Children's Ministries

Introduction  
The church of tomorrow is seen in the children of today. Beyond the reality that a church that tends well to children will draw more families to their congregation, the church leaders must be cultivating and training children if they hope to invest in the future of the Church. A good children’s ministry is a necessity to any church reaching an area where children are present. Children’s ministry is a strong tool to help teaching and guide mothers and fathers in their role as parents. Jesus demonstrated a strong passion and love for the care of children, and the Bible dictates that parents and communities have a responsibility to train and correct children if they are to be brought up right in Christ.

What is Children’s Ministry and Why
Children’s ministry is any organized effort to minister to and train children. They can be found in many forms, but they must have a correct focus and purpose. Criswell says, “All the programs for children in the church ought to have an outreaching, evangelistic appeal. Everything done ought to mean something for Christ” (Criswell 1980, 258). Children’s ministry programs should understand and come under the teaching of the Bible. Much of the teaching is directed at parents, but the church can be a service to both the child and the parent if guidance comes from Scripture.

In Matthew 18, Jesus is asked who the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven is. He calls to himself a child and says,
“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes on of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:3-6, ESV).
This passage shows that Christ cares for children and loves their humility. But in addition, he charges those present (and by extension, the student of the Bible today) to receive children and keep them from sinning. Deuteronomy 6:4-9 demonstrates God’s desire that the children be taught Scripture and the ways of God. And when Paul writes to encourage Timothy he says, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 2:14-15, ESV, emphasis added). This passage clearly demonstrates that Timothy new the Scriptures from his youth, and it is from those Scriptures that he learned and knows of the salvation through Christ. While not prescriptive, it does show the value of teaching children of Scripture, salvation, and of Jesus Christ.

Examples of Children’s Ministry 
The most common from of children’s ministry is found in Sunday school. Criswell argues this is the most important and it has a great value because it works in conjunction with the entire family as each member has something for him or her at church on Sunday (Criswell 1980, 258). Sunday school for children generally offers the ability for children to socialize with one another, but it also includes some age-appropriate worship and teaching. In addition to Sunday school, mid week programs can serve children well. MOPS, that is Mothers of Pre-Schoolers is another opportunity to minister to children and train and teach mothers.

Something else to consider is the single parent environment become prevalent in many communities. Clinton and Hawkins claim, “40 percent of American children are being raised in homes where no father is present. These children have more physical, emotional, and behavioral problems than children whose father is present, and it is more likely that they will be incarcerated” (Clinton and Hawkins 2009, 182). This certainly does not mean that the church is solely responsible to fill the void of a missing father; however, a children’s ministry program might have an opportunity to provide a child aspects missing in his or her life, as well as continually introduce the child to Jesus. Regardless of the program, the key is for a pastor to see the need and generate programs for children that will fill that need in a Christ-centered way.

References:
Clinton, Timothy E., and Ronald E. Hawkins. The Quick-Reference Guide to Biblical
Counseling: Personal and Emotional Issues. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.

Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
*Photo property of D Sharon Pruitt and used by permission. 

SBC On Alcohol Use Sounds Tipsy

I realize a number of Christian denominations prohibit the consumption of any alcohol; and that’s fine. If Christians freely choose to abstain from alcohol, I applaud them.  But what about a complete abstinence as a doctrinal position?  I’ve been doing some reading in order to get a solid understanding of the justification behind the abstinence of alcohol as a theological or denominational position. I want to understand the arguments of those who make the claims that any consumption of alcohol is a sin, that drinkers can’t or won't go to heaven, or that anybody consuming any alcohol should be removed from any leadership or ministry position.

In my reading, I came across a rather interesting article posted on the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty blog titled, “On Alcohol Consumption,” by Richard Land and Barrett Duke, dated July 25, 2006. (I accessed this web page on August 10, 2010).  As I was reading the article, I started to wonder if the authors were sharing a bottle of wine as they penned the article. Regardless their position, there seems to be some contradictions, extra-biblical or secular arguments, and odd understandings of the biblical narrative. As soon as I make known my potential biased notions, I'll address some of these examples.
My bias upfront: First and foremost, I must say that whether Christians consume alcohol or not should not be a matter worth splitting churches over.  Anybody who thinks otherwise should read Romans 14:13-23.  Second, I realize the Southern Baptist Convention places very few denominational positions upon their members, leaving these things up to the local congregation. However, I am learning that there is a very strong culture with the SBC, which is nearly authoritative.  Next, I attend a great local church that is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention (although neither of the senior pastors are actually SBC).  Also, I'm a graduate student at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, which is a SBC school with many (if not all) SBC professors.  I should also say that I enjoy the craft of beer brewing in my home, although two kids, a full-time job, and full-time seminary leave no time for this hobby at the moment.  I should also point out that after I returned from the war, I abused alcohol, which brought about many other problems in my life.  Now, when I do brew beer, I give most of it away.  I do occasionally consume alcohol (generally "Utah" beer or wine), typically during a meal in social settings, and always with a strict limit of "one and done."  I believe alcohol is no more evil or sinful than money.  It is the abuse of, or idolatrous attitude toward it that brings about sinful problems.  I remain open to changing my view on a alcohol based on a sound argument from the Bible. (If you feel compelled to make that argument, you can contact me here.)
Now that my bias and personal position are out of the way (to the extent that bias can be removed), I'll move to a discussion of the SBC article.  Rather than providing an overview, I ask that you read the article for the bigger picture. It's located here: http://erlc.com/article/on-alcohol-use/

After moving through an introduction and a historical overview of the South Baptist resolutions over the years, Land and Duke write,
"When one considers the high cost of alcohol abuse to individuals, families, and society, it is surprising that some Southern Baptists insist on their right to drink. Alcohol problems cost American society more than $184 billion per year in health care, criminal justice, social services, property damage, and loss of productivity expenses. Alcohol is a factor in as many as 105,000 deaths annually in the United States and a primary contributor to a wide array of health problems and human suffering. These include various cancers, liver disease, alcoholism, brain disorders, motor vehicle crashes, violence, crime, spousal and child abuse, drownings, and suicides. Even those who are able to control their drinking should recognize that they are engaged in a behavior that is destroying millions of lives, and choose to abstain rather than encourage by their behavior someone to drink who will not be able to control his drinking."
This argument, although compelling, does not address the question at hand: What does the Bible say about drinking?  In addition, this particular argument is more than acceptable for individuals to adopt as a reason to avoid alcohol altogether; but when a denomination or church incorporates a no-drinking policy based on this argument, they still tend to create a perception that they are taking a position based on a biblical stand rather than a secular argument.  And if the Bible does not condone drinking, their stand runs of the risk of becoming a legalistic "Bible plus." In addition, an argument could be made that a lifestyle of fast food consumption and no physical activity costs American just as much of not more in health related problems.  Therefore (the argument could go), a denomination could declare members of their organization are prohibited from consuming fast food and they must exercise for a minimum of 30 minutes per day, four days a week.  But still, this would be an argument from a secular position. (And I'm not sure the SBC Messengers would ever adopt a policy like this one, no matter how fat an unhealthy America gets.)

The article continues with a lengthy secular argument.  At one point they write, "[. . .] and virtually all users of other drugs start with alcohol, that’s why it’s called the “gateway” drug." This is a risky argument because it verges on a spurious relationship and it's a bit slippery.  First, there's a good chance that many of these drug users that started with alcohol drank soda before that.  So based on this argument, soda could be the cause of heavy drug use.  In addition, this type of argument does not take into account all the people that consume alcohol and never engage in other types of drug use.  In fact, some only drink beer or wine and never even shift to stronger forms of alcohol.

Things start to seem contradictory as the argument shifts to the Bible.  Statements made  to make one point only later become a contradiction for another point.  (I've taken out the material in between for clarity; however, please read the article in its entirety to see what I've left out.)  Take for example this line of reasoning,
"Because alcohol is such a dangerous substance [. . .] However, it appears that the negative aspect is principally related to the debilitating effects on people, not on the alcoholic beverage in itself. Alcohol as a substance is not evil. For example, Psalm 104:14-15 speaks of wine, “which makes man’s heart glad,” as one of God’s provisions for man."
Alcohol is a dangerous substance but not an evil one.  The problem is the debilitating effects of a glad heart, which is a provision for man from God.  Okay?  How about this next example? Pay special attention to the sweet or new wine "is grape juice" argument,  
"Even sweet wine, which is thought by many to be mere grape juice, can debilitate (see Hos. 4:11) [. . .] When used in its non-metaphorical sense, it appears to run the full gamut of meanings, from grape juice, usually qualified by the adjective “new,” to the fully fermented alcoholic beverage. [. . .] In Acts 2:13 the observers supposed that the apostles were full of “sweet wine” because of their behavior when the Holy Spirit had filled them."
It's not every day you see completely irregular or unexplainable behavior like that in Acts 2 and attribute it to mere grape juice.  And I'm not sure how or why non-alcoholic grape juice takes away understanding like Hosea 4:11 claims.  Could it be that maybe that new or sweet wine was not exactly grape juice?

How about the "it's not the same alcohol" argument?
"While the use by some biblical characters of alcoholic beverages is undeniable, it is important to note that the beverages these men and women consumed were not the kinds of alcoholic beverages people consume today. The alcohol content of beverages referred to in the Bible was considerably lower than many of today’s alcoholic beverages." 
The alcoholic content of wine is determined by the amount of natural sugars in the juice that are consumed by yeast.  The byproduct of this consumption is alcohol and gas.  Wine is still naturally produced this way; so is beer. So for this argument to hold true, either grapes contained less sugars or the yeast was prevented from consuming all of the sugar (a complicated process that involves a reduction of temperature, typically with refrigeration, or complex fine filtering of the yeast).  The problem is that this argument is attempting to compare alcohol like vodka (80-120 proof) with wine (20-40 proof).  In that case, the argument works.  But how does this argument stand up if the biblical characters were drinking wine (even at 20 proof) and someone today is drinking beer at 7 to 16 proof)?  It would seem than, based on this argument, that beer today is okay? But again, is this what the Bible is teaching or does this come from a secular style argument?

But what if all the conditions then were the same as today, say for example, missionaries in a third-world country, making their own wine in similar physical conditions as the first century Near East? Then is drinking okay?  In regard to sanitation, the authors write,  
"Additionally, we must keep in mind that sanitary conditions were not what they are today. Alcohol provided an ideal way to maintain the potability of beverages. Without it, people would have suffered even more from common parasites and other health threatening ailments resulting from ingesting contaminated water (see 1 Tim. 5:23)." 
And how about Jesus?  Lots of people will point out that it appears that on occasion Jesus drank wine.  To this the authors argue,
"Jesus wasn’t engaged in drinking alcoholic beverages because He felt it was His right to do so, He was doing this to make a point—that the unbelieving just looked for excuses not to believe."
Ah, what? How about providing some Scripture references to support this statement? They continue,
"Considering the Bible’s very negative attitude toward drunkenness and Jesus’ dedication to God, it is inconceivable to us that Jesus ever drank alcohol recreationally or that He was ever drunk."
Okay?  But how are they defining "recreationally"?  If Christians were to sit down to dinner with Jesus today and they rule out getting drunk or drinking as a recreation, can they have a sanitary, basic glass of wine with their dinner and conversation, or would Jesus call this behavior a sin?  (What if Jesus made the wine?)  Again, what does the Bible say about drinking alcohol in a social setting without any intent to get drunk.  This, I think, is the question most people want answered.

The article continues to plead with the reader not to drink any alcohol in any way.  More arguments are offered.  It's about Christian witness, they say, but what then of drinking one beer alone while watching spots on TV; or what about a single glass of wine with a group of believers during dinner?  There is the argument that alcohol abuse can cause sin so it should be avoided all together; but again, this argument could also be applied to having a little money.  They make many secular arguments, but this still does not answer what the Bible says.

The article also eats some space arguing against drunkenness.  I think there is much less ambiguity in this area.  I don't find that Christians disagree as much here.  Therefore, the question most Christians want answers for is the question of what the Bible says about one glass of wine with dinner, or a glass of champagne at a wedding, or a beer with hot wings over a theological discussion with a friend.  What does the Bible say about this use of alcohol? 

Where the struggle comes is when we think the answer must be an either/or proposition.  Think about it.  Is it possible that the answer requires context?  Is drinking okay within proper limits and settings?  Is this something that lives in a gray area?  I believe it does (not unlike a number of other things the Bible teaches), which is why strong teaching on what the Bible does say is a must, while also avoiding the temptation to create a legalistic approach to alcohol.     

*Photo by Sonja Pieper and is registered under a Creative Commons license.

Baptism

Introduction. As Erickson puts it, baptism is the “initiatory rite of the Church” (Erickson 1998, 1098). And as such a rite, there is much debate centered on baptism. How should it be done, and by who, to whom? What does it mean, theologically? Why baptize at all? Across the Church, there are those that hold that babies should be baptized, while others say it is for believers only, and some set an age when one can reasonable believe and be baptized. In some churches, baptism is done by sprinkling water over the head (aspersion), in others water is poured over the head and body (affusion), and still others dip or submerse the candidate into or completely under water (immersion). Priests or Bishops are the only ones authorized to baptize according to some church structures, while others say any believer in Jesus can baptize. Some argue that salvation comes through baptism, while others say is it a sign of a covenant relationship, while still others say it is a “token of salvation,” that is, an “outward symbol or indication of the inward change that has been effected in the believer” (Erickson 1998, 1105). While a fair treatment of these many questions is reasonable, for the sake of space, this post will only address the believer’s baptism, as “a symbol of beginning the Christian life (Grudem 1994, 970), and completed by immersion.

Baptism in the New Testament. All four Gospels record the baptism of Jesus by John the baptizer. It is likely that Jesus was baptized by immersion, given that he went in to and came out of the water. The word used in the text is baptizō, the meaning according to Grudem, to “plunge, dip, immerse” (Grudem 1994, 967). Grudem argues, “This is commonly recognized as the standard meaning of the term in ancient Greek literature both inside and outside of the Bible” (Grudem 1994, 967). And considering that Jesus was perfect, having never sinned (Hebrews 4:15), the baptism was not about cleansing or washing away of previous sins. Before Jesus ascended into heaven, he instructed his disciples to make more disciples and “baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19, ESV).

Throughout the Book of Acts, accounts of believers being baptized demonstrate that action, that is, baptism, followed belief. Acts 2:41 says, “those who received his word were baptized” (ESV). Acts 8:12 indicates that the people hearing Philip were baptized only when they believed. And there is evidence that these baptisms were by immersion, such as Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch “going down” and “coming up” out of the water (Acts 8:38-39).

But what is the meaning of the act itself? In Acts 22 Paul recounts his conversion story, which includes Ananias calling Paul to “be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name,” (Acts 22:16, ESV). However, Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, paint a picture of the symbolism of dieing and being buried with Christ but then being resurrected to life with Christ. So is baptism the washing of sins or symbolic or both? On this matter, Grudem states, “But to say that washing away of sins is the only thing (or even the most essential thing) pictured in baptism does not faithfully represent New Testament teaching. Both washing and death and resurrection with Christ are symbolized in baptism, but Romans 6:1-11 and Colossians 2:11-12 place a clear emphasis on dying and rising with Christ” (Grudem 1994, 969).

Baptism today. While baptism itself is not a means of salvation, it is an act commanded by God and a beautiful public pronouncement of the new believer’s symbolic death and resurrection with Christ. It is also (generally) the initiatory rite into the Church. Baptism is about the candidate and his or her new life; therefore, Criswell says, “The baptismal service ought to be a beautiful and deeply spiritual occasion whether held in a creek, a river, a pond, or in a church baptistery” (Criswell 1980, 201). He further instructs, “Baptism is a death, a burial, and a resurrection. Remember to feel that, believe that, and the rite will come naturally to the administrator” (Criswell 1980, 204-205).

Because the ordinance does not belong to man, but to Christ’s Church, the administrator is not as important as the candidate. In fact, while the administrator should be a Christian believer, the baptism would not be invalidated should that administrator turn out to be an apostate (Criswell 1980, 200). For this same reason, local churches should not require a rebaptism of a believer as a means of membership into their local congregation.

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.


Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.

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


*Photo: Lance Cpl. Michael K. Kono, network administrator, Marine Wing Communications Squadron 38, Marine Air Control Group 38, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, and 19-year-old Sparks, Nev., native, is brought out of the waters during a baptism at Al Asad, Iraq, May 30. Chaplains representing two separate commands aboard the air base baptized five service members during the spiritual event. Photo by Sgt. J.L. Zimmer III. Cleared for Release

Are All Christians Believers?

It seems that we too often associate the term "Christian" with one who believes that Jesus was fully God and fully man, was executed on a cross, taking the punishment for our sin as our substitute, who rose again to life on the third day and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God.  We think a Christian believes that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

But today, this definition is not necessarily the meaning of "Christian" any more than the definition of "student" is someone who willing desires to learn and grow in knowledge through study and discipline.  How many students can you think of that went (or are presently going) to school only to party all night and miss classes all day?  How many students like being in college for the social aspects.  How many Christians do you know that identify with Christianity as a social club, but either don't believe that Jesus is who he claimed he was, or  don't understand the gospel enough to make a decision either way?  And what of the groups that insist in calling themselves Christian but profess doctrine that is clearly not inline with the Bible, like the LDS?  Or how about those "Christians" that show little or no life evidence of faith?  You may know someone like this.  Or what about a "Christian" church like the Westboro Baptist Church?

When I think about this, John 6:47-66 comes to mind.  In this passage, Jesus explains that he is the bread of life.  Using graphic symbolism, Jesus teaches that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.  Misunderstanding, many of the disciples question this teaching, really struggling with Jesus' instruction.  And John 6:66 says, "After this, many disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (ESV).  Here Jesus had many followers hanging on his every word.  He had just fed thousands.  Yet an earlier passage in chapter 6 tells us that they were only in it for the miracles.  They wanted to see amazing things or be healed.  Some were just hanging around for the entertainment.   So it is with some "Christians" today.

It could be that there are some "Christians" sitting next to you in church that are not believers in Christ.  Many people on Facebook claim "Christian" as their faith but clearly don't believe the doctrines of Christ.  Many wear crosses but do not know the God-man who died on one for them.  And there are those that see Christianity as a moral code or way of life, an ethic or politic.

I remember recently reading a man calling himself a Christian who claimed that the there was no intelligent designer of the earth of life, that life and all things are just a chance happenstance, and that God has no influence over creation (because it was not his creation in the first place).  I'm not sure how that position can fit within Christian teaching because it can't.  It just can't.  I know of people that call themselves Christians but deny that Jesus is exclusively the way to heaven, something Jesus himself clearly taught. 

Therefore, we must take caution when assuming the meaning of the word, "Christian."  Christian originally was not an adjective, like Christian music or Christian books; it was a person who held a confession in Christ.  However, today, it is really a self-identified membership into a social identity.   There are some that are trying to avoid using the word all together, often substituting it with "Christ-follower," but this doesn't really change anything.  And there are some who are diligently trying to reclaim the meaning of the word, but Webster's doesn't have word police.  So what we really ought to do is keep in mind what a Christian is or is not.  We should bear in mind that a person calling him or herself a Christian may be an ambassador for  Christ's Kingdom, or not.

How Did We Get Here?

While not always the case, one of the best ways to identify the most significant events of one century is seeing the results in the following centuries.  But standing just over the threshold of the 21st Century, it is rather difficult to look back into the 20th Century and identify what events will have the longest and most significant consequences.   However, if I am required to try, I must say that failure best categorizes the events of the 20th Century. Failure to alleviate the suffering of mankind at the hands of government; failure to bring about a utopian society through egalitarian principles; and even failure to place the created above the Creator.  Mankind failed to achieve the unwritten goals of the 20th Century.  

The 20th Century witnessed the rise of individualism, a greater globalization of various people groups, modernization, an increased hope placed in the scientific method, and liberalization of thought.  Nations went to war with one another on a scale greater than any previous century.  The method of killing was honed through practice and science to the extend that a single bomb could now annihilate millions of men, women, and children.  Greater resources were needed to keep the industrialized nations advancing.  Non-industrialized nations were colonized to fuel the greed, thus infecting indigenous peoples of the non-industrialized communities with the same woes of the rest of the world.  The unsinkable ship (the Titanic) sank.  Economic markets collapsed around the world.  Walls of separation were build between the East and the West, between nations, and between cultures.  And walls of separation were torn down.  The scientific marvel, the Space Shuttle Challenger, exploded right before the eyes of millions of school children eagerly watching the first teacher jettisoned into space. Genocide. Apartheid. HIV/AIDS. Corruption. Riots. Post office and school shootings. Hope was greatly challenged.  Failure. 

In the jumble of the changing world, people looked for answers to the problems they were observing.  For some, Karl Marx offered a solution--communism. For others capitalism offered hope.  Some turned to politics.  Some sought scientific answers.  The atheist philosophers blamed religion and God.  Nazis blamed the Jews.  Political conservatives blamed the liberals and the liberals returned in-kind.  Nuclear arsenals became the answer for those who could amass them.  Many in the West sought answers in Eastern world religions and philosophies.  In the East, some turned to a greater mysticism, totalitarianism, or various other religious practices. Some simply checked out with the aid of drugs. Many found comfort in apathy.  

But not every answer had negative results.  The Civil Rights movements in the West granted greater freedoms to minorities and women.  The non-resistant protest method surfaced in India and America.  Nations formed united alliances and unions in an effort to work together. Concern for less fortunate people of other nations developed.  Conservation movements fostered a respect for nature. And through positive advancements,the quality of life for many greatly improved.

The Church also attempted to offer answers. "More than any international organization, corporation, or political movement" writes Gonzalez, "the church cut across national boundaries, class distinctions, and political allegiances" (1985, 336).  The challenge however, was that the Church was not in agreement.  Gonzalez states, "War, and racial and class strife divided the church--often along lines that had little to do with earlier theological differences" (336).  (Had the Church put more weight in Biblical teaching and theology instead of political posturing and advancing moral rules, it might not have had as much of an issue.) 

The Eastern churches, specifically the Orthodox communities attempted to unify, mostly through the World Council of Churches, but sadly many disagreements and schisms resulted.  Roman Catholics sought religious reform through the efforts of the Second Vatican Council.  The Protestants made strong attempts to offer answers in light of the advances and failures of the 20th Century.  Some sought greater unity in the Church while others made attempts to separate themselves from society, finding comfort in fundamentalism. Many Christians programs were promoted to help the poor, afflicted, and suffering.  Some were even created.  The missions movement started or continued, and stronger, bold evangelism was promoted.  Greater work was placed upon translating the Bible.  Christians advanced the message of hope in Christ Jesus through new technologies and church planting. But unfortunately, among Protestants disagreements surfaced and schisms birthed new denominations.  An effort to promote moralism over faith came at the cost of sharing the hope of grace found only in Jesus.  Christians also found themselves having to defend (and advance) the gospel through political activism, elections, and the court systems of various nations.  As Christians reacted to the difficulties of the 20th Century, societies started reacting to the Christians, which is where the 20th Century closed. 

So now, ten years into the 21st Century, the Church is facing a great opportunity to provide answers were previous generations may have fallen short. 


González, Justo L.
The Story of Christianity:The reformation to the present Day. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Called to the Chaplaincy?

August 3, 2010.

I noticed an area of great need while I was serving in the military, especially when I was in Iraq: good chaplains.  From what I saw, there was (and still is) a shortage of them.

I have been out of the military and home from Iraq for six years, but it was about three years ago when I stopped saying "somebody really ought to do something about that," and started saying, "maybe I ought to do something about it."  Up to that point, I had never seen myself as a minister, pastor or in professional ministry (before the war I wanted to be a rich lawyer), but the chaplaincy was something I could see myself doing.  I wanted to have a dirty boots ministry, that is, I wanted to be in the mud with the combat guys most in need.  

Investigating the requirements, I found that as a chaplain candidate I would need to earn an M.Div at an accredited seminary, get an ecclesiastical endorsement from an official endorser (recognized and approved by the US Government), gain ministry experience, go through the various military officer and chaplain schools, and eventually be selected as a chaplain through a board selection process.  I looked into my seminary options and chose Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, although at the time I didn't consider myself baptist.

My next step was the ecclesiastical endorsement.  My local church was not heavily connected with their denomination, to the extent that I had attended there for 2 years and had no idea with who they were affiliated (this is not uncommon in Utah).  With the help of my pastor, I started working through what would potentially be a six year process to obtain a full endorsement from this denomination.  However, as I was working though the material they sold me and reading the books they recommended, I ran into some theological issues.  No-Go's might be a better word.  Taking these to my pastor was informative but didn't help me rectify my problems.  Informing the endorser, he had me talk with people in upper leadership throughout the denomination in an attempt to convince me of their doctrinal positions.  In the end, I came to realize that there was no way I could sign the required doctrinal statement.  I also figured that with these difficult theological differences, it might be best for my family to seek out a local church of a different denomination, or no denomination.

Finding a new church community in Salt Lake City is hard.  It's even harder when that church must also be associated with an organization approved to endorse military chaplains.  After a while. I gave up trying to find a church community that could serve as an endorser and sought out a low-support, doctrinally weak, on-line endorser.  Passing their assessment and paying their fees, I was endorsed.  This freed up one one requirement, I we could fellowship with any group of believers.  (It was in this time that Lisa and I hung out with some church planters from Portland.)  But now, six years later, we've settled in a great church close to our home called Holladay Baptist Church.

Now it was time to apply for re-entry into the military.  This nearly year-long process became grueling given the mountain of paperwork and my post-war counseling.  Through the process of appeals I was eventually allowed to go through the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) where potential soldiers are screened.  At an out of fighting-shape 34, this screening was no picnic, but I managed to pass.  However, after finishing at MEPS, I learned that the rest of my paperwork was "stale" and we'd have to start over.  I was already starting to see that I was old by Army standards and would not likely be able to hang with the young bucks I wanted to serve.  And three years of fighting through the challenges felt like I had my foot jammed in a closed door.

Through many other things which may be a topic of another discussion, I decided it was time to give up this effort.  However, over the course of the three years, I started seeing myself as a pastor or professor or a servant in just about any professional or volunteer ministry.  I love seminary and am learning so much.  We've found an amazing church community.  I feel deeply grounded in my theology.  And it might be that I was never called to serve as an Army chaplain.  But that's okay because the process has greatly developed and shaped my thinking about God, myself, my family, ministry, and calling.  And now it seems that something else might be on the horizon. We'll see.

There's still a need for good chaplains in the military.  I am praying that I can still serve veterans in some capacity and I'm also hoping to see a flood of young guys go to seminary and become the kind of chaplains that can minister in the mud where they are needed most. As for me, I'm simply waiting on the Lord (or at least trying to).

*Both photos are in the public domain.

Top 10 Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology

If you are not a reader of Parchment and Pen, you're really missing out.  Parchment and Pen is the theology blog from Reclaiming the Mind Ministries.  If you like theology, you really ought to check it out.


Tim Kimberley, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and a staff member at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, has stared a great series on the blog called, "Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology."  The series not only shares some interesting history, it also demonstrates some of the many archaeological discoveries that support the accuracy and credibility of the historical aspects of the Bible.  I highly recommend checking it out.  To do so, click here or on the graphic above.

*I have not received permission to use the graphic above, but at the request of Tim Kimberley or Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, I will remove it from this post.  In addition, I have no martial connection to Pen and Parchment or Reclaiming the Mind Ministries other than purchases I have made from the website and Bible.org.  

Graduate Student Can't Keep Her Christian Beliefs?

How should a college balance the diverse but deeply held beliefs of its students?  Should students of a university be required to share the same political ideology?  How about the same worldview?  Would it be right for a college to require that a gay or lesbian student be encouraged (or required) to believe that his or her sexuality be a condition of choice?  Or what if a Muslim student was required to accept that all ethics were derived from Christianity in order to graduate?   

Before reading on, watch this video clip, the subject of which has been discussed in a number of recent news stories, both in print and video.


Now, before I continue, I'd like to remind you that the nature of news media is such that the article or clip is not likely accounting for all sides of a complete story or historical event.  It provides outsiders a glimpse, of which the perspective and details are chosen by the author or editor and presented within the limitations of time and the medium.  I'd venture to say that we don't have anything close to the entire story.

That being said, I've noticed some diverse ways in which this story is being reported.  From one perspective, the articles and clips (like this one) paint Keeton as a victim.  Other articles--often published by outlets with unmistakeably gay names--paint her as obstinate and "homophobic."  (As of yet, I've not seen any of of the Christian publishers paint the school as "Christophobic.")  I'd like to call attention not to the story itself, but the reaction to it, and the bigger aspects of it. 

How is it that a group of people can demand the opportunity to feel safe and accepted in a public community but then not afford the same opportunity to those different from themselves?  Is this a double-standard?  I say yes.  I also admit that many Christians have done this to others throughout history.  And many Christians have been on the oppressed end of this stick too, like in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China.

If a Christian were to demand that a Muslim not be allowed to express his or her views in a college setting, most would identify this demand unfair.  Can a Christian or Muslim hold to his or her belief (and I would say lifestyle) to the same extent as a homosexual man or woman holds that they cannot or will not change his or her lifestyle?  Again, I'd say yes.

Is religion a protected class in America?  Yes.

Is creed a protected class in America?  Yes again.

I'm just curious if the school would require a gay or lesbian counseling student to attend church services in order to obtain an understanding of people who hold a Christian worldview.  Should an atheist be required to change his or her view because he or she is not in agreement with a much larger majority that believes in some kind of higher power or deity?  

So why does is this student required to change a deeply held belief or conviction?  I realize that some will want to argue that this belief is a choice, that is, that she was not created with this belief.  However, millions of reformed and Calvinist Christians would disagree.  They argue, as I argue, that Keeton was born and created to be a believer of Jesus Christ.

Teaching Kids About Prayer

The Sunday School teacher for the 3rd and 4th graders at my local church has had to take some time off this summer to deal with a medical issue.  While I wish she didn't have the medical difficulty, I'm finding tremendous joy substitute teaching the class.  We use a curriculum developed by Group. There's a pre-planed weekly lesson, a box of visual aids, and a bunch of matching NLT bibles. The material is okay, but I think my students are smarter than Group's target class.  Therefore, this week I added some additional information to the class and I think it went well.

Teaching this class has been good for me because I'm having to take the communication from a level I'm accustomed to in seminary down to a level that a 3rd grader can understand and find application.  That being said, I think this is the case even for teaching adults.

Here's my basic outline of last Sunday's class: 

The week's verse from the curriculum is "Never stop praying" --  1 Thessalonians 5:17

Illustration: "Who here has ever spoke to the President of the United States? How about any leader or king of any other country?  Well, I once met a former president and do you know what; I had to go through security, and I was assigned a time when I would meet him, and I could only talk with him for a second, and I probably won't every get to talk with him again.  What do you think it takes to get to talk to the President in the White House?  But did you know you can talk to the King of Kings, God?"

Bible chase game to find the scriptures that answer the following questions.

When should we (or can we) talk with God?
1. Psalm 5:3 (Morning)
2. Psalm 71:7-8 (All day)
3. Psalm 119:55 (Night)
4. Psalm 55:17 (Morning, Noon, and Night)
5. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 (Always be praying)

How should we pray? 
1. (The previous week's lesson was to come boldly before God. Use this time to review last week's lesson than offer some more scriptures for the class to race to find.)
2. Matthew 6:9-13 (This is how he showed us to pray, discuss elements of prayer and remind the class that these are not requirements or rules, but Jesus teaching us.)
3. Colossians 4:2 (Alert mind and thankful heart)

How should we NOT pray?
1.  Matthew 6:5 (Is Jesus telling us that we shouldn't pray on street corners?  I opened our class in prayer and you saw me, is Jesus saying that I was wrong?  Maybe is Jesus talking about using prayer to show off and make it more about ourselves instead of talking with God?)

Where should we pray?
1. Daniel 6:10 (In our homes)
2. Matthew 6:6 (In private)
3. Acts 16:23-25 (In prison, hard times)
4. Jonah 2:1 (In the belly of a fish)

(Pause to explain the seriousness of stoning.  Give a background of Stephen's evangelism that got him into trouble.)
5. Acts 7:59-60 (Even when we are dying)
6. Luke 23:34 (Jesus prayed on the cross for the people putting him there)

Review
When should we pray? How should we pray? (How should we not pray?) Where should we pray?

Prayer Walk
1. Explain what a prayer walk is and that prayer walking is not something that holds more or special power or anything like that because God hears us anytime, from wherever we are.  However, sometimes we are reminded to pray for people or things because we see them on our walk. And sometimes we'll even be able to pray with other people. (Also, this will reinforce the idea that we should always be praying and that we can pray anywhere.)
2. Go for a pray walk through the church building, stopping to pray as people feel led to do so.

Pray and Watch Reminder Cards
Hand out reminder cards and have the kids write 5 names of people they want to remember to pray for.  Tell them to put the card on the fridge or someplace they will see it often.  Every time they see the card, they should be reminded to pray for those five people. Then they should also watch for opportunities to serve those five people.

Handouts
Give out weekly home fun and Bible memory verse handout.  Also give out coloring sheet with map and remind the kids that they can pray in all those places and anywhere, anytime.

Cross-Cultural Servanthood by Duane Elmer


CRITIQUE OF

Elmer, Duane. Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 2006.


INTRODUCTION

Duane Elmer has traveled and taught in over seventy-five countries, serving as a cross-cultural missionary and teacher. After hearing him lecture on the topic of cross-cultural servanthood, many people have asked Dr. Elmer if his material is in print (14). Cross-Cultural Servanthood is his attempt to put his knowledge and experience into publication after fifteen years of “reading and researching the topic, gathering stacks of articles and ideas and interviewing people in numerous countries” (14). His book “focuses on relational and adjustment competency so that the servant spirit we wish to portray will, in fact, be seen and valued by the local people” (14). Cross-Cultural Servanthood, by Elmer’s own words is a book that “examines the process of becoming a cross-cultural servant,” drawing from his personal experience to include his failures, the experiences of others from many countries, research, and Scripture (19). In three parts, Elmer addresses a basic overview of servanthood in general, the process of servanthood in other cultures, and a consequences of mixing leadership and servanthood with the previous two parts. His other publications include Cross-Cultural Conflict, Cross-Cultural Connections, and Cross-Cultural Partnerships. Elmer earned a Ph.D. at Michigan State and presently is the G. W. Aldeen Professor of International Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. His wife, “born and raised in Zimbabwe with a Canadian mother,” offers additional insight and is present in a number of illustrations throughout the book.

In what follows, an overview of Elmer’s work will be offered. Significant points and arguments of servanthood and culture made by Elmer will be summarized as they develop through the three parts of the book. Following the summary is an examination and analysis of the author’s work proceeded by a brief conclusion.

BRIEF SUMMARY

Cross-Cultural Servanthood is ultimately about servanthood in the form of mission and evangelism work. From the first page of his book, Elmer opens with an illustration of understanding cultural differences. It may have been his first real understanding (or lack there of) servanthood. His new bride asked what he would like for breakfast and he suggested eggs. But when he sat down for breakfast, his expectation of over-medium eggs was sitting face-to-face with poached eggs. Of the resulting conversation, Elmer writes, “My wife’s desire to serve me in this simple but meaningful event was misinterpreted and badly handled by me. I was not thinking servanthood” (12). Elmer uses this simple and easy to understand example to express the simultaneous difficulty and simplicity that is cross-cultural servanthood. Elmer continues, “Servanthood is revealed in simple, everyday events. But it’s complex because servanthood is culturally defined—that is, serving must be sensitive to the cultural landscape while remaining true to the Scripture. That is both the challenge and the burden of servanthood—and of this book” (12). After using himself as the poor example, Elmer seizes the opportunity to confess that for much of the first part of his missionary life, he was culturally insensitive and did not have the correct servant attitude he feels is necessary for missionary work and evangelism, and subsequently this is also the primary topic of his book (15-20).


“Serving,” according to Elmer, “is the ability to relate to people in such a way that their dignity as human beings is affirmed and they are more empowered to life God-glorifying lives” (146). Servanthood however, is an attitude of serving. And proper servanthood should be Christ-like, modeling Jesus’ method of connecting with others as we serve them (21). Elmer argues early in the Part One,
"If we set out to become a servant, it can become mechanical and appear artificial or forced. If, however, servanthood is seen as our deepest identification with Christ and inhabits our being, then serving others will be a natural, often unconscious, expression. At this point servanthood is not only what we do but what we are" (22).
The remainder of the first part of the book sets out, mostly through examples and illustrations, to make the case for servant evangelism and cross-cultural awareness.

Matthew, Luke, and John are the three primary biblical sources used by Elmer to make his case. Outside of the very fact that Christ entered our culture to serve us, Jesus provided the best picture of servanthood when he washed his disciples’ feet (13, 22-26). Christ gave up of the robe, that is, the appearance of his Kingship, and took on the towel of the lowly servant to wash his disciples’ feet. As Elmer implies, Christian servants are also to give up the position of honor for the position of servanthood in the name of Christ, following Jesus’ example.

Secular examples from various fields of social studies and practical observation are also used throughout the book. In the opening part of the work, Elmer shares a parable of a monkey and a fish. The monkey, seeing the fish struggling in the current, grabs the fish and lays it on the bank. Eventually the fish is motionless and the monkey thinks he did a good thing for the fish (27-28). Elmer’s point is summed up in his statement: “The fish likely saw the arrogance of the monkey’s assumption that what was good for monkeys would also be good for fish. This arrogance, hidden from the monkey’s consciousness, far overshadowed his kindness in trying to help the fish. Thus good intentions are not enough” (28). The monkey is the Elmer’s focus; through the remainder of the book, the reader is encouraged to be more culturally aware.

Part Two is loaded with examples of people from one culture entering into another with incorrect assumptions. Generally, the most glaring examples are when Western culture meets Eastern, or when either enter the “Two-Thirds world” culture, as Elmer often calls most of African and other improvised nations. Elmer’s goal of Part Two (and really much of the other two parts as well) is to keep the reader from being a monkey (37). To encourage his reader to have a true attitude of servanthood, Elmer spends a great deal of pages working on cultural awareness. He writes, “Therefore, let us intentionally, everyday, ask what we have learned about how a servant looks and acts in this culture. Otherwise we may be deluded into thinking we are serving when others may not see it that way at all” (37). It is in this section that Elmer identifies a linear model to help one integrate into and understand a culture other than his or her own.

Although he best explains it in reverse order, Elmer’s model for entering and serving another culture starts with Openness. “Openness with people of other cultures” Elmer says, “requires that you are willing to step out of your comfort zone to initiate and sustain relationship in context of cultural differences” (151). The next step is Acceptance. In this step, there must be a comfort and feeling of safety around one another (151). Acceptance is followed by Trust. On trust, Elmer writes, “You can’t build trust with another person until they feel like they have been accepted by you—until they feel that you value them as human beings” (151). Then comes learning. After trust is established, there is a greater likelihood that people will share important information (151). And finally, there can be understanding. Understanding requires that one “learns from them and, eventually, with them” (150-151). However, immediately after outlining this linear model with the help of six chapters of illustrations, Elmer provides a diagram from the Eastern, non-linear approach. In this model, all of these area point toward servanthood and one would not have to work through all of them before serving others (152). Elmer shows the model with a diagram and explains it in two paragraphs; then he writes, “Use the model that works best for you” 152).

Moving into Part Three, Elmer attempts to synthesize the first two parts with the idea of Christian leadership. Part Three introduces the new topic of leadership (which more will be addressed in the subsequent section). The question becomes, “How do we combine the concept of service with that of leadership?” (155). Much of Part Three shifts into advice about the dealing with challenges and struggles often faced by missionaries. And then Elmer concludes first with the idea that cross-cultural servanthood requires practice and second, that all are called to something that will require servanthood. He states, “God has a significant role for you in his global mission. But it can be significant only if you are able to follow the servanthood of Jesus, which is difficult in the best of circumstances but especially challenging in the places that are foreign to you” (198).

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK

Dr. Elmer’s effort to share his knowledge and skill set should be appreciated by those desiring to serve a mission or plant a church in a culture different than their own. The book is a strong contribution to the topic of evangelism and should be included on many a missionary or church planter's bookshelf.  Elmer's background has a trustworthy feel and his illustrations make what might seem complex understandable. Part One is valuable and a solid introduction to his overarching point. The style and tone of the book are such that the reader feels simultaneously encouraged and convicted.

Part Two is where the bulk of the book’s value is found. The liner model leading up to service is both informative and practical for not only work in a foreign culture, but for working in the nuanced differences within cultures closer to home. A practical application guide or workbook to assist in the teaching of a church missionary team the tools for serving in different cultures could accompany Part Two. However, the shortcoming of Part Two is the focus on cultural understanding over services, and even more so, the lack of sharing the gospel. The topic of understanding the cultural drowns out the reason for understanding the culture in the first place.

Part Three, while helpful and informative, did not seem to fit the purpose of the book. Prior to introducing leadership into the picture of servanthood, there were not logically surfacing questions in the area of leadership. Elmer, in the opinion of this author, should have concluded without the introduction of the new topic of leadership.

Elmer’s model for cross-culture servanthood can be applied to local cultures, but none of his examples demonstrated anybody reaching differing cultures within the boarder of the United States, or even Western cultures. He did not address situations like service on a Native American reservation, or into the inner city, or in a poverty-laden area. Modern trends are encouraging missionaries and church planters to go into cultures different then their own but still closer to home—be it rural or urban, east or west, New York or LA or Portland or Salt Lake, or even differing cultures within their same area. Given the large number of those reaching into these different cultures, Elmer might have served a broader readership had he included some of the aspects of subtle cultural differences. Or maybe this should be the topic of an additional book that places the focus of serving the different cultures within our own communities.

CONCLUSION

Cross-Cultural Servanthood is a valuable book for anybody taking the gospel into any culture different than his or her own. Working through Elmer’s model of servanthood should help Christians in most relationships. Elmer is correct when he says, “The following pages will unpack the idea of cross-cultural servanthood. While not being easy, it is the calling of every person who wishes to follow Jesus, whether in your home culture or beyond. The principles in this book apply to a wide range of Christians—in one sense, to all who want to serve others” (12-13). This author believes that Elmer is also correct in saying that all who desire to follow Jesus must desire to be servants. We must put aside the robe and pick up the towel (22-26).

Purchase this book at Amazon.com by clicking here.

* 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. 
** Purchases made through the links on this site help support this ministry. 

Working the Angles by Eugene Peterson

Introduction. In his book, Working the Angles, Eugene Peterson identifies the work of the pastor or leader by drawing on the geometric imagery of a triangle. “The visible lines of pastoral work,” says Peterson, “are preaching, teaching, and administration” (Eerdmans Publishing, 1987, 5). This is often how pastors identify themselves, that is, primarily as the preacher, teacher, or church administrator. Before reading his book, one of, or a combination of these three duties is how I often envisioned myself in future ministry opportunities. But these three important straight lines are at the mercy of the three angles that actually form the triangle. To this Peterson writes, “Most of what we see in a triangle is lines. The lines come in various proportions to each other but what determines the proportions and shape of the whole are the angles” (5). The lines are the visible and the expected of the pastor’s duties, but the angles dictate everything. “The small angles of this ministry are prayer, Scripture, and spiritual direction,” Peterson continues (5). Without these angles, the lines hold little shape or semblance of meaning.

This is not a book review. Rather, what follows is a self-reflection. This is an evaluation of my prayer life, study of Scripture, and present spiritual direction through my understanding of Peterson’s book. I will offer my thoughts and ideas about the concepts of Working the Angles, through the same structure as the book. Peterson breaks his book down by three sections following the same focus of each angle: prayer, Scripture, and spiritual direction. I will do the same for this post.

Upfront I can say that I feel that two angles of my triangle are developing well and are a strong part of my life; but one angle is the regular subject of my prayers and is in need of serious help and growth. In addition, I have been working though a difficult decision regarding the Army chaplaincy and this book has greatly helped guide my decision away from that direction.

Prayer. Peterson expresses that prayer is of the utmost importance for every pastor and leader. Everything should always come down to prayer, always. Prayer is not simply for getting things started at secular gathering and meetings, as if it is the starter pistol of a track race. And it should not be a token thing; it is powerful and dangerous, significant. The pastor or leader’s life, according to Peterson, must be strongly identified through a life of regular, honest, meaningful prayer.

As I read though the significance of prayer, I found myself in strong agreement. Hebrews 4:16 says, “Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in a time of need” (ESV). Because of this passage and others, I feel confident to boldly approach God in prayer; and as I read Psalm 139, I know that God knows me thoroughly. Therefore, my personal prayers can be honest and guttural. While I confess, at times I selfishly ask for God to bless me in this way or that, much of my prayer life is my desire to draw nearer to God to know him, myself, and my relationship with Jesus so much better. I wake with prayer, pray in the shower, when I’m shaving and brushing my teeth, walking past neighbor’s homes, riding the bus, working, after meeting with co-workers, when I'm studying, and before I go to bed. I pray at any moment I can, even when I am using the restroom. Yet, sometimes I will forget to prayer and go for hours without talking with God. There is loneliness, but then again I am drawn back to him to share joy and pain, confusion and understanding.

However, I am coming to realize that I often shelter my relationship with God by avoiding the deeper approach toward God when I pray with others, sometimes even when I daily pray with my wife and children. It is my prayer that I feel comfortable to boldly approach God with them too.

I am in the process of re-entering the military as a chaplain; or I should say I was in the process. Much of my concern with the chaplaincy falls squarely in the three angles of this book. There is debate about the chaplain’s ability to pray honest prayers to Jesus, in his name. While I do not think it is absolutely necessary to end a prayer specifically, “in the name of Jesus” as a recently removed Navy chaplain does, I do believe prayer should not be that token thing to hold on to tradition. Thinking back to my eight years in the military, I cannot recall a chaplain’s public prayer that was not simply a cursory prayer to “get things started.” It is as if having the chaplain open a ceremony with a prayer is the Army’s way to appease some and hold on to tradition. After reading Peterson’s book, I am no longer confidant that I can be a participant in the capacity required by the Army. And if prayer is a significant angle (which I believe it is), than it stands to reason that counseling sessions and various other aspects of the chaplain’s duties with soldiers should include honest prayer. However, the last four decades have seen a shift away from Christian prayer in the chaplain ministries (with the exception of Sunday services), in many cases actually preventing prayer in this capacity.

Scripture. The pastor or leader should be a man (or woman) of the Book. If the Bible is to be understood as God’s written word to us—and I believe it is—than the pastor should know the material inside and out. There should be a strong desire to read and hear from God often. But as Peterson explains, knowing the material is not just the ability to regurgitate a passage as needed or achieve high marks on a test, it is to breath it in, live it, understand it, deeply know it. It should sustain life and shape how the leader understands everything. I believe my approach to the Bible (as God’s Word) is an honest approach to getting closer to God, hearing from him, and infusing the Scripture into the core foundations of my life. Like Eugene says should be the case, my “office,” where I most often read, is actually called my “study.” Although I also listen to Scripture when I am commuting to work and on occasion I will read from my iPhone when I’m standing in line or passing time.

I typically start my time in Scripture with prayer. I read from a daily reading plan, and I journal. At times, I will read large portions of the Word for a broad overview or to capture the meta-narrative. Other times, I will read one verse repeatedly, chewing on it, praying it, trying to make it a part of me like a blood transfusion. I read from many translations and sometimes I will read from the Greek (although I still greatly struggle with this). Sometimes I read and study at the “101 level,” that is, the devotional reading for peace and enjoyment. Other times my reading is a deeper study, exegeting passages and examining words; and still other times I involve commentaries to seek out a much deeper or more academic understanding. Scripture is the focus of most, if not all of my reading. My purpose for reading Scripture is to hear the word of the Lord and to know him more. And Scripture is the measuring stick of how I come to understand everything else.

Spiritual Direction. As I hinted in the introduction, one life area is in dire need of improvement. It is this area—spiritual direction. At times over the past three years, I have acted as a spiritual director or mentor for others; but through much of that time, I have been void of a serious, dedicated spiritual director. I have two or three guys I can go to for prayer and help with big decisions, but I do not feel like I have a go-to guy for the little things, the mundane, who will call me out when I need it most and stick with me as I work through my junk. It is often my prayer that God will bring this man into my life, and soon.

As Peterson says, every person needs a spiritual director in his or her life, throughout the entire lifetime of the believer. I absolutely trust he is correct. When we are hermits, that is, when we are not deeply known by other believers, we tend to see ourselves as 'amazing,' much better than reality would state. But when we have a spiritual director, there is an honesty that is not present otherwise. There is humility and growth and help and honesty about us, pointing us toward repentance, sanctification, and a better relationship with God. I do not, at present, have this level of support, which is why entering the chaplaincy is risky at best, irresponsible, and unwise. Peterson’s section on spiritual direction is a stark reminder of something that has been a long struggle for me. Peterson also struggled with the lack of a spiritual director. He said it was because he did not want to give up control. This is somewhat true for me too. And I am struggling to find a willing, capable mentor that I trust and feel I can be open with. I see that I need to repent and work through this issue. I realize, as Peterson eventually did, that the reason I do not have this man in my life is due to problems I am struggling to deal with and embrace in a repentant, honest manner. (The level of frank honesty might be a bit high for this post, but is this not somewhat the point of the final section of the book?) So, I keep praying, waiting, and watching.

Conclusion. I found Peterson’s book informative and convicting. Ultimately, I was questioning my readiness to enter the chaplaincy and Working the Angles acted as a conformation that I am not yet there. I need to continue to pray and listen to God’s word and guidance through reading Scripture. I need to open my life up to a spiritual director. Until I can get the angels resembling a triangle, the lines of preaching, teaching, and administration will not connect, leaving me with a haphazard and unfruitful ministry.

* 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. 

A Pastor and His Staff

A pastor is a leader, but not just to his1 congregation; he is a leader for his staff, whether they are financially compensated or volunteer. The pastor has, if the church structure allows for it, the responsibility to select the right staff. He then must organize them, develop relationships with them, lead them with vision and direction, see that they grow personally and professionally, and he must compensate them for their service. Pastor—from the Greek work, poimēn—generally means ‘shepherd.’ And although it only appears once in the New Testament in reference to a church officer, there are numerous analogies of a leader as a shepherd and the church as a flock (Grudem 1994, 913). Therefore, the pastor as the shepherd of the flock must also ensure that his staff properly looks after and protects the flock.

According to Criswell, “The qualifications of a good staff member are what they would be in the secular world of teaching, administration, education, business, public relations, personality, appeal, and all the rest, with this one additional accompaniment—the staff member ought to feel a real affinity for the work of the Lord, ‘called’ of God to do the task if at all possible” (Criswell 1980, 85). However, Criswell almost seems to say that calling is a secondary matter. It must be the first in the selection of a staff. It is the responsibility of the pastor as a leader to gage potential staff members for calling, because if indeed they are called, the rest of the attributes may not be what they seem. Jesus called a tax collector and a band of fishermen, and none of them used their secular skills much for the Church once they were called.

Once on staff, the individual staff members must know how they fit within the organization and the vision. In order to understand each person’s strengths and weaknesses, the leader must be familiar with his people, and do to his, he must form relationships with them. He must know them. And they must know the leader and his vision. Clearly defined roles and regular staff meetings will help the leader accomplish this communication necessity. “They are ready to follow, to work, to build, to go,” writes Criswell, “if they have a man of God and a man of vision to lead the way” (217). The pastor is and must be a visionary leader for the staff.

A leader must be one who can generate future leaders within (and even outside) the church. To do this, he must see to it that the staff is growing, learning, and reaching their full potential. Each person must be in the word of God and in prayer; both things the pastor should highly encourage. Also, sending staff members to conferences, is not only a good way to see them receive more training, it is also a good way to show appreciation for them as staff members. Occasionally, volunteers will give an enormous amount of time to the church. Sending them to a conference is a good way to compensate them, but also remembering the birthdays and major events of the staff members’ lives is one way to show them the pastor cares about them. And it is important that the staff is compensated well; First Timothy 5:18 says, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages’” (ESV).

And finally, the pastor is also the protector of his staff. David, the great shepherd of the Old Testament carried a sling to defend his sheep from hungry lions. Jesus, drawing on imagery the shepherd would understand said to his disciples, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mat 7:15, ESV). The pastor must guard against false doctrine and poor theology. It can be more destructive if false doctrines are being taught to the congregation from a staff member. Therefore, the pastor must train up his staff correctly, but also be watching for incorrect theology and deal with it immediately. The staff is also charged with the care of the flock. And the flock as well as the staff depends upon the pastor’s courage and leadership.

Reference List
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester,
England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

_______
1 It is not my intention to engage in a debate about women in ministry. So given my position on women serving in as elders or senior leaders in the church, and considering that the great majority to senior pastors are men, I will refer to the pastor as a male throughout this paper. If the senior pastor is a woman, the same principles apply. 

* 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.  

Priceless by Tom Davis

Tom Davis is committed to the less fortunate, the widows and orphans, and as is apparent by reading Priceless: A Novel on the Edge of the World (David Cook), victims of the sex-slave industry. Articles and books on this horrific topic are many, but with his use of the novel Priceless, Davis shines a light directly on the face of what tries to remain hidden in the shadows. The characters come alive and the reader feels the fear, pain, concern, and joy.

Priceless tells the story of Stuart Daniels, a photojournalist sent on assignment to Russia.  "Once there," says the synopsis on Amazon.com, "Daniels is persuaded by an old friend to help save two girls from a desperate situation. Soon he becomes a key player in a dangerous campaign to rescue helpless women trapped in the sex-slave trade. What Daniels encounters during his journey will shake his faith, test his courage, and even threaten his life. Yet as Daniels gets deeper and the stakes get higher, he will discover that hope can be found in the darkest of places."




I received a free copy of Priceless for the specific purpose of review. It was my hope to review the book for Burnside Writer's Collective, but Carole Turner beat me to it (and she provided a great review).  Then my wife informed me that she wanted to read it, so I thought I'd wait to get her perspective before posting a review.  As soon as she finished the book she was laboring through, she picked up Priceless and couldn't put it down.  Three days later, we were sitting at the dinner table discussing the novel.  And now I'm offering my thoughts here.

Priceless is a quick read. While the story is not a literary masterpiece, it's a great story that must be told. In some aspects, the references to popular culture leave the story feeling fixed and dated; but it is obvious that Davis' objective with this book is to deal with big, real issues in the here and now, rather than a classic novel that transcends time. He is dealing with real problems, real slavery, real horror, and his novel is not for entertainment, it's to stir hear from comfortable to action.

As I've contemplated the novel over the past couple weeks, I can't help but think about the appropriate response.  This book does demand a response, but not the trendy, "let's talk about the sex-trade atrocities but do nothing" response that seems so prevalent today, especially among the young American church.  I admit, I have done next to nothing to make a difference in this matter. I can't simply tweet about the the sex-trade on Craig's List to assuage my lack of actual action.  I have to do more, so I pray, often.  But I also need to do something that bleeds, not for the mere sake of social justice throughout the world, but out of love for Jesus Christ and my gratitude for his love for me.  Tom Davis' novel has birthed something in my mind that seem unable to go away.  Yes, it's that kind of book. 

This novel puts me as close to the sex-trade industry as I have ever been, or ever want to be.  It's believable.  It's almost too real.  I have not been to Russia, but the geography and history seemed credible, and certainly believable, too. I did run across one instance of mistaken terminology where a `revolver' turned into a semi-automatic handgun, complete with a magazine and slide, but this was a single minor occurrence and not representative of the book. Overall, I felt like I was there in Russia, cold and concerned, silently hoping for Stuart Daniels and the young girls he was trying to rescue.  I could feel the cold, the evil.  

The story is gut wrenching. Nobody should be able to read this story without feeling called to action at some level.  The comfortable is not as comfortable after reading this book.  I have been thinking about it for some time.  Do I save my money and go overseas to smuggle girls away at the risk of my life?  Do I raise money? Awareness?  What do I do?  Just as one would expect of Tom Davis, there are some ways to engage listed at the end of the book.  Specifically, Davis encourages his readers to visit www.sheispriceless.com.  As Tom always does with his books, he has provided some resources and action steps for those like me who feel compelled to action.  (Honestly, I find it hard to believe anyone could read this book and then do nothing.)

I loved this book.  Not because of the subject material, but because it exposed me to something we all need exposed to.  Because it reminded me that we live in a world that needs Christians to be the hands and feet of Jesus.  And maybe because it became a distraction from my schoolwork; like my wife, I couldn't put it down. I highly recommend. It is age appropriate for teenagers and above. Also, it would make a great choice for a book club.  Pick up a copy today.


*As also stated in this review, I received a free copy of this book for the specific purpose of review.  I was under no obligation to provide a positive review and I have no material connection to this novel.

Just Fed Up: When the truth is a Lie

I recently read the following in A Long Obedience in the Same Direction by Eugene H. Peterson (IVP, 1980):
"A person has to be thoroughly discussed with the way things are to find the motivation to set out on the Christian way.  As long as we think the next election might eliminate crime and establish justice or another scientific breakthrough might save the environment or another pay raise might push us over the edge of anxiety into a life of tranquility, we are not likely to risk the arduous uncertainties of the life of faith.  A person has to get fed up with the ways of the world before he, before she, acquires an appetite for the world of grace" (p 25). 
And a couple pages over he writes, "Christian consciousness begins in the painful realization that what we had assumed was the truth was in fact a lie" (p 27).  Peterson has touched upon a deep truth.  It is not when we place all of our hope in government, or the Bill or Rights, or the next promotion, or any other "it will be better when. . ."; but instead, it is when we finally realize that it will never be better without the grace of God. 

I realize that most of the readers of this blog already know and walk in relationship with Jesus, but I am always happy to chat with you about this should you have any questions.

*I have no material connection to this book. 

On non-Christian Prayer

I was recently asked what I think about "non-Christian prayer."  I thought that discussion might be valuable to share here.  But before we can address non-Christian prayer, I think some terms and ideas need defined and understood. 

For starters, what is prayer?  People all over the world pray.  I would think prayer, at the simplest level, is the communication of a person or group of people to an entity, higher power, being or group of beings, or some other object of worship or faith.  In addition, I think the person or group offering the communication believe that in at least some way the communication will yield a result.

The Triune God of the Bible, that is, the Old and New Testaments, is living and engaged with his creation (for clarity he may also be identified as Yahweh).  He is omnipresent and therefore hears and knows all communication--in speech, thought, and action--of all people, whether they believe and worship him or not.  He is sovereign over his response and personal revelation and can choose to communicate with the person praying or not; he can take action or not, whether they are intentionally praying to him or not. 

For the purposes of this post, I will call Christian-prayers those communication attempts made by Christians to communicate with the Triune God.  Christian prayers are generally understood as being made through, and in the name of Jesus Christ.  The person praying a Christian-prayer professes Jesus as Lord and Savior; fully human and fully God; concieved of the Holy Spirit; crucified, dead, and risen as a propitiation of our sins; and part of the Triune God; however, there is some room for a person to not fully understand these aspects of Jesus and the Triune God, but they may not deny them.

Many people offering prayers are attempting to communicate with Yahweh even if they do not know or believe in Jesus, especially the Jewish people.  These prayers are not specifically Christian prayers, but this does not mean that God does not hear them, and potentially even answer them.  Before a person believes in Jesus, he or she may pray for greater faith to believe or for help understanding the Scriptures.  God, in his sovereign ways may very well answer these non-Christian prayers by his common grace and love for mankind.  The man who for the first time cries out to Jesus, "Lord, I can do nothing; save me," was not a Christian when his cry started but in fact was regenerated to new life, through grace, by the very act of this "non-Christian" prayer.  

However, when a person prays to anything or anyone other than Yahweh (which includes Jesus), he or she is praying to a false god or false idol.  God still hears these prayers but they are not pleasing to him considering that throughout the Bible we are warned not to worship false idols.  In fact, Paul warns in 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 that food sacrificed to false idols is actually being sacrificed to demons.  Prayer to false idols could, like the sacrifices, be made to demons. 

In the case of public prayers or invocations, it is not absolutely necessary that specific names be mentioned, but it is a better witness if the prayer is clearly addressed to the God of the Bible and absolutely prayed in Jesus' name.  This cannot always be the case given our society.  God will know the intentions and hearts of those saying, engaging, or agreeing with the prayer.  Now, a prayer that is vague in name is one thing, a prayer made to a false idol is another.  Never, should a prayer be made to a false idol or an incorrect identification of God.   

To provide some practical application, I have some in-laws that are LDS (Mormon).  To be clear, I do not believe that the LDS god is the God of the Bible, therefore, he is a false idol.  I do not believe that their understanding of Jesus is inline with what the Bible teaches about Jesus (and it's really all about Jesus!); therefore, the "Jesus" they understand is not the same as the Jesus of the Bible. However, when we are together for a meal, a prayer is offered before we dig in.  When one of them prays to their "heavenly father," I can pray in my heart to Jesus or my Heavenly Father, and that is okay.  Or I can pray a different prayer in my mind.  But I am always intentional about the object of my prayers--Jesus the Living God.  And when I am asked to pray (which is almost never), I have two options.  The first option is that I can choose to cause a problem by intentionally praying in such a way that becomes offensive to them.  This could hurt my future witness with them and make for poor family relationships.  [I understand that should one of them read this post, there will be challenges to their faith, but they won't be made in front of the rest of their children or the rest of the family.  If I am challenging your faith, I am always happy to discuss this with you.] The second option is that I can choose to pray in such a way that affords them the opportunity to join in my prayer to God or--as much as I want otherwise--they can place their false idol as the object of their prayer.  This is not to say that I am compromising and praying in some way that is not correct to God.  For example, they believe that addressing their deity as "god" is taking their lord's name in vain.  They do not even do it this their prayers.  While I am okay to address God with the title "God," I am also okay to call God "Heavenly Father" or "Lord."  These latter two terms are not offensive to them, which makes these titles a more appropriate choice.  They pray using King James language, feeling it holds greater reverence.  I do not do this because I am not practiced in this vocabulary and will probably unknowingly make up incorrect King James words. But more importantly, it is because I feel that coming before God as something other than myself is fake.  I believe God knows us better than we know ourselves, is approachable, and loves us as his children; therefore, I will not pray as if I am trying to appease him or superficially respect him with my language. (In many ways, how I pray with these LDS in-laws can be a witness of my love-relationship with my Creator.) 

In conclusion, I must say that I believe all prayer should be Christian prayer.  Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life, creating the only bridge to the Father.  Any other prayer to any other god, higher power, or anything else is a waste of time and offers no hope of salvation.  The Bible declares this to be true, and in this I am certain.


*This photo is by David Shankbone and is registered under a Creative Commons License. 
**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. 

Alcohol and the Christian

Imagine a group of Christians from a variety of denominations together for a nice dinner, when the waiter brings over a bottle of wine and the wine list?  Depending on the group, it could be an awkward moment.  Alcohol is a touchy subject in the Church, at least in the American Church.

CNN has reported the findings of the National Association of Evangelicals' top leaders.  The article, "Most U.S. evangelical leaders don't drink, survey finds" posted by Richard Allen Greene, found that of the top leaders of the NAE's members, sixty percent choose not to drink.  I don't think we should find this number surprising.  And we need to understand that the reasons vary but do not (and should not) include the idea that alcohol consumption in-and-of-itself is a sin.

Below are three arguments why Christians choose not to drink.  The first being absurd, and the other two being somewhat more common.  Right upfront, I'll say that I believe this is a personal matter of voluntarily restricting our own freedom in Christ, but in no way should be a legalistic rule placed involuntarily upon others.  (It needs to be said that "freedom in Christ" is NOT the freedom to do what ever hedonistic, glutinous thing one wishes, on this I must be clear).  I also hold that the Bible clearly teaches that drunkenness (over consumption) is a sin. And, I'd like to say for those who struggle with this temptation or are enslaved to alcohol in anyway, alcohol is not for you.

The Extreme Arguments. There are three arguments I commonly hear about the prohibition of drinking.  The first comes in a variety-pack, but all of the flavors fall into the same category of extreme.  The extreme arguments use poor exegesis to claim drinking is an outright sin.  These arguments usually are very selective in which Scriptures they seek for support.  They also seem to overlook many Scriptures that show evidence of drinking that wasn't condemned as a sin.  Wine was used in the drink offering of the Old Testament.  Jesus and his disciples seem to have drank alcoholic beverages, namely, wine.  There were many Godly men with wine presses.  Parables of wineskins bursting likely would have required the gas of fermentation.  And Jesus uses wine to symbolize his shed blood and new covenant in the Lord's Supper.  But I also must say, while the Bible does not outright prohibit drinking, it does offer many stern warnings about drunkenness.  Often, wine is the symbol of God's wrath.  And the Bible cautions that wine and alcohol can, like money, be a source of real temptation and disaster.  I'll say it again: for those who struggle with this temptation or are enslaved to alcohol in anyway, alcohol is not for you.

Now, even though the Bible does not prohibit drinking, there are two arguments that are reasonable so long as they are not pushed to the extreme of legalism. 

Don't Cause Others to Stumble. The first argument is the Romans 14, "do not cause anyone to stumble" position.  This argument follows in line with Paul's teaching.  He instructs that there is no unclean food, but there will be some around us that still see some foods as unclean.  He goes on to say, "Do not for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.  Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.  It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble" (Romans 14:20-21, ESV).  The most obvious application to this Text is don't drink around an alcoholic!  But there is so much more to this.  A pastor may choose not to drink to prevent the immature from using him as an example specifically to drink.  Or the pastor may choose not to drink because he leads a flock of older, traditional believers who might greatly struggle with their pastor drinking.  Or he may drink only among select and trusted friends that share his view and beliefs and he knows are not going to stumble because of his dietary choices.  Or in a place like Utah, a pastor may choose not to drink coffee when he meets with Mormons.  The key here is that while the pastor has freedom in Christ, he voluntarily chooses to restrict one or more freedom--as he sees best fit--in an effort to prevent people from stumbling.  This is a valid, Biblical argument that all Christians should live by; and it includes food, drink, and actions.  Where this argument goes wrong is when it becomes a hard rule of "no drinking," pressed upon all people. The beauty of the passage is that Paul can freely choose to restrict his freedom in Christ and pick it up again in different circumstances; therefore, this opportunity should be extended to all who have this freedom.

Playing with Fire.  The other argument I hear (although not as credible as the position just discussed) is the "playing with fire" argument. This argument says that because alcohol could potentially get out of hand and become an addiction, it is best just to avoid it all together.  I'm not sure the reasoning is great.  The same could be true of money, but pastors still have and use money.  However, with the heavy stress placed upon pastor, and the increased attacks of Satan's army, it's reasonable that a pastor would willingly limit is freedom in Christ for his own sake.  There are many denominations the require complete sobriety of their pastors for this very reason.  The down side to the argument is that many fall into the idea that a restriction should be placed on everybody and that those who drink even a little are somehow sinning or unholy because they are flirting with a greater potential.

This is a controversial issue within the Church, even causing church splits and inter-denominational fighting.  But it does not have to be this ugly when we remember what the Bible teaches on the matter. 

*Photo is the property of flikr.com user "stoicviking" and is registered under a creative commons license.

Training Programs: Sunday School, Small Groups

Throughout the New Testament, believers are warned of false doctrine and charged with the responsibility to make, train, and encourage disciples.  Jesus, after instructing the eleven disciples to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” told them that they must also, “[teach] them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20, ESV).  Too often it seems that preachers will preach on a passage and follow it up with an invitation for non-believers to accept Christ as Savior, right then and there; not after years of training to understand all that Jesus commanded those eleven disciples.  There is nothing wrong with this, but it is extremely limited in its training extent.  Therefore, it seems that the believer’s journey with the preacher or teacher is not done.  And if a Christian is to understand what is good and what is false doctrine, a process of biblical education is necessary.  Traditionally, disciples spent a lifetime listening to elders teach on the Scripture, and they (if they could read or had access to scriptures) would keep a regular routine of Bible reading.  Eventually, additional training programs were implemented, generally called "Sunday school."  In recent years among some churches, this training has shifted to a mid-week gathering in members’ homes.  Although the name (and the format) has changed, the principle remains—“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 29:20, ESV).

For the sake of brevity, only a brief offering of scripture will be offered here.  In Acts 17:11, Luke, the author, praises the brothers in Berea for “examining the Scriptures daily” (ESV).  Paul instructs Titus in Titus 1:9 that an elder or overseer “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also rebuke those who contradict it” (ESV).  To Timothy, Paul suggests that elders should be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) and discern the difference between sound and false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10, Timothy 6:3). In Ephesians 4, Paul suggests that a poor understanding of doctrine is like a child “tossed to and fro by the waves” (Ephesians 4:14, ESV). Training is expected of the members of the Church, as Paul sees teaching as a gift given by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:28); and it is a reasonable assumption that in teaching, he means teaching the Word of God and sound doctrine.  And remember, Jesus warns that false prophets will come in sheep’s clothing, but will be recognized by their fruits (Matthew 7:15-16). It is clear even from these few selected passages that the Church must understand correct doctrine and to do so requires teaching from those able and spiritually gifted to teach. In the modern church, Sunday school programs and small groups fill this role, in part.

W. A. Criswell sees Sunday school programs as an evangelistic tool. He writes of Sunday school, “This is the great outreaching arm of the church. This is our primary instrument of visitation, soul-wining, and Bible teaching” (Criswell 1980, 176). While this may have been true some years ago, and it might be (or was) happening in Criswell’s church, my observations in my area suggest something different.  And based on the Scripture provided above, evangelism and training differ in that one is a starting point and the other is lifetime of teaching and learning.

In the church today, Sunday school and home group programs serve to build up the body.  As members learn the teaching of the Bible, they grow.  As they grow, they tend to become bold.  As they understand the gospel and doctrines of the Bible, and as they become bold, they become powerful evangelists in their circles of influence, such as in their places of work and circle of non-believing friends.  It is in this way that Sunday school programs and small groups strengthen evangelist work.  But that is not where it should end.  Leaders do have a responsibility to build up the believers.  Sunday school programs and small groups are also are inline with the scriptures directing members to know doctrine.  Classes, taught by believers that are gifted with the ability to teach, help build the foundation, under girding, and framework that the Holy Spirit uses to bring about spiritual formation in the lives of the believes.  Therefore, Sunday school is a natural extension of Jesus’ instruction to teach all that he commanded.

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

* 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. 

** Photo taken by Flickr user Old Shoe Woman and is registered under  Creative Commons License. 

Caner's Stumble

Dr. Ergun Caner will no longer be the Dean and President of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary; but he is being retained as a professor for the 2010-2011 school year.  For some, this seems unfair or unjustified.  But others are still on the offensive, thinking Liberty has not done enough--they want blood.  In reality, it seems like a good decision by the school and a good demonstration of one aspect of the gospel. 

Long before the Christianity Today article, I was thinking about the claims made regarding Caner's dependencies.  On the one hand, they were compelling claims, presenting potential problems.  On the other hand, it seemed as if some people were zealously hoping to bring down Caner and run a sword through his heart, placing one foot victoriously on his chest.  I saw trouble on both hands.

As the problem continued to play out publicly, things spiraled downward.  Those on the offensive grew vicious.  They dedicated hours and hours to videos, tweet after tweet on Twitter, and thousands upon thousands of words to blogs about the problem.   It some cases, it seemed to consume them.  And there were those who blindly defended Caner, attempting to ignore or hide potential sin issues.  They would make ad hominem attacks arguing that the claims couldn't be true because they were being brought to light by a non-believer.  It got even worse when they attacked Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism rather than dealing with the issue at hand.  And by behaving in this way, they told the world that dealing with sin and seeking sanctification and restoration with God is not what Christianity is about.  

However, Christianity is about restoration to God through grace from God.  And in that, we too are to call people to repent of sin--which requires us to identify sin, including our own.  And we also must show others the love and grace in Christ.  We should seek restoration and forgiveness for those who have wronged us just as God shows grace and restoration for those who have sinned against him.  Of course this is not some kind of automatic thing, there is repentance AND forgiveness in restoration. Liberty's board looked into the allegations and now Caner has been removed of his leadership role.  However, it appears he is being given an opportunity for repentance and restoration.  He is not being completely cast out but also not remaining in his leadership role.  There is opportunity for others come come along side and help him walk the bumpy, messy, dirt path of sanctification.  We should be thankful these issues came into the light and are being dealt with--that is how sin is put to death.  Let us watch and pray for this situation, that it might bring us all a little closer to Jesus.

And we can all learn from Dr. Caner and Liberty University.  The most important thing is our relationship with God, not our egos or reputation; not who is right and who is wrong.  This means that we search ourselves for any sin and repent.  From every little exaggeration to any blatant lie, and our desire to tear down another or build ourselves up, and any other sin that the Holy Spirit shows us.  I know that daily I have much to repent of, but I am thankful that God is bringing me closer to him through this process.  And we must seek restoration in the body of Christ through grace and love.  This is my prayer for me, Dr. Ergun Caner, and for all of us.

Deuteronomy 22:1-4, Helping your Neighbor

Jesus instructed his followers to love their neighbors (Mark 12:28-31, John 13:34-35).  What does loving your neighbor look like?  It could be something like caring for the mugged Samaritan man (which today might look something more like caring for an illegal immigrant in need). It could be something as simple as taking your neighbors a meal when they are ill or have faced a disaster, or it might be sharing the gospel and praying for them.  There are many ways to show love for your neighbor.  In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses tells us one way to care for our neighbors:    

“You shall not see your brother's* ox or his sheep going astray and ignore them. You shall take them back to your brother. [2] And if he does not live near you and you do not know who he is, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall stay with you until your brother seeks it. Then you shall restore it to him.  [3] And you shall do the same with his donkey or with his garment, or with any lost thing of your brother's, which he loses and you find; you may not ignore it. [4] You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen down by the way and ignore them. You shall help him to lift them up again."  [Deuteronomy 22:1-4, ESV]

So keep an eye out.  Your neighbor probably doesn't own any farm animals, but look for ways to help care for your neighbor's stuff.  Maybe he left his lights on--save him from a dead battery in the morning.  Maybe it's raining and the UPS driver left a package out where it can get wet.  Maybe you've found the neighbor's family dog that has gotten out.  Helping your neighbor in a time of need may provide a great opportunity for you get to know him or her better; and it's a great way to show love as Christ instructed us to do.


*On a technical note, there's some discussion as to the word translated as 'brother' in the ESV version above.  The Hebrew word can mean brother or kinsman or potentially even neighbor. Some argue that this level of care should be reserved for family; however, I would argue that the familial use of brother is not the best way to think about brother in this passage. Look at verse 2.  Notice that there is a possibility that you might now know the owner of the ox or sheep.  Therefore, you are told to care for the animal until the owner is determined.  It would be challenging to reserve this kind of care to family if you don't even know who the owner of the animal is.  I would think then, this passage is calling us to help all those around us, potentially everybody we come in contact with.

**Photo is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stignygaard/ / CC BY 2.0

Tithing: It's About Heart

Introduction.  In First Corinthians, Paul writes (in part) to the church in Corinth about a collection that is being taken up (16:1-4).  The money will support and care for the believers in Jerusalem who were likely in hiding during a time of persecution.  Malachi 3:10a says “Bring the full tithe to the storehouse.”  Twice Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, that “you shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading the grain” (ESV), and in his first letter to Timothy he says, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (ESV), making an argument that ministers of the gospel should be paid.  While all of these passages are used in support of giving or tithing to God through the Church, the means of ministry funds is not what God is after.  God, as the Bible teaches, is after the believer’s affection.   Giving the first fruits, be it money or otherwise, is more a work happening within the believer than anything else.

God does not NEED your money It is a mistake to think the work of God’s desire will not happen if we, the Church, do not raise the money for his will.  While reflecting on God and his own life, Job said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job 1:21, ESV).  Job understood that he came into the world with nothing.  All that he had and all that he lost was a blessing from God, but he did not have a greater claim than God to any of it because it was all God’s to give and take.  Leviticus 27:30 teaches that every tithe, whether it is willfully given to God or not belongs to God, and the rest of Malachi 3:10 says that withholding this tithe is actually stealing from God.  Psalm 50:8-12 reads, "I have not complaint about your sacrifices or the burnt offerings you constantly offer.  But I do not the bulls from your barns or the goats from your pens.  For all the animals of the forest are mine, and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.  I know every bird on the mountains, and all the animals of the field are mine.  If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for all the world is mine and everything in it" (NLT).
   
When the King Ahasuerus’ edict demanded to have all the Jews killed, Mordecai asked Esther to appeal to her husband, the king, in order to save the Jews from genocide.  In verses 4:13-14, Mordecai says to Ester, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews.  For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish.  And who knows whether your have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”  (Esther 4:13-14, ESV, emphasis added)  Mordecai understood that God will have it his way whether it works through Esther or through some other avenue or person, but Esther had the opportunity in that moment to be faithful and obedient to God.  Giving to the Church is much the same way—we can be obedient to the Bible and give or not, but our disobedience will not keep our Sovereign from accomplishing his will.  However, this is not a reason not to give our tithes and offering to God as he as instructed. 
 
It is about the heart.  In the 18th chapter of Luke (also Matthew 19 and Mark 10), a rich man asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life.  Jesus asked him if was he had kept the last five Commandments.  The man had since his youth.  But then Jesus went after the real issue—the man's idol, that is, the love of his great wealth.  The rich man had placed his love of money above his love of God, thus violating the First Commandment.  Every sin we commit can generally be tied back to placing something above God, worshiping an idol rather than the living God.  One of the most prevalent idols in the West today is money. 
 
Money itself is not bad; but both Hebrews 13:5 and First Timothy 6:10 say that the love of it is.  Like the rich man, the believer must strip away the idolatry and the love of money if he is going to follow Christ.  This, at times, comes with resistance.  Criswell writes, “The true gospel preacher is confronted today by a new-time antinomian. . . . Where stewardship of money is concerned they are antinomians; elsewhere they are satisfied to preach the moral code of Jehovah” (Criswell 1980, 148-149).  However, the gospel preacher must continue to call men and woman to give cheerfully, not because God needs the money, because God wants the heart. 

References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.

*Photo is licensed under a creative commons license.  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.