I was recently asked to participate in a group that is creating a curriculum in the area of “spiritual formation.” I have never really written or spoken much on this, but my nerve endings are a bit sensitive when the subject is introduced. In other words, I can hang with it for a bit, but when it is talked about in terms of “curriculum” or “discipleship” or forming the “whole spiritual person,” I start to back out.

What is “spiritual formation”? I am trying to be fair and representative of it, but I know there will be those who feel I have left something out. Nevertheless, here it goes:

“Spiritual formation describes a process or path to spiritual wholeness though a practice of specific disciplines including prayer, meditation, study, fasting, solitude, confession, and worship. The end goal is that the person would be more Christ-like.”

Nothing wrong with that. Right? After all, who would argue against the necessity of confession, prayer, and Bible study?! These are all staple food groups in the food pyramid…errr…circle (or whatever it is now) of the Christian life. And it is the beginning of a new year. Time to set new goals, agendas, remake ourselves, right the wrongs, and discipline ourselves in ways we failed to in the previous year. So, how can I have ill will toward such things? I don’t, but hang with me.

In the last ten years, “spiritual formation” has become quite popular. I took a course called “Spiritual Formation” in seminary. Many well-respected colleges and seminaries are even offering Master’s degrees in spiritual formation. It is nothing new and there is everything right about being disciplined. But the current practice seems to have evolved into some sort of perceived spiritual antibiotic to all sin, malnutrition, and disease.

At one time, I tried to get in with the spiritual formation thing. At least, I tried to understand it as a movement. I even offered an elective course at Stonebriar Community Church through the Center for Biblical Studies of Dallas Theological Seminary. Why? Well, everyone else was doing it! I am not going to mention any of the gurus in these circles (many of whom I have great respect for and from whom I have learned much), but I do have some things about which I don’t mind taking liberty to be somewhat offensive.

First, a confession: for me, listening to or reading books of this genre is like listening to an organ. I know, you love the organ. I don’t too much. It drains the life out of me. I only have enough breath to make it though half a sentence in each organ-led song and the sentences are not long. When I read spiritual formation books, it is the same. It takes me half a day to get through a paragraph and the paragraphs are not that long. When I finish the book, I usually think to myself, “That could have been said in a lot less space. Did I just lose a week off my life?” Dramatic? Yes. But I am speaking for myself here.

(Calm down and keep reading.)

It is not that I think this 21st century spiritual formation movement is necessarily wrong, I just don’t jump on that bus. My vehicle simply does not run on that fuel.

Having spoken of this in a somewhat subjective way, let’s get to my issue. I do think there are some things in the spiritual formation movement that can be counterproductive. No . . . I don’t think it is “new age.” No . . . I don’t think that it is part of the “one world religion.” No, I don’t think it is demonic! I have actually read many Christian critiques that argue for such. Don’t go there. Those who argue such need to stop, count to ten, spin around thirty times, and take a spiritually-disciplined nap.

There are some red flags to everything (including theological studies!). Let me list some here with regard to spiritual formation movement:

1. It can fail to account for individuality.

This is how, when, and where you need to pray. You need to fast at least once a month. Here is how you should read your Bible. Encouragers of this type often disturb me. Not because they are making me uncomfortable in spiritual laziness (well, maybe a little), but because they attempt to shape me into someone that I am not. The spiritual formation movement can have a “cookie-cutter” mentality where every individual loses their individuality. When you begin to tell me when and how to pray, confess, fast, read, meditate, and the like, you fail to realize that I am not you!

God created us individually. The community does not function properly until we are functioning within our individuality. You may get up early in the morning and pray with your kids, read your Bible, carry Scripture memory cards, and take your vitamins. This is wonderful. But when you begin to overlay your structure on my life, it does not usually work. We have to allow others to express their spirituality according to their various strengths and weaknesses. This is simply recognizing the way God made us. When we don’t allow people to work in harmony to their own spiritual DNA, we can actually stunt their growth.

2. It can set one up for unrealistic expectations.

I have seen many people who jump head first into the “spiritual disciplines.” They are excited because they have structure. There is an ABC to their spiritual growth. For the first time, they realize they have not grown because they have not followed the “right” pattern. Before they have even had a chance to test the longevity of their new method in their own lives, they are pressuring others to follow with them.

I always give it a few months. I was there myself at one point. Real life has a way of laughing at our paradigms. Sooner or later most people find that the spiritual life is not produced through the A + B = C path. When this happens – when their expectations are not met – they not only give up on the form, but they get discouraged thinking it is the fault of the principles. In other words, if fasting every third week and practicing the Lectio Divina every morning does not fulfill the hyped expectations, then it is both prayer and self-discipline that failed, not my legalistic structure. This is wrong. Prayer is indispensable. Properly understood and practiced, fasting strengthens the will and tests commitment. Bible meditation is our food. But a one-size-fits-all pattern for practice quickly becomes empty spiritual calories that can make us malnourished.

3. It can hinder the spontaneous nature of the Spirit’s movements.

I know of some people who need to practice the spiritual discipline of taking a break from their spiritual routine. In weight training, one of the worst things you can do is to get stuck in a routine for too long, because our muscles get used to the same things over and over again. Things need to be changed up from time to time. We call this “shocking” the muscles. Some of us need our spiritual muscles shocked. For some, spiritual routines are the enemy of growth. Our habits become enshrined and untouchable. To break this routine causes us to be down, discouraged, and feeling like our spiritual equilibrium is off. What we often don’t realize is that these routines are actually controlling our person more than the Spirit of God. “The wind blows where it wills, so it is with the Spirit of God.” The Holy Spirit is faithful, but does not always follow our calendars.

When we attempt to structure our spiritual life, we can make the mistake of trying to twist the arm of God in our development. We don’t know exactly when or how God’s Spirit is going to move in our lives. We need to make sure that our mentality in spiritual formation does not create an implied path that God must follow. I fear that the mentality of this spiritual formation movement implicitly leans in such a direction. It is not unlike the dark side of the charismatic movement where a theology of expectation can get in front of God. Unfortunately (and fortunately!), God does not check our calendars to see when he is going to make his moves in our lives. His grace is the controlling force and it knows how to get the job done better than our routine.

4. It can be a replacement for trust, belief, and faith.

I think we can often mistake busyness for belief. In other words, we often think that if we are doing enough stuff, then we must believe in what we are doing. This is not true. I have seen far too many people who go through the movements of spiritual disciplines precisely because they cannot find a foothold in their faith. They believe their actions can create belief or at least be a placeholder for it. Belief is the foundation for the action, not the other way around. While many in this movement place a strong emphasis on belief and the discipline of study, I find that as a whole, it serves in a very secondary capacity. This is unfortunate. One of the worst things we can do as Christians is give people an excuse for not examining the reality of their belief. Doing “things” is easy. Following steps and rules is a snap. Belief - true belief - is often hard.

However, I do need to mark what might be somewhat of an inconsistency in my thinking here. I do encourage people who are doubting to continue in their Christian routine, even though their beliefs are tipsy. However, I don’t think this is a permanent thing. Our beliefs should eventually reclaim their position as the guides of our lives, not our routines.

Talk to God, control your will, stay broken before God, and diligently search for truth. These are the principles. Even have a disciplined routine. Fast once a week, pray with arms in the air, repent to other people, get up early and meet our Lord, and meditate on the Psalms. When you do these things - however you do these things - Christ will be formed in you and others will see Christ in you. I promise. But, realize that there is not one path to Christ being formed in you and God will not be controlled by your structure. If you get this, then call it spiritual formation, Christian discipline, or whatever. In the end, it is the Christian life where he who is at work in you will perfect his work in you. Your spirit will be conformed.

My Facebook friend asked me yesterday “Why do some people hate the spiritual formation movement with such a passion?” I know those people. But they usually hate everything with the same passion. I don’t hate the Spiritual Formation Movement. I just think there are some red flags that we need to be aware of (and the organ draining that I experience is not really one of them!).Similar Posts:

• Exercise and Theology
• What Does it Mean to Be Spiritual?
• Why I No Longer Think Charismatics Are Demon-Possessed
• Sometimes Believing God is the Cosmic Telos of Our Suffering
• What Do You Think of This?

I graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) in 2001 with my ThM. I had a double major in New Testament and in Pastoral Ministries. The pastoral ministries department is concerned with practical hands-on training such as the teaching process, leadership development, and counseling. I even had to take a course in the use of media (which came down to how to create a proper PowerPoint presentation). They were all great courses which I often return to for sage advice.

However, the gem of the pastoral ministries department at DTS was the preaching courses. There were a lot of things to fear at seminary (not the least of which was Dan Wallace’s Advanced Greek Grammar course), but nothing more so than the day you had to give you sermon in front of the students and the professor. After your “masterpiece” was delivered, you had to sit through the critique of students (who were just as green as you) and a professor (who was paid to find out what you did wrong). The professor would share how you fell on your face with the whole class using you as an object lesson! Many of us would pray for the rapture just before the critique began.

Above all else, when you graduated from DTS, you were a man who preached (or a woman who “shared”) the word of God. No, not your own thoughts. Not your weekend story about how camping trips can go bad. Not four illustrations from the Bible about how to have a godly marriage. Not even your conversion story. But you were prepared to “preach the word.” We did not preach from the word. We did simply use the word in our preaching. We did not illustrate using the Bible. We preached the word.

Expositional Preaching vs. Topical Preaching

You have not heard about this debate? Come on . . . Let me introduce you to a debate that rivals the number of dispensations, the five points of Calvinism, and, yea, even the six days of creation.

Expositional preaching: preaching through the word of God, verse by verse.

Topical preaching: using God’s word as a springboard to preach on relevant topics.

(You can see the bias of my training coming through here).

Topical preaching focused on the felt needs of the church while expositional preaching let the word of God determine the needs. How is that for another jaundiced comparison? But, hey, I am a DTS product. What do you expect? How about some Martyn Lloyd Jones to get my back?

“One advantage in preaching through a book of the Bible… is that it compels us to face every single statement, come what may, and stand before it, and look at it, and allow it to speak to us. Indeed it is interesting to observe that not infrequently certain well-known Bible teachers never face certain Epistles at all in their expositions because there are difficulties which they are resolved to avoid.”

In truth, while I am not on any mission against topical preaching (for I do taste of its sweetness every once in a while), I am an advocate of expositional preaching. While very few have ever dared to implement true comprehensive expositional preaching (how of us preach through Leviticus or Numbers?), it does allow the Bible to determine the needs of the audience. Preaching the “whole council” of the word of God does compel us to come head to head with many issues that we would otherwise skip over due to confusion, seeming irrelevance, and controversy.

In other words, I agree, promote, and defend a ministry defined primarily by expositional preaching.

However, expositional preaching is not enough. As much as those of my ilk like to take pride in our stance of staying true to the word of God, we need to recognize that expositional preaching is only a small element of the educational program of the church. Alone, yes, it is better, in my opinion, for the Christian disciple to sit under expositional preaching rather than topical preaching. But lets get real: on a scale of 1-10, it moves us from a 3 to a 5.

I have seen Christians who have sat under expositional preaching all their lives and not been able to answer basic questions such as How did we get our Bible? Why do you have sixty-six books in the Scripture? What are the essentials of the faith? How do you know the Christ story is not myth? Why are there so many different Christian traditions? And (ironically) Why do you believe in expositional preaching? To which they respond “expo-what?”

It is not “expositional” that is at fault, it is “preaching.” Really, what I am saying is that preaching is not enough.

I love to preach. Arguably, I love to preach more than I love to teach. Yes, there is a difference. Yes, there needs to be. I do not wish the pulpit to turn into the lectern anymore than I wish the lectern to turn into the pulpit. Preaching has a prophetic aura about it that teaching does not. Preaching is more about conviction than it is about education. People go to a sermon to hear how they are to change their lives. People go to a classroom to be challenged to change their minds. In the sermon, people learn how to behave. In teaching, people learn how to think. Preaching is about establishing people in truth. Teaching is about challenging people in truth. Yes, there is always going to be some teaching in preaching as there is always going to be some preaching in teaching. But they are not the same and they should not be combined. The church needs to have both.

However, in my experience, I have found a famine of good teaching in many of the most revered expositional churches. Many expositional churches’ pews are filled with people who have been indoctrinated for years through good preaching with no avenue to challenge their beliefs in such a way to make them established. Their beliefs remain planted in good soil, but the soil is only an inch deep. When they go to the university and finally have their minds challenged through education, they are forced to choose between the education and critical thinking of the university and the years of sermons whose assumptions have been left unchallenged for over a decade. The teachings of the church are demoted to a sort of deuterocanonical (second-canon) status to the protocanonical (first-canon) status of the university. And you know what eventually wins?

The consequence for the church is alarming. In a recent study about American spirituality 22 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds claimed no religion (up from 11 percent in 1990). Most importantly, this study found that 73 percent of those that claimed no religion came from religious homes (often reared expositional preaching Evangelical churches). Sixty-six percent of these were described as “de-converts” (source). Drew Dyck identifies a major factor of leaving the church as intellectual challenges faced after they have entered these formative years (source).

But I don’t need these studies to tell me that churches suffer from a lack of intellectual engagement of their minds. I face this fact every day through encounters with those who are desperately seeking to hold on to their faith while scratching their head during expositional sermons. They are created by God to be critical, but often God’s people won’t allow such. There needs to be a place where tough questions can be asked, their faith can be challenged, and their minds can be engaged at a whole different level than the expositional sermon affords.

Those who are from traditions like mine who pride themselves in their preaching style are to be commended much for their commitment to the word of God (I don’t mean to undermine this at all), but they need to seriously consider if expositional preaching is really enough. Truth needs to be preached and taught. The two work together if they work at all.Similar Posts:

• Grace Killer #1: “Biblical” Ways of Doing Church?
• The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Pain
• The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind Sixteen Years Later
• "I Was Going to Preach this, but the Holy Spirit Led Me to This" . . . And other Stupid Statements
• Transparency

Why don’t I like Christian music? That is a good question. I have often asked this of myself. What happens is this. I am driving down the road, listening to talk radio. The Renewing Your Mind broadcast ends, and is replaced by an hour of Christian music. I immediately change the station. I look for other music. Maybe something in the 90′s. The 90‘s was a great decade for music. Here is my order of preference:

• U2
• Lifehouse
• Creed
• The Fray
• Cranberries
• Alanis Morresette
• Smashing Pumkins
• Switchfoot
• Matchbox 20
• Nickleback
• REM
• Pearl Jam

Oh, and (cover your ears boys and girls) . . .

• Just about anything Country

That is my list. In fact, you can check my iPhone and see the same on my favorites list. I know what you are thinking. None of these, other than Switchfoot, are Christian groups. In fact, some have been thought of as anti-Christian. Even U2, Lifehouse, The Fray, and Creed, although they have Christian members, are not Christian bands. I like that. In fact, if they were to change and exist under the title of “Christian rock” I would probably bow my head in sadness and cease to listen to them so much. I would think to myself “They have caved to the pressure of the Christian sub-culture network.

It would take much more than one blog to explain my reasonings for this (especially since I do not completely understand them myself), but let give you some thoughts.

Broadly speaking, I don’t like the Christian mentality that Christians must create Christian sub-cultures in order to be truly Christian. We have a sub-culture for everything. When people come into Church they have to learn a different language, change the way they dress, only read Christian books, start liking the organ, and limit their cinematic entertainment to Fireproof and Facing the Giants. Why? Because we must conform to the sub-culture that says everything outside the Christian sub-culture is evil at worst and dangerous at best.

I especially don’t like a sub-culture in a genera that is a human genera—music. What does this mean? I believe that the Church is to exist as the Church, representing Christ in culture. This does not simply mean that we are out giving the Gospel to every person we see (as important as evangelism is), but representing Christ by being human. We are part of the culture, we are not a sub-culture. If a person feels musically inclined, he or she can honor God with their music, but this does not necessarily mean that every song they sing contains the words ”Jesus, “God,” or “saved” anymore than saying that every pancake they cook has to have Jesus on it.

Why is it that when people become Christian in the music business they feel pressured to only sing songs exclusively about Jesus?

Let me just say it. I think that most Christian music is fake. I would much rather hear about people’s real lives, real struggles, and real passions than the shallow stuff that I hear coming out of the Christian music industry. Transparency is the key. I would rather hear someone honestly wrestling with the difficulties of life than listen to those who act like they have all the answers when I know this is not really the case. I would rather hear someone honestly cursing God than hypocritically praising His name. Music is about touching the deepest part of the human soul, grabbing a hold of the passions in a way that no other form of communication can. One Greek philosopher once said, “You can have the government and education, but give me the music and I control the people.” Music is about meeting people where they are. For example, Disarm by Smashing Pumpkins asks more questions than it answers. Cumbersome by Seven Mary Three, while depressing, speaks to real situations where life is overwhelming and sad. Lead On by George Straight tells a short simple story about two people trying to work out their fractured relationship. You Found Me by the Fray is a muffled cry out to God for seeming to be absent when everything was falling apart. This is an essential component in music. It enters your struggles, joys, angers, frustrations and says ”This is life.” It should never put on a veneer of a sub-culture, but speak to people where they are. Didn’t David do this in the Psalms? Aren’t the Psalms music? Yet the Psalms are real. Some cry out to God in real anger, some praise his creation. Even the Song of Songs is about real life. It is about sex and it does not need to mention God once to honor him.

I am not saying that music should seek to normalize or glorify sin, but neither should it seek to avoid the real holes that we find ourselves in. Neither am I saying that the music that I have listed above necessarily honors God, but at least it is real. U2 sings real songs. Bono, the Edge, Larry Mullin, and Adam Clayton are all Christians, but they are not a Christian band. Why? Because they want to make an impact in the real world, speaking about real issues with honesty, openness, and transparency. If they were to enter into the “Christian music” genera, they would have to wear the same mask as all the others. They know this and they wisely stay out of the Christian music sub-culture.

There is no reason for Christians to create sub-cultures. In fact, this is a concession. God created music. He does not require you to mention His name in every song any more than He requires it in every email or conversation that you have. Real life can honor God without mentioning His name or acting like things are okay. Sometimes they are not okay. I am not against mentioning God at all, but let your music reflect the real world. He should be honored in all things. The same thing can be said about all entertainment. I don’t like the Christian movie industry for the exact same reasons, but that is another blog.

(I  hope you also see that this is really about much more than the value of Christian music.)

Okay, let the roasting begin.Similar Posts:

• In Defense of Hymns (Performed in a Classic Way)
• How to Listen in Sunday School
• Why I Don’t Think Much Of the Spiritual Formation Movement
• The Premature Funeral of the “L” Word
• Random Thoughts of Emergence

No, it is not the testimonies themselves, but the burden of what a testimony must bear. There has to be a former way of life before Christ (BC) and what you have become after Christ (AD). The burden is that in order to have a “great” testimony, pressure is placed upon you to present yourself in a nice and polished way that says, “Look what God has done with me: Can you believe it? You can be like me too.”

To me, testimonies are more valid (not to mention more believable and inspiring) when the “finished product” (the AD) is never really finished at all, but still broken. I don’t like the shallow “now and then” of the Christian testimony format.

How about you?Similar Posts:

• Why I Don’t Like Christian Music
• Calvinists, Let's Calm Down
• Random Thoughts of Emergence
• Why I Don’t Think Much Of the Spiritual Formation Movement
• How to Listen in Sunday School

There is hardly a place you can go anymore and hear the classic hymns of the faith sung in a classic way. Nine out of ten times, churches have quietly changed their tune. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against contemporary worship music. In fact, I really like it. But more and more the great hymns of the faith are being ushered out. Now, even when they are played, their sound is contemporary. It is not really the same. The best way I can express it is that hymns are epic and epic songs need an epic sound. 

I like the word “epic.” It fits when it comes to the great hymns of the faith. Hymns are epic as God is epic. Hymns played in a traditional way, with the traditional sound, are even more epic.

I don’t wish to beat this thing to death. I am 37 years-old. I just caught the tail-end of the transition to contemporary music. Think of this as an opinion piece rather than an informed theological argument. I am not saying that God is more pleased when we play hymns. I am not saying that this is the “right” way to worship. I am just saying that there is a defense that can be made for hymns.

Hymns enter the church into a saga. While I think church can and does take these kind of things to far, there is something to be said for tradition. When I attended an Eastern Orthodox church not too long ago I remember thinking about all the things that they did wrong to the detriment of the Gospel. However, there is something that I believe they get right: they allow people to experience the church. No, not the building they are in or even their congregation, but the historic church. Because of their liturgy, which goes back thousands of years, they join hands with all the saints of the past.  Other traditions do this as well in their own respective ways. This is one aspect of the value that the great hymns of the faith sung and played in a classical way have. Of course most of them don’t go back to the earliest church. In fact, most only go back a few hundred years. But when we sing, “A Mighty Fortress is our God” (pipe organ, trumpet, choir and all), their is a sense in which we take the hand of Martin Luther and the reformers expressing our solidarity with them.

I know I have said in the past that I don’t like the organ. Really, I don’t like to sing with it. It drains me. However, I do love to hear it. It is not simply that it has a classic feel, but that it has an historic feel. Big difference here. The same thing with the choir. Not a quartet. A choir. People everywhere are going retro with everything. Retro cars. Retro shoes. Retro movies. Retro restaurants. Why? Because in our fast-paced, technology-doubling-every-four-years, society we are losing ourselves. We no longer feel our heritage as it has disappeared out the rear-view mirror a long time ago. Now we are groping for something to hold on to. Something that reminds informs us of who we are. Why do you think so many church goers are exiting the back door of pop-Evangelicalism in search of something with ties—real ties—to the past?

This type of stuff is simply hard to replicate.

The classic hymns also have wonderful theology. You know I was going here. Please don’t hear me saying that contemporary praise does not have good theology. So much of it does. But classic hymns are classic for a reason. They have stood the test of time and the test of a thousand theologians. Though “It is Well With My Soul” only goes back one-hundred and fifty years, its theological depth combined with the historic circumstance into which it was written make it epic.

For me, there is a time for songs with great theological depth and there is a time for songs that are outbursts of praise and petition. There is a time for everything (didn’t someone already say that?). But let us not forget the value, educational and doxological, of the more didactic hymns.

I am not saying that we should jettison everything contemporary with a self-righteous smug on our face. Don’t sing only hymns. In fact, if you were to only sing hymns, it would detract from what I am saying. We need to respect the overwhelming power of hymns. Too many of them would be exhausting. Just as I don’t want to hear multiple sermons every Sunday (I would end up forgetting them all), I don’t want to hear too many hymns. I would be happy with just one hymn that came across as an epic performance that gave us pause, caused us to joined hands with the historic church, and was rich enough for us to reflect on for days. “And Can it Be” would be fine this week. For the rest of the time, let’s sing the catching worship stuff.

Am I the only one who likes the classic hymns sung in a classic way?Similar Posts:

• Open Discussion: No Music Allowed
• Why I Don’t Like Christian Music
• In Defense of Seeker Churches
• Is Today’s Evangelicalism Retro-Fundementalism
• Michael Spencer on the Problems of Evangelicalism

Christians often scare me. Really, all religious people scare me. But Christians in particular because they are the ones I have to deal with everyday. I have a deep empathy for the so-called “new atheists” such as Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens who find religion repulsive and counterproductive to the betterment of society. While I completely disagree with them for a variety of reasons that will not be covered here, I can put myself in their shoes and find myself saying the same things. Namely: Christians can be so bizarre.

Seriously, we can produce the craziest nutcases the world has to offer. Sadly, it is often our beliefs that are the issue. From the “God told me to kill my children,”  “I cannot talk to you because you are going through a divorce,” “If you say the earth is going around the Sun we are going to put you in jail,” to “Our ministry needs a million dollars or I am going to kill myself,”  we have our embarrassments. The things said and done in the name of God are astonishing and disturbing. Yes, I know. Everyone has their nutcases, but we have the tendency to breed a special variety. I have already, in times past, talked trash on my own breed: Calvinism. But now I am going to get after the species in general: Christians.

In the interest of full-disclosure I must tell you something. I have Gail Riplinger’s book Which Bible is God’s Word sitting right in front of me. Its basic argument is that all Bible translations other than the King James Bible are from Satan. Oh yeah, I am serious. The sin is not that I have this book, but that it is representative of times past when I was, for about six weeks, a KJV Only advocate, believing that all other Bible versions were from Satan. To make matters worse I was actually an outspoken evangelist of this belief. I told my family, my friends, and everyone who would listen about Satan’s plot to get you to read another version of the Bible. I can only imagine what the conversation sounded like. I had “evidence” that I thought was solid, but as I look back on this “evidence”, my face turns red. I guess I keep Riplinger’s book in front of me to keep me humble and always aware of how bizarre I can be.

Christianity is dangerous. The Bible is dangerous. Please don’t get me wrong. I believe that both, rightly understood, are wonderful and true. However, the “rightly understood” is so hard to come by. The difficulty is not that one has to be a super-genius to understand the Bible or the Christian faith. Quite the opposite. The Bible is wonderfully simple and so is the Christian faith.

I believe that the difficulty lies in two areas:

1. Christians believe that the Bible is God’s word.
2. There is not a bolt of lightening that strikes you when you interpret it wrong (i.e. there is no immediate evidence of or consequence for wrong interpretation.)

The reality of these two make a potentially lethal combination. They don’t make good bed-fellows and hence the Roman Catholic cry for an imperial authority to regulate such things. Although Catholics have their share of bizarre teachings themselves, their problem is bigger in my opinion since their bizarre doctrines get dogmatized and everyone must believe them. At least in Protestantism we can both recognize and repudiate our weird uncles. Catholics are stuck having to defend them for all time. (Another story, another time.)

Now for the bizarrity of the moment. . .

This is from an email I received from a concerned follower of our ministry. It is a phone message from his Bible Study leader. Every time I listen to this, I am reminded of the movie “The Jerk” when Steve Martin is getting shot at but he naively thinks the guy is shooting at the cans beside him. “Its the cans. He hates the cans!” Well, in this case: “Its the buildings. God hates the buildings.” Listen and you will see what I mean:

(Please note that the audio has been altered to protect the identity of the caller.)

Buildings are the whore of Babylon? Really? Satan is luring people into buildings which is the great apostasy? Really?

I want to be careful here since I know what this guy is actually a part of. It is a belief that he has about the local church vs. the universal church. It is a belief that he has about what the church really is. I get it. But the way he is using the Scripture to sound an alarm is, well…, alarming. It is bizarre. Sadly, this is not the first time I have heard such stuff. Not only have I seen people make such arguments about church buildings but I have seen others make the same type of arguments about pulpits, pews, steeples, and even clerical robes.  But the real issue is not just their bizarre beliefs, but the level of importance they attach to them. If you are in a church building, you are a follower of Satan, not a follower of Christ.

Chill out. What ever happened to grace in theology? Even if you were right, do you think God really cares that much about buildings?

Why do these types of issues become central to people’s beliefs and passions?

Christians believe that the Bible is God’s word. Yet we don’t have a healthy fear of the Bible and truth. This is why we can get away with such things. Protestantism is based on the supposition that we need to have a personal encounter with Christ though a personal understanding of the Bible. I agree. But I also agree that this opens the door for such abuses and bizarre beliefs. Again, these people believe that the Bible is God’s word. They really believe it. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is not a bolt of lightening that strikes them down for misguiding God’s people. (BTW: If there was, I would have been dead a long time ago).

I don’t know how many times I have listened to a sermon or lesson from the Bible where the person next to me (usually a family member) says, “Pastor so-and-so is so smart. I would have never see all that from the Scripture that he just preached from.” More often than not, I usually think to myself, “Yeah, because it is not there!” We are masters at seeing things and teaching things that are not there and don’t really matter.

I think we should have some type of discipline for people who go theologically haywire. Gracious discipline! It should be part of the discipleship process. When the theological hormones begin to stir and bizarre stuff begins to spew out of our mouths, we need to be taken aside and theologically slapped. Someone needs to tell us to  ”Get a grip, chill out, and grow-up.” Why not? We do this with teens and they need it. I needed more of it. However, when we let things go, we allow people to find comfort in their theological immaturity and then propagate it’s symptoms as signs of maturity! “Satan is in the buildings!” “The New American Standard Bible is from the devil.”

Folks, let us reserve our passions for those things that really matter—those things about which the Bible is clear and those things that the history of the church has held central. These doctrinal sideshows do nothing but bring shame to the name of Christianity and provide illustrations for those like Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens to make their case that we are all nuts. This type of theological immaturity is counter-productive to the central Gospel message which has to do with the person and work of Jesus Christ. We need to be sensible, rational, reflective, and wise. In order to seriously advocate this type of “its-the-buildings” theology, we have to intentionally repress all four.

To all of you who, like me, have said that “Satan created the NIV” and the like, isn’t life bizarre enough without our adulterous affairs with sideshow freaks? Do like me and keep a copy of Gail Riplinger’s book in front of you to scare you into maturity.Similar Posts:

• Theology = Beyond the Bible?
• The Book of Job and the Problem of Pain
• What is Satan’s Goal?
• Why I Am/Not Charismatic: What Are Spiritual Gifts? Response – C Michael Patton
• “The Nephilim Have Been Found” or Yet Another Example of Really Bad Apologetics

My Fundamentalist right pinky toe started to speak.

Toe: “You know what is going to happen if he dresses up as a Ghost.”

Me: “No, what?”

Toe: “Satan.”

Me: “Say what?”

Toe: “Satan will have a foothold. You and your family will have compromised to evil.”

Me: “How so. I don’t get it?”

Toe: “Ghosts are demons. Or at least they are demonic. Therefore, your son is taking his first step toward practicing demonology. It is a form of Satan worship.”

Me: “Say what?”

Toe: “Exactly, you have already compromised and you don’t recognize it. Next thing you know, Katelynn and Kylee will be dressing up as witches.”

Me: “To what end?”

Toe: “What?”

Me: “To what end? So what? Who cares?”

Toe: “I want a new master. You can just go watch Harry Potter for all I care.”

Yes, then there is  that. Christians on Halloween. Scared to celebrate. Some with more than their pinky toe doing the talking. You know the ones. They are the only ones in the neighborhood who have their lights turned off. “Oh, here come the kids. They are going to come to our door. If we open it, we will have compromised and, in effect, told them that Satan is my friend, that Satan is my pal. Turn off the lights and HIDE! It is the only Christian thing to do.“

Ahem…please. Help us.

I can’t believe I am going to say this but, WWJD? Really, what would Jesus do? Can you see it? Jesus with his lights turned off on Halloween? That would be the Jesus history never knew. That would be the Jesus of western fundamentalism. The one who is not a friend of sinners and tax gatherers. The Jesus that was never accused of being a drunkard. The Jesus who looked from a distance at the wedding of Cana waiting for the sinners to wipe the dust off their feet before he talked to them. The Jesus who saw a child dressed up as a Ghost and said, “I can’t take this anymore. It is not worth it. Give me that stone so that I can turn it into bread.”

Mark Young, my friend and former missions prof at DTS (now the president of Denver Seminary), used to talk about this in his missions 101 class. Oh the shame of all of us students who turned off the light. We left the class crying looking for little witches and ghosts to hug. His thesis: Christians are not Christians on Halloween. Not because they have compromised and participated, but precisely because they don’t participate. The one day of the year where children (“Permit them to come to me…” Mark 10:14) were attempting to come to us and we shut the door and turn off the lights. We left the class in tears and began to plan what we were going to be for Halloween.

Toe (yes, I’m back): “But…but…but…It is not about the lights being on. Its not about giving out candy. Its about participating in the evil deeds of darkness. Don’t you know the roots of Halloween?”

Give me a break. Who have you been reading? Whoever it is, stop. First of all, how many kids do you know that are into witchcraft, Satan worship, or necromancy? What happened? Your eight-year-old was walking down the street in her witch costume and thought to herself: “I suddenly feel myself tempted to say a chant and worship Satan”?

Toe: No, it happens subtly. You know, like with Harry Potter.”

Yeah, that is right. In twenty-first century America, I can see how much satanism has grown because of Harry Potter and Halloween. Witchcraft is the primary thing that young kids are having to recover from. Its not sexual promiscuity, its not our greed or materialism, its not moms and dads who can’t demonstrate commitment and love, its not a compromise of the Gospel. Its witchcraft. Its our kids becoming ghosts on Halloween.

Sorry. Will is going to be a ghost. You can turn off your lights.

(Oh, and one more thing. Don’t just give out tracts…Shame, shame. Give out the best candy in the neighborhood. Let people know that you are the house that is not cheap.)Similar Posts:

• Jesus with His Lights Out on Halloween
• A Real Halloween Horror: Hell House and Evangelism
• What is Satan’s Goal?
• Introducing The Discipleship Program
• On Leaving My First Love

My voice is that which seeks liberation from an evil, but the knife has already been laid to the flesh.

What is this evil you ask?

It is the cancellation of the wonderful.

How can “wonderful” be canceled, Michael? Is it not created by God?

Ah, to the contrary. The contrary cometh not by way of your assumption of creation, but by the will of a vessel to His glory. By one action the glory of the Lord hath been shielded and its light, seemingly, denied.

What could this be, Michael? Why speaketh thou thusly of such pain and travail? Whither cometh your woe? Speak or I shall be drained of hope myself!

Ah, ye should be drained of hope. NBC hath canceled its show Kings without giving it proper chance for success. It wast the greatest show to arise out of the west of thousands upon thousands. It wast a tale that told of King David, father to our Lord. It taught a story in such a way that hath not been seen since Sir Gibson’s Passion. It should be hailed as a triumph among both the heathen and the brethren alike. But, alas, it has been canceled.

(The madman is crying, “The Kings is dead, and we have killed him.)

What shouldest we do Michael, I did not know? I never even heard of that about which you speaketh.

Nay, I have no answer. Mourning and beseeching to our Lord that NBC might take a second, yea, third look and have faith that our community will raise up and take notice.

Executive P&P Translation: NBC’s Kings has been canceled. This is very unfortunate as it represented a wonderful representation of the story of King David in a modernized form. I have watched every episode with great excitement. Rarely do we see such great quality on all fronts (story, acting, production, etc.) that has a good message. Kings represented what many of us would love to see coming from Hollywood. Kings was what so many people have prayed for. Of course it was not perfect, but it was one of the best (if not the best) new show in the last few years and its message was superb. What a terrible waste that this is ending after its first season. 

I don’t know how, but I say ”Save the Kings”! 

If you love Kings, spread the word. If you have not seen it, watch the back episodes and get caught up. Read 1 and 2 Samuel along with it!

Sign here as a petition of your support. Lead others to do the same.Similar Posts:

• Calvinists, Let's Calm Down
• Christians Can be So Bizarre or “He Hates the Buildings!”
• In Defense of Hymns (Performed in a Classic Way)
• Is Expositional Preaching Really Enough?
• Why I Don’t Think Much Of the Spiritual Formation Movement

When teaching the class one Sunday (I don’t remember the subject), a certain gentleman raised his hand. I thought it was going to be a question concerning the subject we were on, but it was not. He began to complain to me and to everyone there how much he did not like the way I taught and how, exactly, he thought I should change. I was speechless, embarrassed, humiliated, angry, and hurt.

Looking back all these years I have been able to see his problems more objectively. In fact, I think he was right on in his criticism. Everything he said was true about my teaching style and it did need to change. However, he was also very wrong and he should not have said what he said. While nothing that he said was wrong, he lacked a great deal of wisdom in his tact and approach.

The point of this post is this: Saying the right thing without tact is wrong. This is true of Sunday school or any other venue. We are not only called to say the right things, but to say the right things at the right times in the right ways.

Here are a few things to remember when you are the learner.

You are not the teacher

No matter where you are when you are not the teacher, do not act as if you are. So many times I see people who are looking to spring board off other people’s platform. I have been in classrooms where I know who’s hand not to call on. Some people just take over and want to show the class how much they know. You may have the best intentions when you do this and what you say may be right, but, unless the venue expects this, you are not called by God to teach at that time. I am sorry. That is just the way it is.

If the teacher is wrong, and I mean dead wrong, you are still not called to teach. You are called to respect the teacher and listen. Even if the teacher asks you your opinion, you must be very careful not to dishonor the platform that this person has been given.

You don’t have the respect of the people

You must remember that people have gathered to listen to someone else, not you. No matter how smart you are, people don’t care that much about what you have to say. In fact, attempting to be the teacher will be counter-productive. No matter how learned you are in the subject, your arrogance will turn all the others against you and you will only serve to annoy the audience.

You have to gain an audience with the teacher in other ways

You may feel obligated to correct the teacher, but you have to gain an audience first and you have to do it at the right time. The gentleman who corrected me during that class so long ago did not have my ear. In other words, I did not really know or respect this person and I had no past with him. Under these conditions, he was in no position to correct me. Not because he was not right, but because his words only served to make me self-defensive. It does not matter how persuasive you are, speaking to people without gaining their respect does no good. You must first gain the right to correct. This involves time with the person. It involves much more than corrective criticism, but a history of friendship and respect. If you don’t have this, don’t bother trying to correct during the middle of class or any other time.

Let the venue and culture be your guide

Most teaching venues (pulpit, Sunday school, lectures, presentations, etc.) assume respect to the person who has been placed in the teaching position. Therefore, you are never the teacher. But there are some venues that allow and expect a different type of interaction where you are encouraged to interact in a different way. These venues include some blogs, debates, and forums. This does not mean you have any right to disrespect the teacher or that your meanderings will be more attractive to the audience, but it does mean that your disagreements are already welcomed to some degree. The culture of the venue is your guide. For example, this blog is more open than some to discussion and disagreements. But this does not mean that you will necessarily gain the ear of the readers or the authors. In fact, once you begin to use this blog as a surrogate blog, other readers will be offended and discouraged from reading any more than the main post. You have to be tactful even in these type of venues, but they are more open than others.

For some of you, these points all come easy. You are too timid to expose your thoughts or feelings in public in any way. These points are much harder for those who feel a burden to teach or who are well educated. This is because they will usually have some points of intelligent disagreement. This disagreement intensifies their passion as they, with good intentions, simply want people know the truth as they know it. They also think to themselves that the have an obligation to correct false teaching. Therefore, they often cannot help themselves. But the point I am making in this post is that knowledge without tact is counter-productive – always.

In the end, we need to calm down. Don’t think that you have to correct everyone. Respect others even when they are wrong. Let them be wrong and, yes, let them teach this wrong. You really can’t do anything about it with emotionally motivated actions that lack tact and wisdom.

James 1:19
Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger. (ESV)Similar Posts:

• Calling in “Spiritually Sick” to Work Today
• Let Ninety-Five Percent Roll off Your Back
• I Don’t Really Know if I am Called to Ministry
• How to Choose a Seminary
• In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Six – Apostolic Succession?

I have written on this before, but I feel I must lodge my complaint once again.

I see less Christ-like character in many Calvinistic brethren than I do in just about any other tradition in Christianity.

Maybe it is the internet. Yeah, that must be it. The “Internet Calvinists.” The more I read online, the more my countenance is lowered in shame. I don’t find this type of stuff anywhere else. Who are these “Internet Calvinists”? They need to calm down.

Quick notice: Calvinists: Don’t send me any more emails talking about the “heresy” of Arminianism. I don’t get excited. Don’t forward me any more videos that dramatize the departure of Arminian theology. I won’t ride that bus. If you do, with sadness, I will just delete them. Not because of the message telling me “Ten Reasons Arminians Have a Different Gospel,” but because the message you give when you forward this kind of stuff.

Calm down. Back up. Take ten. Find an Arminian friend and see if they don’t love the same Lord.

“Are you saying, Michael, that the distinctions don’t matter? Are you saying that we should just focus on other things and act apathetic toward these issues?” Not at all. Stay passionate. I will. But there is a difference between the passionate disagreement among brothers and the same among enemies.

Two of my best friends growing up were Jason and Jerrett (they still are). They are twins. When we were kids, all of us guys used to love to watch these two fight (sadistic, I know). They would get into these fist fights that would last for 30 minutes at a time. We would watch cheering them on. Once, one of us did something really stupid. The fight had gotten a little out of control so one of us jumped in to try to break it up. You know what happened? They both turned on us! As mad as they might be at each other, they were not about to let the other get into danger from anyone other than themselves!

It was fun. But the point is that in the end their fights weren’t going to separate the two – ever! They were brothers and nothing could change their loyalty. They would never really hurt each other because their fights had a perspective and a respect that you could misunderstand only to your own peril.

Calvinists, Arminians are our brothers. When we fight, let us treat them as brothers, not like terrorists from another country.

Are Arminians wrong? This is what we believe, but the seriousness of their departure should not be overstated. We treat each other with great respect, knowing their love for Christ and the image of God they bear.

James 3:8-11
“But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water?”

The rhetoric that is out there is embarrassing. I am sick of having to explain over and over again what Calvinism is not before I get to what it is. “No, we are not arrogant.” (At least we are not supposed to be.) “No we don’t think we are better than others.” (How could we? Don’t we promote the doctrines of grace? Do we even know what grace means?) And, most importantly, “No, we don’t think Arminians are going to hell.” If you do, then you are way out of line.

With all our differences, don’t forget how much Calvinist and Arminians agree upon. If Christ is at the center of your theology, you will know what I am talking about. If Calvin is your hub, then, I must say, I have less in common with you than I do them.

I know, I know: there are plenty of Arminians out there who are on a crusade to boil us in oil. I am not worried about that right now. I am worried about us.

I have also noticed lately that some of the most (formally) gracious Arminians are beginning to change, showing a deep antagonism for those whom they have tried to respect. I see them lashing out uncharacteristically. I will not name any names, but I have three of these gentlemen in mind. I have to wonder, though, whether we are to blame for this. Can we be held accountable due to our arrogance and damning rhetoric? We will see.

Calvinists, let’s act according to what we believe. Let’s calm down.

(Where did this come from? Just got another one of those emails.)Similar Posts:

• What Do You Mean When You Say God is Sovereign?
• Is Arminianism Cooperative Justification?
• Why Calvinism is the Least Rational Option
• Some Misconceptions about Calvinism
• Ten Myths About Calvinism