Is it 'Okay' to Get Divorced?

Not too long ago, I was asked "Is it okay to get divorced?"  This is a huge question.

We first need to ask what is meant by "okay." If okay means entry or exclusion from heaven, I want to be very clear: getting a divorce or staying married has no baring on entrance to heaven or hell or one's ability to pray to God.  Even one sin without Christ's grace will keep a person out of heaven. Faith and surrender to Jesus Christ, who he says he is, and in his death and resurrection dictates entering heaven or being cast to hell.  This is the key to entry in to heaven, not any work, like staying married. Without Christ, even one sin is "not okay." However, we all sin (act in ways that are contrary to God's wishes for us), a lot. If we need to discuss this in more detail, please feel free to contact me.

So then the real question is if you were considering divorce, and God were sitting with us having coffee, how would he advise you in your situation. If this is you, I recommend you put lots of time to honest prayer, just as if he were sitting with you having coffee. Ask him what you might do to improve your marriage. Ask him to show you areas in your own life that may need repentance.  Ask him how you can show your spouse grace.  Ask him to fix your marriage. After you've had that conversation for a while, and if you feel that his involvement and advice is making no difference, ask him why. If you are already praying about this, pray more.

In the Bible, God presents his ideal. His ideal is that people remain married. And if not for humanity's ugly brokenness, we'd all meet this ideal with little effort. But because of the mess that we are, we have to work at it--some much more than others. The entire Bible is full of stories about people trying to work together in some kind of relationship. Paul writes letters to entire churches trying to help them have healthy relationships in work, play, marriage, etc. Obviously, it's hard and it's messy to meet this ideal.

God wants us to meet his ideal, but we won't, we can't. We are too messed up. This is why Christ died. So now we can find grace in our mess, through Jesus.

The overly religious people of Jesus' day, the Pharisees, came to Jesus and asked him if it was okay for anybody to get a divorce. (You can read about this in Matthew 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-11.) Here's how it went down (I'm greatly paraphrasing):

Religious people: Is it against God's Law to divorce your wife for any reason?

Jesus: Haven't you read the Law? [He's referring to the Scriptures, specifically to what the Jews called The Law, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, written by Moses. These 5 books include lots of stories; it is not just a book of rules like we think of the law today]. God created men and women to be together. A man should leave his family and get married. He should hold fast to his wife. [Paul once wrote that a man should love his wife like Christ loves the church, and Christ died for the church!] God has joined them together so nobody should separate them. (See Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:6, Ephesians 5:23-33.)

[Jesus pointed out the ideal and expressed that it should be taken seriously.]

Religious people: Oh really, than why did Moses say a man can divorce his wife? [They were trying to trap Jesus or demonstrate that he was teaching counter to the Scriptures.]

Jesus: It's because you have a hard heart. [This is his way of pointing out our ugly, brokenness.] But it was not intended to be this way from the beginning. But you should know, anyone who gets divorced outside of infidelity will commit adultery.

Jesus also explained that even the very act of looking with lust at another person is committing adultery with that person (Matthew 5:28). I am not saying that committing adultery is okay with God; in fact, the opposite is true and society's definition of adultery and God's definition are quite different.  However, you should understand how it's being discussed in the Bible. And ultimately, the religious people were asking if a person will still be okay with God if they got divorced. Jesus is our intermediary so we can always be right with God through Jesus, divorced or not.

That being said, divorce is against the ideal; it's against God's desires for us. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). The Bible teaches that we should not take the matter lightly; and if you are considering divorce, you should try at all cost to work through the messiness.

Maybe this is not the answer you wanted to hear, and that's okay.  I realize I didn't give a simple yes or no, but that's because it is not a simple matter. I suggest that you go back to that table at the coffeehouse and talk with God often.  Read his Word in the Bible.  Pray. Communicate with your spouse. And pray together.

*Photo taken by Flickr user, jcoterhals, is registered under a Creative Commons license.

Self-Help Marriage Books

I just read and evaluated a book on marriage for a class.  With all due respect to those who have tried, a book on making a marriage successful is usually a gross over simplification, and often constructed on a sandy foundation. At best, it builds on no foundation; at worst, it elevates a successful marriage into a position above God. The reason has everything to do with the focus. Too often, the mindset is that two people, through self-regulated behavior, can build and maintain a positive relationship with one another. While it is true that relationship management is the reason for many successful marriages, it is not how God teaches on marriage.

Dr. John Gottman has contributed to the body of nearly secular self-help marriage books. His book, Why Marriages Succeed and or Fail is informative and helpful but still misses God’s primary starting point of all successful marriages. It doesn't build upon a solid foundation.

Here's what often goes overlooked, even by many Christian authors and publishers: Genesis outlines God’s creation of the covenant relationship between a man and a woman--marriage. He created it, and therefore he alone gets to define it. In making man and woman in the image of the triune God, men and women are created to be in interpersonal relationship with God, but also with one another. Genesis 2:24 reads, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh,” showing the parting of one relationship in order to enter into a physically and spiritually profound marital union. Jesus builds upon our understanding of this union saying, “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, ESV). Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7 that it is a sin for a man and woman to become “one flesh” out side of marriage, demonstrating that there is more than the mere physical in the act of sexual relations. And Romans 6:2 indicates that the marriage covenant is a life-long covenant.

But much of the New Testament biblical teaching on marriage is actually used as symbolism to either show Christ’s Kingly reign, a proper relationship between Christ and man, or the relationship between Christ and the Church. This symbolism often uses the marriage ceremony or wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-14, Matthew 25:7-12, Luke 22:27-30, John, 2:1-12, John 2:28-29, 2 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 5:23-32, and Revelation 19:7-9). One might ask how the symbolism of the wedding and Christ relates to the marriage between a man and a woman today, and the answer is found in understanding the relationships. The Bible clearly demonstrates Christ’s love for the Church, even that he died for her. And man is called to love his bride that much, that is, as much as Christ loves the Church (Ephesians 5:23-33). In addition, Paul says that a man should also love his wife as he loves himself (Ephesians 5:28-30). With that said, it is clear that the Bible holds marriage in a high position, not to be taken lightly. (It is also clear that the marriage or the family unit should not be worshiped as an idol as some do, but this is a discussion for another time.)

As God calls men and women to himself and sanctifies them in preparation of the glory of Kingdom living, we find a need for grace, care, and love in our relationships, especially our marital relationship. Very few of the issues that the marriage self-help books deal with will still be issues after a married couple submits their lives and relationship to God’s grace, care, and love. Often, when the Holy Spirit is working in a marriage and the couple is in submission to God’s will, Gottman’s style of simple self assessment testing and marriage tactics seems silly. In Christ, the married couple comes to understand the difficulty of marriage and the amazing power of God in the marriage covenant. An through this understanding, they can have a beautiful, loving marriage that teaches them more about the nature and character of God.  This is not to say that a couple will never need counseling or help in the marriage, but that they should always keep God's rightful position over their marriage, rather than incorrectly putting the newest trend of self-help in God’s seat.

*Photo by Keith Park, registered under a Creative Commons license. 

Jesus in Public Prayer

Introduction. Occasionally pastors are asked to offer a prayer—usually an invocation or benediction—in a public, secular environment. This is especially true in government settings and a typical duty of a military chaplain. This raises some questions for the Christian minister. Does the Christian minister have the right to pray a specifically “Christian” prayer in these settings? Can a Christian pray without closing the prayer in Jesus’ name? And finally, is there any reason a Christian minister or chaplain should agree to publicly praying in an ecumenical environment where the mention of Jesus is frowned upon or prohibited? These are good questions for the American pastor or chaplain serving in the environment of recent court decisions, the Establishment Clause, the high wall of separation between church and state, and the courts of pubic appeal.

The Minister’s Right. In light of Supreme Court cases like ENGLE v. VITELE, the Christian minister should not assume the right to pray however he wishes when invited to pray in a secular government setting. If the minister is unwilling to remain ecumenical (if requested or expected to do so), he should decline the invitation to pray. The military requires a chaplain to agree to these terms before accepting a commission. Despite how the minister may feel about this, he must remember the words of Jesus, “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20, ESV). The minister should be thankful that he is invited to pray in a secular, government environment at all; but he should also pray that one day all will pray in Jesus’ name. The minister’s focus should be on prayer, teaching, evangelism, and service, leaving the distractions of these societal difficulties to the lawyers and politicians (unless of course it comes up for a vote). However, if the minister is invited to pray, he should always feel that he has the right to clarification; and a minister should never be required to pray in this fashion if he is uncomfortable doing so. The military chaplain however, should be prepared to face persecution if he chooses to take this stand.

In Jesus’ Name. Many times throughout the Bible, Jesus instructs his disciples to pray in his name (John 14:13-14, 15:16, 16:23, Ephesians 5:20). But as Grudem says, this instruction “does not simply mean adding the phrase ‘in Jesus’ name’ after every prayer” (Grudem 1994, 379). He continues by arguing that it is not a magic formula for our prayers (Ibid, 379). Instead, praying in Jesus’ name is praying in and with Jesus’ authority. While it is wise to verbally declare that a prayer is said in the authority of Jesus, it is not a Biblical requirement. In fact, of the prayers recorded in the Bible (Matthew 6:9-13, Acts 1:24-25, 4:24-30, 7:59, 9:13-14, 10:14, Revelations 6:10, 22:20), none of them end “in Jesus’ name” (Ibid, 379). In light of these biblical prayers, it seems that an occasional prayer (in a non-Christian government setting) that ends with a simple “Amen” is acceptable.

Why Would a Minister Agree? While ministers and chaplains should hope and pray for a day when everybody makes specifically Christian prayers, reality says this is not the case today. The advantages of accepting an invitation to pray in a non-Christian environment are proximity and presence. Ministers do not often have the access they might have by accepting the invitation to pray. Later, someone the Holy Spirit is convicting may approach the minister for help. And by praying, a reminder is posted that there is indeed a higher power whom which we make supplication. Given title or introduction, people will likely know that the minister is Christian. Chaplains are granted an all-important proximity to soldiers, but only because they are willing to occasionally restrict their language choices in order to pray in the public non-Christian setting. The same is expected of non-Christian chaplains. If Christians refused to pray in this manner, they would be barred access to soldiers, the more significant ministry for the chaplain. The weakness however, is that many will hear this prayer and not understand the importance or necessity of Jesus. This work will likely take more than this single occasion. And a threat comes in the form of compliancy. As the Christian minister makes one concession, there could be expectations that others will be made too. The Christians of the first century went to their deaths for the name of Jesus and actually became a greater witness than if they were to make concessions for access. This should be weighted when making the decision to pray or not, when contemplating the acceptance of a chaplaincy or not.

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

* 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 of  Stained Glass by Toby Hudson and is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

Light in a Dark Time: Hope at the Funeral

Jesus was dead and his body had been laid in a tomb. On the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James’ mother, and some other women came to the tomb to tend to Jesus’ dead body and morn. When they arrived, they found that the stone was rolled away from the tomb door and there were two angels there. The angels said to the women, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but he has risen” (Luke 24:5-6, ESV). It is only in Christ’s resurrection that hope is found. As one sits at a funeral before a dead loved one, he or she must realize that we are all dead in our trespasses; we have all committed high treason against God, punishable by death. But the good news of the gospel is the hope found in Christ. Jesus says, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and every one who lives and believes in me shall never die” (John 11:25-26, ESV). Romans 6:4-5 paints a beautiful picture of this death-resurrection relationship, reading, “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like this, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (ESV). Therefore, if the loved one believed in Christ, there should be joy because of Christ. The one who believes should cling to this hope, and those who are simply dead without hope, must hear the gospel. A funeral should honor the dead, but it is of little value if there is no message of hope, no message of the gospel.

“There is no pastoral ministry,” writes Criswell, “that offers the open door of spiritual opportunity as does the presence of death in the home. [. . .] This is the hour when the loving and caring pastor is needed most” (Criswell 1980, 295). It is in the difficult time of death when the living are grasping for something of God. It may be that they have questions, or it could be that they—now being faced with death—are looking for some kind of hope. They not only expect the pastor to know how to find the hope that overcomes death, but they expect him to share it. Tragedy would be to remain silent or go the way of secular morning. A funeral that only serves to honor the dead does nothing to serve the living, but the funeral that shares the message can honor the dead and care for the living.

Funerals are discussed throughout the Bible, but little is said of the funeral itself. Genesis 50 states that Joseph’s father was embalmed and the Egyptians mourned for him for seventy days. There was a precession of chariots. Israel was buried. Deuteronomy 14:1 prohibited the Israelites from mutilating themselves or shaving their heads as a form of morning through funeral rites. There was often a special dress for the funeral, typically sackcloth, and sometimes even ashes or dirt on the head (see Isaiah 32:11 for example). Luke, chapter 7 tells of a funeral procession that Jesus came across in Nain. It is written that a “considerable crowd from the town was with her [the mother of the dead son]” (Luke 7:12, ESV), suggesting that some funerals were well attended. And devout men, those who knew and understood the hope for Stephen, still wept for him at his funeral (Acts 8:2).

Today funerals are diverse. Some funerals are well organized with rehearsed benedictions and eulogies, while others are haphazard, allowing any in attendance to say a few words. Sometimes there is music, sometimes poetry reading. Special ceremonial honors are bestowed on some based of factors such as military or police service. But the most important aspect of the funeral is the message of hope. Without it, death abounds; but with it, the dead may leave the funeral with hope, alive in Christ.

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

* 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.  
** Painting: "Dead Christ" by Mantegna Andrea, in the public domain. Photo by Beverly and Pack is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

The Lord's Supper

Introduction. Acts 2:42-47 states that the believers of the early Church met together daily to preach and teach, pray, worship, and break bread (also see Acts 5:42 and Hebrews 10:25). They were following the example and instruction of Jesus who instituted the rite and symbolic meal (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20). In a letter to the Corinthians, Paul confirms that the Church continued to share the Lord’s Supper (also called communion or the sacrament) together in remembrance (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). And in fact, Paul quotes Jesus saying, “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25, ESV). Therefore, if we are to follow Christ’s example and join in this tradition, we should understand the meaning and symbolism of the Lord’s Supper, communion, sacrament, or even the Eucharist as it is sometimes called.

What is it; what does it mean? In the simplest of definitions, the Lord’s Supper is bread and wine, shared communally in an intentional ceremony, done as instructed by the Bible. In practice, it comes in many forms, such as wafers, unleavened, or loaves, wine or non-fermented juice, handed to all or torn form the loaf, passed in baskets or dipped in the cup, and so on. Jesus said the bread symbolizes his body that is broken and the cup represents his blood that was spilled. And as stated above, the rite has many names. In their book, Doctrine, Driscoll and Breshears write,

“The real issue is not the name but the fourfold meaning of the sacrament itself. It is a dramatic presentation that (1) reminds us in a powerful manner of the death of Jesus Christ in our place for our sins; (2) calls Christians to put our sin to death in light of the fact that Jesus died for our sins and compels us to examine ourselves and repent of sin before partaking; (3) shows the unity of God’s people around the person and work of Jesus; and (4) anticipates our participation in the marriage supper of the Lamb when his kingdom comes in its fullness. Practically speaking, Communion is to be considered as participation in the family meal around a table rather than as a sacrifice upon an alter” (Driscoll 2010, 326-327).

Both Grudem and Erickson also discuss the multi-faceted meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Grudem says, “The meaning of the Lord’s Supper is complex, rich, and full” Grudem 1994, 990). He identifies seven things symbolized by the Lord’s Supper: Christ’s death, our participation in the benefits of Christ’s death, spiritual nourishment, the unity of believers, Christ’s affirmation for his love for us, Christ’s affirmation that the blessing of salvation is reserved for those who believe, and our affirmation of a faith in Christ (991). Erickson on the other hand identifies aspects agreed upon by all believers and points of disagreement. Significantly, most agree that it is established by Christ, should be repeated, is a form of proclamation, provides a spiritual benefit to the partaker, should be restricted to only followers of Christ, and that there is and aspect of Church unity (Erickson 1998, 1117-1121). The disagreements are many. While some hold that there is a physical presence of Christ in the bread and cup, many protestant and evangelical positions see the Lord’s Supper as a commemorative act that serves to fulfill the many aspects covered by Driscoll and Breshears, Grudem, and Erickson.

How should we do it and how often? There are many different ways to present and partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the most important thing is that however it is done, it is within the instruction that Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. And regarding how often the Lord’s Supper should be shared, the early Church shared and partook daily. Calvin answers this question well, stating, “What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that is was not instituted to be received once a year and that perfunctorily (as is not commonly the custom); but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith; stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying toward each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ” (Calvin 2008, 929).


References:
-  Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody,
Mass: Hendrickson, 2008.
-  Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
-  Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. Wheaton, Ill:
Crossway, 2010.
-  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.

* 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 the property of flickr.com user, WELS.net and is registered under a Creative Commons license.  

42% of Protestants Say Mormons are Christian?

September 24, 2010

LDS friends:  I realize the content below may have an upsetting potential.  Before reading, you might guess that this as an "anti-Mormon" attack of some sort.  If this is the case, or you're already uneasy about the topic, I ask that you please continue reading.  Then, if after you've read this post you feel the same as now, please feel free to e-mail me, call me, or get in touch with me here.  Let's chat.  Come over for dinner; even bring some LDS missionaries if you'd like.  Clearly we have some theological differences, but let's have a friendly conversation about them.   

The Pew Research Center recently released an article titled, "Glenn Beck, Christians and Mormons" that reported that 42% of Protestants say that Mormons--that is, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)--are Christians.  52% of Catholics agree.  What's interesting is how quickly the argument will center on inclusion in Christianity before any effort is made to agree upon the meaning of the word "Christian."

When a word can mean anything, it means nothing.

In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis argued that the word "Christian" was becoming a meaningless word.  "Now, " wrote Lewis, "if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word."(1)  He first made this argument in a radio broadcast in 1943; how true his statement remains in 2010.

It doesn't really matter if Mormons are identified as Christian if we can't even determine the meaning of the word today.  Therefore, I believe it might prove beneficial to discuss who is and is not a Christian.  Then, we can see if the LDS theology falls inside our outside the definition.

 The word "Christian" comes from the Greek word, Christianos.  Its first appearance in the biblical narrative is found in Acts 11:26.  Acts 11:25-26 reads: "So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians" (ESV).

Later, Paul was sharing his faith and theology with King Agrippa and Agrippa's response to Paul was, "In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?" (Acts 26:28, ESV).  While this passage does not exactly tell us what a Christian is, it does demonstrate that the term being used in Antioch was used wide enough that Agrippa knew it.

Some say that at the point we read the name Christian in the Bible, it was used by non-Christians as a derogatory term.  Correct or not, Peter not only uses the term, he instructs his readers not to be ashamed of the name if they are suffering as a Christian (1 Peter 4:16).

At this point, I could work through about 1,950 years of Church history and belief, but instead I'll simply leave it at this:  The early church wrote many confessions and creeds to determine what beliefs were required in order to be Christian.  They studied and debated and studied some more.  They discussed and prayed and fasted and discussed the issues some more.  Theologians wrote books.  My LDS friends might try to argue that this all happened after the Apostles and therefore happened in what they call an "apostate" time.  However, this conversation started with Jesus, and we see it get much more serious with the Apostles.

At one point, John approached Jesus and said, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us" (Mark 9:38, ESV).  John's concern seems to be that someone outside the Twelve (not hanging around with them and Jesus) was using the name of Jesus.  Jesus responds by saying, "Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:38-39, ESV).  It is here that the Mormon is quick to point out that Jesus is part of the name of their church, and also that they invoke the name of Jesus in their religious practices.  This is a fari point; however, we must also remain mindful of Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21-23, which in the ESV translation reads,

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

In Acts 11 and 15, and in Galatians, we read that there was a group of people who felt that in order to be Christian, one had to practice the Jewish covenant rite of circumcision.  An argument was played out by the Apostles.  Was circumcision to be a requirement of Christianity?  What practice is in and what is out?  Who is in and who is out?  What belief is required.  Who are the Christians?  Often Paul has to defend himself as a Christian and Apostle because there we some that didn't see him as a such.

This issue is not new.

These arguments serve to help us understand and define boundaries.  If there is no line, there is no in or out.  The Mormons understand this well because they have 13 Articles of Faith that build boundaries.  Because I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God (from the 8th Article), I cannot call myself Mormon.  It would be wrong for me to do so.

Therefore, by all of the discussions, arguments, and studies among the Christian Church over the past 2,000 years, below is what is generally understood as minimum requirements for Christianity.  I argue with Church history and say that being unable to accept all of these statements as they are written places a person out of bounds.  At a minimum, can Mormons agree with these boundaries?   Can we even come to agreement on the definition?  (What even further complicates the matter is that between Mormons and traditionally accepted Christians, the words in these boundaries and definitions also need definitions and agreement in order to come to an understanding.) 

1. A Christian must understand that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were never created or ever had a beginning, nor will they ever have an end.

2. A Christian must understand that all things other than the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were created by God (which is the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit), thus mankind has a beginning and a Creator.  
 
3. A Christian must accept that he or she is a sinner and that God will not permit anyone who has ever sinned (which is all of mankind) to enter into an eternal life in heaven with him apart from the saving work done for us by Jesus Christ. 

4. A Christian must understand that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified in our place (taking on punishment due to all of the sins of the world, across all time), was buried, rose again to physical life three days later, and after 40 days, ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God. 

5. A Christian must understand that in order to have eternal life with Jesus in heaven, the Christian must repent of his or her sins and believe in Jesus Christ as he is written about and revealed in the Bible.

6. A Christian must understand that there is no other way to enter heaven but through repentance and belief in Jesus Christ, because of his absolutely completed and sufficient work. 

7.  A Christian cannot deny that Jesus was and is both fully deity and fully man.

8. A Christian cannot deny the Trinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all equal and of the same substance.

I speculate that most Mormons do not agree with some of these statements.  I hope I am wrong, but I'm also guessing they will not even agree that this is the definition of what beliefs are necessary to be called Christian.

Bruce McConkie, a prominent Mormon, wrote of Christianity in his book Mormon Doctrine, saying, "True and acceptable Christianity is found among the saints who have the fullness of the gospel [referring to those who accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God], and a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom."(2)  McConkie defines Christendom as "That portion of the world in which so-called Christianity prevails [...]. The term also applies to the whole body of supposed Christian believers; as now constituted this body is properly termed apostate Christendom."(3) If Mormons agree with McConkie, who seems to claim that Mormons are the only Christians and all others are not, then Mormons will likely still not be under the tent of traditionally accepted Christianity.

If you would like to discuss any of this in greater detail or if you are interested in learning more about Christ or Christianity, please feel free to contact me.


Related Articles:
"What is Mormon Doctrine?"
"It Doesn't Matter Which God?"
"Are All Christians Believers?"
"Mainstreaming Mormonism"
"An Analysis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism)"


1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: NY, HarperCollins, 1980), XIV. 
2.  Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, UT: Publishers Press, 1993), 132.
3. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, UT: Publishers Press, 1993), 131. 

*Photo by Phillip Ingham is registered under a creative commons license.

Our Vision for Home Groups

September 21, 2010.

Background:
In the first four centuries after Christ ascended into heaven, the word "church" (ekklēsia) did not have anything to do with a structure, walls, a building, or even a specific location.  Instead, it meant congregation or assembly.  This is why Paul clarified the word by saying "church in their house"  and "the church in" a particular city.  The church in Corinth, for example, likely didn't always meet in a single location.  And in early Church history when Christians were being hunted and persecuted, the believers met in hiding, even in the catacombs--worshiping, preaching, and teaching, right next to the decomposing bodies of those who were recently martyred for their faith.  However, over the years (especially in America), holding services and gathering together in a building specifically designated for the church became extremely practical.   It's wonderful that a local church can meet together in a single building on Sunday and throughout the week!

However, communities built on strong bonds and consistent, safe opportunities to grow, learn, serve, and work out matters of the faith are losing ground to a rapidly moving society of fast communication, long commutes, and social networking.  The little neighborhood community ekklēsia is becoming extinct.  What is left of community is often only seen on Sunday mornings.  To gather together at the church typically requires long drives from opposite ends of the city.  It many not be true everywhere, but it is true for Salt Lake.

Churches are turning to smaller groups that meet in homes in addition to the various gatherings in the church building in an effort to foster a strong community, reach non-believers, and grow relationships.  Many long to mirror the early Acts 2 church communities: "And, day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:46-47, ESV). 

With so many churches utilizing mid-week groups that meet in homes, there are many different models and methods throughout the Church.  Some churches have gone completely to a home-church system without ever meeting corporately in an designated church building.  Other small groups meet with a social goal in mind.  Still others meet to study in greater depth.  Some call for accountability.  For some, it is about outreach.  And sadly for some, it is about checking another box, simply to be doing something "religious." 

These groups come in all sizes and are tagged by many different names.  Some churches call them small groups; some are identified by the name "home group."  I've seen other names too, like community groups, life groups, Soma groups, home church, disciple groups, and so on.  Some meet weekly, some bi-weekly, some monthly, and some actually never meet (because they are more of a phone-tree thing.)

Our Vision for Home Groups:
Lisa and I feel our local church does a great job with classes that meet on Sunday mornings (although it would be nice to see the the number and size of these classes matching the explosive growth of the church).  The sermons are soundly fixed in Scripture, and other mid-week classes at the church building are teaching good doctrine, often with practical application.

The church we attend utilizes a small group system called "community groups."  If I understand correctly, there are a couple groups that meet exclusively in homes, but generally the groups meet together for Sunday school classes and then have regular gatherings in homes at other times.  Unfortunately, there are not very many of these groups.  (It is not my intention to be critical of these groups, but instead, I hope to grow more groups.) Another difficulty is the connection of these groups to Sunday classes.  Given that many people serve the church in a variety of ways, they can't always join a class.  Some people simply have work schedules or other responsibilities that do not allow them to attend a Sunday school class. And there are also people who might not be comfortable yet in attending a Sunday school class for one reason or another.  Therefore, Lisa and I would like to see multiplying home groups (not necessarily tied to a Sunday class)  helping fellow believers grow in their relationship with Jesus, serve as another outreach to non-believers, and then launch more multiplying home groups. 

A group might start with as few as 6 people and hopefully grow to about 10 to 14, at which point the group should be thinking of launching another home group.  Just as Jesus sent out the Apostles in groups of two (Mark 6:7), each group should consist of two leaders--a host and home group leader.  The host will oversee the physical needs of the group, which may consist of providing the place to gather, food, and any other needs; or simply planning who will provide what, when.  The home group leader won't necessarily be planning lessons (more on this in a minute), but instead be a strong leader to guide the group and re-direct the group if it starts to head in a poor spiritual direction.  The leader should be quick to turn to the Bible for guidance as well as lead and encourage the group in prayer. In addition to these two leaders, each group should also have an apprentice leader.  This apprentice leader will most likely be the leader of the next launched home group and will assist the leader and fill in as needed.  If possible, it would be nice if the group also has a apprentice host. 

Each group should examine their needs and pray about how they, together as a home group, can best grow closer to God.  This may or may not mean regular "lessons."  It could be through fellowship and light scripture reading and study.  Maybe games and open conversation, followed by honest corporate prayer.  Or the needs of the group might be calling for a deep well structured study in the Word of God.  Hopefully the group will engage in service projects and activities.  It will really depend upon the individual group.  The goal is for the group to provide a place for people to be accessible to one another, (especially the leaders), so they can work out their faith (Proverbs 27:17) and love God more and more.  And the group should be praying together, helping each other in times of need, and joining each other in celebrating the happy moments of life.  Each member should know the others and be known, meaning the connection between one another is deeper than those of simple book club meeting or Sunday school class.

In addition, the group should be praying about and working to expand their group, especially through the conversion of non-believers.  While some non-believers have no problem walking into a church service on Sunday morning, others may feel more comfortable coming to a home group at a neighbor's house or accepting an invitation from a co-worker.  And discipleship projects (briefly discussed in the previous paragraph) could potentially be outreach activities such as prayer walking, neighborhood barbecues, or offering service to a neighbor in need.

As the group grows, they should be excited to launch another home group to multiply and repeat the process.  Ideally, members of these groups will be found worshiping and studying the Word of God together at the church building on Sunday, and then getting together in homes all over the valley at other times throughout the week.  This might even be a way to understand what God is doing in the Salt Lake valley.  Should the church grow to the point that it is time to plant another church or campus, an area where there are already many home groups might be a ripe location.

How does it start?  From one group.  It's simple. From this single group, people will be invited, apprentices identified, and eventually another group launched.  At that point, two groups will be growing and launching more groups.  Those groups will also continue the process, stopping only after everybody in the entire valley is meeting somewhere in a home group and corporately worshiping Jesus as a part of his Church.     

I will be leading a group that Lisa is hosting in our home.  Will you join us?  If you are interested, please don't hesitate to contact me.

LBTS, Post Dr. Jerry Falwell

At the time of this post, I attend Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (Distance Learning Program) through Liberty University and I love it!  I am getting a good education and feel that it is great preparation for ministry.  However, given the regular inquiries I receive about LBTS and some recent observations, I've decided to publicly answer the frequently asked questions and offer my thoughts.

But first, here's a little background about me as it relates to LBTS.  (If you need to know more, click here.)  I earned an Associates of Science and an Associates of Applied Science at the College of Southern Idaho, then I transferred to the University of Utah where I earned a Bachelors of Science.  Until attending LBTS, I had never done any distance education on-line or through correspondence.  I'm married to a beautiful woman and we've adopted two boys -- one of which was born and came into our lives while I've been in seminary.  I also am employed full-time in secular employment.

I first started looking into seminaries when I was considering a return to the Army as a chaplain.  God had other plans; but it was the Army's requirements, Liberty's Master's of Divinity chaplaincy track, the ability to complete the program through distance education, and the price that eventually caused me to apply at LBTS.  I've since switched to the professional M.Div, which is a fully-accredited, 95-credit Master's Degree.  I've been at LBTS since Spring 2009 and I am scheduled to graduate in Spring 2012. I have never been on campus, although I'd like to visit and even take some intensives in Lynchburg.  It is my hope to apply for a PhD (Apologetics and Theology) upon the completion of the MDiv.

Like my article, "Choosing a Seminary," I will simply take on one item at a time.  There is some overlap between these two articles, but where the first article was a broad non-specific overview of seminary, this article is specific to LBTS.  If you have questions about items I have not addressed in either of these articles, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Dr. Jerry Falwell.  When people hear I go to Liberty, I often get asked about two people.  The first is Glenn Beck and the other is Jerry Falwell.  I won't get into Beck in this article (you can read more on that topic by clicking here).  Jerry Falwell however, makes for an interesting conversation.  Prior to starting at Liberty, all I knew of Falwell came by way of news sound bites about something controversial he said.  And I remember some of the things people said about him when he died.  I was a little apprehensive; but then I remembered that I graduated from a public university founded by the Mormon Prophet, Brigham Young (University of Utah, February 28, 1850).

I've come to learn that the seminary is not the School of Jerry Falwell--it is Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  It is dedicated to teaching the Bible and serving as a reflection of Jesus Christ.  Of course there are some professors that loved Falwell and miss him.  That's to be expected.  It seems that everybody who preaches at convocation feels it necessary to share a story or example of the man who founded the school.  However, outside of a handful of professors and illustrations in convocation, Falwell doesn't come up (unless it is Jerry Falwell Jr.).

In a recorded lecture before Falwell passed away, Dr. Ergun Caner said,

"There will come the time, please here me, there will come a time when Jerry Falwell goes on to glory.  There will come the time when the next generation will either make or brake this university.  They will inherit a great blessing; and you either sit on it and ride it until it dies or you do something with it. [...] It's the typical, central, fundamental necessary point in history.  You have to claim your generation.  It matters not how great and mighty Jerry Falwell is.  It matters not how great and mighty Elmer Towns is. [...] But Elmer Towns will stand before God for what Elmer Towns did with his opportunity.  If all we do is name a building or even build a statue to the guy, if we don't claim our generation, like David was to do--he served his generation and then went to be with the Lord--Liberty's great legacy as it stands right now, the reputation as it stands right now, will become nothing but an empty shell."  

There is some truth to this statement.  Even now I see the school going beyond where Dr. Falwell left it.  Why?  Because the school is not one man, especially not now--it's a skilled and caring staff and faculty dedicated to the gospel and their mission as an institution of higher learning.  In addition, from what little I know about Jerry Falwell, I have think that he would desire his legacy to be a reflection of Jesus Christ, not himself.  

Diversity in the class.  When I log into the discussion boards, I find a variety of students from a variety of Christian denominations, from a variety of locations around the world, from a variety of backgrounds.  I get to see our material through a variety of lenses and perspectives.  There are both men and women, Calvinists and Ariminians, charismatics and secessionists, pre and post tribulationists, Republicans and Democrats and those that just don't subscribe to any political party.  Many of the students are pastors, church planters, chaplains, or others ministers of some sort, so I also get to learn through the benefit of their past and present experiences.  Even some of the professors live in areas other than Lynchburg.  And I've connected with these students (and some of the professors) outside the class through Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, E-mail, Skype, and even phone calls.  I regularly read their blogs.  Three of my local friends attend Liberty--one in the seminary, one in an undergraduate program, and one in a non-ministry related Master's program--and I've had lunch with a local alumni.

Accreditation.  LBTS is SACS accredited.  Before offering on-line programs, it is my understanding that Liberty was ATS accredited.  You might ask why this matters. Accreditation boards exists to ensure that the quality of the education meets a minimum standard.  Schools that meet these standards are considered "accredited."  Various state, regional, and federal departments of education approve and recognize accrediting bodies (or don't). Generally, if a student wishes to transfer credits to another school or pursue a degree beyond the masters he or she earned in seminary, it is important that he or she earned a degree from an accredited seminary.  In addition, many ministry positions such as a military chaplain, missionary, or teacher often require a degree from an accredited school.  There are regional accrediting bodies and national accreditation institutions, as well as discipline-specific accreditation bodies.

The Association of Theological Schools (ATS) has been the primary accrediting body for seminaries for many years; however, they are slow to understand the value of a distance learning program and therefore will not accredit programs that allow a majority of on-line learning.  The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) on the other hand, examines much more than seminaries and is open to examining distance learning programs.  They've been around since 1895 and as of July 2010, SACS accredits 804 colleges and universities in 11 states--479 are public.  They provide accreditation to a number of other seminaries including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Seminary, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Asbury Theological Seminary, Harvard School for Theological Studies, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, South Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, St. Vincent de Paul Regional Seminary, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Memphis Theological Seminary, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and Nortre Dame Seminary, to name a few.  Some other notable SACS colleges and universities include, Wake Forest University, Vanderbilt University, University of Texas, University of South Carolina, Tulane University, Texas A&M, TCU, James Madison University,  George Mason University, Florida State University, Duke, Clemson, The Citadel, Notre Dame, and Auburn University.       

On-line vs. the classroom.  This can be a sensitive subject in our rapidly changing world.  Having earned my undergraduate degrees entirely in the classroom, I can say there are pros and cons.  At Liberty, I've been told that that on-line students have the same requirements and the same readings, and we watch recorded lectures from actual classes; however, the on-line students also have weekly discussion board requirements.  The discussion boards require a minimum word count and cited sources.  We also have to respond to fellow students with substantive comments, and again, with word counts and citations.  A professor of mine has told me he feels the on-line courses are actually more difficult because of these discussion boards.  If I was behind and had not done the reading when I was taking undergraduate courses on campus, I could usually slip into the unknown and get through the week unnoticed.  This is not possible in the on-line courses. 

Connection with other students.  One of the cons of on-line education is the lower level of connectivity with other students.  But your education is what you make it.  As I've previously stated, I make a strong effort to connect with other students and professors via social networking sites, E-mail, phone calls, and even the discussion board's student community area.  What I do not have is the opportunity to grab a coffee with a fellow student and chat.

Help from my church and pastors.  To get the most out of seminary, students need to be engaged in their local church.  Having lots of opportunities and pastors that support the student are a must if the student is going to be well prepared upon graduation.  I'm blessed to have this support and it's growing stronger and stronger by the week.

My class load.  Nine credits per semester is considered full-time in the graduate programs.  I'm taking 12 credits per semester; however, I only take two compressed course at a time.  Liberty has a traditional 16-week semester.  This is called A block.  They also offer the same courses in 8-weeks through three different blocks.  B block is the first 8 weeks of the semester, D block is the last 8 weeks, and C block is the middle 8 weeks.  The student will do just as much work, only in half the time.  I've opted to take 2 classes each B block and 2 each D block.  I do the same amount of work as I would have had I taken all 4 classes in the A block, but this schedule means I don't have to switch mental gears between 4 classes.  Also, I have taken classes over the past two summers, but I will be taking next summer off. 

Would I recommend LBTS to others?  You bet! I've found the experience rewarding. LBTS's DLP has allowed me an opportunity I would not have otherwise had.  I work full-time to support my family.  The DLP allows me to schedule my schooling around my other responsibilities.  I am engaged in my community and the DLP means I can remain right where I'm at to serve and minister here rather than packing up and moving.  I think anybody considering seminary should consider LBTS, either on campus or on-line.

These tend to be some of the more frequently asked questions.  If you'd like to ask a question or chat with me, please feel free to contact me.


     Related Articles: Choosing a Seminary

*Photo of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary & Graduate School is being used without permission; however, upon request from Liberty, I will immediately remove it from this website.
**Photo of Dr. Jerry Falwell is the property of Liberty University and use through the permission of a restricted commons license.

What is the Mormon Doctrine?

Recently, Glenn Beck and his Washington DC rally has prompted some talk about Christianity and Mormonism.  Similar discussions surfaced when Mitt Romney ran for the Republican Presidential nomination.  At the same time, there have been conversations among my fellow seminarians about Liberty University's connection to Beck.  (I fully admit, I am not comfortable with Beck.)  New videos have surfaced trying to show viewers that Mormons are normal people, seemingly, just like everybody else--just like Christians.  And LDS members frequently identify themselves as Christian.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) desperately seems to desire inclusion within orthodox Christianity. Some have argued that Christianity and Mormonism are the same or at least, "close enough."  More recently, some think that it shouldn't matter as long as Glenn Beck can manipulate American religion in such a way to conform to his political bent.  Others however, are deeply concerned with Beck's beliefs and actions.  Although Glenn Beck is a essentially a rating-hounding shock-jock, the more meaningful conversations center around the similarities and differences between the Mormon and Christian theologies or doctrines.

What tends to happen with the conversation surrounding Mormonism is a focus on the minor issues.  I confess that I have got mired down in this mess in conversations with Mormon friends and missionaries. But the minor issues are meaningless without first addressing the major matters of the LDS religion and Christian theology.  I suggest that we within (generally accepted) Christianity need to better understand the major tenants of the Mormon doctrine, while Mormons need to understand the major tenants generally required to carry the title, Christian.  I also feel it is important that we attempt to settle on some agreed definitions.  All too often we are using the same words but they hold different meanings.  Only after we address the major doctrines and vocabulary will we be able to get to the heart of the matter.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of us (including me) understand only a caricature of the other's beliefs.  This is not to say that once we get a better understanding of the opposing position Mormons will stop sending missionaries to Christian's homes and Christians will consider Mormons inside the traditionally accepted walls of the orthodox tent; but at least our conversations will be more accurate.  If indeed there are differences that mean some of us are outside salvation, then it is only expected that we would want to share a gospel that brings about salvation.  On the other hand, if we find we share enough that we will all be together in God's Kingdom (and I admit that at the moment, I do not feel this is the case), than we are really just wasting our time arguing over meaninglessness.

Glenn Beck is Pat Robertson?

Few would argue with me when I say Glenn Beck is divisive.  He's a lightning bolt between Conservatives and Liberals, Democrats and Republicans, Republicans and Republicans, Evangelicals, and, as Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post suggests, Mormons.  It seems that there are many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormons) saying that Beck does not speak for their organization.  So it would seem that while many Evangelicals take issue with his theology,  so do some Mormons.  How interesting.

I am only speculating, but I wonder if those that take no issue with the theology of Glenn Beck--be it Christian or Mormon--actually don't care because they are more drawn to his politics?

It is interesting to note some of the Mormon statements made in Felicia Sonmez' blog article "Is Glenn Beck's rise good for Mormonism?"  It seems that Glenn Beck is to Mormonism as Pat Robertson is to Christianity.  This could become a tremendous open door for Evangelicals and Mormons to discuss the more significant matters of theology.  It could finally be time that we move away from discussing life-styles and moral behavior and actually get to discussing matters of salvation, the nature and person of Christ, and various other essential factors of the respective faith systems.

*Photo by Luke Martin is registered under a Creative Commons License.

Church Planter by Darrin Patrick

I have not yet read Church Planter by Darrin Patrick, but by the video and some reviews I've read, I am intrigued.  Church planting books usually have a lot to say about planting philosophy, methodology, and strategy.  There is a lot of "how to." But unlike most other books on church planting, Patrick seems to place the bulk, if not all of his attention on the planter. It's about "who to." In the same vain as Eugene Peterson's, Working the Angles, Patrick appears to argue: get the core right within the leader and the the rest will fall in where it needs to fall in.  By keeping God in focus, a church plant will have life.  And if I am understanding correctly, he starts with the planter, not the community, not the sender, not the financial support, not the vision for the church. 

I've placed this book on my wish list and look forward to reading it.

Youth Ministry

Introduction. Most adults will admit that being a teenager is tough. For many, it was the most difficult period of their lives; but still many will also say it was a fun and interesting time. The period from junior high through high school is a time of growth and understanding. It is a time of learning through failure and success, and everything seems new. Friendships are grown and developed. And, as teenagers, people learn how to transition from the time of a childhood to adult maturity (although this transition in many western societies protrudes into a person’s early 20s). There are reasons for a strong youth program in church, some of which will be discussed here.

What is Youth Ministry and Why. According to Youth Ministry Exchange, “80% of Christians become so by the age of 18, with influences such as conventions, camps, retreats” (Youth Ministry Exchange). And of these Christians that became Christians before the age of 18, LifeWay Research has found that, “70 percent of young adults ages 23-30 stopped attending church regularly for at least a year between ages 18-22” (LifeWay Research, slide 6). Of all the reasons given for the break, 20% of them indicated that the respondent did not feel connected people in his or her church (LifeWay Research, slide 10). Youth ministry is the organized effort to train youth, share the gospel to young people, provide service opportunities, offer mentorship, make a way for accountability from leaders and peers, and foster connections with others through relational community (Valley Bible Church).

It would be unreasonable to think that a child could transition from worshiping, learning, and fellowshipping with others in a children’s ministry into an adult ministry, so youth ministry serves to bridge the gap. In addition, youth ministry and youth leaders help shepherd a young person through the awkward and often difficult time of this period. In fact, this may be the most significant time for growth and development in a Christian’s lifetime, especially if 80% of Christians became believers before the age of 18. Youth ministry is a place for foundations to be laid. It is a place for relationships to be developed. There is support found with peers, and there are opportunities for non-believing friends to be invited. And there should be fun and joy along with training, rebuking, and instruction.

Examples of Youth Ministry. Youth ministry may take on many different forms, but it must serve as the Holy Spirit has structured it for the specific area, specific church, and specific group of teens. Often a strong youth ministry program will offer some sort of Sunday school or separate service for the youth. There might be a youth worship team leading worship (which helps foster ministry opportunities for the youth), or the youth might remain with their parents through a time of corporate worship (which helps slowly integrate the group into the adult fellowship) to be released midway through the service. A mid-week evening service should be offered. Fellowship opportunities are usually a normal part of youth ministry, which can include anything from game nights, movie nights, camps, concerts and events, Bible studies before or after school, or just about anything a creative youth leader can come up with. The youth program should also include service opportunities. Some churches will have a service day were the youth help out the community by performing a task like trash clean up or painting. At times, these service opportunities shift to feeding the homeless or serving in a rescue mission. And mission trips are a valuable addition to any youth program. Although few churches do it, the youth ministry is the right time to start integrating small group habits. With the parents’ help, smaller groups can meet in homes together to study, worship, and fellowship in an intimate setting. It is advisable that these are completely youth lead, although with every aspect of youth ministry, there should be supervision from a responsible leader. The only limitations of youth ministry are found in the leader’s mind and the availability of resources.

References:
LifeWay Research. Spring 2007 “Church Dropouts: How Many Leave Church between ages 18-
22 and Why?” LifeWay Website. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation file.
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/files/lwcF_Church_Dropouts_
How_Many_Leave_Church_and_Why.ppt [accessed June 12, 2010].

Valley Bible Church. Ten Reasons Why You Should Be Involved in Youth Ministry.
http://www.valleybible.net/Youth/reasons.php [accessed June 12, 2010].

Youth Ministry Exchange. 10 Reasons Why I’m in Youth Ministry.
http://ymexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=66
[accessed June 6—June 12, 2010]. 
*Photo by Flickr user, Leah Manchi. 

Moving With the Wind

My loving wife, knowing my desire to do something adventurous, bought me a tandem paragliding ride.  I was recently able to get that ride on the North side of the Point of the Mountain in the Salt Lake valley.  The forty-minute flight, has offered me many reflections on flying with the wind, but also about our partnership with the Holy Spirit.

Paragliding is essentially riding on the wind much like surfing is riding on the water.  The pilot first lays the glider out in a special area where the wind blows at just the right speed, going just the right direction.  In addition to the wind, the sun's rays cause thermal updrafts, which can also carry the glider to higher altitudes.  My flight started on a bench about 300 feet higher than the city below.  Behind me stood a steep, 1,000 foot mountain.  Waiting, we felt the wind on our face; waiting, the right gust blew life into the glider.  With the right wind and thermal activity, we managed to climb high enough to glide right next to the larger hill and catch the ridge wind to carry us nearly 2,000 feet above the city.

As I was given the controls, I realized that I was not flying.  I was riding.  I was not actually in control.  Neither was my tandem pilot.  A paraglider is nothing like a powered airplane that goes nearly wherever the pilot, lift, and thrust dictate.  No.  We were moving with the wind, only able to make adjustments to the glider in order to deflect the wind.  We were dependent on it to move us in the direction we desired to go.  But here's the thing: We desired to go where the wind would take us.  We wanted to be in the place where we had the option to go up or down and side to side, because as soon as we moved away from the wind, we would only be able to descend and land, ending the flight.

Our relationship with Holy Spirit is very much the same.  Each believer is gifted by the Holy Spirit.  These gifts (whatever they may be) are like the glider.  They allow us to ride on the wind, but only in the direction the wind is going.  If we desire to trust the wind and ride with it, we will fly to great heights.  However, should we wish to go our own way, we will quickly learn how absolutely dependent upon the wind we are.  There is no flight without the wind.

After we landed, another glider was coming in fast from the wrong direction.  You see, landing requires that you go into the wind so you have enough lift at slower speeds.  This pilot had the wind at his back.  He was falling quickly and racing forward faster than he could run when his feet (and then his body) made contact with the earth.  In that moment, as I watched a disastrous landing, I realized even more about the wind.  First, it must be respected because the wind is in control.  This poor pilot, it seemed, decided he was in control and learned a very hard lesson, a very hard way.  In fact, it is highly likely that he didn't intend to land with the wind at his back, but was actually facing the consequences of earlier actions and wrong decisions.

Second, I realized how wonderful it was for me that I had a guide who has flown in the wind for many years.  I was able to have a good and safe flight thanks to his dedication to understanding and respecting the wind.  And because of the safety and guidance he provided, I was able to learn about the wind through his example.  He taught me lots about the wind while we flew; which brings me to the third thing: understanding the wind and flying well clearly takes time, study, and practice.

And finally, we can't see the wind, so it is difficult to know exactly what it is doing.  We had to watch other gliders to see how the wind was moving them.  At times, we could follow them and ride the same wind; other times we would avoid going where they were to keep from suffering from their unfortunate circumstances.  My pilot explained that the wind does some things over the ridge that do not allow gliders to ride it.  It's called "rotor" and the result of flying in it would be, as explained by my pilot, that "our wing would be under our feet, then over our head, then under our feet, then over our head."  And, as I was told, if we moved away from the bench's edge, we would "sink out" and loose our ability to gain altitude.  If the wind were to push us into certain areas, we could loose control all together. (Did you know at times it can actually be difficult to get out of the wind's control and come back down?)

In a discussion with a man named Nicodemus, Jesus said, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8, ESV).  Also worth noting is that in this passage, the Greek word pneuma is used for "wind" and the "Spirit."  

*Photos take by John Anderson is the property of Shannon Lucas and registered under a Creative Commons license.

Adult Ministries

Introduction.   

Too often, church leaders will preach on the commission of Matthew 28:19-20—“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (ESV)—placing their entire focus on the word “Go,” but neglecting “make disciples” and “teaching.” However, if we are to take Jesus’ directive seriously, churches must do more to teach adults than simply provide coffee and a Sunday sermon. Specific ministry should be developed for adults.

What is Adult Ministry and Why. 

Richard H. Gentzler, Jr. and Bill Crenshaw define adult ministry as a “comprehensive ministry that will enable persons to grow in faith and faithfulness as Christian disciples” (Gentzler and Crenshaw 2000, 13). This ministry is broad; potentially covering specific ministries directed at subsets of adults, such as, men’s and women’s ministries, singles and married groups, young adults, Sunday school, small groups, senior’s fellowship, or recovery and addiction programs. And given the many ministries that fall under a term like adult ministry, it is important they be coordinated to function well together toward the overarching vision of the church. Reaching adults at a deeper level affects the spiritual health of the community. “Since adults make up the majority of members in most congregations,” writes Getzler and Crenshaw, “the world of the coordinator heavily impacts the live of the congregation” (Gentzler and Crenshaw 2000, 8). Adult ministry certainly does not have to be complicate; Gentzler and Crenshaw offer the following guidance: “A leader of adults is on a spiritual journey and invites others to join in a pilgrimage” (Gentzler and Crenshaw 2000, 9).

“Adults who participate actively in the full range of worship, learning, and service opportunities through the church,” according to Gentzler and Crenshaw, “will grow in their faith and faithfulness as they grow older” (Gentzler and Crenshaw 2000, 13). This means that adult ministries are not just social gathering alone, they are opportunities to participate in something greater. As a leader of adult ministries, the leader “can help adults of all ages grow toward spiritual maturity by providing a caring and challenging environment for study, reflection, and action” (Gentzler and Crenshaw 2000, 13). While in no way an exhaustive list, this paper will turn its focus to examining some specific adult ministries opportunities.

Examples of Adult Ministry.  

All ages of adults can benefit from a targeted ministry. Young adults are just transitioning into adulthood and are accustomed to an educational setting as well as social opportunities. Moving into a more mature program is an easy transition and sets a trend for lifelong learning and fellowship. This is typically the age when many will drift away from the church, so a program specifically for this age group offers a great strength to the church. A young adult program may actually provide the answers and growth to help a young adult see the continual need for Christ. Middle-aged believers are often neglected because they are so busy. They often have jobs, children, and little time. A ministry for this group of adults must be aware of these difficulties but can served as a great help for this group and a leadership training ground. In today’s society, there are many in the middle-aged category that are single parents and need an opportunity for fellowship and growth more than ever. And seniors still need to fellowship and grow in Christ. Not only do they need ministered too, they themselves often have time and ability to be ministers to other adults.

A small group program is a great way to provide opportunities across age groups. In these programs, adults can learn, fellowship, and grow in a smaller, safe community of believers. In addition, groups for men or women only allow specific issues to be ministered to and taught. A singles group is a great way to help those dealing with loneliness and it is also a great outreach beyond the walls of the church.

The suggestions provided here are few. A church leader should look at the needs of the body, pray continually, and work to develop strong ministries for adults that will result in spiritual maturity and growth. This will not only help the individual adult, it will help the community of believers.

References:
Gentzler, Richard H., Jr. and Bill Crenshaw. Adult Ministries: Ministries that help adults love

God and neighbor. Nashville, Tenn: Abingdon Press, 2000.


*Photo taken by Dietmar Temps Photography and is licensed under a creative commons license.

What's With Jesus' Eggs?

It happened in my Sunday school class of third and fourth graders.  I had just read Matthew 11:28-30 from our NLT Hands On Bible (which is printed for this specific age group--it is the New Living Translation with lots of busy factoids and boldfaced stuff).  The passage reads,

Then Jesus said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you. Let me teach you, because I am humble and gentle at heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy to bear, and the burden I give you is light."

I looked up and saw a couple confused faces.  As I was about to discuss how this passage relates to our lesson, one of the girls blurted out, "Why does Jesus have eggs?"

It took me a second, but then I realized she was asking about the yoke.  What a great question!  We happened to be discussing burden so I asked, "Who knows what yoke is?" Hands rocketed up!   ". . . That is not part of an egg."  Hands went down almost as fast.  Blank stares all around.  I drew a yoke (the farming type, not the breakfast food) on the whiteboard and we discussed what a yoke is, its purpose, and what Jesus meant by his statement (to contrast Jesus' statement and his "yoke" with "religion" We also read Matthew 23:1-4).

After church that Sunday, my mind was still in high gear.  I couldn't help but think about how much of the Bible requires an understanding of the culture and vocabulary in order to comprehend it.  I don't believe any of these kids have lived on a farm, and I don't suspect they ever will.  Sure, we can reduce the word choices to meet a fourth-grade reading level, but that really doesn't help the situation.  They can read and spell "yoke," but if they don't understand what a yoke is and how it is (or was) used, it doesn't help.  For children, we often have to provide a contemporary paraphrase of the Bible and lots of teaching.  Then, over time, we need to introduce historical culture and vocabulary.

Adults are faced with the same situation.  Some of the Bible reads easily and smooth, but most of what is said requires a little work.  The same is true of Shakespeare. Imagine how much understanding is lost without a little comprehension of the script.  Not realizing that something is comedy or satire could have tragic ramifications. Realizing the significance of Shakespeare's use of iambic pentameter greatly brings about his intended  meaning and focus.  One must take time to see how the play would have been understood and received by the audience of Shakespeare's day.  It is nearly a requirement to know the political and social constructs of that time period. Often, these things are not self explanatory within a single play, that is, the play doesn't always provide us with these necessary details. The more plays by Shakespeare one reads, the greater overall understanding one gains. But sometimes one even needs to research beyond the work of Shakespeare.  And by no means could a guy pick up Hamlet, flip to the middle somewhere, read one or two lines for the first time and claim he understands the entirety of the play, or even more arrogantly, that he knows all about Shakespeare.  Understanding Shakespeare takes a little work, but the payoff is absolutely worth it.  How much more does this apply to the Bible!

It seems almost nuts to think that someone would pick up the Bible, mine out a few passages, and claim he or she understands the whole of the Word of God.  Yet, we see this happen all the time.  Nobody would claim to do this with any other book, so why is it acceptable to do so with the Bible?  (It seems that even critical scholars feel this is an acceptable practice, although they would never allow their students this type of research in any other field of study.) 

To understand the Bible means to do a little work.  It helps to know the meta-narrative, that is, the story from start to finish.  Other aspects are necessary too, such as the genre and writing style of the individual book and its author, where it fits within the meta-narrative, who wrote it and why, who the intended original audience was and how they may have received it, the cultural and political context, and the time period.  We need to be sure we understand the words and phrases.  And by no means should we read our own culture back into that period. (Slavery, for example, was substantially different then as compared to how we know it today-- even to the extent that Joseph, a slave, was able to rise to become the second in command of all of Egypt, something unthinkable of a black man in Georgia circa 1820.) We should pray and meditate on the passages.  And discussing what we are reading with others is also extremely helpful too.

The Bible is a rich, wonderful, beautiful, deeply meaningful book.  There are sections that couldn't be more clear.  But there are also passages that are confusing to us and require some work.  It does take a little work, but the payoff is more valuable than your life.  If you are absolutely unfamiliar with the kind of work I am talking about, or if this sounds intimidating, don't be intimidated!  This takes a lifetime, and even then, with God's Word there will always be more to learn and grow into.  The important first step is to read and keep reading.  Enjoy it.

If you have no idea where to start, I suggest the book of Luke and then Acts.  These two books were written by a guy who set out to record and verify the life of Jesus and the early Church.  He was writing to report all of this to a guy named Theophilus.  He helps answer the big questions, such as, "Is Jesus who he claimed he was?"  Another suggestion is the book of John.  This is also a record of Jesus' life.  It was written so you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31).  Or I suggest the Psalms.  These are recorded prayers prior to the coming of Jesus, sung as songs.  Keep in mind they were not originally written in English, so don't expect them to rhyme.  This beautiful poetry is some of the most heartfelt pleading and praise to God found anywhere in the Bible.  And please don't feel like you have to pick up a copy of the King James.  (I almost never read from the KJV.)  The English Standard Version (ESV) and New International Version (NIV) are both a little easier to read (and the ESV is an outstanding work of modern scholarly translation).  Or, for a little smoother reading, try the New Living Translation (NLT).  Don't get hung up on translation, just start reading.  If you have questions, you are always welcome to contact me. 
  
*Photo of eggs by Billie Hara is registered under a Creative Commons License. Photo of the yoke is also registered under a Creative Commons License.

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.