Mike Huckabee for President

Here is why I am voting for Mike Huckabee for president.

Pastor Provocateur | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Pastor Provocateur | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Driscoll can't stand in front of a crowd for long without stirring things up. That's what you get from a pastor who learned how to preach by watching comedian Chris Rock. Before long, he has the audience going. "If you're going to be a fundamentalist or moralist … pick things like bathing with your wife to be legalistic about," Driscoll says in his distinct, gravelly voice. "Don't pick something stupid like, 'Don't listen to rock music.' I don't know who's choosing all the legalisms, but they picked the worst ones. Eat meat, bathe together, and nap—those would be my legalisms. Those are things I can do."

Driscoll "comes off as a smart-aleck former frat boy," according to The Seattle Times. Guilty as charged. If he hasn't offended you, you've never read his books or listened to his sermons. On any given Sunday at Mars Hill, it's possible that a visiting fire marshal will get saved. But it's just as likely that a guest will flip him off before walking out.

The spectrum of response speaks to his sharp tongue—his greatest strength and his glaring weakness. But Driscoll also disturbs many fellow evangelicals because he straddles the borders that divide us. His unflinching Reformed theology grates on the church-growth crowd. His plan to grow a large church strikes postmoderns as arrogant. His roots in the emerging church worry Calvinists. No one group can claim him. Maybe that's why they all turn their guns on him.

Check out this article on Mark Driscoll. And if it's any consolation...I haven't turned my guns on him.

Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God

Response to Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership :: Desiring God

I would gladly admit Ligon Duncan or Sinclair Ferguson or R. C. Sproul or Philip Ryken to membership at Bethlehem (if I were allowed by our constitution), and in doing so I would not be giving up my view on the proper nature of baptism.

I would say to them: “Brothers, I think you are not baptized. But you believe on biblical grounds as you see them, with as much humility and openness to truth as God has given you, that you are baptized. Your understanding of baptism does not imply that Christ’s command may be neglected or that infant sprinkling is regenerating. You give good evidence of being born again and that you embrace Christ as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, and you manifest an authentic intention, on the basis of that faith, to follow Jesus as Lord and obey his teachings. Therefore, since there is good evidence that you are members of the Body of Christ, you may be members of this local expression of that body. But understand this: I will spend the rest of my ministry trying to persuade you that you and your children should follow through on the full obedience to Jesus and be baptized. In admitting you, I do not give up on my view of baptism. That is the whole point. We are finding a way to work on this disagreement from inside the body of Christ in its local expression.”

My question for Piper is to what extent would he allow these men then to serve in the church. Would it be a teacher, youth leader, etc.? What would happen if they started teaching others their views? Now we would have others potentially causing a division within the church teaching something contrary to what Piper would be teaching? This is where I believe Piper to be wrong on this issue. I do so with reverence knowing he is way more affluent in the Bible than I am and that I am still learning.

Now I am intrigued however, that he would take a position that says that he would admit somebody into membership of the local church based not on their public display of obedience to Christ through baptism after salvation but on the fact that they have placed their trust in Christ solely. Now I believe the issue comes whether someone has been baptized as a baby or after conversion, but does the issue span into somebody that hasn't ever been baptized? Can the same principle apply do this person? Or would Piper say that the person needs to be baptized before becoming a member of the local church? Do we have the right to not exclude somebody from membership, but put their membership on hold until they are properly baptized? Because I don't think it matters a hill of beans if somebody has a "biblical" conviction on their paedobaptism if it isn't biblical.

What are your thoughts?

Read Grudem's response to John Piper

Mark Driscoll

I have been listening to Mark Driscoll's series on Nehemiah. My interest was sparked with when first heard his message on "Leadership Lessons on Nehemiah" (scroll down the page to download the message. He does a "10,000 ft." overview of the whole book of Nehemiah and the leadership lessons that he sees in the book. But his main point that he makes is something that I have been pondering about for the last few weeks. Mark Driscoll takes a reformed view to his theology (whether it is because he doesn't like the principle of dispensationalism or what, I don't know) and he believes that the church is suppose to create a "city within the city." Meaning, my church is to be a city with the city of Des Moines. A city that doesn't things differently than the other city. But we are be a place of security first to the believer, and then to the greater city, ultimately leading them to Jesus. In all things, we are to lead everyone to Jesus.

Today I listened to his first 3 messages of his Nehemiah Series (click to download the podcast from iTunes). and I am absolutely loving every second of it. Why? Because it practical! He takes Nehemiah right to who we are, how we're driven, how we're wired, and shows the same struggles, the same thoughts, the same fears that we all have. But here is the challenge. Nehemiah created a city within the cities around Jerusalem. Everyone had a part in the city. And the city was going to be different from the cities around them.

How does this apply? My dispensational theology has been challenged. I have been taught to "separate" from the "city" not became apart of the city. Which I have known this is not right. Jesus gone into the thick of the city around him and still was God. I am going to keep listening. Let me know what you think. Download and listen. If not the series, at least the leadership lessons.

Question?

So what is a "fundamental baptist"? What does that really mean?

SEPARATION, SEPARATION, SEPARATION! Part 1

The Des Moines Register ran an article on Jerry Falwell on May 16, 2007. In that article (pg. 4A), Al Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary states of Falwell, "[Falwell] deserves credit almost single-handedly bringing fundamentalism out of separation into political activity."

Has fundamentalism come out of separation? Not in my tiny world of fundamentalism. But in my tiny world of fundamentalism, I see separation and political activity as two important issues within this movement. I say movement because fundamentalism is a movement. Even Ernest Pickering in his message at the 1969 GARBC Annual Conference in Fort Wayne, IN says this.

The remainder of this post is going to be attributed to this message. It has also been adapted and published in the February edition of the Baptist Bulletin. Click here to read this article.

I want to address an issue that I have seen and have heard comments preached from the pulpit at my bible college. A lot of times I hear terms that refer the fundamentalist churches to those who are comparable to Israel. As if the fundamentalist churches are just as important on a large scale as Israel. We are to "reach our own Jerusalem," we compare our battles to that of Israel and it frustrates me to think that we can align ourselves with Israel as if we are apart of the same family. I don't see this laid out in scripture. In fact there is a separation of us from Israel. We are not apart of the same family. We are not apart of the same promises. We are only apart of the same future; with Jesus forever.

So the message that Ernest Pickering preaches frustrates me. According to the printed version of this message, Pickering begins with comparing separatist fundamentalist generational struggle to that of Joshua's concerns with "God's chosen nation." In fact the Old Testament book of Joshua is used through out this entire message to show that separation is in fact what God wants from the church (a New Testament term). Now I understand that we can gain principles from the Old Testament, however I struggle with gaining a methodological outlook on a New Testament principle from an Old Testament context.

He states...

The key note of Joshua's address is found in the words, "Come not among these nations" (23:4, KJV). Israel was to have no spiritual fellowship with those who were walking in darkness and worshiping false deities. The command was specific and clear. God wanted His people to be separated.

However, God also wanted Israel to be physically and socially separated from the nations that lived around them. Now if the same principle is to be applied to the church, as I am sure Pickering is implying, then we in the church should be religiously, physically, and socially separated from the world around us. I struggle with this because I just don't see this in New Testament Scriptures. "Being in the world" is halted if we can't be "in" the world.
God gave Israel land. There wasn't another world for them to even live in according to God. The land that they had possessed was theirs. Anybody that was not of them was to be driven out. That was to be their world that they could control. But Pickering tries to get "the church" to be "the true people of God" through this message. He uses this phrase twice saying that the "true people of God" are to "maintain the principle of complete separation from [interfaith worship] confusion" and that Joshua warned that idol worship will weaken the "true people of God." It is white noise to my ears to consider myself the "true people of God" because I am in the family of God. I am an heir and I am not just a "person." A "people" then is a nation or group of people that have first place. Israel are these people and they have first place in the eyes of God. Before I was saved, there was Israel and after I die, there will be Israel.

Now, Pickering goes on saying,

It is interesting to see that Joshua placed some emphasis upon the importance of the home in maintaining a strong stand for Jehovah God. He warned that Israelites were not to "make marriages with them," that is, with the heathen peoples who lived around them. The strength of the nation was measured by the strength of its homes.

Now he says something that really irks me. He says, "If parents and children did not maintain a separation from the heathen, then the separated stand of the entire nation would be threatened. The same is true today." But what nation is Pickering talking about? Israel? Yes! The church? NO! Joshua wasn't talking about the church. He was talking about the survival of a people group amongst heathens that God has said to destroy. I don't then understand the principle in which Pickering is trying to imply here. And how is this principle true today, as Pickering states? He says:

The stand of our churches will be only as strong as the stand of its homes. We cannot expect to have churches that are strong in their separated position if the homes that compromise those churches are weak and worldly. To this end we must guard against any deterioration of our position on personal separation from the world. A church whose homes are in fellowship with the world cannot maintain itself as a separated testimony from the world.

But how can this be done? What is he really talking about? Does he understand the implications for what he is saying? If I am understanding him correctly, the heathen are those who are not saved, "the true people of God" are Christians, and Christians are not have fellowship with any unsaved individuals. We are to live in our "Christian" worlds and have no contact with that which would cause "confusion" (whatever that is). Am I right?

Whatever Is Not from Faith Is Sin

Whatever Is Not from Faith Is Sin (sermon by John Piper)

"The most penetrating and devastating definition of sin that I am aware of in Scripture is the last part of Romans 14:23: 'Whatever is not from faith is sin.' The reason it is penetrating is that it goes to the root of all sinful actions and attitudes, namely, the failure to trust God. And the reason it is devastating is that it sweeps away all our lists of dos and don'ts and makes anything, from preaching to house-painting, a candidate for sin. In the original language, this is stressed even more than in our versions: it says, 'Everything which is not from faith is sin.' Anything, absolutely any act or attitude which is owing to a lack of trust in God is sin, no matter how moral it may appear to men. God looks on the heart."

Becoming Missional: Missional - Can Be any Size

Becoming Missional: Missional - Can Be any Size

Good points! What is being missional? Is this something that is a legit form of obedience that we as fundamentalists should be looking into? Or do we already do this? As a whole, does fundamentalism strive for a missional mentality in all that it does? Or are we too worried about making sure we use the right hymnal (just like using the right Bible Translation)? Or listening to the right music? Or calling ourselves by the right names? Have you ever wondered if Jesus even cares about our hymnals, music, or our names? Do you wonder if we cared half as much about evangelization as we do some of the other stupid things we like to debate about, if the world would be all Christians?

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Question???

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Question???

What is the purpose of a "label" within today's church? Within our conservative circles, there seems to be a debate raging regarding the need to label ourselves. If you do not have the right label, you are "snubbed".

I'm Back!!

After a hiatus with school work, I will be getting back to this discussion.

The future posts will be

• Youth Ministry in a Postmodern world
• Fundamentalism
• Fundamentalist Separatists and it's relevance today
• A definition and beginnings of culture and how the church fits into it

Those are a few. Check back!!!

Emerging Youth Group

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Emerging Youth Group

For my info and for your reading and thinking.

Whenever big-name types come to speak in chapel at DTS, at least one of the different groups on campus will try to get them to speak after chapel at a "Brown Bag" lunch. Anyone who wants to attend brings their own lunch in a brown bag (hence the name) and gets to listen to the speaker and ply him with questions about the nature of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 (and other such questions).

Last week Dawson McAllister was on campus, recording a podcast and speaking in chapel.

He spoke on the importance of "trench warfare" in youth ministry. He gave us an overview of his ministry and played a number of clips from the radio show.

Anyway, I was of course quite jazzed about his message, since my area of ministry is youth.

So, imagine how excited I was when I discovered that Pipeline, the youth ministry group on campus, was hosting a Brown Bag with the Sr. High youth pastor (Charley Hellmuth) at Irving Bible Church, who "is leading a great example of an EC youth ministry." The author of the annoucement doesn't specify if by EC he means Emerging Church or the Emergent Conversation. Either way, it should be a good talk, especially if we "dialogue" as the ad says we're supposed to.

So, this brings me to my question: For all y'all out there who know more about the Emerging/Emergent Church (I know, they're two different things, but they're lumped together in this topic), what's the impact the EC has/should have on youth ministry? Can it be ignored, or must it be addressed in youth ministry?

Sound off!

Interesting...any thoughts?

Theological Musings of SBC: Music, An Introduction (part 1)
Theological Musings of SBC: Music, The Reactionary Approach (part 2)

Have any thoughts on these posts on music and culture?

The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception

I started reading a new book last night that excites me. John MacArthur has written a book that isn't "friendly fire" among believers but points out that because some on the other side of this issue have deliberately attacked the authority and clarity of God's Word. He even says that they may not be authentic believers at all. Even some pastors and popular writers in the Christian market might be the enemy disguised as comrades. Here is a clip for the begging of the book.

Much of the visible church nowadays seems to think Christians are suppose to be at play rather than at war. The idea of actually fighting for doctrinal truth is the furthest thing from most churchgoers' thoughts. Contemporary Christians are determined to get the world to like them- and of course in the process they also want to have as much fun as possible. They are so obsessed with making the church seem "cool" to unbelievers that they can't be bothered with questions about whether another person's doctrine is sound or not. In a climate like that , the thought of even identifying someone else's teaching as false (much less "contending earnestly" for the faith) is a distasteful and dangerously countercultural suggestion. Christians have bought into the notion that almost nothing is more "uncool" in the world's eyes than when someone shows a sincere concern about the danger of heresy. After all, the world simply doesn't take spiritual truth that seriously, so they cannot fathom why anyone would.
But Christians, of all people ought to be the most willing to live and die for truth. Remember, we know truth, and the truth has set us free (John 8:32). We should not be ashamed to say so boldly (Psalm 107:2). And if called upon to sacrifice for the truth's sake, we need to be willing and prepared to give our lives. Again, that is exactly what Jesus was speaking about when He called His disciples to take up a cross (Matthew 16:24). Cowardice and authentic faith are antithetical.

Multicultural Church

Multicultural Church by Rev. Ken Davis, Director of Project Jerusalem. Baptist Bible College, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania.

I have been having some conversations (not be confused with the emerging church style of conversations) with some friends on another blog. We have been talking about culture and multicultural churches. Let me know your thoughts about what Ken Davis has to say in this article.

Jesus walks into a bar …

Jesus walks into a bar …

More younger people are delving into Christianity. But they are unlikely to worship at the altar, writes Barney Zwartz.

'JESUS asked his mates to stay with him, but they got pissed and fell asleep, the bloody bastards." As an account of the disciples' failure in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before Jesus was cruci fied, it may lack the poetry and majesty of the King James Bible. But the 22 street people in a dingy city basement get the point powerfully.

This rather loose Bible reading from Matthew 26 by a young church worker, Virginia Moebus, is part of a weekly gathering in Credo Cafe, run by Urban Seed in Melbourne, a Baptist Church outreach to homeless and drug-addicted city dwellers.

Most of these people would never set foot in church, but they come faithfully to the gathering, followed by the free lunch served every day. "People see it like their living room, especially if they are on the street. It's somewhere they can come and sit down and be warm and safe," Moebus says.

But it's more than that.

It is solace, spiritual comfort, connection. They sing confidently during the service, accompanied by an extremely competent bongo drummer, and talk freely about the Bible reading.

They are part of an extraordinarily diverse and fast-growing Christian movement catering to the multitudes who reject the institutional church but want to follow its founder, Jesus Christ.

They meet in cafes, clubs, homes, halls, parks or galleries. Rather than "church", they may meet as families, students, businesspeople or surfies. They may be affiliated to mainstream churches or they may be entirely independent. Most are committed and young.

Read more by clicking the link above. This was sent to me by a missionary in Australia, Russ Matthews. What do you think about this?

Worldliness: A Definition Please (Part 1)

Paul, Peter, and John all faced early forms of a system of false teaching that later became known as Gnosticism. That term (derived from the Greek word for knowledge) refers to the habit that gnositics had of claiming an elevated knowledge, a higher truth know only to those in on the deep things. Those initiated into this mystical knowledge of truth had a higher internal authority than Scripture. This resulted in a chaotic situation in which the gnostics tried to judge divine revelation by human ideas rather than judging human ideas by divine revelation. (John MacArthur. The MacArthur Bible Commentary, pg. 1954)

Separatist Fundamentalism is dangerously knocking on this door. I don’t believe Fundamentalism intended to completely withdraw itself from culture but in separating from sin at a personal level, and then apostasy on an ecclesiastical level, it has separated from “worldliness” at a cultural level. Elitism is the placing of one’s culture about the rest. Fundamentalism has placed it's knowledge of God above that of understanding the world and anyone who is not at the same level intellectually is of the "lower class." The term worldliness has come then to mean “sinfulness.” This term “worldly” then needs to be defined. Without a definition of worldliness, the church will never find its niche within culture again. So then…a definition of worldliness.

In its simplest form, worldliness is being like the world. But that simply isn’t enough. Being like the world could mean thousands of things. But at the center of it all is one thing; rebellion from a Holy God. Worldliness can not be looked at as only an external expression, however external expressions can show worldliness. Worldliness has to be primarily an inward impression and secondarily an external expression. Luke 6:45 says "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.” It isn’t the mouth that is the problem but the heart. The mouth is only a tool used to express the heart.

Secondly, once worldliness has changed the heart, it next changes the mind. This may seem backwards but we need to remember that at the front of all of this, worldliness is rebellion from a Holy God. Rebellion is sin so we can say sin hardens the heart. Once the heart is hardened or even “dead,” it moves to the mind. Only when sin has taken over the life source can our mind change. So what in our mind changes? God has given us an intellect, emotion, and a will. When the heart hardens, our emotion is changed to that of bitterness, rage, wrath, etc. When our minds change, our intellect changes. We begin to hate, whether God, parents, etc. Our minds change to that of independence from everyone by ourselves.

1 John 2:15-17 says, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

Pastor Mark Vance makes a good point. John 3:16 says that God loves the world. But John here says God loves the world. The word “world” here in 1 John 2:15-17 is the anti-God system or values that are embraced that are anti-God. It is an utter defiance of anything God. Pastor Vance says that worldliness is something that is primarily inward not outward. C.J. Mehany says, “John is equipping us to discern worldliness where it first lurks, within the heart. The sinfulness of the outward world system and the values and the things that it espouses, is simply the natural result that you are born with a sin nature. That you love sin inside of you.” However the church has boiled down a list of dos and don’t if I don’t dress like, talk like, dress like, and think like, I am not worldly. Avoid the places where sin is. Listen to his message on worldliness.

more to come...

Are You Paying Attention?: The Human Network

Are You Paying Attention?: The Human Network

So I have been watching these series of commercials on T.V. during the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. It is by a company called CISCO. You may have seen their logo. It looks like this:

welcome to the human network.

"Welcome to the Human Network". What does that mean?

The Human Network means that there is no more audience. There are no more users. There are only participants. Participants in a human scale network.

Participants do not passively consume what an author, creator, director, developer, editor, critic or media outlet has to publish. They do not accept the authority. They do not sit silently ready to have their eyeballs converted into cash.

Participants participate. They create their own original information, entertainment and art. They remix their own version of mainstream pop culture- copyrighted or not. They post their thoughts, publish their fears and fact check every announcement. They share with their friends and discover the quirky and interesting, making it an instant blockbuster- at least for 15 minutes.

Participants are no longer eyeballs to be converted. They are ideas to be declared. Individually they are a market of one. Collectively they are a trend, a publishing powerhouse and a voice to be heard. A voice that has something to say.

Participants have changed the way media is published and interactions are monetized. But more broadly and importantly than that, they have changed the flow of global information from top down to bottom up. They are changing the tone and tempo of the conversation.

So is this how the world looks today? If so, how does the church fit into something like this? New series of questions that has now sparked my interest: Can Fundamentalism fit into a world that looks like this?

Above All Earthly Powers: The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World

Videos :: Desiring God

These interviews with some of the speakers at the 2006 Desiring God National Conference (Sept. 29-Oct. 1, 2006) were used in promotion of the event. I want you to especially watch the ones by John Piper and Mark Driscoll. Piper gives an overview of what this conference was to be about. Driscoll gives an emerging church point of view that sounds more thought out than the book that I am currently reading, Emerging Churches. He has thought about this and sees the Emerging Church "movement" for what it is, unlike the book which sees all emerging churches as on the same playing field. Let me know your thoughts.

Here are some notable interviews:

John Piper

• What is the nature of postmodernism?
• What are some effects of postmodernism?

Mark Driscoll

• Seeker vs. Missional- Part 1 and 2
• Biblical Principals and Cultural Methods
  
• Style in Ministry
• The Importance of Theology
• The Need of Cultural Immersion
• Relating to Sinners
  

Tim Keller

• Is the Bible Culturally Conditioned?

David Wells

• Postmodernity Defined
• Religious Pluralism in America
• Emergent vs. Traditional and Seeker
  

Discussion from Contemporary Theological Issues Class at Baptist Bible Seminary- My Reply to Other Students Reply

Be sure to read the previous post before this one.

In short, I reject the reactionary position that the church is to be summarized solely as missional. Mission is an essential part of the church, but it is only one of many essential parts. God is love, but it is wrong to say that love is God. Similarly, the Church is to be missional, but mission is not to be the Church.

I want to add some thoughts and through out some questions.

I am still trying to wrap my mind around all of this and have made some harsh comments in other discussions. But if the church doesn't take the role as the primary means of "missions", who does? Matthew 28:18-20 says,

18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

The main verb here is "make disciples." We are to go make disciples, baptize those disciples, and teach those disciples. Now I don't know what order the last two (baptize and teach) come but we have to go to those people in order to let them know about Jesus. Evangelism only happens when we go to them. Sure we can invite them to our church and our pastor can evangelize to them but I pray we have already been evangelizing before they get to church. The gospel has to connect to every aspect of our ministry. Everything we are about has to be evangelizing. Why do we do what we do? Because of the gospel. Why do we believe what we believe? Because of the gospel.

What are we training our people for? Ephesians 4:12 "...for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ." How does the body of Christ build? By first evangelizing. The building has to grow in order to remain healthy. Just like us. We have to keep growing. We can not grow if parts start to die. And I think alot of churches are doing this today. We are so inward focused. You made the comment, "but I would suggest that the Scriptures indicate that our first and primary focus is to be on loving and meeting the needs of other believers" but I ask...How do those believers become believers? Can we really say that the primary focus is to be on loving and meeting the needs of other believers if we aren't creating other believers. Eventually those believers are going to die and then what? So what becomes the primary focus then?

I want to continue challenging this with a thought on being too "Jewish" in our thoughts. We can't discredit the unsaved public because we were apart of them at one point. The comment we made "I am unable to think of a text that exhorts the church specifically to meet the needs of non-Christian widows in the surrounding community." Let me help you with a couple. Mark 7:24-30 talks of a Canaanite woman that begged Jesus to heal her demon possessed daughter. Jesus and His disciples both strugged her off but she persisted to the point of going into the house and getting on her stomach, prostrate before Jesus' feet under the table in which He was eating. He became amazed by her faith and healed her daughter. But here is the point. Why did He help her? She was a gentile "dog" (grk. "puppy"). Because she recognized Him as Lord. She wasn't apart of Israel which He says in Matthew 15:24 that He was here only for the lost sheep of Israel. Not Canaan. Jesus extends a "mini-blessing" to this woman.

The second comes in the garden of Gethsemane. In John 17 Jesus prays threefold; He prays for Himself, His disciples, His disciples disciples. In verses 17 and 18 it says; John 17:17-18 17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. Jesus here again places an importance on going into the world. He even says that He sends them (the apostles). Then in verses 20-26 Jesus prays for me and you and everybody that is going to "believe in Me throgh their [the apostles] message." He prays that the world may know! Know what? Jesus as the Son of God the Father!

Now my goal in this long post is not to sound like I am on board with the Emerging Church in anyway but draw attention to the fact that they may be right in this area. The book of Ephesians stresses the point on the building of the Church but the goal isn't to just fill eachother full of knowledge. It is to prepare everyone for the "work of the ministry." In Ephesians 3 Paul talks about how he proclaimed "the mystery." What is this mystery"? It's the gospel! So back to my earlier point. The gospel has to be connected to every aspect of our ministry and our Christian lives. I believe that we have created these really good clubs that talk about, learn about, and sing about Jesus. But we really can't call ourselves a New Testament church, one that is concerned for Christless souls and does something about it, if we really aren't making the gospel THE priority.

Discussion from Contemporary Theological Issues Class at Baptist Bible Seminary- Other Student Reply

Be sure to read the previous post before reading this one.

“Our focus needs to change from just ministering to those within our midst to those that are outside our doors.”

I think I understand the idea behind this sentence, and I agree that Christians need to express genuine love and compassion for those outside of the church. At the same time, this sentence reflects a line of thought that emerged within our reading, that the primary focus of the church should somehow be on those outside of the church, essentially expanding the borders of the church, emphasizing an outward orientation versus an inward orientation.

The point at which I take exception with such a stand is at the point where the word ‘primary’ is inserted. Certainly, there is no doubt that we are to love our neighbors and our enemies, that we are to do acts of goodness and kindness to all men in all places, but I would suggest that the Scriptures indicate that our first and primary focus is to be on loving and meeting the needs of other believers.

As a quick example, consider the case of the widows. Throughout the New Testament, Christians are encouraged to meet the needs of the widows within their community, but I am unable to think of a text that exhorts the church specifically to meet the needs of non-Christian widows in the surrounding community.

As one other example, consider this statement from Earl Radmacher. (I have to paraphrase it, as he made the comment during a class session I attended, and I do not have the comment in writing.) He was speaking concerning prayer for salvation of the nonbeliever. He suggested that the biblical pattern calls for believers to pray for one another and to proclaim the Gospel to nonbelievers, and asserted that there was no

scripture that exhorted believers to pray for the salvation of nonbelievers. (Dr. Radmacher did leave one possible exception, the verse in which Paul says that his prayer, desire or wish is for the salvation of the Jews.) Whether we think he is overstating his case or not, we must agree that there is a difference in New Testament teaching between

how we are to act toward those within the church and those outside the Church. And, yes, this demands that we observe a boundary or separation between church members and non-church members.

In short, I reject the reactionary position that the church is to be summarized solely as missional. Mission is an essential part of the church, but it is only one of many essential parts. God is love, but it is wrong to say that love is God. Similarly, the Church is to be missional, but mission is not to be the Church.

Discussion from Contemporary Theological Issues Class at Baptist Bible Seminary

A student in my class began a discussion on "Missional Ministry" with this post. I am going to post a reply to this post and then my reply to that reply.

For many churches when we talk about missions or missions it is a program of the church. We have a missions committee and we have missions conferences. The emphasis is not on the here, but the far away.

Everything that we do as a church and as individuals should have a component of incorporating non churched people into the family of God. The emerging missional movement challenges the traditional approach.

"Rather than measuring the church by its attendance, we will measure it by its deployment," McLaren said.

Our focus needs to change from just ministering to those within our midst to those that are outside our doors. Many of these churches are holding so strongly to an old model that they are dying before our eyes. They are not making disciples and they are not reaching out. The real challenge is not change but will be survival. However, for most they are not aware of the situation. They have elevated the model to doctrine and thus are going down on a ship that needs not to be salvaged.

Becoming Missional

Becoming Missional

Here is a blog for those in favor of "missional" ministry.

ENGAGE Conference- (my church plug)

Are you engaging the world around with the message of Jesus Christ? Is the Gospel at the heart of your ministry? What would your ministry look like if you were to challenge yourself and your church to make Jesus Christ the center of everything that you do?

Over the past few years, the leadership of Saylorville Baptist Church has desired to host a conference in the Des Moines area that would cast a Biblical vision to connect the Gospel of God to every area of ministry. We are excited to announce that this is the year we intend to do so through the ENGAGE Conference.

Take a look around the site and explore the workshops and conference schedule. We look forward to seeing you and discussing ways that God says we are to engage our world with the Gospel! Please contact us via the contact form or by phone if there is any way that we can serve you.

What is a Missional Community

What is a Missional Community

Here is some more reading for you! More stuff from my class that I am trying to get my mind around. Click on the link above

A missional community is a group of Jesus’ apprentices who so trust his brilliance and mastery of life, that they learn from him how to be like him for the sake of the world. Through this apprentice/master relationship, the community journeys together to become the fullness of God and thereby become a finite earthly expression of the infinite Tri-Community just as Jesus was in his earthly life. A missional community is about becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. As the community experiences this, wherever the community members live their daily lives, they are learning how to easily, naturally, and routinely embody, demonstrate and announce God’s life and reign for the sake of the world around them.

The Emerging Church, by D. A. Carson

The Emerging Church, by D. A. Carson

I thought this article would be interesting to go ahead and post.

Also I am in the middle of a discussion in my Contemporary Theological Issues class through Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. I may post some of the discussions later.

A Clash of Cultures: Evangelism in a Postmodern World (Part II)

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

January 2005

In the first essay, I spoke of three approaches to culture that Christians take: opposition, assimilation, and engagement. I argued that engagement, in which discernment about the good and bad in society, was the only proper route for us. In this essay, I want to give a very concrete example of that.

Recently, a Dallas Seminary graduate, one of my former students, went to the annual conference of the Society of Biblical Literature/American Academy of Religion. These two societies have met together for years, though they will be going their separate ways in the not-too-distant future. But with them meeting in the same place, a person who is a member of one society has the opportunity to hear lectures in the other.

For those who don’t know about these societies, here’s a thumbnail sketch. The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) is the world’s largest society of biblical scholars. It is over 120 years old. Every year, in November, the society meets somewhere in North America. The American Academy of Religion (AAR) is broader in its focus than SBL. Religions not related to the Bible, and topics that are, at best, remotely related to the Bible are discussed. Altogether, more than 10,000 people show up for these three-day conferences. Most members of SBL do not hold to any form of orthodoxy; this is of course much more true of AAR members. But evangelicals also attend. We are in a minority, but we are still there.

Now, to be sure, not all 10,000 people in attendance are in the same room at the same time! Rather, there are scores of meetings taking place simultaneously over the three-day period. And there are meetings that specialize in various disciplines and sub-disciplines. There is a group that focuses just on Matthew’s Gospel, another on Mark, another on Paul’s letters. There is a group that wrestles just with New Testament textual criticism, another that concerns itself with liberation theology, another with feminist theology, and so on.

Back to my student. Let’s call him Mark for convenience’ sake. Mark attended a meeting that addressed lesbian issues. Yes, lesbian. When he went into the room of 30 or so people, he soon discovered that he was one of the very few in there with a Y chromosome! Soon, he was surrounded by several curious people. They were most curious that men would show up for this conference. They were even more shocked when they saw his name badge and the institute he was from: Dallas Theological Seminary. But he didn’t tuck tail and run. He said he was interested in what they were talking about and wanted to learn. So, he stayed and learned.

He stayed for the whole conference in fact. All three days of it. At the end, one of the leaders of the lesbian group gave the final address. Let’s call her Joan. Joan told of her upbringing, and the message was heartwrenching. She was raised in a prominent religious teacher’s home. Her father was to her rather stern, stand-offish. In fact, he was often alone in his study with his children excluded outside. His life was an emotional desert. Joan said that she did not recall her father hugging her or showing her affection.

Later, Joan came out as a lesbian to many others, but not to her father. She came home and wanted to speak to her father about it. After repeated attempts to engage her father in conversation, she finally told her father that she had become a lesbian. He pondered this for a moment, then did not reply but left her alone.

The next day she found a lengthy written response. It was from her father. In it were all sorts of reasons, especially based on the Bible, telling her why lesbianism was a sin.

This approach by Joan’s father to her lesbianism was the quintessence of an evangelical-modernist approach to evangelism! It was reasoned, biblically-based, absolute, authoritative. And it was icy cold.

When Mark heard Joan’s testimony, he was deeply moved. He came up to her afterward, and said, “Your testimony has truly moved me. I am the father of a little girl, and I don’t want her to grow up feeling isolated from me.” After a brief pause, Mark went on. “I’ve never done this before, but I wanted to ask you something. Would it be OK with you if I hugged you?” Joan nodded.

When Mark hugged Joan, she melted. They both began to sob as she relived the pain of rejection, and Mark, too, was overwhelmed by it. For what seemed like forever, they hugged! She shared how she had longed to be hugged by someone who wanted nothing in return. Where truth had failed, love began to make a break-through.

Mark’s approach was essentially postmodern! He recognized that Joan didn’t need another sermon, didn’t need to have her nose rubbed in the text of Holy Writ. He recognized that she had never really been loved by any man, and by the Spirit’s prompting he became the instrument of God to address her need.

Since that conference, Joan has continued her ways. But she now corresponds with Mark on occasion. Mark does not hold back from declaring his views about lesbianism. But he also does not hold back the love for this woman.

When Mark told me this story, I was deeply moved. I felt as though a huge burden had been lifted off my shoulders, for here was a man who came through an evangelical seminary yet was bold enough to become all things to all people, even if his training didn’t adequately prepare him for that. I felt free to love in a way that I had not in years.

May God raise up more Marks for his glory! And may we all have compassion on the lost, “practicing the truth in love” (Eph 4.15 [NET]) as we share the good news of Jesus Christ in a postmodern world.

A Clash of Cultures: Evangelism in a Postmodern World (Part I)

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D.

January 2005

Postmodernism officially began in 1960, but as with all youngsters it has taken some time to find its place in the world. Universities are generally one of the first places where new ideas take hold, while culture at large lags behind. And what lags behind the general culture is Christian culture. Howard Hendricks, professor at Dallas Seminary, is fond of saying to his students, “They should charge admission to this place so that visitors can see how people used to live 50 years ago!” Certainly part of the reason for Christians to be slow to change is our conservative values. But I digress.

When it comes to culture, Christians generally have one of three attitudes:

1. opposition: “Everything in the Enlightenment is wrong,” or “Everything in our modern culture is wrong.” Ironically, when we were thick in modernism, few evangelicals bought into it lock, stock, and barrel. But now that we are past modernism, too many evangelicals are longing for the good old days, almost as though they are perfect, en masse mimics of the Imago Dei. For many evangelicals, whatever is in society right now is all bad. As an illustration, a few years ago I heard some philosopher-theologians debate one another at the Evangelical Theological Society. The topic was postmodernism. Some of the panelists were arguing that we need to first to “convert” a person to Aristotelian logic before we can convert them to Christ! There seemed to be a genuine dread that culture was shifting, as though these professors would be out of a job! Some astute observer from the crowd said, “Maybe you guys just need to learn to love a little more! It won’t kill you to change your paradigm a bit.”

2. assimilation: We become conformed to the cultural values that surround us. For example, pop culture is more often guided by emotion than reason. Hence, “seeker-oriented churches” continually face the temptation to put a priority on relevance over truth, while those in evangelical seminaries are generally still steeped in modernism. Pastor and pew are clashing nowadays like never before, and something has to give. Usually, it’s the pastor who blinks first. But there are some churches where the pastor has trained the folks to think like modernists, to use their brains, to study, to learn. Of course, many of these churches care little for society; think little of missions, evangelism, or social issues that must be addressed by believers. In such cases, the pastor has assimilated the church to his values all too well!

3. engagement: What is good in society and what is bad? There is a huge dichotomy between churches and seminaries: There is a constant dumbing down in the churches, while seminaries are training the life of the mind. But while those in seminary often have a great struggle with seeing the value of personal experience, those in the pew often have a great struggle with seeing the value of Bible study. Both are necessary. The successful seminary graduate will realize that his or her training only addresses a part of Christian ministry. He or she will desire to learn from the experiences of others, of elders in the church, of sages who have great skill at living. Indeed, he or she will realize that upon seminary graduation, the apprenticeship for ministry now begins. The unsuccessful seminary graduate will assume a Gnostic-like relationship to his/her congregation, equating knowledge with spirituality and authority. All too many seminary graduates have a “local Protestant pope” mentality. Engagement is the best model for us to follow: There is good in society and there is bad. We need discernment more than judgment or acquiescence.

At bottom, I think all of this needs to be related to the Imago Dei. We recognize that the image of God was not destroyed in the Fall, though it was distorted. James 3.8-9 says, “But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people made in God’s image” (NET). In the least, this text is telling us that human beings are still created in God’s image. That image-making did not cease with Adam and Eve. But everyone created in God’s image is a sinner, and that means that the image is distorted, twisted. In each of us there is a beauty and a beast. In other words, there is good and bad in every person.

How does this relate to postmodernism? If the Imago Dei is distorted for each individual, it stands to reason that the same holds true for a group of individuals. There is thus a beauty and a beast in every culture, every society. To be sure, the more we hold biblical values, the more we resemble the beauty rather than the beast. But all cultures have ugly elements in them, and all have beautiful elements.

So how does postmodernism stack up? Its focus on emotion, on relativism, and as a subsidiary, on relationships, is not altogether a bad thing. Colleges, even high schools, are far more service- and community-oriented today than they were when I was in school. This is certainly a good thing! But there is despair, an uncertainty, and an isolation that marks postmodernism. Without a good dose of reason, logic, and truth, this almost always must be the case because a purposeful existence now has, at best, a near horizon. The irony is that dread of isolation is what seems to drive much of postmodernism, yet it is a hopeless battle.

But modernism, with its overindulgence in reason, tended to lose sight of our full humanness. We also have emotions, and we live in communities. Modernism produced isolated geniuses and emotional dwarfs. Among evangelicals, it produced “neck-up Christians”—those who were believers only from the neck up. Evangelical scholarship then took on their liberal counterparts and now, finally, when evangelicals can claim a great deal of respectability as to their intellectual prowess, liberalism has moved on. Relativism and tolerance for competing viewpoints is all the rage. As proof, Harvard Divinity School recently opened a post for an evangelical chair to be filled in the near future! This would have been unthinkable thirty years ago.

It strikes me that since we are living at a crossroads of cultures we must learn to become all things to all people that we might win some to the Lord. There are still large pockets of modernism in our shifting culture. And those folks will not be reached if all we have in our arsenal are postmodern techniques.

When we look at scripture, we see that this kind of adaptation is exactly what Jesus used. In John 3, he spoke to Nicodemus, “the teacher of Israel.” He used logic, scripture, and subtle arguments. He addressed his intellectual pride (“you must be born again”). In John 4, he addressed the woman at the well. Here, he spoke to her isolation (“Go, call your husband and come here…” “I have no husband…”) and her sin of seeking relationships inappropriately (“you have had five husbands and the one you now have is not your husband”). There was terrible isolation for this woman, even though she was desperate to have solid, permanent relationships.

As in Jesus’ day, we will not find a one-size-fits-all culture surrounding us. We must adapt, and we must discern. Creative thinking should help us wrestle with how to connect with people and meet their felt needs without compromising on the meaning of the gospel. May God grant us both the wisdom and the passion to reach the lost!

In the second essay on this topic, I will give a specific example that I learned of recently. It moved me beyond words.

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Machen's Lecture to his Students at Princeton, March 10th, 1929

εις επαινον δοξης αυτου: Machen's Lecture to his Students at Princeton, March 10th, 1929

Interesting post I found on a friends page.

A Short History of Post-Modernism

To understand what post-modernism is, it's more useful to compare it to what it isn't. Post-modernism broadly refers to the cultural period that succeeded the "modern" era, as historians know it. Roughly describing the period of time between the end of the "Victorian" era to the middle of the 1960's (roughly 1900-1965), the "modern" epoch was characterized by a triumphant view of science and technology, and the rise of the market economy, democracy and global integration. Essentially the height of the Victorian English civilization upon which it was built, this period of history is most noted for its confidence. While post-modernism can be characterized by a continuation of the same developments in science and technology that were the hallmarks of the "modern" era, it doesn't share the confidence of the time period that it replaced.

Intellectually personified by the "continental" philosophy of Jacques Derrida, the writings of historian Michel Foucault, and the work of Jacques Lacan in psychology, the first "post-modern" thinkers are roughly associated with a school of thought which railed against the prevailing "rational/scientific" (i.e. "modern") approach to the social sciences and philosophy which dominated academic life during the post-war period. The most important commonality between these post-modern thinkers and what are actually distinct epistemological approaches is the radical skepticism that characterizes each of their thinking, as well as a concurrent willingness to experiment within the academic boundaries of their respective vocations. To take Foucault as an example (the thinker with whom I am most familiar), his work contains sincere doubts about the relevance of narrative in historical texts (in a narrative driven discipline), the pretension of "scientific" approaches to the subject, and is characterized by a willingness to explore topics not traditionally considered worthy of historical analysis (such as sexuality and mental illness). Foucault's skepticism, as well as his desire to experiment, characterizes some of the traits of our current age.

The "modern" epoch followed a coherent narrative: "The Triumph of Science." Scientific knowledge led to enormous advances in health, technological development, and economic progress throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Human beings lived longer, led healthier lives, and found themselves freer to pursue leisure activities as the result of scientific advances. Compared with the misery of dying of tuberculosis or cholera as late as the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the western world, scientific progress was ultimately humanistic and therefore welcomed by the academic and cultural voices of the period. However, historical developments including the growth of nuclear power and the arms race during and after the Second World War (not to mention the technological barbarity unleashed across Europe during the First World War), environmental damage, and economic uncertainty (the OPEC crisis and inflation), all contributed to a re-thinking of the epoch's intellectual foundations. Academic and cultural voices began to ask: Is science truly the answer? The skepticism then grew to encompass the question: Are there any answers at all?

This reaction to modernism has been labeled "post-modernism." This is the spirit of our age. Like Foucault, it rejects narratives. There is no overarching explanation for the way things are. Rather life is the cumulative result of human experience. Therefore the ordinary (sexuality, mental health) rather than the traditional areas of historical inquiry such as politics, war and economics (the large external events which shaped human existence in the "modern" epoch) became the focus of Foucault's inquiry. Humanity is the center of the post-modern period; indeed it is helpful to characterize this age as the self-centered era. Because there is no external reason for being, no explanation for human existence (such as the scientific march of evolution towards the perfection of the species), the focus of the post-modern age is internal and concerned with individual human existence.

Post-modernism then, looks inward, to find human meaning. Thus one looks to internal sources of morality (the self is the arbiter of moral behavior) in the post-modern age (there being no external God to provide moral direction). In political life one rejects military service (in the case of the Vietnam War) because of a basic distrust of external political leadership (who are willing to sacrifice human lives for the sake of abstract ideas such as "democracy" and the "state"). In economics capitalism exalts a new age of individual entrepreneurship whilst huge disparities between the rich and the poor emerge in the "new" economy (poverty being the individual failure of the poor rather than a broader systematic result of the structural economic system).

The other feature of post-modern thought is experimentation. The post-modern person is willing to look to non-western forms of religion (the remarkable rise of Buddhism in the west is an example) for spiritual guidance, and non-traditional forms of social habitation (such as the rise of sexuality including sexual experimentation) to engender self-actualization (I'm purposely using psychological terminology such as "self-actualization" to further my contention regarding the rise of self-centred human understanding. The language of psychology is the vocabulary that describes the nature of humanness in the post-modern age).

To summarize, post-modernism is a reaction to the overarching narratives which gave meaning to the modern era. In defining it, it is easiest to compare post-modernism to what it isn't rather than positively define it for what it is. Comparing its modern forms to the thought of the intellectuals whose ideas characterize the age, it is possible however, to find that post-modernism rests on a basic assumption: Truth, whatever truth is, is human centered and internal. This search for truth has resulted in a marked rise in experimentation in social arrangements such as sexuality, as people attempt to redefine truth based on the experience of the primary source of truth in the post-modern age: The self.

Copyright © 2000 Robert Delamar All Rights Reserved

Also See Wikipedia for an explanation of Post-modernism

Here it Goes

Here is goes. I am going to attempt to create a discussion about postmodernism. This is what I will be learning, finding, and wrestling with. Will you join me?