The Effective Invitation by R. Alan Streett

Critical Book Review
Of
The Effective Invitation by R. Alan Streett


Bibliographical Entry
Streett, R. Alan. Effective Invitation: A Practical Guide for the Pastor. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Pubns, 2004.


Author Information
            R. Alan Streett is an accomplished author, having published many articles and contributing to many books, including writing all 60 “Twisted Scripture” entries in The Apologetics Bible edited by Ted Cabal and Chapters 7-9 in Lifestyle Witnessing, a Bible study series supported by Billy Graham.  In addition to his articles and contributions, Streett has authored many books, including Unlocking New-Age Mysteries, How do you Plead?, and the subject of this review, The Effective Invitation.  The back cover of The Effective Invitation states that R. Alan Streett “has served as a pastor and church planter and is chairman and professor of evangelism at The Criswell College, Dallas, Texas.  He also serves as the editor of the Criswell Theological Review.”  He earned his M.Div. in 1972 from Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington D.C., his Ph.D. with a focus on Practical Theology from California Graduate School of Theology (1982), and is presently working on another Ph.D. in the field of Biblical Theology from the University of Wales, Lampeter, UK.[1]     


Content Summary
Streett offers the following thought in the preface of his work, The Effective Invitation: A Practical Guide for the Pastor: “The public invitation is an important tool which can aid in leading people to Christ at the end of a gospel sermon.  The ability to use this tool effectively cannot be discovered at a conference on evangelism, by reading a book on soul winning or attending weekly classes on new evangelistic techniques.  It can only be gained through experience” (p 17).  He then sets himself to the task of attempting to teach the reader—through the use of a “book on soul winning”—how to invite people to Christ at the end of a sermon.  It is the preacher’s job, suggests Streett, to preach the Gospel (pp 21-22).  He asks, “What ingredients make up an effective gospel presentation?” (p 22).  To answer this question, Streett moves into a lengthy argument—even turning to Greek key words—that includes an explanation of the meaning of preaching, proclaim, preacher, Gospel, evangelize, and evangelist.  At the completion of this discussion, Streett shifts to the theological support for the public invitation.  “The invitation,” writes Streett, “is that act by which the preacher of the gospel exhorts his hearers and instructs them how to appropriate the context of the kerygma in their individual lives” (p 37).  Chapter 2 is then loaded with Streett’s stance on repentance, the preacher’s responsibility to call sinners to repentance, and faith.  Chapter 3, in the same fashion as Chapter 2, provides biblical support for the public invitation, potentially introducing the reader to a debate that he or she was previously unaware of. 
Eighty-one pages into the book, Streett provides examples, methods, and styles of many other evangelists throughout Christian history.  Chapter 5 is dedicated to Billy Graham and his experiences with the public invitation.  Chapters 6 and 7 return to the polemic for the public invitation.  Finally, at Chapter 8, the reader comes to what he or she has likely seeking from the book—the material and guidance to assist the pastor in preparing the invitation.  The process starts with prayer.  Streett explains, “Prayer is the key.  The pastor or evangelist who wishes to be successful in drawing the net must first pray until God gives him a passion and burden for souls” (p 153).  Next, the preacher needs to work on a transition from his message to the invitation.   Once the transition is made, instructions must be given to the listeners.  After a discussion on the proper use of persuasion, Streett stresses that a call to public commitment is made.  And as an extra measure, Streett addresses the delivery itself.  Chapter 9 addresses the various invitation models, both the immediate and delayed response.  This section is especially helpful for readers that may come from a tradition where these different invitation methods are not utilized.  Chapter 10 addresses music leading up to and during the invitation.  “When used evangelistically,” writes Streett, “music has a strong influence in bringing people to Christ” (p 187).   Streett concludes with a discussion on inviting children to Christ, when it is appropriate and how to do it. 
In what might be more valuable than the first seven chapters, Streett includes a series of appendices.  The first is a series of illustrations dealing mostly with repentance (although some of the illustrations are a bit of a stretch).  Following these illustrations is a list of scriptures on the topic of repentance.  The next appendix is like the first, only it is on the topic of faith.  Appendix C, while a valuable list of topics to preach, departs from the idea of solid expository preaching and shifts to topical preaching.  Appendix D is an engaging response to the Reformed objections to the public invitation, most specifically the alter call.  And Appendix E is a list of hymns that strongly support the public invitation. 

Evaluation
             I am aware that the summary provide above has resonated a negative tone; however, I do not make apology.  The greater part of The Effective Invitation is a defense of the public invitation rather than a training manual on how to go about making the public invitation.  In addition, the most challenging part of making a public invitation, if indeed an invitation must conclude all preaching, is how to transition out of texts that do not naturally lead to an invitation.  Streett’s approach to this appears to either make an awkward shift (which is says not to do) or not preach on any topic that does not naturally lead to an invitation (which is what is implied by Appendix C.)  Additionally, Streett makes such an issue of the debate between offering a public invitation or not, that I, having not ever through much about not making at least some kind of invitation, researched this debate.  After reading Appendix D, I almost agree with the position Streett is arguing against!
            A new preacher or student wanting to better understand how to make a public invitation, would be well served to read Chapters 5, 8 (with the understanding that little is offered to assist the verse-by-verse expository preacher unless the text naturally lends itself to offering an invitation), 9, 10 if the worship leader still uses hymns, and 11.  The rest can be ignored if the reader has no interest in the opposing or supporting argument for making the public invitation. 


     [1] Criswell College, “R. Alan Streett,” http://www.criswell.edu/academics/faculty/r-alan-streett/ [accessed October 18, 2009].

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

Works vs. Grace: Pelagius vs. Augustine

Approach a typical church-going Christian and ask her about, “works vs. grace” and chances are, she will have a position on this debate. Ask her about “original sin” or “the fall” or the “sin nature” and she will have more to say. But ask her about Pelagianism or how Augustine argued against it, and she will probably just shrug her shoulders. The works vs. grace argument started with Paul and James’ writings, but a hotter argument was kindled some 1,600 years ago by a man named Pelagius and his student, Coelestius.

Pelagius, believed to be a devout and pious British monk, left his home, traveling to Rome in our around AD 400, eventually coming to Carthage, North Africa, in AD 409. Through his travels, he grew discouraged with how people were living their lives. “It seemed to him,” writes Erickson, “that an unduly negative view of human nature was having an unfortunate effect upon human behavior. Coupled with an emphasis upon God’s sovereignty, the estimation of human sinfulness seemed to remove all motivation to attempt to live a good life.”[1] His observations led to Pelagius’ position now known as Pelagianism.

Although most of Pelagius’ teachings were actually advanced by his student, Coelestius, Pelagius seems to have believed that Adam, a mortal, would have died had he sinned or not. He also believed that Adam’s sin was only for Adam and has no effect on the human race; salvation can be obtained by following the Law; there were sin-free people before Christ’s incarnation; newborn babies are as Adam was before his first sin; and it is not through Adam that the world has a sin-nature, nor it is through Jesus Christ that we have resurrection.[2] In the simplest summary, Pelagius believed that man can choose to be without sin.[3]
“It was, however, against the Pelagians,” writes Gonzalez, “that Augustine wrote his most important theological works.”[4] Augustine had much to say on this issue, but maybe his simplest statement is found in Confessions. He writes, “I have no hope at all but in thy great mercy.”[5] Augustine wrote on irresistible grace, the sin nature, the effects of the fall on all humanity, predestination, and Adam’s death. Much of what we understand as right theology today comes from the corner of Augustine. (It should however be noted, that Augustine argued for infant baptism as a sacrament while Pelagius said infant baptism is meaningless.)

Summarizing the driving element of Augustine's position encourages us to look at children and their sin (or lack there of). First, Augustine claimed (as most of us would) that he didn't remember feeling like he had a choice to sin as a small child because he (like most of us) couldn't remember the earliest parts of his life. However, when he observed children, he could clearly identify what could be described as sin. His observation was that of the jealousy of a mother's baby when the mother held another baby (although his illustration was slightly more graphic). If we were to follow Augustine's observations today, we could probably observe similar behaviors in small children. To test this, put two toddlers in the same room with one very exciting toy. If they sin, which they likely will, the question that should be asked is if either of these children had the capacity to first recognize a specific behavior as a sin against God, and second, to what extent they could or would choose (throughout their entire lives) not to sin.

Pelagius argued that a person could choose not to sin; however, in order to be perfect under the Law, a person would have to be sinless from the first day of his creation. Psalm 51:5 seems to suggest that David was a sinner from conception. A number of arguments exists today--one very good one made by Dr. Wayne Grudem--is that sin is not something we do, but instead, it is something we are. Although I would only be speculating, I find it reasonable to think that Augustine would agree.

Eventually the Council of Carthage (417) condemned Pelagianism. Sadly, this was not the end of it. A concept of semi-Pelagianism surfaced and was addressed in the Synod of Arles (around 473) and the Council of Orange in 529. On occasion, the ideas of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians still surface today.



[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 649.
[2] Henry Scowcroft Bettenson and Chris Maunder, editors, Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 58-59.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 214.
[5] Bettenson and Maunder, 59.


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** The photo/painting is in the public domain.

Four Views of Hell edited by William Crockett and Stanley Gundry

 Critical Review
of
FOUR VIEWS OF HELL, edited by William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry

Introduction
Four Views on Hell, of the Bible & Theology Counterpoints series, offers the arguments and counterarguments of four scholars on the topic of hell.  The question is not whether hell exists, but what the Bible says about it.  Is hell literal or metaphorical; everlasting or does it have an end?  John F. Walvoord argues for the literal view, William V. Crockett for the metaphorical view, Zachary J. Hayes for the purgatorial view, and Clark H. Pinnock for the conditional immortality, or annihilationist view.  Subsequently, Walvoord and Crockett subscribe to an eternal position of their respective views; whereas, Hayes and Pinnock’s views have an end although for different reasons.  Although certainly some more than others, each view point is supported by scriptural references.  Therefore, it is not a matter of arguing for what the Bible teaches, but rather, each author attempts to present compelling arguments for his understanding and interpretation of the biblical teaching.  This critique will examine each argument, at times contrasting them against one, two or all three positions of the other writers in an effort to identify the most compelling of the four views. 
Brief Summary
            In contending for the literal view of hell, Walvoord implies an argument for a strictly literal interpretation of all material in the Bible.  Laying the foundation of his position, he says, “For those who believe in the genuineness of biblical revelation and accept the inerrancy of Scripture, the problem is one of understanding of what Scripture teaches.”[1]  He then hints that those who feel eternal punishment does not exist—as Hayes and Pinnock believe—have no problem with this belief if they also deny the inerrancy of Scripture.[2]  Walvord points to both Old and New Testament Scripture to argue that hell is everlasting and that it is a literal place of fire.  While much of his argument is spent advancing the idea of an eternal hell, he does state, “There is sufficient evidence that the fire is literal.”[3]  His primary evidence is the “frequent mention of fire in connection with eternal punishment.”[4]

            Crockett takes little issue with Walvord’s position that hell is eternal, but he sharply disagrees with the Walvord’s view of a literal hell made of an everlasting fire and smoke.[5]  “And herein lies the problem of the literal view:” writes Crockett, “In its desire to be faithful to the Bible, it makes the Bible say too much.  The truth is we do not know what kind of punishment will be meted out to the wicked.”[6]  Instead, Crockett suggests that much of the biblical language is “rabbinic hyperbole” and should be read as such.[7]  Crockett then argues that the literal language seems to contradict itself, and therefore should be seen as a metaphorical representation of hell—not necessarily any less horrific than the literal view, just not actually fire, smoke, and darkness.[8] 

            Hayes, on the other hand, takes an entirely different approach, describing an intermediate place between heaven and hell called purgatory.  It is not that Hayes believes purgatory is hell, but a temporary place of purification in preparation of an eternal life in the presence of God.  At the time of judgment, purgatory will cease to exist, leaving only heaven and hell.[9]  However, in no way is purgatory hell, nor will it become hell.  Hayes’ Roman Catholic argument is well written; however, Hayes dedicates his chapter to purgatory and not hell, so (as Pinnock rightly articulates), Hayes’ argument is not in line with the topic of the book, that is the biblical view of hell.[10]

            Pinnock, being one who supports an emphasis for the profitability of Scripture over inerrancy,[11] suggests that an alternative interpretation of hell is needed, one that does not paint God as one who would condemn the wicked to an everlasting torment.  Pinnock argues the case of the conditional immortality view, which is often referred to as annihilation.  Annihilation, as Pinnock describes, is the idea that those in hell do not suffer forever but instead eventually go out of existence.[12]  He writes, “Being unable to discount the possibility of hell as a final irreversible condition, I am forced to choose between two interpretations of hell: Do the finally impenitent suffer everlasting, conscious punishment (in body and soul, either literally or metaphorically), or do they go out of existence in the second death?  I contend that God does not grant immortality to the wicked to inflict endless pain but will allow them to finally perish.”[13]  Although not necessary for his view, Pinnock appears to find favor with a metaphorical view like that of Crockett; except that in Pinnock’s idea of hell, there is an end and the suffers are snuffed out completely, potentially by fire or some other metaphorical punishment.

Critical interaction with the authors’ work
            As the reader delves into the four views presented in Four Views on Hell, it becomes apparent that it is not the view of hell that is most significant, but instead how each writer treats Scripture.  At stake for Walvoord, is the idea that anything in the Bible could potentially be seen as metaphorical.  He starts by identifying how the people of the Old Testament, inter testamental period, and the New Testament understood words and concepts such as shoel, and hades.  However, to use these descriptions to support a literal view, one must also accept the earlier understanding of shoel and hades as literal.  Crockett challenges this thinking saying, “. . . in ancient times teachers often used words symbolically to underscore their points (rabbinic hyperbole, as we now call it.)”[14] Crockett sites the biblical examples of Luke 14:26 were Jesus calls his disciples to hate their mothers and fathers, Matthew 5:29 were Jesus tells his followers to gouge out their eyes if they cause them to sin, and Luke 9:60 explaining that the dead should bury their own dead.[15]  If indeed these statements were to be taken literally, it would stand to reason that either the disciples recorded in the remainder of the Bible were sinless or they had gouged their eyes out.  Yet, we do not see anything written about the disciples’ self-inflicted blindness, lending support to Crockett’s point.  Crockett also argues (against Walvoord) that the Jewish writers were seeking vivid images that were mostly symbolic.  He writes, “The object was to paint the most awful picture possible, no matter how incompatible the images.”[16] 

            In countering Crockett and the metaphorical view of Scripture, Walvoord suggests, “If prophecy cannot be interpreted literally, as they believe, it raises important questions about the literalness of hell itself and, in large measure, determines the view of eternal punishment that the individual may take.”[17]  He further states that those who do not view prophecy literally, take this position because they do not want to accept what the Bible teaches about the future, especially about hell and punishment.[18]  Walvoord offers support for a literal view of prophecy and by extension, hell, stating that over fifty percent of all prophecies have been fulfilled.  “In fact, it is difficult to find a single fulfilled prophecy that was fulfilled in other than a literal fashion.”[19]  However, a survey of the symbolic dreams of Genesis 40 and 41, which were interpreted by Joseph, lend more support for Crockett’s view over Walvoord’s. [20]  Despite his potential overstatement, Walvoord raises a valid question: What should be treated literally and what metaphorically? Walvoord’s approach removes the questions all together by treating everything literally.

            Crockett, who incidentally also edited the book, treats the specific scriptures that call for an eternal punishment as literal but the ones that suggest a fiery and black hell as figurative.  He suggests that the literal view is an embarrassment to Christian doctrine,[21] hinting that this may be the motivating factor for his interpretation.  (Pinnock also holds that this doctrine is troubling for Christianity, although he does not use the word ‘embarrassment.’)  Most of Crockett’s argument hinges two issues.  First, is the idea that other biblical passages are metaphorical, or “rabbinic hyperbole,” and therefore it stands to reason that the same is true regarding the passages explaining hell.  And second, is that the idea that the described fire does not conform to the physical attributes of fire on earth, therefore it must be symbolic and not actual fire.  To support his first point, Crockett uses much of Jesus’ words including examples previously mentioned as well as Matthew 7:5, 19:24, and Mark 6:23 among many others.  In support of rabbinic hyperbole, Crockett cites a number of extra-biblical documents written around the same period.  The Old Testament is used to make the same point of fire, showing that God is a “consuming fire” (Deut. 4:24), sitting on a throne “flaming with fire,” from which a “river of fire” flows (Dan. 7:9-10).[22]  Crockett also uses the New Testament’s use of fire.  But the most telling argument is Crockett’s use of hell’s opposite—heaven.  Discussing what the Bible says about heaven and why it is reasonable to think that it is metaphorical (but still great) he implies that the description of hell is also metaphorical (but still horrific.)[23]  To make his second major point, Crockett writes, “The strongest reason for taking them as metaphors is the conflicting language used in the New Testament to describe hell.”[24]  He takes issues with the idea that hell could be a place of fire and darkness when fire produces light.[25]  He cannot understand how spiritual beings could feel the pain without nerve endings.[26]  His first point is rather convincing; his second requires that one accept that hell conforms to the earthly rules of physics.

            Because Hayes placed his focus on the Roman Catholic view of purgatory rather than hell, his view does not fit within the scope of the book’s objective.  Hayes, like Pinnock, has the deepest desire to believe that the previous two arguments—both of which stand on the interpretation of eternal punishment—is too harsh of a loving God.  However, unlike Pinnock’s view of annihilation, purgatory is where those who die with unfinished lives can be purified.[27]  Hayes still argues that this purification is by no means pleasant but not eternal, and his Roman Catholic theology dictates that it is not the final destination.  Unfortunately, much support for his stance must come from Apocryphal writings and Catholic tradition rather than the Cannon accepted by the protestant faith.
  
            Pinnock’s argument, while interesting and compassionate, offers the greatest threat to the traditional view of hell and, more significantly, the approach to scriptural interpretation and generally accepted theological methods.  He seems ready to look for the most acceptable view rather than the one most fully supported by Scripture.  At one point, he writes, “Unfortunately, according to these doughty Princetonians, millions still get tortured forever even under their generous scenario.  We need something better than that.”[28]  At another point, Pinnock says, “Theology sometimes needs reforming; maybe it needs reforming in the matter that lies before us.  I believe it does and invite the reader to consider the possibility as a thought experiment.”[29]  He even asks, “Why do evangelicals who freely changed old traditions in the name of the Bible refuse to adamantly even to consider changing this one?”[30]  Pinnock’s concern is that people are not reading their Bibles because of the doctrine of hell, and therefore the doctrine is becoming a stumbling block.[31] He sees a non-profitable doctrine that needs an overhaul to regain a comfortable position again.  He writes,
 It is conceivable that the position I am advancing on the nature of hell is most adequate not only in terms of exegesis and theological, rational coherence, as I hope to prove, but also better in its potential actually to preserve the doctrine of hell for Christian eschatology.  For given the silence attending the traditional view today even among its supporters, the whole idea of hell may be about to disappear unless a better interpretation can be offered about its nature.[32]
       So, if given the opportunity to revise the doctrine of hell, what is it that Pinnock is proposing?  Using a short-supply of biblical passages, some extra-biblical religious writing, and the work of a number of church fathers, Pinnock argues for a hell where people suffer and are punished but eventually are extinguished.  This, he contends, is more in line with a god of love.[33]  While the counterarguments of the three other positions hold a great deal of respect for Pinnock’s view, they still content that it fails to take into consideration the larger body of biblical evidence.

Conclusion
            While Hayes and Pinnock hold a deep desire to see mercy and love in God’s justice (a desire we should all hold), their views are the farthest from the mainline and evangelical Christian views.  This alone is not a sufficient reason to discredit their views; however, of the four views, these two rely the least on the Bible, utilizing extra-biblical texts, reason, or simply their desire to see something other than biblical teaching.  However, this author believes the Bible, not tradition or desire to see something better should be used to determine the truth.  Walvoord and Crockett draw their ideas from the Bible and yet they come to different conclusions.  Walvoord holds to a literal view of hell and takes a literal view to the entire Bible.  Crockett’s argument does a nice job of demonstrating the error in Walvoord’s approach in laying out what turns out to be the most convincing of the four views.  However, Crockett’s view, that is, that hell is everlasting and awful but not necessarily fire and smoke, must be approached with great caution as well.  Surely not every item in the Bible can be seen as metaphorical, but from his approach, Crockett does not identify a method to determine what is literal and what is rabbinic hyperbole.  He only holds that hell is not literal.

Bibliography
Crockett, William V. and Stanley N. Gundry. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1996.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2001.
 

     [1] William V. Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry, Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), 12.
     [2] Ibid.
     [3] Ibid., 28.
     [4] Ibid.
     [5] Ibid., 29-31, 43-76.
     [6] Ibid., 54.
     [7] Ibid., 50.
     [8] Ibid., 30-31, 49-50.
     [9] Ibid., 93.
     [10] Ibid., 127.
     [11] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2001), 927.
     [12] Crockett, 142.
     [13] Ibid., 142-143.
     [14] Ibid., 30.
     [15] Ibid.
     [16] Ibid., 30-31.
     [17] Ibid., 78-79.
     [18] Ibid. 79.
     [19] Crockett, 79.
     [20] Walvoord states that he has written an exposition on every prophecy of the Bible although he does not state whether that includes the dreams of Genesis 40 and 41.
     [21] Crockett, 43-44.
     [22] Ibid., 53.
     [23] Ibid., 55-61.
     [24] Ibid., 59.
     [25] Ibid.
     [26] Ibid., 30.
     [27] Ibid., 96-97.
     [28] Ibid., 150.
     [29] Ibid., 143.
     [30] Ibid., 160.
     [31] Ibid., 136,  148.
     [32] Ibid., 137.
     [33] Ibid., 151-153, 165.


 *I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 

An Interview with Tom Davis

[The following conversation between me and Tom Davis was originally published by Burnside Writer's Collective, on September 29, 2009.]

I met Tom Davis a few years ago at K2 Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. I was there to check out the cool warehouse-church with the beach sandal billboard; Tom was there to tell the church about suffering orphans, young girls entering the sex-trade, and a generation decimated by HIV/Aids. Three minutes into Tom’s story, the billboard became insignificant.

Tom Davis is the author of Red Letters: Living a Faith That Bleeds, Fields of the Fatherless: Discover the Joy of Compassionate Living, Confessions of a Good Christian Guy: The Secrets Men Keep and the Grace that Saves Them, and his latest book is a work of fiction titled, Scared: A Novel on the Edge of the World. He’s the CEO of Children’s HopeChest, encourages us all to drink Saint’s Coffee, and daily lives James 1:27.



Bryan: Tom, you went from a post-modern church planter in Texas to an advocate for orphans all over the world. What sparked the change?

Tom: In the mid-’90s I started making trips to Russian orphanages. The kids I met in those places changed my life forever. These orphans stopped being statistics and became human beings. They were beautiful kids filled with hopes and dreams for their futures but without help, there was no way to fulfill them. Most of them were forced to leave the orphanage at fifteen to sixteen years of age. 15% of those kids would end up committing suicide in two years, 70% of the girls would end up as prostitutes and 80% of the boys would end up on the streets or in jail. Those statistics shot an arrow through my heart. I couldn’t walk away and do nothing.

Bryan: What has been the most rewarding moment of your ministry?

Tom: Only one?! I met this little girl named Valya in Russia. She had a terrible story about being severely abused by her father who was later killed. Her mother was an alcoholic and blamed her for her father’s death. She was so upset with her she beat her incessantly until one day she couldn’t stand to look at her anymore and dropped her off at an orphanage. Valya never heard from her mother again.

This little girl was so amazing. Talent and beauty radiated from her life. Her dream was to enter college and play the flute. This was impossible because she could never afford it. We were able to buy her a flute, help her with her education, and take her to St. Petersburg to see the symphony and a ballet!

Bryan: What do you find most challenging about your ministry for orphans?


Tom: The need is always greater than our ability to meet it. We go into villages in Uganda and people are eating cow dung and boiling grass to survive. That kind of desperation is overwhelming. With the help of our partners, we meet those needs only to find out there are fifty villages within a few hundred miles just like it. We keep going, by God’s grace, helping as many as we can.

Bryan: It has been said that America is becoming more homogenized, often influenced by our media and entertainment outlets rather than the circumstances of our neighbors. If you think this might be true, what does it mean for orphans around the world? Has this hurt or helped? (What are the effects of say, Bono’s One Campaign or the movie, “Orphan”—no matter how bizarre the twisted ending might be?)

Tom: I hate making blanket statements, so forgive me in advance. Media has numbed most of us into thinking that people starving in Africa and girls in the sex-trade industry are just stories made up in Hollywood. The sensory overload causes people to shut down because they hear it all the time and many people think others are handling the issues.

Every single Christ-follower, has a biblical obligation to get involved in helping the poor. There are over two thousand versus in the Bible talking about poverty and many are commands for us to help those in need.

Bryan: Where do your see your ministry for the orphans in five years? Ten? Twenty?

Tom: I’ll do this the rest of my life. The goal I’ve set for myself and Children’s HopeChest is to care for one million orphans over the next thirty years. There are over one hundred and fifty million orphans in the world and trying to reach them is a daunting task. But if we can reach a million, a generation, then that generation will reach themselves. One million will reach one hundred and fifty million.

Bryan: When given the opportunity, what do you tell the churches you visit?

Tom: I tell them about how passionate God is about them caring for widows and orphans. If “pure and undefiled religion is caring for widows and orphans,” (James 1:27), then every single church on the planet must to be involved in orphan ministry.

Bryan: What lessons do you feel the American Church should learn from your ministry and experiences overseas working with orphans?

Tom: Every time I go overseas I fool myself into thinking it’s about me helping them. Although that’s true, I end up receiving way more from them then I’m able to give. Being with the poor is one of the greatest activities on earth. As Mother Theresa said, “When I’m with the poor, I’m with Jesus.”

Bryan: In what ways can someone get involved, from the lowest level to the highest?

Tom: Contact me at tdavis@hopechest.org or check out the Children’s HopeChest webpage at www.hopechest.org. We’re all about involvement. We’ll take you overseas, get you connected with orphans and entire orphan villages. We’ll even show you how you can help a child for the rest of their life, for less than you spend on coffee each month. You can even buy coffee that fights poverty at www.saintscoffee.com. For every pound you buy, you feed an orphan for a month.

Bryan: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Tom: Helping the poor, the widow, or the orphan changes your life forever. There isn’t a better way to connect with the heart of God. In Matthew 25 Jesus talked about how significant these acts are in the kingdom of heaven. God turns to the righteous in eternity and says, “Well done, good and faithful servant. I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was naked and you clothed me, sick and you came to me, in prison and you visited me.” Those are the words I want to hear.

Twitter users, follow Tom Davis @cthomasdavis.

*I have no material connection to the books mentioned in this interview. 

How the Gospel Moves

The early church suffered persecution; in that, there is no dispute.  The effort of the persecution was to stop the grown of the Church, mostly through the elimination of the spread of the gospel.  Initially, the persecution was sporadic, raising up in only one area at a time and then settling for a time.  Then the persecution became organized, meaning it was planned and systematic, and then universal—that is, it was everywhere.  The reaction of the Church grew with the persecution, as did the Church.  As the persecution changed and adapted, so did the Jesus’ people.  

The persecutions shaped how the believers gathered and worshiped.  In many ways, the collection of the believers became secretive and private, which is not a good way to grow a church body.  But if it were not, the meetings would draw negative and unwanted attention.  (Sometimes these meeting were even held in the catacombs next to the decomposing bodies of Christians who were killed for their faith.)

In his book The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Gonzalez says, “It is clear that the enormous spread of the Gospel in those first few centuries was not due to the full-time missionaries, but rather to the many Christians who traveled for other reasons—slaves, merchants, exiles condemned to work in the mines, and the like” (1984, p. 99).   But only 85 pages earlier, Gonzalez writes, “The political unity wrought by the Roman Empire allowed the early Christians to travel without having to fear bandits or local wars” (p. 14).  In Paul’s day (as we find in the book of Acts), Paul and his companions were able to travel from city to city sharing the gospel.  They could freely preach in the open and the only people they had to fear were their fellow Jews or the trinket merchants of other religious systems.  It was not the government that gave Paul grief, but the religious types, trying to protect their religious ways.  

However, a couple centuries later, the great persecutions seem to have removed the ability for “professional” missionaries and church planters to work as they did.  The persecution brought the Great Commission right into the lives of everyday believers.  The very thing trying to stop the growth of the Church was also the thing that birthed an evangelical flame within the individuals of the body.  Now, taking out one person had very little impact upon the mission to move the gospel to the darker places, as the traders, slaves, soldiers, and exiles did.  

And if I may, I would like to look at the present through a lens from history.  In nations where Christianity is being greatly persecuted, the gospel still moves.  Yes, I believe it is in part due to brave missionaries; however, history might suggest it is through the simple movement of faithful believers, submitting to the direction of the Holy Spirit.  If we can learn anything from history, it is that not only do the brave missionaries deserve our support, but also the believers, already in the nation, who can take the gospel where it needs to go. And we should also realize that even in our comfortable little unpersecuted bubbles, we should not rely on the "professional missionaries," the books, tracts, music, TV shows, preachers, etc, we should carry the gospel wherever we go.

González, Justo L. The story of Christianity: The early Church to the dawn of the Reformation. Vol 1. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.


Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem

In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, B. Demarest defines systematic theology as, "The attempt to reduce religious truth to a coherent and relevant whole for the church."[1] This definition is okay, but I think Grudem boils it down to a practical explanation when he repeats the definition of his former professor, John Frame, writing, "Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, 'What does the whole Bible teach us today?' about any given topic."[2]  And then Grudem, a seminary professor at Phoenix Seminary,  sets out to cover a wide breath of topics in his book, Systematic Theology.

There are many books on systematic theology, some even with the same title, but few are as popular today as Grudem's.  In simple writing that is easy to understand and laid out in a logical format, Grudem explores the issues of biblical doctrine.  Taking them on one-by-one, a student of the Bible can gain a good grasp of the larger doctrines and teaching of the Bible.

Systematic theology generally asks, "What does the entire Bible say about this?"  In addition to his own scholarship, Grudem offers plenty of Scripture in his attempt to answer many questions about doctrine.  In my systematic theology courses, I was not required to purchase Grudem's book, but I often found it offered insight that the other texts didn't seem to shed light upon.  It also serves as a great starting point when diving into the study of a particular doctrine, issue, or question, but if I am going to be fair, I don't think it should be the only theology book on your shelf.  (I do however, believe it will be the one most used.)   

Not too long ago, I stumbled across a podcast from Scottsdale Bible Church in Arizona, where Dr. Grudem taught doctrine to a Sunday school class.  In 118 one-hour sessions, Grudem teaches classes that follow the table of contents of his book.  Together with the book, I don't think there is a better free education on systematic theology available today.  I highly recommend it.   

To subscribe to or download Wayne Grudem's 118 audio lectures he uses to walk through his book, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, click here


1. Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 1162.  

2. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 21.

*I have no material connection to this book or the Scottsdale Bible Church Podcast.

Army Chaplain: Worship, Counseling, Visitation, and Wartime Readiness

             Just before entering the Promised Land, Moses preached to the Israelites in Arabah.  Among Moses’ many directives were instructional laws for warfare.  He said, “And when you draw near to battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: Let not your heart faint.  Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them, for the LORD your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you victory” (Deut. 20:2-5, ESV).  Priests spoke first, then the commanders.  At Jericho, the priests blew the trumpets that led the people to shout and bring the wall down (Josh. 6).  These are but two examples of how God used priests among the Israelite warriors.  The chaplains of the modern American Army are not used in the same manner as the Israelite priests, but they still play a vital role to the force through offering worship services, counseling, visitation, and wartime readiness preparedness.  

            The mission of the Army Chaplaincy, in part, is to “Provide religious support to America’s Army across the full spectrum of operations” (U. S. Chaplaincy Corp 2009, Sec 2:1).  It is for this reason that the chaplain prepares worship services in both peace and wartime, in the garrison and on the battlefield.  On occasion, the chaplain must work outside what would be considered typical for clergy.  Rabbi Max Wall serves as a great example, having provided an Easter service in Bavaria at the conclusion of World War II (Bergen 2004, 210-211).  Indeed, in an Army rapidly growing more religiously diverse and serving in atypical missions throughout the world, the ability for a chaplain to remain flexible without violating his or her own religious tenants is paramount. 

            In recent years, counseling has moved up to a top priority of the chaplain corp.  Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey Jr. says,
After seven years of continuous combat however, our Army is out-of-balance.  The stress on Soldiers and Families has had an impact across the force.  Yet our Values remain non-negotiable.  Precisely for this reason, the Chaplain Corps’ mission of providing spiritual, moral, and ethical counseling is critically important (U. S. Chaplaincy Corp 2009, Sec 1:i).
In an effort to keep “spiritual, moral, and ethical counseling” in a position of high importance, the Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014 requires the strengthening of existing support programs and the creation of more of them; in addition to recruiting higher caliber chaplains and opening more opportunities for soldier and family counseling.  Chaplains regularly find themselves counseling wounded warriors and their families, soldiers transitioning out of the Army, and career soldiers enduring multiple extended deployments.  Suicide rates are higher among soldiers than the rest of the population, and chaplains are serving on the forward front in efforts to prevent future suicides as well as other physical, mental, and spiritual hardships of the suffering soldier.

            Finally, to accomplish the first two primary areas of the Army chaplaincy—worship and counseling—the chaplain must put a greater effort into visitation.  It is the ministry of presence that allows the chaplain to serve the soldier’s needs, psychically, morally, and spiritually.   Hospital visits are just as important as meeting each solider on the battlefield as is time with the troops in garrison and training.  Presently, the chaplain must go to the soldier, no matter where his or she is, because it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the soldier will come to the chaplain.

            And through out all of the chaplain’s efforts, the reality of war must remain in the forefront of planning and training.  Not only must Army chaplains help prepare soldiers and their families for wartime, they themselves must be ready.  The Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014 has come to realize that chaplains too must be ready to go anywhere in the world at a moment’s notice, at any time.  Without a doubt, in the face of a changing world, the Army chaplaincy must be changing too.



Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004.


U. S. Army, Chaplain Corp. 2009.  The Army Chaplaincy Strategic Plan 2009-2014. http://www.chapnet.army.mil/ (Accessed February 28, 2009)


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Holy Bible: Mosaic (NLT)

A couple of years ago, I was approached about contributing to a project that wanted to create something the editors were calling a "meditative Bible."  The idea, if I understood it correctly, was to produce (or find) a series of content that on it's own would be interesting, but when collected with other related material would point to a theme and offer something the reader could ponder, pray on, and contemplate throughout the week.  Each piece would be like the single stone or pottery shard of a mosaic, but when collected together, would create a picture of the Divine.  The result of this project is Holy Bible: Mosaic, published by Tyndale House and bound together with the New Living Translation (NLT) of the Holy Bible.

Holy Bible: Mosaic is really two books with one binding.  The front section is the meditative material, which I'll get to in a moment.  The remainder of the book, over 1,300 pages is the Bible.  It's the New Living Translation and free of intrusive notes (other than an occasional footnote), study material, or factoids as are found in other devotional Bibles.  There are however, markers and a page number in the side margins to indicate additional material in the front section of the book that is related to or inspired the mosaic work.  The last portion of this section of Holy Bible: Mosaic includes a basic Hebrew/Greek dictionary and an index, along with a concordance.  It's also worth noting that the pages are a different type of paper so there is no confusion as to what is the duel-authored Word of God and what is the material we assembled for the meditations.

The other section, which is bound in the front portion of the book, has a page numbering system distinct from the biblical material and is printed on a different color page-- more of a cream color, heaver paper.  It is this material that makes Mosaic different from other study or devotional Bibles.  This section is organized by weeks, with themes following the Church calendar (it is not strictly Church calendar material; the calendar simply servers as a way of selecting themes).  Each week includes a colorful selection of art, a suggested Bible reading, quotes, poems, hymns, and a contemporary essay written by a living Christian.  Within the front section, every century of Christianity from every naturally inhabited continent is represented.

The incredible thing about Mosaic is the diversity of Christ followers that can be found with its pages. Some names are more recognizable early classics like Clement I, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Ambrose, and Augustine.  And of course there are quotes from guys like Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, William Tyndale, John Owen, and John Wesley.  Some of the more recent writers include E. M. Bounds, Nathaniel Hawthorne, John Charles Ryle, Karl Barth, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., A. W. Tozer, and even Mark Driscoll, Dan Kimball, and Donald Miller.  And then some of the contemporary contributors, with names you might not recognize, include Jay Blevens, Jordan Green, Beyth Hogue, Tom Fuller, Sarah Cunningham, Ruth Tuttle Conrad, Mark Miller, and Derek Williams.

This book is full of poetry, art, and thoughtful prose, and all of it is inspired by Scripture and the magnitude of God.   If you'd like to learn more about Holy Bible: Mosaic, please visit www.HolyBibleMosaic.com.

*Amazon purchases from this site help support the ministry of SaltyBeliever.com.  Purchase Holy Bible: Mosaic here.  

Planning Your Preaching by Stephen Nelson Rummage

Critical Book Review
Of
Planning Your Preaching by Stephen Nelson Rummage

Bibliographical Entry
 Rummage, Stephen Nelson. Planning Your Preaching: A Step-by-Step Guide for Developing a One-Year Preaching Calendar.  Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2002.

Author Information
            Stephen Nelson Rummage is the author of two books—Praying With a Purpose: a 28-Day Journey into an Empowered Prayer Life, which he co-authored with his wife, and Planning Your Preaching: a Step-by-Step Guide for Developing a One-Year Preaching Calendar, which is the subject of this review.  Rummage was ordained to the ministry in 1991 and has served as Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church in Cary, North Carolina, Hickory Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, and most recently at Bell Shoals Baptist Church in Brandon, Florida.  His undergraduate degree was granted from University of North Carolina in Greensboro and he holds a Masters of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Doctorate in Philosophy in Preaching from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.  In addition, Professor Rummage has held teaching positions at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and presently at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  He and Michelle—his wife of 18-years—have one son.[1]   

Content Summary
             Stephen Rummage has not set out to write a ‘how to develop a single sermon’ book; but instead, he shares, “how all of your preaching can fit together into one cohesive plan so that your pulpit ministry can grow in its effectiveness” (p 13).  Because Rummage believes that great sermons are not single events, but a collection of many planned events, he writes Planning your Preaching with the purpose to “help pastors put together a quarterly, six-month, or yearly schedule for what they will preach” (p 14).  He writes to a reader who is presently serving in the pastorate and planning a Sunday morning, Sunday evening, and a mid-week sermon; however, the material is easily adaptable to fit a different combination of service planning.

Sadly, it is necessary that Rummage must open his book with an argument for advanced planning on what one will preach, and even how a preacher should preach.  Preaches are, according to Rummage, to preach biblically, consistently, persuasively, and patiently (pp 18-21).  And using Scriptures, examples, illustrations, and logical arguments, Rummage lays out a convincing argument for the advance planning of sermons and sermon series.  Finally, he is able to move on to the next chapter, where any preacher who has picked up this book wants to start—determining a preaching strategy.  Covering the foundation of the planning process, subjects such as style of sermon delivery (notes vs. no notes, for example), understanding the needs and demographics of the congregation, and determining the objectives of the preaching are handled in the second chapter.  Once this is understood, Rummage instructs preachers to pack up their calendars, some reading materials, and study Bibles and go somewhere, alone, to construct a preaching plan for a year.  At this planning retreat the preacher will determine which series he will work though, with a distinction being made between thematic series and book series (p 66).  Rummage makes a strong case for expository preaching, be it verse-by-verse through an entire book, parts of a book, or even selected passages from each chapter of the book.  In any case, work must be done to determine how that will look and Chapter 4 provides the nuts-and-bolts of this kind of preparation.
Chapters 5 and 6 deal with the Ordinances and special days, respectively; and Chapter 7 addresses planning for doctrinal preaching.  Chapter 8 opens the door for pastoral preaching, that is, on a topic rather than what is customarily understood as expository (although Rummage argues that pastoral preaching can be expository preaching with the right motives (pp 169-171)); but, Rummage warns, “If a pastor plans his preaching around addressing personal problems in his congregation, he will have a tendency to preach on what people want to hear rather than what God wants to say” (177).

In what this author believes is the most fascinating chapter, Chapter 9, Rummage addresses the use of the Christian Year and the lectionary.  While this chapter is not necessary to the main theme of the book, and many preachers might be tempted to pass over it, Rummage provides some material that if used in sermon planning, can infuse interesting ideas that are not well known or understood in today’s Evangelical churches.  “During the past several decades,” argues Rummage, “a new interest in the Christian Year has developed, even among churches that had once eschewed its use” (p185).  This being the case, Rummage provides some tools to successfully using the Christian Year and a lectionary.  And Chapter 10 closes the book with how to put the preaching plan into action.   


Evaluation
             Generally being overly critical of how-to books that lay out a specific plan for doing anything in the ministry, I actually found this book extremely helpful.  Planning your Preaching, served as the guide to my first attempt to plan a year of sermons.  I am extremely happy with that plan and Rummage’s guidance deserves the bulk of the earthly credit.   The book is well written and Rummage provides enough explanation to make his points but does not overwork the obvious.  His experience pours from the pages, yet, he does not simply fall back to it; rather, he provides logical information that is not depended upon the experience of only one preacher.  If there were any change that might improve the work, it would be the removal of the first chapter.  Much of the first chapter serves to argue and support the idea of planning expository preaching; however, anyone taking Planning Your Preaching up to the counter and shelling out cash for it, does not likely need to hear these arguments.  On the other hand, as an assigned reading, the chapter does make for a nice opener for any student that may not agree with Rummage or planning a one-year preaching calendar.


              Planning Your Preaching is not only a helpful tool for preachers, novice and experienced alike, it is valuable for the soon-to-be preacher.  In fact, those just entering the pastorate would be well served to get started on the right foot.  Keeping a copy of Planning Your Preaching on a nearby shelf in the office is a great start.  Taking it with them on a planning retreat is even better!



     [1] Bell Shoals Baptist Church, “In Transition: From the Search Committee” PDF brochure attachment, http://66.132.241.194/pages/page.asp?page_id=57582 [accessed October 18, 2009].


*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Morality: The Chaplain is On Point

             As I'm getting closer to raising my right hand and re-entering the Army as a chaplain candidate, friends and family with little military background or understanding have asked what a chaplain does.  As I share my understanding of the answer with them, there is a bit of a surprise.  It seems many people feel the chaplain is just in the Army for the Sunday service and funerals.  It's much more.  I wrote a brief discussion on this for a chaplain course in seminary and felt it might be insightful.  
 
          The United States Army has every expectation that its personnel will act with high integrity and moral fortitude.  However, both of these terms are ambiguous and somewhat undefined by the military.  How then is a soldier, noncommissioned officer, or commander to know what is required of him, her, or the unit?  To assist in this area, the Army has placed some of the responsibility with the chaplain.

            Of the seven Army Values, two specifically deal with morality: Integrity and Personal Courage.  The definition of integrity, according to the Army, is, “Do what’s right, legally and morally” (GoArmy.com 2009); personal courage means to, “Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral)” (GoArmy.com 2009).  A third Army Value is Respect, instructing soldiers to “treat people as they should be treated” (GoArmy.com 2009).  Another example of the need for interpretation of morality includes the Noncommissioned Officer’s Creed, which states in part, “I will not compromise my integrity, nor my moral courage” (NCOCorps.net 2009).  Yet, these values and creeds don’t go into any further detail as to what is morality.  Because most people believe that morality find its roots in religion, it only make sense that the chaplain would be the person to teach the soldiers and advise command on it. 

            The chaplain is a staff officer, and as such, has “direct access to the commander” (AR 165-1, 4-5a 2004, 8).  In addition, Army Regulation dictates that, “Chaplains will advise the commander and staff on matters of religion, morals, and morale” (AR 165-1, 4-5a 2004, 8).   Therefore, it is safe to assume that the chaplain is expected to be the interpreter of situational events dealing with morality.  Commanders and soldiers alike should be able to approach the chaplain for moral advise, but in order for the individual to trust the chaplain, the chaplain must be credible, him or herself living a life of example in the areas of morality, integrity, and respect.

            In addition to being an advisor, the chaplain is also a watchdog.  Anne C. Loveland explains the chaplain’s moral and humanitarian responsibilities:
The chaplain manuals issued in 1984 and 1989 extend the chaplain’s purview to include illegal, immoral, or inhumane practices during combat.  Not only was he supposed to aid the commander in preventing such practices, but he also was specifically directed to report to him possible violations of the laws of war, as well as such practices as ‘dehumanizing treatment of friendly troops, enemy prisoners of war (EPW), or civilians; violations of codes of morality; illegal acts, desecrations of sacred places, and disrespect for human life (Bergen 2004, 242-243).
Anne Loveland’s statement clearly points out that the chaplain is not simply a provider of Sunday services or an administer of the sacraments.  The chaplain is also expected to provide advice to soldiers and commanders regarding the morality of their actions and behaviors.  And when soldiers and commanders exercise behavior that does not demonstrate the moral strength expected of them, regulation requires that the chaplain report the violations.

            War has a tendency to bring about some of the world’s worst atrocities.  When America commits these atrocities—such as the My Lai massacre or the torture and inhumane treatment at Abu Ghraib Prison—America looses credibility among the other nations of the world.  In addition, American soldiers could live the rest of their lives with the guilt of their behavior brought about from war.  For some, this proves too unbearable and they resort to drugs, alcohol, or even suicide.   And often the quality of life for the surviving victims of war crimes is greatly reduced.  The chaplain is not only responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of individual soldiers of his unit (or parish), he or she is also responsible for providing sound advice to the commander and seeing that the unit performs its mission with high moral standards.  When the chaplain fails in this particular role, little good can come from the remainder of his or her religious duties.           

Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004. 
GoArmy.com. Soldier Live: Living the Army Values. http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp (accessed February 19, 2009).
Headquarters of the Department of the Army. 2004. Army Regulation 165-1: Chaplain Activities in the United States Army (March, 25). By Order of the Secretary of the Army, Peter J. Schoomaker.
NCOCorps.net. U.S. Army NCO Creed. http://www.ncocorps.net/more/us_army_nco_creed.htm (accessed February 19, 2009).

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
**Photo Info: "Staff Sgt. Miguel A. Martinez-Velazquez, chaplain's assistant noncommissioned officer in charge, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, shelters 3rd BCT Brigade Chaplain Maj. Paul Jaedicke from incoming fire during the role play training for chaplain and chaplain's assistants Aug. 3rd at the Joint Readiness Training Center. The chaplains and thier assistants are training for an upcoming deployment in support of the war on terror. (U.S. Army Photo by Pfc. Kimberly Cole, 40th Public Affairs Office) This photo is registered under a Creative Commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/soldiersmediacenter/ / CC BY 2.0


Like a Child, Matthew 18:1-4

  [1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” [2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them [3] and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. [4] Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  [Matthew 18:1-4, ESV]

While Jesus and his disciples were in Capernaum, some of his disciples approached Jesus and asked him who was going to be the most important person in heaven.  It's possible that they wanted to understand how people would be ranked in heaven, or maybe they wanted to hear some kind of self-conformation because they were early, devoted followers of Jesus, or maybe they were feeling insecure because Jesus had recently asked Simon Peter to go fishing for the miraculous fish with a shekel in its mouth.  Measuring their motives resides mostly in the realm of speculation, but it's not much of a stretch to see where they were going with a question like this.

The disciples might have thought that Jesus would think about it and then point at one of them, maybe Peter, maybe John, maybe the person who brought forward the question.  Instead, Jesus sees a child nearby and calls him or her over.  The disciples were probably confused.  "This child is going to be the most important person in heaven?" they might have murmured to one another, "What!?!"

And Jesus says to them, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:3).  He was not telling them they needed to turn around the aging process or that only little kids go to heaven.  No, Jesus wasn't talking about anything physical; he was calling them to change (or turn around) their thinking or not only would they not be the greatest in heaven, they wouldn't even get in.  This must have been a little shocking for the disciples, maybe a little humiliating.  They were probably thinking, what do you me like a little child; what traits of a child should I try to emulate?

Then Jesus told them, "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 18:4).  Humility, a common theme of Jesus' ministry and preaching, comes forward again.  Here the disciples are desiring to be the greatest in heaven and again, Jesus calls them to humility.  

I have two boys and at times I don't see humility in my 4-year-old.  However, when I take a few minutes, it's there and it's amazing.  When we think of a humble adult, we have a picture in our mind;  but if that picture is not the same as a humble child, than the picture is not the humility Jesus calls us to.

In the video, I take a few moments to reflect on Matthew 18:1-4 through the examples of my sons.


Are you striving for the humility of a child?   



This video and others like it are available in the Resources section of this website. Please check it out regularly as more content will be added often.

Subscribe to the Salty Believer iTunes Podcasts: Video | Audio
(Non iTunes: Video | Audio)
* While there may be some overlap, the content of the Video and Audio Podcasts are not the same. 

Reading Through the Bible in a Year

Many free plans are available that help people read through the Bible in a set given period of time.  Some Bibles offer suggested reading plans in an appendix.  Most of these plans will take a reader through the entire Bible in a year.  A year is a nice duration because it works out to about 3 to 5 chapters per reading, or about 20 minutes a day.

There are a number of different ways to go through the Bible.  It could be that your program starts on the first page of Genesis and ends on the last page of Revelation (the first and last books of the Bible).  There are some that will read something from the New Testament and something from the Old.  Or it could be more detailed, maybe something from the books of history, something from the wisdom books, a bit from the books of the prophets, then the gospels, epistles, and so-on.  Or it could be like the one I'm working on this year that's chronological by event (but you could even do one that's chronological by when the book was authored).

There are many programs available on-line.  Bibleyear.com will allows you do develop your own 1-year program, taking into consideration translation and the type of read through you'd like to do.  It also has start dates on the 1st and 15th of every month, unlike some that start only on January 1st or go by day number (which gets confusing by day 11).     

There was a time when I couldn't stand the "programs" designed to help people read through the Bible in a year. My incorrect thoughts--which didn't work well in practice--went something like this:
  • Why would I want to restrict my reading to a ridged plan?  What if one day I wanted to read more than the program suggests, or less if I am short on time?
  • Doesn't a Bible read-through plan force a person to move forward even if they should stop and marinate on a single scripture for a while? 
  • Could it be okay to skim through some of the dry readings and work in more depth in the deeply engaging stuff? 
In reality, if we don't have a plan, and even some accountability, we tend to put off the reading until a year has passed and we realized we need to get back into the Word.  Or, in my case more recently, I can work on a single passage for a week.  I'll look at it in the Greek and read commentaries on it.  I'll contrast it against other scriptures and I'll pray about it.  While this can be great for study, it really doesn't allow me to hear the flow and beauty of God's word.  It also means I stay in one book of the Bible for a long, long time.  If this is you, that's great--keep doing this, but add a 1-year Bible reading plan.

The other problem I sometimes have (which isn't a bad thing) is I'll read large sections of Scripture. Sometimes 2 or 3 books in a night.  I ended up reading through the entire Old Testament twice in one semester and then I did the same for the new Testament the next semester.  If this is you, great, keep it up. However, add a 1-year read through too and commit to that each morning while you're having your Frosted Flakes and coffee.

While I don't generally suggest it for study, it might be a good idea to use dynamic translation, which tends to be a smoother reading translation.  I'm finding that the New Living Translation (NLT) is an easy read for my daily morning readings.  But this is just me; read what you're most comfortable with.  The important thing is that your reading.  If you've never read through the entire Bible, why not?

*Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/29968788@N00/ / CC BY 2.0

Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright

A Critical Review of
Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament by Christopher J.H. Wright
 
            Dr. Christopher J. H. Wright is a scholar of Old Testament ethics (Ph. D., Cambridge).  For five years, he taught at Union Biblical Seminary (1983-1988) and served as Principal of All Nations Christian College from 1993-2001.  Presently, he is the director of international ministries with the Langham Partnership International and he, as an ordained Anglican, is on staff at All Souls Church, Langham Place in London, England.  Wright has also authored dozens of books including Knowing God the Father Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2007), Knowing the Holy Spirit Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 2006), and the subject of this review, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (IVP Academic, 1992) (InterVarsity Press).  Wright’s central purpose of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament is to stress the importance of the Old Testament as a valuable key to understanding who Jesus was and how Jesus understood himself.

            According to Wright, the Old Testament offers a rewarding illumination of the Messiah.  “In short,” says Wright, “the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix).  However, Wright is not making the argument that the Old Testament points to Jesus, but rather, that the Old Testament pointed Jesus to who he was to become.  Upfront, we writes,
For these are the words he read. These are the stories he knew. These were the songs he sang. These were the depths of wisdom and revelation and prophecy that shaped his whole view of ‘life, the universe and everything’. This is where he found his insights into the mind of his Father God. Above all, this is where he found the shape of his own identity and the goal of his own mission (Wright, ix).
In order to point to specific Old Testament clues about the character, authority, mission, and purpose of the Messiah, Wright must first build the foundation upon which he will frame his argument.  This foundation consists of an overview of the Old Testament as the first act of a two-act narrative, or more specifically, “salvation history” (Wright, 30-54).  The stories are not simply children’s Bible stories; they are accounts of real events.  One such key event, according to Wright, is the covenant made with Abraham.  Genesis 12:3 is a focal point of Wright’s foundation, suggesting that all the people of the earth will be blessed through Abraham and by extension, the nation of Israel, and by further extension, Jesus (a Jew), who became the Messiah of the Jews, Gentiles, and all peoples of the earth.  From this covenant with Abraham to David, to the exile, to Jesus, Wright suggests that the genealogy of Matthew 1:1-17 is designed to remind the Jewish reader of the historical story of the entire Old Testament and the original covenants with Abraham and David.  Then, standing on Galatians 3:39, which reads, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (ESV), Wright suggests that this Old Testament narrative is the story of all believers, not simply the story of the Israelites.  “One people, one story,” says Wright.  “The fact is, that whether we read Matthew 1:1-17 in our Christmas carol service or not, that story is our story as much as it is the story of Jesus.  For through him, we have come to be, like him, the descendants of Abraham” (Wright, 54).
            From his foundation, Wright moves to the framework of his argument—the fulfillment of promise.  First, using a horse/motorcar analogy, he suggests that as situations change, the details of God’s promise (or covenant) change; however, the original intent of the fulfillment remains the same.  Then, switching analogies, Wright constructs a model of the promise/fulfillment—promise/fresh fulfillment cycle.  In this model, each promise is partially fulfilled and then a new promise gives energy and amplification to both the original promise and the new promise for a future fulfillment, eventually leading to a total fulfillment in Jesus Christ that needs no additional promise.  “Like some science-fiction, time traveling rocket,” states Wright, “the promise is launched, returning to earth at some later point of history in a partial fulfillment, only to be relaunched with a fresh load of fuel and cargo for yet another historical destination, and so on” (Wright, 72).  A significant amount of ink is then spent reinforcing the frame, explaining the significance of the various covenants to not just the Jewish people, but the entire world, building to the final covenant of Christ that would not need a relaunch (Wright, 55-102).

            Once the foundation is firmly set and the frame is standing, Wright hangs his argument.  Leading up to Jesus’ baptism, contends Wright, Jesus was diligently reading the Old Testament and coming to understand his role as the Messiah.  Defending himself from Satan’s temptations in the wilderness, Jesus uses Old Testament scripture.  Sparing with the Phrases, he depends on this scriptural knowledge and understanding.  And most importantly, Jesus the Christ is the fulfilling second act of the story.  He is expanding upon the Old Testament law and bringing greater clarification to the narratives that came before him.  The many similarities of the characters of the Old Testament didn’t foretell of the coming Messiah, suggests Wright, instead they defined him (Wright, 103-252).

            While Wright argues that the narrative started in the Old Testament and completed in the New must be viewed in its entirety in order to grasp who Jesus was (and is), he greatly narrows the scope of the Old Testament.  Understandably, in order to articulate his point and make a case for Christ as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, Wright must keep a narrow focus; however, because of his narrow approach to the covenants of the Old Testament, he glosses over the other elements of each individual covenant and the specific fulfillments of each for a real people of a historical time.  Wright completely ignores the Noahic Covenant, likely because this promise from God has no need for a future fulfillment in Christ.  And by focusing only on the portion of the Abrahamic Covenant that promises that the nation born of Abraham’s line will become a blessing to all people, Wright pays little attention to the promise of land and the fact that this covenant first promises that the line will become a great nation before it will be a blessing to all people.  Wright gives little attention to the Mosaic Covenant other than that it is a refueling and relaunching pad on the course for the bigger promise.  “Launched from Mount Sinai,” says Wright of the covenant renewal, “the people of promise head for its next stage of fulfillment – the gift of land” (Wright, 73).  The series of “next stages” provides a troubling idea that these promises were merely all one promise, with the details changing as the situation changed.  At the Davidic Covenant launching pad, Wright zeros in on 2 Samuel 7:16, which says, “And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.  Your throne shall be established forever” (ESV).  But this focus pushes aside the portion of the covenant that promises blessings for obedience and punishment for disobedience.  The foundation built by Wright provides strong support of the final completion of portions of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants; yet, the same foundation, which glosses over some of the specific details and fulfillments of the Old Testament covenants weakens his argument that the Old Testament is a book of real people and events that Christians should be reading and understanding.  Indeed, his strong ties that draw today’s believers to the Old Testament narrative, also serve to diminish the importance of the Old Testament Israelite people.  While, this reviewer is somewhat critical of Wright’s foundation, I do believe Wright paints a nice picture of the ultimate fulfillment of portions of the covenants.  In addition, Wright’s approach being neither from a fully dispensational theology or fully covenant theology does provide a fresh perspective from which to view the progression of the promises.

            There is little biblical evidence that disputes Wright’s claim that the Old Testament scriptures and songs not only shaped Jesus character, but also helped him understand who he was.  In fact, the Luke 2 story of Jesus as a boy in the temple lends more support to his argument, specifically verse 52: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man” (ESV).  If Jesus is increasing in knowledge, it only makes sense that some, if not all of this knowledge would be in the scriptures.  Wright spend considerable time expanding on Jesus’ use of scripture—in thwarting off Satan’s tempting efforts, in explaining who he is, in teaching, and in expanding and simplifying the law.  However, Wright’s argument allows for the challenge that Jesus may have merely studied the scriptures and fit the pieces together in order that he may become the Messiah and fulfill the prophecy.  (Although this challenge would struggle to stand against the various miracles, healings, signs, and resurrection of Christ.)  In addition, this challenge could assert that the writers of the New Testament crafted Jesus’ life to fulfill the Old Testament covenants.  Although clearly not his intention to suggest the authors inappropriately drew connections, Wright himself suggests that the New Testament authors contrasted what they witnessed to what they knew before recording the Gospels.  Wright states,
So, when the writers of the New Testament witnessed God’s climactic discharge of that commitment to humanity in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, they checked what they had experienced with what they already knew through their Hebrew scriptures. They looked at all the events surrounding Jesus, and they understood them, illuminated them, explained and finally recorded them, all in the light of the whole sweep of Old Testament promise (Wright, 102).
In addition to paving an avenue for critical attack, Wright’s efforts to demonstrate that Jesus was a real man, specifically a Jewish rabbi, in a real time, flirts dangerously close to stripping the deity from Jesus and leaving him an ordinary man.  For example, Wright states,
...it was the Old Testament which helped Jesus to understand Jesus.  Who did he think he was?  What did he think he was to do?  The answers came from his Bible, the Hebrew scriptures in which he found a rich tapestry of figures, historical persons, prophetic pictures and symbols of worship.  And in this tapestry, where others saw only a fragmented collection of various figures and hopes, Jesus saw his own face.  His Hebrew Bible provided the shape of his own identity (Wright, 108).
And only a page later, Wright says, “Here we have an adult man, at one level indistinguishable among the crowds of those who flocked to John for baptism and in any case otherwise unknown except as a carpenter’s son from Nazareth, who takes upon himself a staggering identity with awesome personal consequences” (Wright, 109, emphasis added).  From other passages, it would seem that Wright does indeed believe Jesus is the Son of God, yet some of his wording, intentional or unintentional, suggests Christ was more ordinary man than God. 

However, Wright’s effort to show the importance of the Old Testament provides an outstanding demonstration of Jesus’ knowledge and use of scripture.  Academic discussion may center on whether or not the Old Testament scriptures shaped Jesus’ self-awareness; but in the practical arena of ministry, it is clear that Jesus knew and used the scriptures.  Jesus himself points to Deuteronomy 8:3, which states, “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD(ESV, emphasis added).  Pastors and teachers should be in agreement with Wright regarding Jesus’ example, and therefore teach that Christians should learn from Christ’s example and feast on the Word of God. 

            Of the few reviews of Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament this reviewer found (none of which are academic, but rather commercial in nature), most, if not all were in complete agreement with Wright; although a couple including one by Brian Tubbs (2007) focus on Wright’s meandering through his argument, “taking longer than necessary to make some of [his] points” (suite101.com).  This reviewer agrees.  Additionally, most articles regarding Jesus and Old Testament scripture argue something similar to the typology that Wright argues against (Wright, 114-116).  If they are not arguing a typology, they remain focused on the same prophecies that Wright argues Jesus used to shape who he was.  Michael Rydelnik’s “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” serves as a good representation of all of these kinds of articles with one exception—like Wright, Rydelnik points to the Hebrew bible in its entirety rather than simply as specific scriptures treated as stand-alone narratives (Rydelnik 2007, 1351-1352).  


             In conclusion, this reviewer found Wright’s purpose—“the deeper you go into understanding the Old Testament, the closer you come to the heart of Jesus” (Wright, ix)—compelling.  His intent is encouraging.  However, the foundation and framework of his argument are built on a narrow focus, which leads to a challenging premise of the progression of Old Testament covenants from the Lord.  In addition, Wright’s detailed work demonstrating Jesus’ use and knowledge of the scriptures is outstanding; however, I struggle to fully agree with Wright because his argument all but suggests that the Old Testament didn’t foretell the coming of the Messiah, but instead shaped the very character of Jesus as the Messiah.  
           
Reference List
InterVarsity Press. “Christopher J. H. Wright.” http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/author.pl/author_id=343 (accessed February 21, 2009).


Rydelnik, Michael. 2007. “What Does the Hebrew Bible Say About the Coming Messiah?” In The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith Ed. Ted Cabal, 1351-1352. Nashville, Tennessee: Holman Bible Publishers.


Tubbs, Brian. Suite101.com “Jesus and the Old Testament A Review of Christopher J.H. Wright's Book on Jesus in the OT” 2007. http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/jesus_and_the_old_testament (accessed February 20, 2009).

Wright, Christopher J. H. 1992. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.  



*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 


Update: SLC Project, Mid-February

By Bryan Catherman, February 20, 2010

For those interested, I through I would offer another church plant update.  Maybe "church plant" is not the right word at this point; it's the goal and hope but the moment, this is more of an effort we're calling the SLC Project.

Kyle and Joy Costello have moved into their home in downtown Salt Lake.  It's a nice home in a great location.  They've wasted no time getting to know the people and the area.  Lisa and I had the privilege of enjoying dinner with them last week.  (Tip: Joy makes amazing vegan cookies!)   Kyle's posted video update on the SLC Project website; I've included it with this post.  It's about 6 minutes in length and work the time.  Check it out. (If you're interested in what's happening with the SLC Project, I highly recommend you check out the website.) 


Keven, Karen, and Braden Rogers have also landed in Salt Lake City.  My plan was to help them unload their truck after work, but I was thrilled to hear that an army of SLC men from a local Bible study group got the job done in about two hours.  Way to represent, boys!  They've only been here a few days and slowly but surely they too are getting settled in.

Jonathan Cole is on the road as I type this post.  He'll be staying at my place for a little while as he applies for work and looks for an apartment.  We're all praying for him and his upcoming job interview later next week.

Some of the guys are meeting each Thursday morning to discuss our weekly Bible reading, pray, and chat.  We're meeting at a small coffee shop near the Gallivan Plaza TRAX stop (because it's convenient for me to head straight to work from there), but we may have to seek out a place with a bigger seating area.  This past Thursday I met another gentleman from the Las Vegas area praying and contemplating a move to SLC to join the Project.  We haven't been meeting long, but I am already finding that this time is one of the highlights of my week.

I am looking forward to witnessing how God will use this group for His glory in SLC.  If you'd like to know more, chat with Kyle over coffee, or whatever, check out the SLC Project website for more info or feel free to contact me.

God in the Wasteland by David Wells

CRITIQUE OF
Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

INTRODUCTION
In his follow up to No Place for Truth,[1] David F. Wells offers his assessment of the state of the Church ravished by modern thinking and then provides a potential solution to bring the evangelical church back to its appropriate role in society, especially as the culture shifts from modernity to post-modernity.  Theology, according to Wells, has unknowingly slipped away from the culture of the Church,[2] and elements of modern culture, specifically the processes of capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications have taken its place[3].  Wells argues that understanding the relationship between modern culture and the Church is not an issue, it is the issue.[4]  “. . . modernity is to contemporary Christians,” writes Wells, “what the medieval synthesis was to the sixteenth-century Reformers: is it the issue.”[5]  In what follows, this critique of God in the Wasteland will provide a brief summary of the book, an interaction with the author’s work, and concluding thoughts.

BRIEF SUMMARY
            Wells introduces the theme of his book with a personal story.  While driving near his home, a truck pulls out in front of him.  On the rear bumper of the truck were two bumper stickers.  From the distance, all Wells can see was that the one sticker reads “McGuire,” a political figure in the area, and the other reads “Jesus.”[6]  It is in this mixing of the two bumper sticker agendas that Wells draws an analogy of the mixing of today’s Church with today’s culture.[7]  But this mixture did not come about through angry and excited revolution, but through the subtle changes in modern culture.  “Unlike all of its predecessors,” says Wells, “this accidental revolution is not being driven either by a self-conscious ideology or by self-conscious revolutionaries.  Our guerrillas are, in fact, very ordinary people, most of whom would be aghast if they could see themselves for what they are: provocateurs and agents of revolutionary change.”[8]  Capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications are the four modern realities that Wells identifies as the vehicles of the quiet revolution[9].  Through these areas of modernity, the purpose of life has shifted to production output, ethics are defined as what works, self and community identity are morphing into a single world urban identity, and communication of ideas through the world have turned participants into merely witnesses.[10]  As these advances begin to fail and the world shifts from modernity to postmodernity, the boundaries become extremely blurred[11].

            Through the transition of the changing world, Wells demonstrates how it was that the Evangelical Church rose into prominence, but it was not without a cost.  Wells unfavorably sees the blending of theology and culture in the church, writing, “If a convergence has in fact taken place between modernity and evangelicalism, it is not because modernity has become more theological but because evangelicalism has become more modern.”[12]  Evangelicals, argues Wells, have become more politically orientated, wanting to transform culture because, in fact, they have become a part of culture.  As the cultural agenda increases, it seems that biblical usage and knowledge decreases.  “The fact is,” laments Wells, “that while the nature of the of the Bible was being debated, the Bible itself was quietly falling into disuse in the church.”[13]  Through most of the middle section of his book, Wells articulates that the church has moved away from its firm stand on theology and now leans on the ways of the world.  To drive his point home, he compares the world’s commercial model with the model of the present Church. “Malls are monuments to consumption—but so are mega-churches,”[14] writes Wells.  There is little distinction between the economies of the world and those of church.  Wells points to the work of Finke and Stark[15], writing that “four factors are essential to both economies: (1) organization (or church polity); (2) sales representatives (or clergy); (3) product (or religious doctrine and life); and (4) marketing techniques (or evangelism and church growth.)” [16]

            In an effort to gage the future, Wells conducted a survey of seven theological seminaries to compare to a similar survey taken in 1982.[17]  This survey makes up the bulk of his conclusion and prescription to cure the ills of the future.  Wells writes, “. . . I believe the vision of the evangelical church is now clouded, its internal life greatly weakened, its future very uncertain and I want something better for it.”[18]  The thing that is “better” will come from the future leaders of the church.  The future church, contends Wells, must develop an “antithesis between Christ and culture and find ways to sustain that antithesis.”[19]  A lot rests in the hands of these leaders, these “ . . . people of large vision, people of courage, people who have learned again what it means to live by the Word of God . . .,”[20] but it is in them that the Church will once again find is appropriate place “in the world” without being “of the world.”

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
     Wells’ observation of the present cultural atmosphere and the position of the Church, immediately seems concerning. The world, thanks to capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunication methods, is in a state of difficult flux and the Church has been swept in with it. Wells purpose and goal for the book is to ring the alarm and then help his readers adopt his vision for the Church. What is his vision for the Church? Wells writes,
I want it to embody a vibrant spirituality. I want the church to be an alternative to post-modern culture, not a mere echo of it. I want a church that is bold to be different and unafraid to be faithful, a church that is interested in something better than using slick marketing techniques to swell the numbers of warm bodies occupying sanctuaries, a church that reflects an integral and undiminished confidence in the power of God’s Word, a church that can find in the midst of our present cultural breakdown the opportunity to be God’s people in a world that has abandoned God.[21]
This is a fantastic vision, but it comes with little instruction. Most churches do not think they are “using slick marketing techniques” even if they are.  And rightly asked but not very well defined by Wells: What is authentic evangelism to share the Word of God?  Is it wrong to desire to see people filling the sanctuary?  Indeed, the alarm is ringing, but with instructions as simple get back to the Word of God, stand once again on theology, and be in the world but not of the world, Wells is ambiguous with his vision.

            Robert K. Johnston’s review—found in the Oxford Journal—addresses both Well’s solution to separate the Church from culture and his call to a strict theological orientation.  First, Johnston reminds his readers that Wells’ counterculture Christianity echoes both Barth and Neiburh.[22]  He then suggests that Wells presentation is an overemphasis in countercultural, saying, “When the church is true to its nature, thinks Wells, its cultural irrelevance becomes a virtue.”[23]  Johnston takes further issue with how sharply Wells draws the line between results-orientation and theological orientation.[24]  Indeed, should this be an all or nothing proposition as Wells implies? Johnston agues that Wells’ approach is less nuanced than Scripture,[25] that it is not wrong to see some blending of culture and theology.  However, one gets a sense that Wells understands that his position comes across rather sharply, but that he indeed needs to cut a sharp line to make his point.  Even he at one point admits his exaggeration showing that his eye catching chapter title, “The Coming Generation” is not really that far reaching, but that he is looking at the church leaders of the coming generation.[26]

            An additional weakness of the work is how Wells approaches the culture, specifically the four categories of capitalism, technology, urbanization, and telecommunications.  These, he identifies are the vehicles in which the world has moved forward and away from God.  However, what is the alternative to them?  Could it be that although they come with ill effects that they can also be used for God’s glory?  Capitalism, for example, is only one type of economic system and if there is another that does not bring about the downfall of culture, Wells fails to mention it.  One must ask, what is Wells idea of how an economy might function if all the people in an area were believers (as he sees they should be) and rejected the culture to the extent Wells implies.  In addition, Wells implies that urban living, thanks to modernization, is bad and has stripped the culture of its individual identity.[27]  However, there is also the possibility that urbanization has the potential to bring communities together.  He does not do much to prove that large urban areas are free of a communal identity.  Technology and telecommunication have advanced God’s Word and allowed Christians to travel all over the word.  Furthermore, he is critical of how much marketing our culture is exposed to every day, yet his books likely have some system of marketing behind them.  Thus, his efforts are still contributing to the machine.

            While Wells does draw a shape line, the strengths of his book come in the area of how effectively he has rang the alarm.  His observations of modernism and especially his argument that post-modernism is “really just modernity stripped of the false hopes that were once supported by the straw pillars of Enlightenment ideology. . .” are an important contribution to the collection of books either ringing in post-modernity or warning that the sky is falling.  He is straightforward and arguing that at least concerning post-modernity, it does not yet have to be an all or nothing observation.  In addition, most Christians are seeking to find ways to blend into the post-modern world while Wells rightly argues that the appropriate position for the Church is to be something other than “the world.”  Few Christians take this theological stand, only to later disappear completely into the crowd.

            Future leaders of the church would be well served to read God in the Wasteland, which likely explains why many seminaries have it on required reading lists.  His observations of the modernity and post-modernity are fresh although his book is over ten years old.  Given that Wells often points back to his previous work, No Place for Truth, students might find it helpful to read his previous work first. 

CONCLUSION
            In conclusion, Wells’ work is informative.  This reviewer agrees with many of Wells’ observations of culture and modernity; however, more room should have been allowed for other explanations for the recent changes in society.  In addition, God in the Wasteland needs more specifics as to the solution.  Wells has called the Church to be in the world but not of the world, he has identified where the Church has gone wrong, but he offers little detail to help the Church, or even the future church leaders for that matter, move the Church back toward his vision.   
           
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Johnston, Robert K. 1995. "God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 63, no. 4: 872.

Wells, David F. God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading DreamsGrand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.



[1] David F. Wells, No Place for Truth, or, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1993).
[2] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 7, 26.
[3] Ibid, 7.
[4] Ibid, 28.
[5] Ibid, 29.
[6] Ibid, 3-4.
[7] Ibid, 5.
[8] Ibid, 7.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid, 7-9.
[11] Ibid, 48.
[12] Ibid, 26.
[13] Ibid, 150.
[14] Ibid, 61.
[15] Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992), 17.
[16] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 63.
[17] Ibid, ix-x.
[18] Ibid, 214.
[19] Ibid, 223.
[20] Ibid, 215.
[21] Ibid, 214.
[22] Robert K Johnston, 1995, "God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams", Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 63, no. 4: 872-875, 874.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid, 875.
[26] David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 186.
[27] Ibid, 8-9

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

How Did We Get the New Testament Canon?

     When we pick up our Bible each morning and pull at the ribbon marking where we previously left off, we give little thought to how the 66 books collected in that binding came about.  But there was a time when those books were not bound together and understanding what books told the story of God was not taken for granted.  There is history behind how the 37 books of the Old Testament came to general acceptance as the canon, but for the sake of this post, this discussion will focus only on the development of the New Testament canon.

     Gonzalez explains that in the early Church it was typical that readings from a Gospel were shared in the meetings.  However, “Since there was no approved list,” writes Gonzalez, “different Gospels were read in different churches, and the same was true of other books.”[1]  But once a Gnostic named Marcion developed a list of accepted books that excluded the heavier Jewish writings, others in the Church had to respond.  Different lists were generated.  But it was not one list from one person that identified the canon, but instead the consolidation of many lists, debated, accepted, rejected, and revised over time.  Much of the canon simply came about by what was more commonly accepted and supported.  For example, Grudem writes, “Because the apostles, but virtue of their apostolic office, had authority to write words of Scripture, the authentic written teachings of the apostles were accepted by the early church as part of the canon of Scripture.”[2]  Of course, this is just one idea of but one guideline for a canon list; and these lists, if they were to argue against the heresies of people like Marcion, also had to be supported by sound reasoning, understanding of authorship, the contribution of the book, and so-on. 

      There may have been other elements outside of hard, justifiable evidence for which books made the list and which did not. John 10:27 records Jesus saying, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they will follow me” (ESV).  Is it possible that as the disciples of the early Church read specific books, they heard the “God breathed” word of Jesus?  Did they simply recognize that the book was something more than the others, something special?  Another similar element is regula fidei, that is, the Rule of Faith.  Oserhaven defines this as, “the official church teaching that is in agreement with Scripture and is a summary of it.”[3]  Because a clear list of Scripture had not yet been identified within the church, it is possible that the Scripture that lined up with the traditions and teachings of the church—specifically the verbally transmitted gospel and other verbal guidance of the apostles—became the canon.  Those books that did not agree were thrown out.  If this is true, the understanding of the unwritten church doctrines might have played a larger part of the eventual settling on the agreed New Testament canon.   


     [1] Justo L. González, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 62.
     [2] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 62.
     [3] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Baker reference library (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 1043.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  
** Photo is licensed under a creative commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ninahiironniemi/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

Pluralism: Less Polemic Within the Military

Certain debated concepts often get packed into a single word that is armed, thorny, and filled much like a Trojan horse ready to let open the gates to outside attack. In Christian conversation, the word pluralism has been modified to be just such a fully loaded word, and unpacking it sometimes takes a skilled explosive technician. However, when pluralism is used to describe how multiple religious systems operate in the same the military community, the word retracts its claws and speaks of mutual respect and opportunity.

In its most basic form, pluralism is, “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization” (Merriam, “pluralism”).  Those Christians using the term as a debate weapon have added their interpretation of some Biblical concepts about living among and adapting to the practices of non-Christian societies and beliefs[1] and blended in “syncretism.”  Syncretism is, “the combination of different forms of belief or practice” (Merriam, “syncretism”). While it is not my purpose to argue in favor or against the present use of the definition of pluralism, I do argue that the military’s use of the word is strictly in its most basic definition.

While the Army is vague on its exact definition of pluralism, it does provide some conceptual guidance. A requirement of entry to the Army Chaplain Corps is a signed Memorandum for Record (MFR) that reads in part,
While remaining faithful to my denominational beliefs and practices, I understand that, as a chaplain [or chaplain candidate], I must be sensitive to religious pluralism and will provide for the free exercise of religion by military personnel, their families, and other authorized personnel served by the Army.  I further understand that, while the Army places a high value on the rights of its members to observe the tenets of their respective religions, accommodation is based on military need and cannot be guaranteed at all times and in all places.
I also recognize the importance of a diverse Army Chaplaincy representing all faiths, genders, and ethnic backgrounds.  I fully support the diversity of the Corps that enables the branch to minister to the plurality of America’s Soldier (Blackwell, 2008).
In addition to the MFR for entry, Army Regulation 165-1, 3-3a states, “The Army recognizes that religion is constitutionally protected and does not favor one form of religious expression over another.  Accordingly, all religious denominations are viewed as distinctive faith groups and all soldiers are entitled to chaplain services and support” (U.S. Department of the Army 2004, 5).  And the chaplain is required under 4-4b of the same regulation to, “...minister to the personnel of the unit and facilitate the ‘free-exercise’ rights of all personnel, regardless of religious affiliation of either the chaplain or the unit member” (2004, 6).

Soldiers, according to Army regulation are “entitled to chaplain services and support” and chaplains are to “facilitate” the right to worship but are not required to deviate from their denominational beliefs or practices.  What this regulation does not say is that chaplains are to accept or adopt the belief of the soldier. Therefore, pluralism allows each soldier the right to worship (or not worship) in his or her own distinct manner with the support of a chaplain, all inside the single community of the military.  In no way is syncretism required. Instead, a mutual respect and understanding is expected.

Chaplain Joseph F. O’Donnell, C.S.C. best describes the spirit of pluralism while explaining the first of three qualities important to every chaplain.  He writes, “As a chaplain, I must realize that no matter how firm I feel about my own approach to God, I cannot have the last word for anyone else” (Bergen 2004, 222).

Reference List
Bergen, Doris L. The Sword of the Lord: Military Chaplain from the First to the Twenty-First
     Century.  Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2004.
Blackwell, Steve CH (CPT). 2008 Sample MFR sent to author electronically. October 31.
Headquarters of the Department of the Army. 2004. Army Regulation 165-1: Chaplain Activities
     in the United States Army (March, 25). By Order of the Secretary of the Army, Peter J.
     Schoomaker.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. s.v. “pluralism,” http://www.merriam-
     webster.com/dictionary/pluralism (accessed February 15, 2009.)
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. s.v. “syncretism,” http://www.merriam-
     webster.com/dictionary/syncretism (accessed February 15, 2009.)

[1] Concepts from passages of Judges, 1 Peter, and Colossians for example.

*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
** Photo is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tim_ellis/ / CC BY-NC 2.0

The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Critical Book Review
Of
The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Bibliographical Entry
Rainer, Thom S. The Unexpected Journey: Conversations with People Who Turned from Other Beliefs to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Author Information
            Thom S. Rainer is a busy author, writing titles including Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples, Breakout Churches: Discover How to Make the Leap, The Unchurched Next Door: Understanding Faith Stages and Keys to Sharing Your Faith, and Giant Awakenings: Making the Most of 9 Surprising Trends That Can Benefit Your Church.  The bulk of Rainer’s work is centered on two intertwined areas: the Church and evangelism.  His most recent work serving as a tool in church tool shed is Essential Church?: Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts. 

             A PhD from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Rainer has served in a pastoral capacity for nearly a dozen churches.  He founded, and became Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at his alma matter.  In addition, he serves as the president of Church Central and is the CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources in Nashville, Tennessee.  For years, Rainer Group Church Consulting occupied much of Rainer’s time—and provided much of the experiences that appear in his many books— although recently he as reduced his responsibilities in this area, referring most of his business to The Lawless Group.  Rainer continues to travel around the world to speak and teach at conferences and seminars.  As evident in The Unexpected Journey, he is married with three grown children.

Content Summary
            The Unexpected Journey is Rainer’s attempt to capture the stories, or more correctly, the testimonies of thirteen people who previously were in other systems of faith (or none at all) and have since found and accepted Christ Jesus.  Rainer and his wife, Nellie Jo traveled across the country over the period of nearly a year, recording equipment in tow, to question and meet with their interviewees.  Occasionally, others tagged along and one interviewee flew to meet the Rainers.  Each interview lasted less than a full day and was often conduced in the interviewee’s home, a church, an office building, or in a restaurant.  If in a restaurant, Rainer includes an appearance of the server, and often the beverage selections.  

            Opening in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Rainer meets with two former Mormons.  The married couple were “high-level” Mormons, meaning that he was a sixth-generation leader over a large geographic area and she was a translator working in the LDS church headquarters. Through looking into documents of their own system of faith, Rauni began to have doubts (pp19-20).  Eventually, she shared these documents and her concerns with her husband and together they left the Mormon church.  As their story continues, they explain how they connected with a local Christian community and found salvation in Jesus.  In what becomes a reoccurring question with a reoccurring answer, Rainer asks the couple how Christians can better evangelize to Mormons.  He concludes each chapter with his interviewee’s answers.

           For the next interview, and subsequently, the next chapter Rainer and his wife travel to Chicago to meet with a former Orthodox Jew.  The format of the story is similar to the one in the previous chapter—Steve Barack shares his history in another system of faith and then how it was that he came to Christianity.  Each story is given its own chapter and each story has the same format.  And they all end with the same variation of the basic question, “I asked Steve how he would counsel a Christian who desired to witness to a Jew today” (p 42).  The next chapter delves into the life of a Hindu who suffered polio at the age of three (p 48) and was ostracized by his father for having bad Karma in a former life (p 50).  Today Dr. Ravi is a professor and serves as the vice president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (pp 47-48).

            As the familiar stories continue, Rainer chats with a Ms. Jones, a woman who went from the absence of a faith in a higher power of any kind—she was an atheist—to accepting Jesus as her Lord.  Similar to the interview with an agnostic, this chapter tells a story not unlike the rest and Rainer seizes upon this in way he presents Ms. Jones’ story.  Next comes a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were expected to allow their child to die in adherents to their faith.  Than comes the story of an agnostic with a difficult and wild life.  Chapter Seven tells the story of a Wicca witch who gave up her form of paganism for Christianity.  Following the story of the witch is a narrative of a high-energy former Buddhist.  In chapter Nine, Dr. Karan Townsend shares her experience of searching through Unitarianism until she found Christ. In another restaurant, a world-traveler shares her experience as a New Ager who eventually found Jesus.  Mumin Muhammad shares his journey as a Black Muslim, not to be confused with traditional Islam, although he transitioned into traditional Islam before becoming a Christian.  The final story is that of Jeff, a Satanist whose dabbing in the occult nearly led him to suicide before he gave his life over to Jesus.

            At the conclusion of the book, Rainer identifies some things he learned from each interview that generally could be learned from all of the interviews collectively.  Lesson 1 is that Christians need to know the Bible.  Rainer writers, “Most of the interviewees told us that they were amazed at the biblical ignorance they witnessed when they were not Christians.  Several times we heard them say that they knew more about the Bible than Christians did” (p 199).  The second lesson is that witnessing Christians need to know what the other person believes.  Lesson 3 is to listen and Lesson 4 is to pray.  “Invite them to church” is lesson five.  “I have done research in the past,” says Rainer, “that shows that the vast majority of non-Christians will come to church if we invite them” (p 201).  Lesson 6 is about understanding their home lives. Getting them to look closely at their own documents (if their system of faith has documents) is Lesson 7.  This is especially true of the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.  Lesson 8 is to get the non-believer to look at the Bible objectively and Lesson 9 tells us that churches must be ready for a pluralistic world.  “The church also must be ready to disciple persons who have become Christians out of other belief systems,” writes Rainer (p 202).  Lesson 10 says that Christians cannot be intimidated by other belief systems.  “Share Your Faith Regularly” is Lesson 11 (p 202).  “Live like a Christian” and “Be Willing to Invest Time with Non-Christians” are Lessons 12 and 13, respectively.  And the final lesson is that Christians must love people with the unconditional love of Christ.

Evaluation
            Thom S. Rainer set out to encourage Christians to share their faith with those of other belief systems as well as those with no belief system at all; which means, he wants Christians to share their faith with all non-Christians.  From simply reading The Unexpected Journey, it is difficult to determine if he has succeeded in his purpose; however, one can see how hearing the same themes repeatedly may have a convincing effect upon the reader. Most of the book’s main premise and points are found in the concluding chapter.  Each simple lesson is what Rainer wants the reader to see in the preceding chapters, but for the most part, these brief lessons are somewhat obvious and can be found in nearly every other recent book on the topic of evangelism.  At first glance, Rainer’s approach seems unique, but after seeing the depth the stories do not go into, one gets the idea that these stories should have been part of a larger “how to” book on evangelical methods.          

The conversational tone of the book and the unnecessary details about how Thom and Nellie Jo Rainer got to each interview, where they ate, and how often the server brought them tea or coffee, serve to help the reader “tag along” in the interview; but at the same time, these additions are something of a distraction from the main point, that is, sharing the stories of the interviewees.  Rainer injects too much of himself into the book.  The most egregious examples are found in the opening of each chapter.  Rainer starts with how he and his wife get to the city where the interview will take place. For example, the first page of Chapter One lets the reader know that Rainer had just returned from Uganda, “three days earlier,” they had no problems making their connecting flight in Atlanta, their hotel was in downtown Salt Lake, the sky was blue and the sun was out when they drove the 15 minutes to the suburb of Sandy, and each time the navigation system interrupted the conversation Rainer wondered why they always have female voices (pp 15-16).  In the next chapter, the reader learns that Rainer lost his driver’s license and cannot fly, so he and his wife drive to their next destination (p 33).  Chapter Four opens with Rainer getting lost, but he eventually he finds his way (p 63).  Another unnecessary distraction is all the description Rainer provides regarding the service they received in the restaurants where they interviewed.  To avoid these distractions, Rainer might have used a slightly different format that would not have required him to include all of these transitions and unnecessary details; that is if he were not including them intentionally to help the reader feel present.

Factoids of the various religions the interviewees left are sprinkled throughout the book.  Often these factoids break up the narrative.  They are however, brief and informative.  While Rainer clearly states that, “this book is not an exhaustive treatment of other belief systems” (p 12), the book could have handled more of factoids, potentially at the end of each chapter rather than throughout the narratives.  Additional information might have increased the reader’s understanding of the former religious of the interviewees.  Instead, the only understanding comes from one who was unhappy with that faith structure and found Christianity.  The door is wide open for critics to suggest that none of these testimonies show an accurate portrait of the religious they are talking about because they left those faith systems disgruntled.  Additional factually written information and statistics might have closed this door a little.

             I found this book slightly entertaining but only slightly informative.  The teaching is nothing unique to evangelism and the encouragement The Unexpected Journey is seeking to provide readers is not unlike the stories found in nearly every other book on topic of sharing your faith.  This book would be valuable to those who have had little to no experience with the cultures and religion of non-believers and have not read any other books on evangelism.  

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

Adoption

February 9, 2010

Going before a judge today to finalize the adoption of my son has me thinking a great deal about adoption.  This is second time I've faced a judge and expressed my love for a child that's not the biological product of Lisa and I. Both of my children are adopted and words can't express the depth of my love for them.

It's strange how our society treats adoption.  "Will you," asked the attorney before the watchful eyes of the judge, "love and care for this child in every way the same as you would if he were your natural, biological son?"  The flawed assumption of the question is that shared DNA somehow equals a level of love that adoptive families should strive to attain.  Before my youngest was born, people would ask me the big "what if" questions.  "What if the mom did drugs?" "What if the baby has a hereditary disease?" "What if. . ."  Really, these questions are founded in the incorrect assumption that a non-adopted baby is born perfect, free of "problems" or "complications."  And my favorite question (although I admit I myself have wrongly worried about this question) is: "What if the birth mother wants her baby back?"  Flawed question!  Do parents ever have to deal with losing their biologically born children to things like divorce or kidnapping or death?  And taken away from who?  Do we own our children?  Are only adopted children on loan, or are all children? I like to think that God has put children--adopted or not--in our care only for a time.  Psalm 127:3 says "children are a heritage from the Lord" but Genesis 2:24 says that "man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife," that is, the child, a gift of God, will grow up and become a family of his own.  It's only for a time; sometimes only a very short time.

The Israelite law of the biblical Old Testament made no legal provision for adoption.  There were provisions for orphans; and in situations of infertility, there was polygamy and the use of slave concubines. However, examples of adoption are found in the Bible.  While Abram was still childless, he had it in mind that Eliezer of Damascus would be is heir. (Genesis 15:1-4)  In that time, the heir was to be the first born son and would receive all that the father had.  But in the case of Abram, a non-biologically born person was chosen (although God had another plan for Abram).  And of course there's Moses.  At a time when the male Israelite slave babies were killed at birth by the Egyptians, a mother desired to save her baby.  This Levite woman placed her baby boy in a basket and floated him down the Nile river, sending the baby's big sister to watch from the bank to see what might happen.  Pharaoh's daughter found the baby and took him in as her own. (Exodus 2:1-10) And even Esther was raised by her uncle Mordecai, who, the book of Esther tells us, "had taken her as his own daughter." (Esther 2:7, 15)


Jesus was adopted by Joseph (and Mary, depending on your theology).  Jesus, the Son of God, was conceived in Mary's womb apart from any sexual encounter or inheritance of any sin nature; instead by way of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35).  Like most ordinary men would, when Joseph learned Mary was pregnant he had in mind to divorce her, that is, until an angel appeared to him and explained the situation.  (Matthew 1:19-20)  But we can read in Luke 2:33 that Joseph was called Jesus' father.  However, only a few verses later (48), Mary asks the boy Jesus, "Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress" and Jesus seems to correct her statement. Clearly there's an interesting earthly verses spiritual adoption dynamic here because Jesus points out that he is in his father's house, meaning in the house of God, claiming that he was the Son of God.  And yet, when Jesus, now a grown man, came back to his home town and proclaimed he was the Messiah, the community asked, "Is not this Joseph's son?" (Luke 4:22)  So while we can't know if Joseph loved Jesus like the biologically born children he and Mary had together, we do see that he took on the earthly role of father.  It seems Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son, loving him in the same way a father today would love his adopted son.           

Often when we think about adoption, we overlook the birth mother.  Think about Moses' mother.  She could have tried to hide the baby, and if she succeeded she would have been able to remain close to her son.  What did she have to lose? If she gave the baby up, he would die; if she tried to hide the baby but failed, he would die.  But she chose a better option for the baby.  And in another situation, recorded in 1 Kings 3:16-28, two prostitutes come before King Solomon.  One had rolled over on her baby, killing it, so she kidnapped the child of the other woman and claimed it as her own.  When both women made claim to the baby, Solomon suggested cutting the baby in half so each woman could have equal portions of the child.  But when the mother of the child heard this, she pleaded with Solomon to let the other woman have the baby.  She pleaded to let the other woman "adopt" the child.  On the other hand, the second woman was content to see the baby cut.  And it was in this great love for her child--so great that she would give the baby up so the baby would live--that Solomon saw the rightful mother.  When a birth mother gives up her child, she should be honored for making a selfless sacrifice, as well has having love for her child and concern for the baby's future.  Lisa and I are extremely thankful for both of our boy's birth mothers.  What a great thing they did for us and for their babies!

But there is something else that should shape our thinking about adoption.  In Galatians, Paul writes, "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.  And because you are sons, God as sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba!" Father!" So  you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God" (Galatians 4:4-7).  We are God's creation, but through faith in Christ Jesus, God's Son, we become children of God through adoption, able to see God not as some far away being, but as our "Daddy!" And for those who believe, trust, and submit to King Jesus, the Son of God, we become heirs of the Kingdom and receive eternal life.

An Analysis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism)

Introduction
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—whose members are commonly called Mormons—is one of, if not the fastest growing religion in the world.[1]  In 2007, the LDS church claimed nearly 13 million members.[2]  Mormons are gaining a mainstream foothold in common culture, having active members in all levels of politics, entertainment, authorship, and academia.  Therefore, this post will attempt to examine the LDS religion; first offering a brief overview of the religion and its early history, then an analysis, followed by one approach for Christians to share their beliefs with Mormons.  This author resides in Salt Lake City, Utah—the headquarters of the LDS church—so in addition to the sources provided here, some insight will come from personal observation.

A Brief Overview of the Mormon Religion
A Religion is Born: Its Early History.  Generally, the accounts of the early beginnings of the Mormon church start in 1820 with a fourteen-year-old boy struggling to decide which Christian denomination to join, mainly of the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.[3]  After reading James 1:5, Smith heads into a grove of trees and prays about these religions.[4]  Both God the Father and Jesus both appear together and in bodily form.  As James Walker explains,
Smith later reported that Christ warned him to join none of the churches because they were all wrong, their creeds were an abomination in God’s sight, and those who profess these religions are all corrupt. Smith said that he later discovered that there had been a “total apostasy” shortly after the death of the original apostles in the first century. Thus, there had been no true Christianity on the earth for 1,700 years. No church had the true authority to act for God or perform essential, sacred ordinances. Rather than joining any of these apostate churches, Joseph Smith believed that he must restore true Christianity to the earth.[5]
However, Fawn Brodie argues that court records and newspaper accounts suggest that Smith was already gravitating to the “revival hysteria and channeled into a life of mysticism and exhortation.”[6]  She further reminds her readers of the vast amounts of biographical data on Smith and the early birth of the LDS Church, “for Joseph Smith dared to found a new religion in the age of printing.”[7]
 
            On September 21, 1823, after years of “suffering severe persecution” for his vision, Smith received another vision from an angel named Moroni.  Moroni showed Smith where to dig up the golden plates that contained the stories of two nations of people in the Americas and Jesus’ appearing to them.[8]  Smith translated these plates into what is known as The Book of Mormon.  Smith’s revelations as the Prophet for the church were written down, as were the revelations of subsequent Prophet-heads of the church, into a document called the Doctrine and Covenants, with the most recent addition on September 30, 1978.[9]  The Pearl of Great Price and the King James Version of the Bible make up their cannon.  (Concerning the Bible, the eighth Article of faith states that the Bible is acceptable “as far as it is translated correctly.”[10])  The cannon remains open for the addition of further revelation.  The LDS Church is headed by a Prophet, a council of apostles (two advisers and the Prophet make up the “First Presidency,” and 12 elder men for the “Quorum of the Twelve”), and the “Quorum of the Seventy” (all elder men).  This group of leaders oversee local leaders of various jurisdictions down to the local level called the ward.  The ward is lead by a Bishop.  Mormons believe this is the exact structure originally installed by Jesus when he was on the earth.
           
            Basic Doctrines and Tenants.[11]  While many volumes are available on Mormon Doctrine—produced by both Mormons and non-Mormons—this post will not even scratch the surface.  In the simplest of overviews, Mormons do not hold to a Trinitarian view of God, but instead believe that God was once a man, just as we are today, who worked to become a god and then had many spirit children with “Heavenly Mother.”  Jesus and Lucifer (who later became Satan) were among these spirit children.  Both Jesus and Lucifer suggested a plan of salvation to the Father, who selected Jesus’ plan.  Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven along with 1/3 of the other spirit children who supported his rebellion.  Incidentally, the spirit children are synonymous with angels and demons. 

            There are three levels of heaven, with the third level containing an additional three levels.  The best of these levels allows those accepted to become gods and repeat the entire process on another world of their creation.  However, in order to enter any heavenly level, a spirit child must first come to earth to obtain a physical body and work through various ordinances, including entering one of more than 120 Mormon temples to perform baptisms for the dead, be sealed to a spouse and family for all time and eternity, and receive the right to wear special undergarments.  In order to enter the temple, Mormons must be “worthy, which includes among other practices, abstaining from coffee, tea, tobacco, and sex prior to marriage.  Mormons must also give a “full tithe” or 10% of their total gross income.”[12]  The temple is closed to all but fully practicing, “temple worthy” members.  Mormons hold that salvation comes through grace, only “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).  They practice sacrementalism and subsequently, sacerdotalism.  In addition, the LDS church has many other minor doctrines, including the more infamous that deal with matters of polygamy and the priesthood (which will be addressed in the next section of this post).  

Analysis of the Mormon Religion
            A Shaky Foundation: Inconsistency of Doctrine.  To an outside observer, it would seem that an open cannon has allowed for convenient changes to doctrines and practices.  For example, Brodie chronicles many incidents of Smith’s behavior with other women prior to his 1831 ‘revelation’ authorizing the practice of polygamy, recorded in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1843.[13]  It might also appear that this revelation helped solved the problem of remarriage after the death of a wife to which a man was already married and sealed.  Ironically, Parley Pratt, a close friend to Smith, just so happened to be dealing with this problem.  Through revelation, polygamy was allowed and practiced in the Mormon church.  However, in 1890, facing political pressure, the inability for Utah to obtain statehood, and even the possibility of criminal charges, the Prophet Wilford Woodruff received a timely revelation’ that the practice was to stop.[14]  In a similar situation, facing political pressure, Spencer Kimball received a revelation allowing Blacks to receive the priesthood, thus, giving them the ability to enter the temple to perform temple ordinances to potentially become gods, something they were prohibited from obtaining prior to September 30, 1978[15].  Before 1978, it was thought that colored skin was the mark of unrepentant sin.  In hindsight, one outside the LDS Church might suggest this ‘revelation’ would not have come had it not been for the Civil Rights Acts.

            But the open cannon is not the only mechanism allowing for shifting doctrine.  A Prophet might teach a doctrine that a subsequent Prophet can reverse or allow to fall out of practice.  The “Adam-God Doctrine” is one such example.  Walker states, “Young [the Prophet at the time] preached from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City that the first man, Adam, ‘is our father and god the only god with whom we have to do’ (Journal of Discourses, vol. I, p. 50).”[16]  Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner also provide a number of photographed journal entries, articles, and printed statements by Young that demonstrate many other instances when Young taught this doctrine.[17]  However, “this doctrine was quickly repudiated by the LDS church after Young’s death.”[18]

And in addition to subsequent Prophets changing doctrine, the Book of Mormon has been changed 3,913 times as documented by Tanner and Tanner.[19]  This should cause one to ask, If Joseph was given the tools to correctly translate the golden plates (the autograph), why the need for the changes?  Could it be that English words have already shifted in their meaning?  Maybe.  However, this cannot account for many of the documented changes.  For example, early printings of 2 Nephi 30:6 indicate that if a dark skinned person were to repent, he would be turned “white and delightsome,” but later printings state “pure and delightsome.”[20]

            The Name Game: Christians who Reject Christian Doctrine?  This author has noticed in recent years, a tremendous effort by members of the LDS church to identify themselves as “Christians.”  Stephen Robinson provides Mormons with a ready-made argument to the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” on the LDS website; “Why would anyone say otherwise” writes Robinson.[21]  And there seems to be a strong desire to connect with Evangelical Christians in the voting booth.  Even the LDS Church logo was changed before the 2002 Winter Olympics, making the name of Jesus Christ much larger.  When challenged, Mormons will resort to saying, “What’s the name of our church?  See if it’s in our name, then we are Christian.”  First, the name might be the same but it is not the same Jesus.  To this, Walker writes,
Evangelicals should be aware, however, that the LDS have a “different gospel” and a different Jesus than theirs (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In 1998, the Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley confessed that he believed in a different Jesus than the “traditional Christ” worshiped by those outside of the LDS Church.[22]
Second, one should ask, Why do Mormons want to be included under the Christian umbrella when their doctrine states that there was a great apostasy and no true Christianity in the world, that no churches were right when Smith was seeking one?  Or could it be that the Mormons simply want to redefine the term, “Christianity” and then claim it exclusively as their own?

How Should Christians Share Their Beliefs With Mormons?
            In his book, I Love Mormons, Dr. Rowe, a former professor at Salt Lake Theological Seminary writes, “My prayer, my dream, is that you, the reader, would come to understand Latter-day Saints and their culture and wed this understanding to a profound love and respect for them that they will sense as you relate to them.  This is how bridges for the biblical gospel will be built into their world, their lives, and even their worldwide church.”[23]  The key idea, as it might be in all apologetics and evangelism, is to build a bridge.  Historically, Mormons have suffered persecution and they tend to be somewhat sensitive about any criticism of their faith.  Therefore, going on the offensive, or even pointing out flaws in their religion might cause them to raise their guard.  (Admittedly, this post will likely produce this result.)  But in every case this author is aware of, people who left Mormonism did so after a season of questioning their own religion.  Being a safe source for answers is possibly the best way to build the bridge Dr. Rowe mentions.

            However, if one desires to approach an active Mormon in an effort to present the gospel, there are some basic tips of which to be mindful.  First, do not dance around the idea that there are some serious differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine.  These differences are real; address them honestly and respectfully.  Second, Mormons are strong supporters of a “personal testimony” so present the gospel from your personal perspective, using a positive approach rather than trying to "chip away" at their beliefs.  Present a positive example of God’s love and grace.  Of course, use Scripture, but remember that the Mormon can always fall back on his or her belief that the Bible is not correctly translated.  Often, a “correct” translation of a passage cannot be provided because this is simply a defense against biblical truth.  Understand that Mormonism is an all-encompassing lifestyle, so a person, if he or she were to convert to Christianity, is not just leaving a religion, but an entire culture.  Try to avoid bashing on that culture.  If you do feel the need to point the Mormon to specific Mormon material, use material he or she might be (or should be familiar with as a typical Mormon) instead of some obscure quote from fifty or one-hundred years ago.  (I admit that I have resorted to a long forgotten doctrine when discussing shifting doctrine; however, it was by choice that I did not use a present doctrine as an example.)  Often, the best source for LDS material is the Doctrine and Covenants; but again, only if you feel you absolutely must.  This will do far more to start the season of questioning than quoting an unknown sermon by say, Brigham Young. (It is easy to fall back on historical quotes, even has this post has done, but this is not often the most effective way to discuss the differences in Mormonism and Christianity when chatting with a member of the LDS faith.)  Try to ask many questions but do not demand an answer on the spot; allow the questions to work in the person’s mind so the Holy Spirit might drive the answers deep into the Mormon’s heart.  And above all, pray continually for the Mormon.  Pray.      

Bibliography
Brodie, Fawn McKay. No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
Rowe, David L. I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005.
Smith, Joseph. The Pearl of Great Price. Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981.
Tanner, Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987.


     [1] Walter Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 792.
     [2] Edward E. Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 360.
     [3] Joseph Smith, The Peal of Great Price, Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981), 47, 1:5.
     [4] Smith, 48, 1:11-15.
     [5] Hindson, 358.
     [6] Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 16.
     [7] Brodie, vii.
     [8] Smith, 51-55, 1:27-55.
     [9] Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981) 294, Declaration 2.
     [10] Smith, 60, The Articles of Faith 8.
     [11] This entire section comes from both personal observation and Hindson, 360-361.
     [12] Hindson, 360-361.
     [13] Brodie, 297-308, 334-347.  The Doctrine and Covenants introduction to Section 132 seems to suggest that Brodie may be correct, including, “Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831” 266.
     [14] Declaration 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, added on October 6, 1890, records Woodruff’s statements on this matter.
     [15] Declaration 2 of the Doctrine and Covenants.
     [16] Hindson, 359.
     [17] Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality? 5th ed. (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987), 174-178D
     [18] Hindson, 359.
     [19] Tanner, 89.
     [20] Hindson, 360.
     [21] Stephen E. Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians?” LDS.org, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 [Accessed December 6, 2009].
     [22] Hindson, 362.
     [23] David L. Rowe, I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 9. 


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  I have no material connection to the books recommended in this post. 
** Photo of Statue is registered under a Creative Commons License:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilmungo/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Photo of  Street Preacher is registered under a Creative Commons License:http://www.flickr.com/photos/dianaschnuth/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0