It seems if there’s one thing that keeps many Evangelicals up at night, it has to be defining exactly who is and who isn’t an Evangelical.  There’s been all sorts of attempts to craft different statements of faiths and covenants that spell this out.  A couple famous examples are the Lausanne Covenant or the NEA Statement of Faith.  One of the newest attempts to define the boundaries of Evangelicalism is a document entitled “An Evangelical Manifesto“.  Now in and of themselves, these documents don’t bother me too much.  Most of them are vague enough that a majority of people who call themselves Evangelicals wouldn’t have much of a problem agreeing with them.  But then again, if that’s the case, why are these documents need at all?  Why do the framers of these documents feel compelled to draw these proverbial lines in the sand?

This article from the online publication, Patrol Magazine, attempts to answer that question.  And the answer the author gives is largely a negative one – it is out of a sense of desperation and a last ditch effort of self-preservation.  It’s perhaps best stated in the following paragraph:

The fight to define evangelicalism in its latter days also operates on the mistaken premise that an imagined theological purity or conformance to a “lost” orthodoxy, rather than an emphasis on ethics, spiritual discipline and mystery, will revive the power of the Christian church. It is astonishing that so many intelligent Christians seem to believe there is a deficit in emphasis on evangelism and scriptural literalism, and that, if the hatches are just battened down on a more solid “worldview,” evangelicalism can resume explaining the universe to new generations of believers. In this respect, evangelicalism’s true believers resemble the faction of the Republican Party that asserts with a straight face that returning to “core principles,” and not a radical restructuring of priorities, will bring waves of Americans back to the right wing.

I find a lot of truth in this statement.  It seems that whenever a group spend a great deal of time and energy in defining it’s boundaries it is inevitable that the original mission and values get lost to some extent.  In attempting to ensure that people say they believe the right things, it become very easy to push doing the right things to the back burner.  Perhaps this is why it is so difficult for these types of organizations to maintain the same level of influence from generation to generation.  The values that one generation recognizes as life changing simply become words and statements that the next generation is expected to sign on to.  Whether a person has wrestled with and come to terms with these values is of secondary concern.

So am I advocating that we do away with all statements of faith and creedal confessions?  Of course not.  I believe that having a common starting point for discussion is an important element within churches.  But I also believe that we need to be careful that are creeds and statements of faith serve the purpose of bringing Christians together rather than keeping the outsiders out.  If anything, reciting a historical creed should make us remember out brothers and sisters who have gone before us and struggled with the deep questions of their time, and we should remember that many of their deep questions are questions that people are wresting with today.  Additionally, we would be wise to remember that no creed or statement of faith can replace a real encounter with the living Christ.

Grace and peace.

HT: The Internet Monk

I saw this post linked to by someone recently, and the guy who wrote it says that Christian men are big sissies.  According to Mr. Daubenmire, we need man up and be more like Braveheart, John Wayne, and Clinton Eastwood.  He puts it this way:

Needless to say, I am swimming upstream on this one. All day long they are taught in school to “act like Christians.” That is the problem, I tell them. Stop ACTING like a Christian and start BEING one.

But we don’t even know what that means. WWJL…What Was Jesus Like? I promise you this. He was all MAN. He confronted evil, challenged the status quo, upset some apple-carts, and spoke what was on His mind. He was the original “Braveheart.”

Come on now. Look around at the Christian role models our young men have to look up to. Most don’t even look like men. What is the word that pop culture has given us…metrosexuals…? Modern Christian men are the ultimate metrosexuals.

So, what say you? Are Christian men too metro?  Too sensitive? Big weenies?  More importantly, what does it actually mean to be a Christian man?  How important is our masculinity as it relates to our identity in Christ?  Of course, I have my opinion, but I’d be interested in hearing what others have to say (which probably makes me a sissy for asking, of course… )

One of the staff’s favorite bloggers to read, here at PPP.Info, is Brant Hansen (of Kamp Krusty fame).   We’ve interviewed him on our old Podcast and covered him in other posts, and I follow him in a couple of his blogs and on Facebook.  Basically, he’s a very cool guy working in Christian radio who likes to ask questions that tend to make you squirm – and laugh.

Brant left this past week on a mission trip to Afghanistan (not necessarily a place at the top of my list), and this morning he gave this update on Facebook:

They dressed me up with a white coat today so I wouldn’t freak out the Kabul patients… but they didn’t clue in the doctor they assigned me to watch. So he kept asking my opinions of his diagnoses. In Dari. People here think I’m an Afghan M.D. He finally asked my specialty: “Uh…radio.” “Radiology?” “No. Like, playing songs and stuff.”

Classic.

Please keep Brant in your prayers, and let us look forward to the touching and/or funny stories he will share with everyone when he gets back.

In the periodic series: What Can we Learn from Secular Artists?

I saw They Might Be Giants in concert recently (They are in the midst of their Flood Tour - and it was GREAT btw). I am drawn to their quircky, almost silly, yet obviously deep lyrics – as well as the talent.

It was kinda funny how one lyric (heard in the context of a small venue live concert) immediately made me think of how we put our faith into practice.

A man came up to me and said
“I’d like to change your mind
By hitting it with a rock,” he said,
“Though I am not unkind.”
We laughed at his little joke
And then I happily walked away
And hit my head on the wall of the jail
Where the two of us live today.

From Whistling in the Dark
By They Might Be Giants

In a recent posting over at the Christian Research Network the Editor points out that Willowcreek and Focus on the Family are promoting a book and study and ministry on contemplative prayer.

Examples are given that, I can only assume, are suppose to provide evidence/examples of something nefarious.  I say “I can only assume” because the examples are offered without argument as to what about them is objectionable.

Willowcreek is promoting Emotionally Healthy Spirituality co-founded by Pete and Geri Scazzero.  Now, I have no idea who they are – whether they be orthodox or heretics – and the post at CRN does not help either.  The post does offer one example of the content

Tenet 4 of the 12 Foundational Tenets on the website states, “the church today parallels that of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th century. Following the example of Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus, the desert fathers fled to the desert to seek God, we too must find our deserts in the midst of our activity for Christ. We can learn a great deal from the contemplative, monastic tradition as we seek to remain rooted as we engage the world with the gospel.”

To this I must respond with – “So?”  All the people listed – Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist and Jesus, the desert fathers – I believ it is safe to say, used time alone, whether in a real desert or a metaphorical one – to be alone with the Father.

And even if it is found out that they did not all do this – that Jesus found it necessary is enough for me.

So,  from this post at CRN I cannot tell what it is about Emotionally Healthy Spirituality that is unbiblical.  Then again, rereading the post, maybe their intent was to promote the course since they make no argument, or show no proof, of why it should be avoided.

In a rather ironic twist, one of the writers at the Christian ? Network has posted a quote and called attention to our mission statement here at .info. I, for one, am pleased that the writers of C?N are finally recognizing what we have been saying all along.

So here’s the quote by J Gresham Machen posted by Stephen Macasil:

[W]hat is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the reason for its obvious weakness? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But one cause is perfectly plain–the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership, but into her teaching agencies. It is indeed inevitable that some persons who are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible Church; fallible men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith which seems to be genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error to which we now refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great companies of persons who have never made any really adequate confession of faith at all and whose entire attitude toward the gospel is the very reverse of the Christian attitude. Such persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely to the membership, but to the ministry of the Church, and to an increasing extent have been allowed to dominate its councils and determine its teaching. The greatest menace to the Christian Church today comes not from the enemies outside, but from the enemies within; it comes from the presence within the Church of a type of faith and practice that is anti-Christian to the core.

I am sure and certain that I speak for all of us here at CRN.info when I say, “Amen.”

By the way, all emphases in the above quote belong to Macasil. Thanks Stephen for posting this and for plugging us. I am glad you guys are coming around to see our point of view!

“While those who wielded the Constantinian sword throughout history undoubtedly convinced themselves they were wielding the sword in love–this is a common self-delusion among religious power brokers–lording over, torturing, and killing people does not communicate their unsurpassable worth to them; it is not loving….One wonders why no one in church history as ever been considered a heretic for being unloving. People were anathematized and often tortured and killed for disagreeing on matters of doctrine or on the authority of the church. But no one on record has ever been so much as rebuked for not loving as Christ loved. Yet if love is to be placed above all other considerations, if nothing has any value apart from love, and if the only thing that matters is faith working in love, how is it that possessing Christlike love has never been considered the central test of orthodoxy? How is it that those who tortured and burned heretics were not themselves considered heretics for doing so? Was this not heresy of the worst sort? How is it that those who perpetuated such things were not only deemed heretics but often were (and yet are) held up as heroes of the faith?”

Greg Boyd – The Myth of a Christian Nation

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:32-34)

In the December 2008 issue of the online journal Themelios, Tim Keller has an article titled, The Gospel and the Poor. I’d like to share some of the highlights with you and make a comment or two about the content.

I think one of the main questions I have always had when it comes to the Christian and the poor runs something like this: Does the Bible command us to be rich towards all poor or just our ‘own kind’? When I read the book of Acts, I see a congregation we are told had ‘no poor among them.’ The author of Acts wrote, “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money to the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

Well, does this refer to the church alone? Does this mean that the church had a (re)-distribution center among themselves and that the only way to participate in the program was to be one of the church (folk)? Or does this mean that the church shared liberally with ‘anyone’ who had need? I’m not sure we can make any definitive statements about this. I think we need to be cautious at best and ere on the side of generosity at worst. Or maybe the other way around.

Then there’s another verse that might contradict this verse (if we take the verse to refer strictly to the church’s actions within itself). That verse is found in Matthew, and was uttered by Jesus himself. Consider:

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” (Matthew 5:44-46)

I kind of find it difficult to believe that God is generous towards the unrighteous poor and that we are somehow only to be kind to the righteous poor. There would seem to be a disconnect somewhere if that is true; and I cannot imagine God is into disconnects. So Keller begins his essay by asking this question, “How does our commitment to the primacy of the gospel tie into our obligation to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith, to serve as salt and light in the world, to do good to the city?”

Keller then moves on to demonstrate the primacy of the Gospel as a mainly proclaimed Gospel. To be committed to the primacy of the Gospel, he writes, means that ‘first…the gospel must be proclaimed.’ We are, he contends, mainly a people of speech. However, we are not only a people of speech even if, as he writes, preaching and proclamation cannot be replaced: “Gospel ministry is not only proclaiming it to people so that they will embrace and believe it; it is also teaching and shepherding believers with it so that it shapes the entirety of their lives, so that they can ‘live it out.’ And one of the most prominent areas that the gospel effects is our relationship to the poor.” (Keller, 9-10)

The best part of this essay by Keller is that his main defense for his position is an essay by Jonathan Edwards called ‘Christian Charity.’ Edwards based his understanding of the Christian duty to the poor on two thoughts. The first, is that believing the Gospel will move us to give to the poor. The second, is that ministry to the poor is a crucial sign that we believe the Gospel. Consider these excerpts from Keller explaining these two broader points of Edwards’ thesis.

Edwards repeatedly shows us how an understanding of what he calls “the rules of the gospel”—the pattern and logic of the gospel—inevitably moves us to love and help the poor. While Edwards believes that the command to give to the poor is an implication of the teaching that all human beings are made in the image of God, he believes that the most important motivation for giving to the poor is the gospel: Giving to the poor “is especially reasonable, considering our circumstances, under such a dispensation of grace as that of the gospel.”

One of the key texts to which Edwards turns to make this case is 2 Cor 8:8-9 (within the context of the entirety of chapters 8 and 9). When Paul asks for financial generosity to the poor, he points to the self-emptying of Jesus, vividly depicting him as becoming poor for us, both literally and spiritually, in the incarnation and on the cross. For Edwards, Paul’s little introduction “I am not commanding you…for you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” is significant. The argument seems to be that if you grasp substitutionary atonement in both your head and your heart, you will be profoundly generous to the poor. Think it out! The only way for Jesus to get us out of our spiritual poverty and into spiritual riches was to get out of his spiritual riches into spiritual poverty. This should now be the pattern of your life. Give your resources away and enter into need so that those in need will be resourced. Paul also implies here that all sinners saved by grace will look at the poor of this world and feel that in some way they are looking in the mirror. The superiority will be gone. (10, for point 1)

And:

In the most powerful part of the discourse, Edwards answers a series of common objections he gets when he preaches about the gospel-duty of giving to the poor. In almost every case, he uses the logic of the gospel—of substitutionary atonement and free justification—on the objection. In every case, radical, remarkable, sacrificial generosity to the poor is the result of thinking out and living out the gospel. (11, to point 1)

And Finally:

In short, Edwards teaches that the gospel requires us to be involved in the life of the poor—not only financially, but personally and emotionally. Our giving must not be token but so radical that it brings a measure of suffering into our own lives. And we should be very patiently and nonpaternalistically openhanded to those whose behavior has caused or aggravated their poverty. These attitudes and dimensions of ministry to the poor proceed not simply from general biblical ethical principles but from the gospel itself. (12, also for point 1)

This last block means that, yes, we should give generously even to those who have made their situation worse by being irresponsible. Some would say we don’t need to give to those who have created their situation, Edwards (and Keller) argue to the contrary).

Now, on to Edwards’ second point:

The principle: a sensitive social conscience and a life poured out in deeds of service to the needy is the inevitable outcome of true faith. By deeds of service, God can judge true love of himself from lipservice (cf. Isa 1:10–17). Matt 25, in which Jesus identifies himself with the poor (“as you did it to the least of them, you did it to me”) can be compared to Prov 14:31 and 19:17, in which we are told that to be gracious to the poor is to lend to God himself and to trample on the poor is to trample on God himself. This means that God on judgment day can tell what a person’s heart attitude is to him by what the person’s heart attitude is to the poor. If there is a hardness, indifference, or superiority, it betrays the self-righteousness of a heart that has not truly embraced the truth that he or she is a lost sinner saved only by free yet costly grace.

Edwards’s appeal and argument is very powerful. He begins his study asking, “Where have we any command in the Bible laid down in stronger terms, and in a more peremptory urgent manner, than the command of giving to the poor?” He concludes his survey of the biblical material with Proverbs 21:3: “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he shall cry himself and not be heard.” Edwards adds, “God hath threatened uncharitable persons, that if ever they come to be in calamity and distress they shall be left helpless.” Edwards brings home the Bible’s demand that gospel-shaped Christians must be remarkable for their involvement with and concern for the poor. We should literally be “famous” for it. That is the implication of texts such as Matt 5:13–16 and 1 Pet 2:11–12. (13, to point 2)

Thus far, I don’t think we have answered the question I posed at the beginning. That is, is the church to be a place of circular generosity or a place of centrifugal force? The church in the book of Acts didn’t seem to wrestle with this question: They gave themselves wholly to the work of Christ and did whatever it took to minister in his name to whoever happened in their path on any given day.

In other words, I think maybe I am asking the wrong question. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all whether the poor person put in our path is a Christian or not. Maybe what matters is whether or not I believe God has put me in a position to help someone. Maybe what matters is how I consider what God has re-created me for, what he has re-created me to do, what works he has predestined me to accomplish by His power, in His Name, and for His glory.

Maybe we church folk spend far too much time trying to figure out who are to serve at the expense of serving anyone. Perhaps the church is so consumed with the idea that there ‘be no poor among us’ that we miss opportunities all around us, every day, to serve the least, the last, and the lost—who are also among us. Perhaps the church is so intent on hoarding God’s blessings for ourselves that we have forgotten to be a blessing to others.

Perhaps we are so intent on maintaining our property that we have forgotten to be stewards of his planet, his creatures, his image.

If I may say it this way: Perhaps the church is too damned selfish with God’s blessings. The church is so damned concerned about their image that they neglect God’s image or, worse, defame it by their inaction towards the poor. Could be. I hope I’m exaggerating, but I don’t think I am. My experience has taught me differently. It’s not true of every church, but probably more than we care to admit.

There is something remarkably beautiful about Jesus who hides himself among the poor, downtrodden, broken, and beaten of this world—hid so remarkably well that we can’t even see him or tell that it is him. There is something remarkably beautiful about a church being as poor as Jesus.

We are quite ironic Christians–we Americans.

“Jesus wants to save the church from thinking that the priests are somebody else” (Jesus Wants to Save Christians, 178)

The church has ceded too much of its responsibility and obligation to the poor to the very powers that Christ destroyed at the cross. We need to be reminded again of who we are created to be in Christ.We need to be reminded again that our Master gave up all to come among us. We need to be reminded again and again that we are, in fact, quite poverty stricken regardless of our personal wealth.

In part 2, I shall investigate Keller’s essay a bit further and try to answer my question a bit better and try to wrap my head around Keller’s profound statement, “The basis for ‘doing justice’ is salvation by grace.” In the meantime, you might click the above link and read Keller’s excellent essay for yourself.

Tags: Gospel, ministry to the poor, Tim Keller

I started reading N.T. Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision, today.  I have been looking forward to reading this book ever since I heard it was coming out, and in fact I was almost giddy to start it.  I hope to offer a full review of it once I am finished.  But as I read the introduction, I came across this paragraph, and I think it is very applicable to what goes on here.

Test this out.  Go to the blogsites, if you dare.  It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging.  Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage.  And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue thing while hiding behind a pseudonym – well if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin.  But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage don’t happen by accident.  People who type, vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack.  Yes, I have a pastoral concern for such people.  (And, for that matter, a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussions, especially when they all use code names:  was it for this that the creator God made human beings?)  But sometimes worldviews have to be shaken.  They may become idolatrous and self-serving.  And I fear that that has happened, and continues to happen, even in well-regulated, shiny Christian contexts – including, of course, my own.  John Piper** writes, he tells us, as a pastor. So do I.

**Wright’s book is largely in response to John Piper’s book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright

Hello all!

It’s been quite awhile since I’ve written an actual post here, and the main reason for that is that these last two months have been quite challenging for my wife and I.  In the beginning of May, my wife was diagnosed with a bacterial infection that ended causing her to be hospitalized for six weeks, with four of them being in the ICU.  The good news is that she has since made a miraculous recovery, and though she isn’t completely out of the woods, she has come so far.  One thing I would appreciate prayers for is her kidneys.  The infection caused acute kidney failure, and as result she has been on dialysis for a while.  Her kidney is improving, and we believe God is going to bring them back to full function, but your continued prayers are appreciated!

Anyway, during these past few months, I’ve had time to re-evaluate certain things in my life, and I’ve taken a second look at how I spend my time.  While all this was happening, being concerened about what some ODM I’ve never met said about some pastor I never met really never crossed my mind.  It really became obvious how little most of the opinions expressed Christian blogosphere matter.  On the other hand, I do appreciate that I was able to share prayer requests with the writers here, and that through modern technology, more people were able to pray for wife than would have been possible before.

Another thing that I really appreciated during this time was how I was able to depend on the body of Christ when I needed it most.  While my wife was lying in a hospital bed, on a ventilator, with all sorts of tubes coming out of her, it really didn’t matter to me what my friends thought of Rob Bell, the Rapture, or a lot theological issues.  All that mattered is that they we there for me.  What mattered was that friends gave up their time to be with me in the hospital.  What mattered is that I knew people loved my wife and I.

So, yes, I will acknowledge that a lot of the things we discuss here will fade away during times of crisis.  That doesn’t mean it’s wrong for us to discuss and disgree about them.  It just means they each have their place.  However, it has also heightened my sensitivities about people attacking my brothers and sisters in Christ needlessly.  What we are involved is truly spiritual warfare, and unfortunately it seems that some have chosen to take aim at those they should be fighting with and for.

I’ve seen many examples of this, but perhaps one of the most ridiculous I’ve seen recently is this.  Now, I have to admit that I actually have been to one of Ken Ham’s lectures, and at the time I actually found him to be smart and articulate.  It’s perhaps because of that fact that I find his attacks on Hugh Ross to be saddening.  I would have no problem if he simply stated he disagreed with Ross on many issues, but what good is done labeling him a “compromiser”?  Aren’t they actually working toward the same goal – convincing people that God is the Creator and that the Bible can actually be trusted?  Granted, Ham and Ross would interpet that statement in different ways, but I don’t believe that one of them loves God more than the other because of that.

I do not want this post to become a young earth/old earth debate.  I really have little interest in debating those views.  Yes, I have an opinion, and I’m sure most people who read this do as well.  But if we can’t share our opinions on a subject without showing love to those we are debating, I believe both sides have already lost the debate.

I guess my point is this.  As Christians I believe that it’s easy to forget that we are in a war, and that are enemy is real.  We cannot afford to be taking each other out with “friendly fire”.  This becomes most evident in our times of greatest need, and I hope that we are able to remember it in our everyday lives as well.

Grace and peace.