I recently decided to follow my own oft given advice and venture out to other churches just to see what the cultural landscape looks like and to stretch myself a bit.

First, I went to an evangelical high Anglican church. I was wanting to see something a little more traditional. Plus, according to the latest news about red wine and health, I needed a shot of the real thing. It was a rewarding experience. It was also interesting to be at a church that was not to concerned about whether I was there or not. There were no greeters at the door, no one really noticed when I came in, and they did not say anything to me as I left. This is not a criticism, but just an observation. They did not let anything take them away from their reverential service in which things were done in a particular order. Because of this, it was not a primary purpose to fill the pews with guests. If a guest came in, great. They could stay and worship, but they were not going to do back flips and moonwalk for anyone but Christ.

Next, I went to a church that was just the opposite. It was a popular non-denominational Evangelical associated church. It was much more alluring in its style, having a much more amplified voice with regards to recognizing newcomers. From the moment we got in the parking lot, there were signs welcoming us along with parking lot attendants waving. These guys were so enthusiastic you would think that they had been trained at Disney World. The signs pointed to valet parking for first time guests. I would have taken them up on the offer, but pride always rules (oh . . . and then there is that awkward feeling that you are supposed to give them some money even when they say they don’t take it). We were greeted by another enthusiastic character, a very nice young man, who led us around. When we told him we were first time visitors, he said “Oh, VIPs?” We then were introduced everywhere we went under this title “VIPs” (Very Important Persons). When others would hear that we were VIPs, they would have a look of excitement mixed with anxiousness. The anxiousness seemed to come from an underlying understanding that their church was focused on bringing in newcomers. Then . . . they led us to the children’s area. Continue Reading »

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is in financial need. Please consider a small (or large!) tax-deductable donation. Thanks for visiting!

Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Warning, long post ahead:

Download as PDF

How does one define the emerging church? This is not an easy question to answer. Are you emerging? Maybe you are and you just don’t know it. It is very difficult to define exactly what it means to “emerge.” Sometimes its characteristics sound a lot like what “Evangelical” used to mean. Other times it sounds just like “Liberal.” Often it is hard to distinguish emerging from neo-orthodox or even Eastern Orthodox. Many would just say that emergers are Christian Democrats!

If you compare yourself to a personality to determine whether you are emerging, it is no better. To whom do you choose to compare yourself? Brian McLaren? Doug Pagitt? Dan Kimball? Mark Driscoll?

1. If you go with Brian McLaren, then you may view “emerging” as somewhat of a political revolution.

2. If you go with Doug Pagitt, then you may see emerging” as the hope of God’s redemption through a sort of quasi-universalism.

3. If you go with Dan Kimball, then you see “emerging” as a mission to win the lost with the essential message of the Gospel through kindness and understanding (sounds a bit like evangelicalism).

4. If you go with Mark Driscoll, then you may find it hard to distinguish “emerging” from missional minded reformed evangelicalism.

Maybe its not that simple, but my point is that most of these fellows don’t seem like bed-fellows. In other words, it is hard to find the least common denominator with regards to their emerging distinction. They all call themselves emergers, but I don’t think that Driscoll would be too fond of being identified with Pagitt or McLaren. Kimball and Driscoll maybe, Pagitt and McLaren maybe, but not all of them together. It is hard to find the connection. If all of these guys are emerging, then what does emerging mean? Would the real emerger please stand up? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“Converstionism.” This is one of the few marks of Evangelicalism spoken of by Evangelical historian Mark Noll. Evangelicals believe that people must experience a sincere personal conversion to Jesus Christ. This is a hallmark of Christianity—to be a convert.

Please understand that what follows in no way detracts from this. Conversionism is essential to Evangelicalism. What follows serves as a warning about the dangers that often exist as a person’s conversion from any position to another interacts with their witness and theological integrity.

I was in a spiritual conversation with a gentleman the other day. At times, the conversation became heated. I don’t mind heated conversation or debate so long as it is respectful, honest, and intentional. At one point in the conversation, the gentleman accused me of not being able to see outside of my “Evangelical lenses” that tainted my ability to accept the truth—his version of it of course.

Did you get that. Let me pause and for a bit of repetition. He believed I could not understand because (let me paraphrase):

“You cannot see outside of your Evangelical tainted lenses!!!”

Ouch! And what lenses are you wearing?

“None. I am a postmodern. We are the only ones that don’t wear lenses.”

Interesting. Can I have a pair of those?

It seems that this is becoming increasingly common. In fact, it has happened to me three times in the last few weeks (which is why I bring it up here). The assumption is that one is not a careful thinker because they already believe according to a certain tradition. And you know what that means: it is not you believing, but your tradition believing for you.

Isn’t this odd? One cannot see the truth so long as he already thinks he has the truth, but once he does not think he has the truth, he can finally see the truth? While I do believe that there is a hint of truth to this, it can and is often taken to a self-referentially absured extreme. As well, many of us in the postmodern world like to use it as conversation stoppers when we lack any other recourse. When in doubt and you have no answer, just say this: “You cannot see because your committment perspective blinds you.”

In each of these cases spoken of above, the accuser, interestingly, was a convert from Evangelicalism. None of them were atheists. In fact, all were still Christians (usually of the emerging variety). One thing was clear: they did not like Evangelicalism. They were bitter about its former promises by which they now believe themselves to have been misled.

The problem is that the supposed objectivity that they think they have attained has become their master. They fail to realize that their conversion, irregardless of its justification, may have actually tainted their view more. They have fooled themselves into thinking that to take off the sunglasses of their former perspective means that they are wearing no sunglasses at all.

In reality, we all wear sunglasses that taints our individual perspective. There is no real option that allows us to see things perfectly, the way they really are.

From what I have seen, converts are sometimes the most unable to see things with a balanced perspective. Because of their belief that their previous faith commitments betrayed them, they approach issues as “enlightened” warriors against those former allegiances. The problem is that they normally wear their bitterness on their sleeve and this further taints the glasses that they think they are not wearing.

The issue is not so much about right or wrong, but about being able to think with integrity. It may involve converting from atheism to Christianity, Christianity to atheism, Evangelical to emerging, Arminianism to Calvinism, or a belief in inerrancy to a denial of inerrancy. I have seen this militant conversion attitude much with regard to former dispensationalists who were “delivered” from the “lies” of the dispensationalism. It is interesting to see their attitude. They often have an absolute dismissive spirit toward any argument that is put forth for dispensationalism. “Oh, I took off those glasses. In fact, I smashed them on the ground. You should too.” But what glasses did you put on after you took these off? “The glasses of truth.” Oh, that is nice. Was there nothing good about the old ones? Can they not still contribute to your understanding in any way at all? At all? Are they completely invaluable? Completely? Is everyone wearing them as a duped idiot? Everyone? That is the way you make it sound since your enlightenment.

Calvinists who convert from Arminianism are also good examples. I am sad to say that we can be the most imbalanced of all. Suddenly, Arminians are absolute losers with regard to theological integrity. All things Arminian are not far from all things Satan. Many of these converts make it their life’s goal to correct the error of Arminianism. And they think they are the most qualified to do so because they used to be one!

I have also seen this attitude quite a bit from former Roman Catholics. These newly enlightened Protestants have a mission of hatred. If this mission converts others, great. But the mission of hatred must go on either way. Misrepresentation, ironically, abounds in these circumstances. They feel as if being a convert gives them a pass to say anything they want. “Don’t tell me what they believe, I used to be one!”

To the credit of Roman Catholics, from my experience, I have seen much balance and grace from converts to their tradition from Protestantism. From what I have seen, they don’t exchange their Protestant glasses for anti-Protestant glasses. They retain an appreciation for their former tradition. Most specifically, I think of the prolific conversions of Francis Beckwith, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreeft. (Note: this is from my experience. I realize that you may have experienced things differently.)

What I am trying to say is that when one converts from on tradition to another, this does not necessarily mean they can speak objectively about the issues. In fact, they often exchange one pair of glasses for its antonymous rival with a special feature of non-appreciation, hatred, and misrepresentation.

I think that we all need to recognize the glasses we wear. We also need to see that when we set down one pair, we always pick up another. There is no objective observer. The emerger of all people ought to know this! This does not discount our ability to discover truth, but it does help us to be more productive, balanced, and realistic in our discoveries.

With regard to converts—especially those from Evangelicalism to some form of emerging: I don’t challenge the legitimacy of any conversion here (that is not my purpose), but I do challenge you to understand that sometimes your conversion can work against your influence. Why? Because it is easy to lose perspective. When I see an emerger who has converted from Evangelicalism and has what seems to be a passionate hatred for Evangelicalism, I tune them out. I can’t help it. Imbalance is something that I have little toleration for. Was Evangelicalism that bad? Aren’t there any good qualities that you still appreciate? Are you working to redeem it or destroy it? Was it that easy to move from love to hate?

If the often said definition of an Evangelical is simply a “nice fundamentalist,” I am afraid the definition of an emerger is quickly becoming an “embittered Evangelical.” No, it is not that simple. And yes, it is sometimes that simple.

• We need to recognize the relative merits of the various positions.
• We also need to understand that sometimes conversion does not have to be absolute.
• Sometimes things are not an either/or, but a both/and.
• Either way, converts need to convert with thoughtfulness, making the most of their experience and the way it might be used to further the kingdom of God.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I just returned from a weekend in beautiful San Juan Capistrano, California. I spoke at The Case for the Real Jesus conference, which was centered on Lee Strobel’s recent book by the same title. Reclaiming the Mind Ministries colleague Dan Wallace was there, and we enjoyed some great late-evening dinnertime conversation together. Dan spoke on the reliability of the New Testament text. As he did at the recent Greer-Heard Forum at which we both presented, he pointed out the startling contrast in textual scholar Bart Ehrman’s approaches to popular-level audiences, on the one hand, and to scholarly audiences on the other. Ehrman is misleading when writing to popular audiences, but more sober-minded and conservative to the scholarly. To the former, he suggests that Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and Incarnation are affected by variant textual readings and that the fact that there are more textual variants than there are words in the New Testament should lead us to skepticism regarding its reliability. To the latter, however, he has (in his work with his esteemed late mentor at Princeton, Bruce Metzger) argued that the New Testament’s textual reliability is sound. In fact, in his paperback (i.e., post-hardcover) edition of Misquoting Jesus, he had to qualify his popular-level skepticism by inserting that essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament and that this position doesn’t stand at odds with Metzger’s. By the way, Lee Strobel had interviewed Metzger for The Case for Christ, where Metzger clearly stated that his Christian faith had been strengthened—not weakened—through the abundant and reliable New Testament manuscripts available to us. (If you want to read further, see Dan Wallace’s article on this Ehrman: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3452.)

Sean McDowell, who also helped organize the conference, did a great job addressing the topic of Christianity’s allegedly being a “copycat religion” of Mediterranean mystery cults. If anything, it was the Christian faith that had an influence on these other religions! (In addition to Lee’s Real Jesus book, see Ronald Nash’s Gospel and the Greeks for a thorough refutation.) According to New Testament historian N.T. Wright, efforts to find parallels between Christianity and these mystery religions “have failed, as virtually all Pauline scholars now recognize,” and to do so “is an attempt to turn the clock back in a way now forbidden by the most massive and learned studies on the subject (What Saint Paul Really Said, 172, 173).

Of course, Lee Strobel was also there. He told his own story of how he, as an atheist, investigated the claims and evidences surrounding Jesus life and ministry, and this investigation resulted in the real, historical Jesus’ transforming his life!

I guess it’s starting to look like my blog is a report on the conference! Actually, I do want to write about some of the things I spoke on this past weekend. I addressed the topic of religious pluralism—the idea that all (ethical) religions, though culturally-conditioned, are equally capable of bringing salvation or liberation, which is evidenced by the production of “saints” in the various religions—Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama. My talk began by citing Oprah Winfrey, who claimed on her show that it’s a big mistake to believe there is just one way to salvation: “There are millions of ways to be a human being and many paths to what you call ‘God’; . . . there couldn’t possibly be just one way” (February 15, 2007).

In my next blog, I’ll offer a few critical responses to religious pluralism. One of those criticisms is that religious pluralists surely don’t act as though their view is merely culturally-conditioned. They seem to assume that they’ve risen above their own cultural conditioning to give us the actual, objective scoop on religions. (Just as pluralists say, “If you grew up in Saudi Arabia, you’d probably be a Muslim,” we could reply, “And if you grew up in a society of religious pluralists, you’d probably be a religious pluralist.” It’s hard to know what conclusion to draw from the “geography argument.”) Religious pluralists sound quite similar—indeed, logically equivalent—to orthodox Christianity, which claims that God has broken through the confusions of cultural conditioning to reveal himself in Christ! Oprah is basically saying, “All roads lead to ‘God,’ and all those who think otherwise about this point are wrong.”

Well, back to a few points on religious diversity! Next time I’ll look at some concerns with religious pluralism itself.) When trying to come to grips with the uniqueness of Christ in the face of the world’s religious, we should first remember that all truth is God’s truth — whether within the Christian faith or outside it. Some Christians make the mistake that if God’s revelation in Christ is wholly true, then all other religions are 100% false. This is inaccurate. Romans 2:14-15 reminds us that Christians and non-Christians can agree about a lot of moral truths since we’ve all been made in God’s image. Consider Paul’s exemplary communication at Athens. In Acts 17, Paul cited pagan (Stoic) thinkers who spoke of God as the Creator and Sustainer, who is not contained by man-made temples. So Christians should pay attention to commonalities and bridges with other religionists by affirming God-originated truth when we come across it. Buddhists or Confucians believe in honoring parents or in religious freedom. Muslims maintain that an eternally existent God created the universe, with which Christians readily agree. Christians can work together with Muslims or Buddhists in opposing tyranny and oppression throughout the world. Because all persons are God’s image-bearers, Christians can affirm that the poor or illiterate need to be helped without making basic aid or education contingent on receiving the gospel.

We can add that that Christ truly fulfills the deepest longings of all religions—the need for grace, hope, forgiveness, and purification; the need to connect with the transcendent and immortality, and so forth. Rather than focusing on trying to “refute” religions (although there is a place for discussing truth and error in religious beliefs), Christians haven’t been very good about understanding other religious perspectives sufficiently to graciously show how Christ comes as the answer to the intellectual resources, weighty problems, and felt needs raised by these religions.

Second, non-Christians who think Christians are narrow-minded for believing in Jesus’ uniqueness need to remember that he spoke of it first. Non-Christians who are offended by claims that Jesus is the only Savior need to know that this claim originated with Jesus; Christians didn’t make this up. The earliest Christians were simply faithfully abiding by the implications of Jesus’ identity claims, his authoritative actions, and his resurrection from the dead (for example, Matthew 11:27; John 14:6; compare Acts 4:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 5:19). The critic must ultimately contend with Jesus’ own authoritative and staggering identity claims—not with Christians who take his them seriously.

Third, religious dialogue requires equal respect, not equality of belief. Here is a common interfaith scenario: Christians are invited to prayer breakfasts, dialogues, and panel discussions, but they’re told that they can’t pray in Jesus’ name or mention Jesus’ uniqueness because this might offend Jews or Muslims. But isn’t that restriction offensive to Christians? Why is it permissible to offend Christians but not Jews and Muslims? After all, Christians don’t know how to pray except in the name of Jesus. So a Christian invited to such events needs to be allowed to pray as a Christian, not as a Deist praying to some generic deity. In dialogue, he needs to graciously speak as a Christian rather than accept a lowest-common-denominator approach to the discussion.

Religious dialogue must begin with the equality of persons, not belief. Participants can discuss their individual views and experiences openly, and all sides can benefit from empathetically listening to clarify views and to prevent the creation of caricatures and stereotypes (James 1:19 reminds us to be “quick to listen, slow to speak”). Furthermore, each participant should be allowed to give publicly-accessible reasons for believing what he does.

Fourth, religion—including idolatrous conceptions of God within Christendom—may prevent people from knowing the living God. As with many religious leaders in Jesus’ day, religiosity may hinder people from salvation and from savingly encountering God. In India, I have witnessed Hindu festivals in which people cut and gouge their bodies. Rather than being “happy as they are,” many religionists live in bondage to evil spirits or are oppressed by karma, bound by superstition, and paralyzed by fear of death. The true Christian, who has experienced grace, forgiveness, and hope, shouldn’t be arrogant when passing on the good news. Rather, she should be like one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread—indeed, the Bread of life (John 6:35)! As one Muslim convert to Christ declared, “The more I see of the world’s religions, the more beautiful Jesus appears to me.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Recently, I was watching the “local” news and was overwhelmed by the burdens of bad news that I had to take on within just a few moments. There was a shooting and someone died. There was a brutal stabbing of a realtor while she was showing a house. The details were gruesome; she was stabbed over seventy times. There was a kidnapping of a young girl with no significant leads. My heart sunk as I looked into the faces of the parents as they plead with the kidnappers to return their little girl. There was a car crash where a young teen died as he was racing one of his schoolmates. Then there were the updates on unresolved crimes and tragedies of the past few weeks that were reviewed.  I turned to Fox News and it does not get any better. The burdens continue to mount. A shooting that took place in Florida just off the highway with no leads. There was the continuing coverage of a tragic shooting where several young girls were shot by a disturbed father who then shot himself. (I have two girls who are in school. What do I do?). As well, news of Iraq war is not good. Many are still dying. Many parents would be getting the news that their sons had died. 

All the news was bad news. Not only this, but it was bad news about people I did not know and would likely never meet. At my local church (where I do know the people), there was more bad news. Not too long ago a twelve year old girl hung herself—twelve years old. Her parents are heavily involved in our church. We also had four other funerals within a two week period. Then, in my Sunday school class, there were more needs. A prayer request about a mother who had an aneurysm, a father who had cancer, and a baby who was in danger of being born prematurely. My own family has troubles of its own that we add to the list. My mother is not recovering from her stroke. My wife’s uncle is near death. Many in my family are very depressed from the heaviness of my mother’s situation and lingering pain of my sister’s death. Not to mention my friends who need salvation, relocation decisions, and various other issue.

With this much evil, what is one to do?

Paul tells us to “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). The “law of Christ” in this context seems to be to love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39). How am I to bear all of these burdens? Are all these people my neighbors? There is that question again—”who is my neighbor?” To be a neighbor, do I bear all of these burdens? How? It is too overwhelming. Once I attempt to bear them all, they in turn become less significant and I become apathetic. I place my hands in my head and simply say “maranatha–come Lord Jesus.”

News can be overwhelming. Evil reports are discouraging, depressing, and disillusioning. I believe that in our world today we are blessed with valuable technological advancements in communication that would have seemed nothing short of supernatural until one hundred years ago. In the day of Christ, to think of those in Jerusalem being able to have on demand and immediate access to the happenings of people on the other side of the Roman Empire would have been unheard of. In order for one in Jerusalem to find out what was happening in Rome they would have to wait weeks or months to get the information. And even then, the information may not have ever reached your ears had you not been in the “need to know” audience. Certainly, people would have heard if Rome would have been sacked, if there was a severe famine in a certain part of the world, or if the Emperor had died or been replaced, but you would not have heard any non-significant information that did not pertain to you. You would not have heard about kidnapping of the daughter of the everyday Roman citizen, a stolen chariot, or a robbery-murder that took place on the Ephesian Way. This kind of information, if it did reach your ears, would have been irrelevant and, at most, part of a minor rumor mill that died out very quickly. At this time, a person would limit the “headline” news to that which happened in their own neighborhood. Worries and anxieties would be limited to the here and now. For the most part, worries and anxieties would have come from the possibility of future happenings to you, your family, or your immediate community. Your daily news would have come from your community within a certain vicinity. Within this limited community (your family, neighbors, synagogue/church, your work place), you would have had a balance of good and bad news. For the most part, this news would not have been too overwhelming or disillusioning. If there was someone who had a daughter who died of suicide, it was probably the first time you had been exposed to such an occurrence and it would seem very tragic. If you were a good neighbor who was desirous to bear the burdens of the other, you would have been with the parents that day with your arms around them. The biggest problem you would then have is to worry about the future. What is going to happen tomorrow? What if one of my children does the same thing? What if my child dies of this disease or that ailment? What if I lose my job as so-and-so did? What does the future hold?

It is in this context in the great “sermon on the mount” Christ brings perspective:

Matthew 6:31-34 ³¹ “Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ ³² “For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. ³³ “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. ³⁴ “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. 

“Each day has enough troubles”? This does not sound too encouraging. I would rather have heard Christ say, “Don’t worry about tomorrow. God is going to take care of you.” Or “Don’t worry about tomorrow; for today has enough joys to keep you occupied.” I don’t really like “Today has enough troubles of its own.” Even worse is the King James translation. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The Greek does not get any better. The word used to translate “trouble” is kakia. The Gingrich Greek lexicon defines this word as “badness, faultiness in the sense of depravity, wickedness, and vice.” Most particularly in this context it carries the idea of “trouble or misfortune.” Ouch. I don’t like the word misfortune or depravity. I especially don’t like it connected with the word “today.” In essence, Christ is saying that each day had enough burdens to bear. Within the culture of the day, with the limited news that they had, their troubles were sufficient. According to Christ, a person cannot and, indeed, is not expected to take on any more than they can bear. This includes future evils. “Do not worry about tomorrow.” The theological principle is this: people should not and cannot take upon their shoulders the evils of the future. More broadly, this would teach that people can only take so much burden. If this is the case, while the burdens of the future are major temptation and cause people great worry and stress, so also is the case with the burdens of those outside our community.

We, as individuals, have a responsibility to take on the burdens of those around us. When we begin to take on the burdens, the evil report, of those whom we have never met and will never meet, we become so discouraged that we cannot even take on the burdens of those close to us any longer. We throw our arms in the air and cry “What is the use? What can I really do?” 

Now lets apply this to our current situation of our day. This is the postmodern plight that we find ourselves in today. I believe that it is the primary cause for today being called by many “the age of despair.” We have access to so much information it creates an overload of knowledge concerning the state of affairs that goes beyond our own community and responsibility. We feel as if it is part of our stewardship to pray for, cry for, and give an answer for the evil report of the entire world. We feel as if we are doing something good if we have a good day and are able to do this. But this is not often the case and it will eventually make us useless in bearing any burdens and dealing with the problem of evil at all.

At this point, we can easily become disillusioned by the problem of evil in an unnatural and imbalanced way.

Principles

• I am not saying that everyone should quit watching the news, but be careful. If it causes you to worry, become disillusioned, and go into despair, maybe you should consider slowing down or stopping. Just be careful what and how much you take in, it can alter your worldview.
• Your primary stewardship is with your immediate community which is made up of those who you actually know and have a relationship with. Always seek to bear their burdens.
• This does not mean that we don’t care or do what we can for those on the other side of the world. Paul went from church to church seeking help and relief for others. I think we have a responsibility for those who live in impoverished nations and catastrophe stricken states. We need to do what we can to help relieve their suffering and pain. But, at the same time, we need to keep focus on the stewardship that God has given us in our immediate context. There is only so much you can do.
• Keep in mind that today does not have more bad news or evil report than any other day in the history of the world, we just now have more access to this bad news. Don’t lose perspective.
• For every evil report, there are countless reports of heroism, joy, success, comfort, and redemption that are taking place all over the world. The “breaking news stories” that the local and national news deems worthy of reporting are not balanced (and I don’t know how we can expect them to be–so don’t use this blog to go picket CNN!). They won’t tell of the countless children who did not get kidnapped and the billions of people who survived the car crashes. They most certainly are not going to tell of the redemption of countless people who have accepted the truth of the Gospel or who found the way out of depression through the loving gracious arms of others. There is neither a news station who has access to the heavenly realm where the report will be made that God is still on the throne and has a plan for everything that happens. They are not going to tell us of the angels rejoicing when a sinner repents. Don’t let the news dictate your understanding of the big picture–no one has access to it outside of Scripture.
• How long is your prayer list? Many times we feel that we have to pray for every problem that we hear about. When this happens, the result will be a mix of insincerity and apathy like I described concerning my friend above. Because of this, we will stop praying so much for others and as a result be weighed down with undo guilt. I am not saying to stop praying for others as God leads, but to keep your prayer list responsible and realistic. 

Let us read the words of Christ once more:

Matthew 6:31-34 ³¹ “Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ ³² “For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. ³³ “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. ³⁴ “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

I could be wrong, but I believe that the reason why the “problem of evil” is more significant today than it has been in the past is because you and I have information overload concerning the evils of the world.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

What a presumptuous question, right? The presumption is in the fact that I would even pose such a question. The question itself presumes that I might answer in the negative. What is wrong with you Michael? Why take off your irenic t-shirt with the quote from Rodney King on the back? Why do you now shod the polemic boots of battle? What would possess you to ask such a question?

Calm down. It is just a question. But your are right. The presumption behind the question does evidence my uncertainty as to its answer. I was listening to Osteen last night. He was very pleasant and had a lot of nice things to say. For the most part, except for his interjections of the word ”God” here and there, his speech was a typical motivational speech. He did not use the Bible, but he attempted to give the impression that he was. He held it in his hand the entire time. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

First Things is brought to you live, Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10am EST on Connection Gate

Join us for a discussion about properly defining Postmodernism and some fallacies we make with regards to labeling people Postmodern. We are joined once again toward the end of this blogcast by the IMONK, Michael Spencer. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Our culture is changing rapidly, and many Christians aren’t keeping up. The old formulas that have worked for decades won’t work with the emerging generation. If there’s one lesson that the modern, successful evangelical church needs to learn it is this. We need a fresh perspective on what our world is like today from someone who has escaped the Christian subculture and ventured into the heart and hearts of non-Christians.

Enter Dan Kimball. His book, They Like Jesus, but not the Church, gives the perspective that is badly needed. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The tension is heating up; the rancor is getting louder. Evangelicals are fighting each other again—this time over postmodernism. There are some churches that have embraced elements of postmodernism, while others are holding the modernist line against this evil intrusion. I want to quickly take stock of some of the basic issues.

Years ago, I attended a regional Evangelical Theological Society conference where postmodernism was the topic of a panel discussion. Those discussing it were philosophers and theologians. For the most part, they were extremely nervous about it, arguing that we needed to first ‘convert’ someone to Aristotelian logic before we could convert them to Christ. I was shocked. There seemed to be a sense of desperation on the part of these scholars that their jobs were in jeopardy because all they knew was how to argue! Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Will large evangelistic “crusade” type events finally come to a conclusion as our hunger for depth and drama increase? Does the postmodern demands for authenticity make large group revivals passé? Has money seeking charlatans made the Christian message not worth the time in this setting? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Well . . . I am biting my tongue on this one. Let me get your thoughts. (I don’t even know what category to put this in . . . how about “Someone Leave This Behind or Else Leave Me Behind”? . . . OK, bitting tongue again . . . sorry.)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Or something like that . . . you all have to check this out. Chuck Swindoll was dropped from a radio station for his language. You will have to read it for yourself as the language is too vulgar to repeat (it is the kind of language the world uses that CANNOT fit into our Christian sub-culture. Why? Just because, that’s why! The culture uses it. OK, I will post them here. I hope that my language filter does not delete them. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Considering the controversy of the Christian Music and Christian Sub-culture posts, I thought that I would just let this issue go . . . Nah! You got to take a look at my friend Bob Practico’s top ten list on his blog: 10 Warning Signs That a Christian Is Isolating from the Culture. It is great! Some of you will love it. Thanks Bob. Now you are going to be in trouble!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

What is faith? This is a very basic question that oftentimes is taken for granted because of the word’s wide usage in many different context. Because of this and because of its importance in the Christian worldview I thought that I would do what I could to briefly explain some important elements of faith. More importantly, I hope to demonstrate as briefly as I can how faith has been redefined in the Church to the point that it is in danger of relegating Christianity to irrelevancy, having equal pluralistic status with all the other major belief systems in the world. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As I watched American Idol last night (ummm . . . the wife made me), I was encouraged by the example that the organization provided concerning the needs of humanity. This week they raised over�sixty-million dollars for relief for those less fortunate around the world who are in desperate need of food, clothes, and medical attention. The important thing to note is that American Idol is not a Christian organization. Yet the most popular show on TV focused on those in need all week. They evidenced the Christian virtue of love in a way that few Christian organizations ever have or could. Taking advantage of their twenty-million plus�viewer base, the message of the need to help the poor was displayed dramatically as they extended their usual thirty-minute show to two hours. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Many of you remember the television series Married with Children. I sure do. It was one of those shows like Austin Powers that you just hated to love. I admit, I watched it from time to time and could not help but laugh even though it was filled with much adult humor that was probably not too edifying for my Christian walk. But it was kinda funny. (Okay, confession over.) As you may or may not know, each show was rank and filled with sexual humor. The misery of family life was exemplified and exaggerated through adulterous suggestions from the married couple, child neglect, and dishonor in general. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Well . . . not America exactly . . . since a country is simply a non-cognitive designation of a particular people group where the sum of the parts make up the whole.

However, the people have spoken once again in an interesting Newsweek poll referred to here. I never quite know how to internalize these findings, but here is a basic run down with my extremely insightful and godly comments in brackets: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Once again, we continue with our evaluation of the four primary views that people have taken in engaging our postmodern culture. And, once again, here are the options of the original post:

Option 1: Deny the horse is really postmodern. No one can be a consistent postmodern. We simply need to convince them of the untenability of their professing worldview and show them how they don’t hold to it in reality. Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

How are Christians to engage with our postmodern generation? I have been exploring this question for a while now and am currently using the analogy of leading a horse to water. The horse is the postmodern and the water is the Gospel. The question is how do we lead this horse to water. Here are the options of the original post: Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It is no secret that the ranks of the Christian church–the organized Christian church–are thinning. People are less and less likely to be involved in local churches for many reasons. The postmodern ethos is partly to blame (or “credit” might be a better word). Why are people leaving? Continue Reading »

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!