian view.

I don't know where I will end up here. I now feel stuck because I see no viable option. It's either continue to embrace a church that I feel is ultimately flawed and could lead to worse harm by making truth relative, or embrace a church that typically has been sluggish and slow to react to the needs of those outside of the church. But if push comes to shove, I don't see how I can risk the truth being compromised. It seems the true battleground and front lines in today's culture is one where these two worlds come together and the past informs the present and the present progresses the past instead of rejecting it. But how?