When the Hype Lets You Down

Salt Lake City recently had a national blizzard warning.  This warning was a big deal because these warnings rarely, if ever happen.  Early on, the Salt Lake media started their "blizzard watch" around-the-clock news coverage.

Residents were warned to stock up on batteries, water, blankets and other supplies.  We were told that this blizzard was massing power and intensity and would shut down Salt Lake City.  It had the potential of being the worst storm to hit the area in fifty years, they said.  The news was even breaking into regularly scheduled programing to provide updates hours before the storm arrived.  A scrolling banner was constantly moving across the bottom of the television screen to alert residents of emergency Red Cross locations. They hype was reaching overwhelming proportions.

But when the storm arrived, it didn't seem like anything out of the ordinary for Salt Lake.  There was very little wind and about 2 inches of cold, dry snow.  A week before, enough heavy snow came down to cause my neighbor's old tree to collapse in my driveway.   The week after the "blizzard," Salt Lake was covered in two feet of snow.  (It took me nearly three hours to shovel my driveway and sidewalks.)

The new outlets however, were not about to allow the hype (which they created) to fall short.  As the supposed blizzard started, they had reporters outside doing live broadcasts.  These reporters would say things like, "As you can see, nobody is outside because it's so dangerous."  Had they been in that same location on any other day, there still wouldn't have been anybody out, but not because of any blizzard danger.  At one point, the news put up images from a highway video camera.  In the shot, one could see about 3/4 a mile down the highway.  It was dark and there was a light snowfall.  Cars seemed to be traveling 30 or 35 miles per hour.  But the report stated that it was "whiteout conditions" and visibility was "zero."  "Cars were at a standstill" he said. 

After the storm, the news outlets in the Salt Lake area lost all credibility.  Not only was the storm nothing significant (showing the meteorologists' inability to accurately predict the weather), we also witnessed the reporters' inability to accurately report the news.  The next morning as the city was realizing that the blizzard was anything but, the news was still reporting that were lucky to be alive.

It seems that Christians do this from time to time when they share Christianity with those who do not know Jesus.  Intentional or not, there can sometimes be an unrealistic picture presented of what a life walking with Jesus looks like.  "Before I knew Jesus, I was a drug addict with lots of problems, but after I met Jesus, my life was great and I never faced any problems at all."  The prosperity gospel the worst culprit.  "I was poor before I new Jesus, but now look, I drive a Lexis and have lots of money."  But the truth is, life with Christ is not free of problems.  In fact, the Bible teaches that Christians will face trials.  (For examples, see James 1:2, Matthew 13:21, Mark 4:17, Luke 22:28-32, 1 Peter 1:6-7, Romans 8:35-39.)  We cannot expect that God will keep promises he never made to us.  At other times, Christians over-report the wonders of Christ's influence in their lives.  Emotion runs high and the hype grows to overwhelming proportions.  (I'm sure I've been guilty of this.)

So the best thing Christians can do is report the gospel accurately.  The gospel is life changing; no hype is necessary.  However, if we, like the news, create too much hype or incorrectly present the picture, we will lose all credibility and the gospel will be the victim.  And if we lose credibility, people will change the channel or read a different news paper.  Looking at America today, it is not hard to see many people changing the station because they do not see the Church as credible anymore.  It is important we remain honest and accurate if we are to be good ambassadors of the Kingdom.  Nobody should be left shoveling an inch of snow and three feet of cow manure because a Christian was more concerned about ratings than the truth of the gospel itself. 

*The photograph is in the public domain.

ETS and the Cobb County Transit

When we ask him to do so, God strips us of our idols. He redirects us when we move off the path, if we let him. Recently, God has done both for me.

I'm not sure when it started and I don't know when it will end, but it reached the level of serious when I went to the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Atlanta. I should confess, I only went to part of ETS, but in that part, used in conjunction with some other events of this week, the Great Sculptor reshaped me.

In the week leading up to ETS, I took the itinerary of events that came with my registration packet and created a schedule of the parallel sessions I hoped to attend. I flipped through books by John Piper and N.T. Wright on justification. I read Grudem and Erickson on the same topic. I also browsed through Grudem's new politics book that I knew he would be discussing. I was as excited as a 4-year-old in a candy store; I was a theological student in a high-calorie theology cafe.

At the same time, a friend (who I had hoped would be attending ETS with me) was saying goodbye to his 4-month-old baby girl. Jane was born with some serious heart issues; and on top of that, she was born prematurely. For four months this little girl and her parents were in my prayers. They still are. She was in need of some serious surgeries, but they were not to be and she never left the hospital. She joined Jesus in heaven--I missed the funeral.

In the months leading up to ETS, I found myself thinking about how the application of my theology worked in the reality of the fallen world in which we live. Does my theology have hands that reach into people's lives? Does my theology have feet to go where God wants it to go? Is my theology accessible? Does it bare fruit or is it a seedless tree? As I looked around me and saw the life of real people, Christians and not, I started to examine my theology, deeply, in the real world. I was finding that my theology was okay (for the most part) but the application was not.

I was getting a feeling that my theology was a molded idol and I was bowing down before it. Many people do not see the problem with this so let me be clear: theology is a study that helps us understand God and his relationship with his creation. The study itself is not to be worshiped; neither are the doctrines, papers, books, computer software, theologians, professors, speakers, pastors, ideas, debates, sermons, lectures, seminaries, Church history, denominations, or any other aspect that finds itself yoked to theology. Rather, theology should be viewed as nothing but a tool to help us rightly understand the only appropriate subject of our worship. But my theology was giving way to something lifeless. I was starting to question if my theological lens would show me the same picture in other income levels, denominations, geographical locations, cultures, and even in different time periods. And if so, could I communicate my beliefs and theology in other environments, or is my theology dependent upon something it should not be?

When I arrived at ETS, it was hard not to notice the serious lack of diversity. The meeting is dominated by white, older men. Suits. Beards. And of the students, they either looked like "mini-me" professors or cloned Mark Driscolls. Conversations seemed to circle around seminary networking and debates that have little significance in the reality of anyone outside of the academic environment. Given recent circumstances and conversations, I quickly realized that there was an idol obstructing my view of the Living God.

My academic desires were limited in helping me understand God's sovereign dealings with little Jane and her parents. In fact, Jane's life taught me more about our King of kings than any professor ever could. In this situation, I didn't need to know about God, I needed to really, deeply know him.

Grudem, N.T. Wright and Polycarp had little to say to the man on the plane next to me who's understanding of his “Christian” faith was about nothing but the politics of abortion and our need to keep “In God We Trust” printed on our money. Neither did his faith keep him from looking at foot-fetish pornography on his phone as we flew from Dallas to Atlanta. And the economic collapse had destroyed his idea of any hope in anything, yet time and time again he would tell me he had been a Christian since high school.

Having to take work with me to the conference, knowing I was missing Jane's funeral, and being unable to get a flight home broke down my academic facade. Struggling under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, I left ETS and made my way to the house of some friends. The contrast between the hotel ballroom and MARTA (Atlanta's public transit system) was sharp. And when I got on a full Cobb County Transit bus, I discovered I was the only white person on board. Even more contrast was found as I observed the other riders. They wore their poverty. They were dishwashers and mechanics, fast food employees. A young, tired mother of three flirted with man in a McDonald uniform. Some were likely unemployed. There was no way the papers, panels, and debates I had heard earlier that day would have any reach onto this bus.

The next day, my friend took me out to BBQ and a Thrashers game. Over some great wings, we talked about the realities of being men-- husbands and fathers. Together we celebrated victories and laughed about our shared realities. We encouraged one another in our shortfalls and struggles. Right there in that wood-floored roadhouse we found holy ground. The theological application had life and it pointed us to God.

We had fun at the NHL game. The Thrashers shut out the Capitals. Then we made our way back into the bowels of the MARTA station. The platform was packed. People of all walks of life stood together waiting for the train. Standing out on one end of the crowd, slightly away from the pack, was a man in suit. I had him pegged in a second. “Are you here for ETS?” I asked the man. He turned around and was still wearing his conference badge. And right then, in the tunnel, my two worlds met. Academia and reality.

The man was no different than anybody I met at ETS and yet he was completely out of place waiting for the train. After introducing myself and exchanging pleasantries, I asked him about Wright's idea of justification. Suddenly, the man had a lifeline. He lit up and started postulating about the aspects of Calvinism and grace, free will and the inability to save ourselves. He used huge academic concepts. While I had a good idea of what he was discussing and I knew that he and I could have gone for about an hour on the topic, I could see that my friend and Christian brother was removed from the conversation. Even after an hour—if the professor and I had talked for that long—there would have been no fruit or life in the conversation. Here we were in a subway full of people not doing anything to point them (or ourselves) toward Christ. Our theology in that moment had no practical application.

I'm coming to see that Jesus took the complicated and made it simple. The Scribes and Pharisees did just the opposite. I've found that I have often missed the opportunity to make something simple for someone who needed to see God in a real way. In no way do I think seminary or the papers or the study is bad, but we Christians must remember the purpose for these things. (They are just tools, to be used in our theological workshop.  When looking at a fine crafted piece of wood furniture, we marvel at the end product, not the tools that the woodworker used to craft it.)  We must keep focused on making the complex simple. Our theological application must work cross-culturally and cross-economically. I pray that my academic pursuits remain what they are to be: a tool to better help me understand God and His revelation to us. I pray that I am able to keep it simple so it actually impacts lives and points people toward their Creator and Savior.

*Photo of a woman sleeping was taken by Damon "tigger89" and is registered under a creative commons license. Photo of professor was taken by Lamont Cranston and is registered under a creative commons license.  

Accaptance Among the Body: Thoughts on Romans 14:1-15:13

Understanding the Passage 
In Romans chapters 1-11, Paul works through the theology of the gospel. When he hits Romans 12:1-2, he signals a shift from the theoretical to the practical. He then puts practical application to the first 11 chapters. From 12:3-13:14, Paul outlines what the theology should look like in the life of the believer. As Paul paints a picture of the faithful life, there is an inclination for those strong in the faith to potentially get puffed up and feel superior to those not as strong, that is, the weak. But then Paul moves into what has been numbered as chapter 14.

The early part of this text sets up the entire argument. Paul opens by addressing the strong in the faith because he leaves the responsibility upon the strong to welcome or receive the weak (14:1). In many ways, the strong are the leaders in the body and Paul basically is saying, “Hey, you strong Christians who walk well in the faith, you need to welcome those that are not as strong. You need to lead and teach.” It might be that Paul is taking away the leaders’ ability to use the previous passage to attack and demolish the weak. Verse 14:2 clearly shows that there is some kind of dietary dispute (likely the Jewish Law), and it seems the strong, like Paul (15:1), hold that there is no longer a dietary law that brings about righteousness. The weak person might be abstaining from eating meat to avoid eating anything unclean, or he or she may be mirroring Daniel’s actions when he was living among captivity. Either way, these are weak Christian beliefs. However, 14:3 instructs that there should be no fighting between the two groups within the Church. The strong should not look down upon the weak for bad theology and the weak should not pass judgment on the eating habits of the strong. In both cases, the one judging the other is actually saying, “I’m better than that person because. . . .” The end of verse 14:3 and verse 4 remind the reader that Christ has purchased the believer, thus owning them. The believer is ultimately accountable to him.

The text continues into the area of holding up a day as holy. The same idea applies to those who are strong in the faith and those in the weak as it does with the dietary dispute. Paul also points out that both the weak and the strong do what they do with the intention of honoring the Lord. And following this discussion, Paul again (only this time more apparently) states that Christ died for all believers and all believers will account to him (14:9-12).
Before moving on to the next point of this passage, it might seem that Paul is arguing that we should take no issue with differences among believers. However, looking at the whole of Paul’s writings, we can see that this is not as simple as it sounds. Paul hopes that all will one day have a strong, sound theology and he works hard to teach it, which is in part the purpose of his letters. Therefore, it seems the main point of 14:1-12 is an exhortation that believers should not quarrel over minor differences of gospel understanding when the intentions are to honor God (in these non-essential to salvation matters). The impetus of keeping peace among believers, however, is placed on the strong, the leaders, and Paul’s next point confirms this.

In the remainder of this text, Paul instructs the strong to act as such. 14:13 states that none should pass judgment and place an obstacle before another. Although the weak may judge the strong, it would be difficult for the weak to trip up the strong; therefore, it is likely that this passage is for the strong. Paul makes it very clear that believers in Christ are not under the Old Covenant (14:14a). However, if one thinks something is unclean, than they will behave as if it is and therefore it might as well be (14:14b). So, as brothers in Christ are coming together, according to Paul in 14:15, it is not love to cause the weaker brother to grieve over what the stronger eats in the presence of the weak. Verse 14:15 outlines the weight of the matter in dispute, placing it in its proper place: the diet is not the Kingdom of God, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit is. Verse 14:16 encourages the strong to do whatever it takes to have peace among the brethren and work to build up the body. Paul uses the remainder of chapter 14 reinforce his point.

As chapter 15 opens, Paul is still instructing the strong to carry the burden of peace among the Church. The strong are to voluntarily give up some of their liberty in Christ in order to serve their weaker brothers and neighbors. It is not that the strong simply overlook the weakness, but like Christ, humble themselves to enter the environment of the weak, in order to connect with the weaker brother and teach him, that is, build him up. And not only is this true for fellow Jewish believers, but with Gentiles who have never lived under the Old Covenant (15:8-13). And Paul reminds his readers that even though the Christian is not under the law, the Old Testament Scripture is still God’s work and good for teaching and understanding (15:5).

Still Quarreling Today

It seems that various non-essentials still serve as an obstacle. There are many, but one example comes in the form of alcohol consumption. Some in the Church think that a total abstinence of alcohol is necessary for holiness, while others see moderate consumption (to exclude drunkenness) as an acceptable liberty in Christ.

Does this sound familiar? It should because as Paul was discussing the quarrel due to dietary laws, he included wine! However, I have encountered Christians who look down on other believers who choose to have a glass of wine with a meal. And I have also encountered an occasional drinking Christian go off on those who say drinking even one drop of alcohol is a sin. In this case, the drinker may be like the stronger that Paul discussed and the non-drinker (for reasons of holiness) is the weaker. At least theologically, there is a strong argument that drinking in-and-of-it-self is not a sin, but drunkenness is. But when a pastor scoffs at those who hold that drinking is a sin, he is not adhering to Paul’s instruction. Instead, he may need to give up some liberty around these believers. He will do far more to teach the Bible in love than to scoff or try to make his point for the purpose of looking down on other believers (which is really to try to build himself up over them).

Here's another way to thinking about this, although I admit that this illustration is one-sided. I am reminded of my life as a private in the Army, before the war, compared to my life as a staff sergeant after my wartime experience. In 1996, as a young man and a new soldier, I felt I needed to prove myself. I wanted to be tested in battle. I talked about it very naively. The medals for bravery held a position of awe. But then after a few years in the military, I started to understand my role as a leader. Then, as a sergeant, I lead others in a war zone. The medals, I came to realize, mean very little. Keeping people alive and getting the job done meant everything. Avoiding reckless contact with the enemy was of the utmost importance. There was no need to be tested in combat. What a ridiculous notion! However, after my return, I would come across new, young privates that talk as I had. At times, I would chastise them for their stupidity, only to lose their respect. I quickly came to understand that if I were to help them grow as warriors, I would need to put aside my issues and allow them to hold to their dreams of John Wayne heroics, all the while working to prepare them. We all serve the same purpose—to fight and win wars. They will, just as I did, come to understand war and battlefield testing. The important thing is that I (as the leader) did not look down my nose at them, but instead trained them. The same is true with the gospel in the Church.

Paul’s Principle
Paul is not making a difficult point. His principle is as simple as loving one another despite some minor differences. We are not to quarrel over non-essential matters with our fellow believers. And it is the job of the leader to bring peace to the Church, to put aside these differences, and keep the focus on the more important aspects of the gospel and the Kingdom of Christ.


*This post was originally part of a discussion in seminary. The photograph is in the public domain.

Ministry Gifts Inventory?

Introduction. Ministry gift inventory tests are often a double-edged sword. On the one side, they can help a person zero in and understand personal and gifted strengths valuable to service within the local church. The other side of the sword however, is that by their very nature, they are limiting and impersonal, often providing an either/or list from which to identify gifts. “Ministry Gifts Inventory” by Michael Miller is just such a double-edged sword. In what follows, I will discuss this particular test and then identify my results from taking two tests separated by three months.  I will also discuss what I believe is a stronger method of understanding of individual spiritual gifts.

The Test. The test offered in “Ministry Gifts Inventory” (Lifeway Church Resources) is a self-test based on self-selected answers to 72 questions. Each answer is a range from, “I am seldom or never this way” to “I am this way most or all of the time.” The answers correspond to a point system from 0 to 4. The 72 questions attempt to identify twelve different spiritual gifted areas for ministry. On page 6, the Overview makes it clear that this test is not intended to completely cover spiritual gifts and gifted offices as discussed in the Bible. Miller writes, “The inventory is not designed to be an exhaustive analysis of spiritual gifts. Its purpose is to highlight areas of strength based on what you feel motivates you spiritually and to enable you to pinpoint areas of ministry for which you are gifted.” The gifts and gifted offices in First Corinthians 12 include prophet/prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, discernment (or distinguishing of spirits), teacher, miracles, healings, helps, administration, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. Ephesians 4:11 adds evangelist and pastor/teacher to the list. Romans 12 adds serving, encouraging, leadership, and mercy. Some hold that 1 Corinthians 7:7 argues that marriage and celibacy are gifts. Others argue that exorcism is a spiritual gift based on Matthew 12:28; Luke 10:17, 20; Acts 8:7; and Acts 16:18.  And some say that 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 incorporates voluntary poverty and martyrdom as spiritual gifts.

Given that there does not seem to be one exhaustive list in the Bible, the gift list appear somewhat fluid; however, all of the listed gifts seem to be sovereignly gifted to the recipient for corporate use in the Church and for the Church, suggesting the same for any other perceived gift not listed. Miller’s test identifies the gifts only as administration, evangelism, exhortation, giving, helps, hospitality, leadership, mercy, prophecy, service, shepherding, and teaching. The test ranks them, suggesting the higher scored areas are the test-taker’s spiritual gifts.

My Results. In the first or second week of June 2010 (I failed to document the exact date of the test), I made copies of Miller’s “Ministry Gifts Inventory” and then took the test. On July 29th, I took the test again without first reviewing my previous results. (From this point forward, I will call these Test 1 and Test 2, respectively.) My average score per gift area on Test 1 was 14.4. On Test 2 it was only 12.5. (Each area as a maximum score of 18.) My top two gifts on both tests were first teaching (with a score of 18) followed by shepherding (scoring at 17). My bottom gift on both tests was giving. The various other gifts jostled in position slightly, but there was never more than a single position shift. The next top gifts (although shifted in position) were leadership, administration, and prophecy.

A Better Test. The problem with Miller’s self-test is that it is self-selection. What often occurs with a self-selection test is that a person answers as they see themselves rather than how reality sees them. For example, I may really want to be a teacher or really believe I am a good teacher, but in reality, I could be terrible. How many times do people feel they have the gift of preaching but they do not communicate well? How many times have I heard someone say they have a gift of decrement or wisdom only to find that they often miss obvious information that would greatly help them make good choices? This is because of self-selection or self-identification. In addition, there are times when people completely overlook something they are absolutely gifted with because they assume everybody has the same gift or skill level.

A better way to understand spiritual gifts takes more time and effort, but the results are often much more accurate. The process starts with prayer, asking God to identify the areas he has uniquely gifted the inquirer for the benefit of Church or God’s purposes. Then the person should list all those things he or she enjoys doing, at church or not. And he or she should make a list of things he or she is good at, likely better than most people, even if he or she does not enjoy doing these tasks. Before analysis should happen however, the person should ask his or her closest Christian friends and family to honestly identify those areas where the person is talented and seems spiritually gifted. They should also indicate areas where they see strong potential.  The inquirer should request that they include prayer in this process. After a few people have answered, the lists can be compared. Generally, similarities will surface, presenting a person’s actual spiritual gifting. The key is close friendships with people who know the inquirer well and honesty answer these questions.

It is important that these lists not be limited to the “standard” list we too often associate with spiritual gifts. It could be that a person’s talent falls within the list, but many times, they do not. We do not see “artist” on the “standard” list, but how much blessing comes to the church through design and art today? Music is the same way. Baking and food preparation? Dance? Writing? Security? Computer programing?  Database management?  Video and sound editing?  Construction?  Investing?  God may have gifted a person to design and build affordable housing so that he or she could go on an overseas mission to bless people in need. Or a person may be gifted in security to protect an overseas operation. These are all gifts given by God.And there are many, many more.

Conclusion. For some, understanding spiritual gifts is difficult. I often feel that I do not fully grasp or understand my spiritual gifts. For others it is extremely obvious. One place to start is through a simple gift inventory test, as limiting as it may be. The next place to understand and grow spiritual gifts is in community. I have found Miller’s test insightful, but I will also continue to lean on my community in order to identify and grow my spiritual gifts.

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

Culture's Role in Gospel Communication

CULTURE’S ROLE IN GOSPEL COMMUNICATION:
THROUGH THE LENS OF THE UTAH-MORMON CULTURE

INTRODUCTION
Foolish is the evangelist, missionary, or church planter who overlooks or brushes aside the role of culture upon gospel communication. Just as Jesus entered into a specific community and taught his gospel through the context of the culture in which he physically walked, today’s gospel communicator should share the gospel in cultural context. This requires an understanding of the aspects of culture upon a community and the opportunities or obstacles they may present. No two cultures or communities are alike. Therefore, in an attempt to understand culture’s role on gospel communication, this post will examine the question by analyzing one specific culture (and its subcultures).

Often, studies of cross-cultural evangelism address the complex ME-3 issues, that is, evangelism that involves communicating the gospel to an entirely different language and culture.1 However, in our zeal to reach the world, the American church has neglected many nearby American communities. McRaney says, “The church in America is failing to impact the pool of people who do not claim to possess a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”2 Could this failure be due to the poor communication of the gospel within the subtle cultural differences between neighbors? Utah is a prime example. According to the Association of Religious Data Archives, in 2000, only 7.8% of the population of Utah held a Trinitarian belief of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, that is, the God of the Bible.3 If you include the believe that the Bible is comprised of 66 books, this number drops to 3.2%. This compares to a national average of 44.9% over the same period.4 If Utah were its own nation, the number of Christians5 per capita would rank below China (8.2%),6 and the United Arab Emirates (12.6%).7

Utah is highly populated by Mormons, more appropriately called ‘Latter-day Saints’ (LDS). In 2000, 66.8% were officially members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and those with similar cultural backgrounds belonging to cults and offshoots of the LDS church (such as the FLDS and other polygamists groups) as well as the non-Christian ex-Mormons were likely counted as “unclaimed” or unchurched.8 Through the community’s history, the LDS church’s doctrines, and development of LDS people in Utah, this specific culture is unlike any other in the United States and offers a good case study for evangelism in a subtle, cross-cultural environment. By dealing with specific examples rather than abstract ideas, one should be able to glean principles of cultural understanding and gospel communication that may be applied to other subtle cultural differences.

WHAT IS CULTURE?
Every person on earth exists within a culture and understands the world through a lens tinted or shaped by one particular culture or another. Dyrness defines culture as, “the total pattern of a people’s behavior.”9 In his use of the word ‘total,’ Dyrness leaves no aspect of communication outside of culture’s reach. “Culture,” continues Dyrness, “includes all behavior that is learned and transmitted by the symbols (rites, artifacts, language, etc) of a particular group and that grows out of certain ideas or assumptions that we call a worldview.”10 Rowe offers a detailed definition of culture, suggesting that culture is structured, writing, “Culture is not random but orderly, it occurs in sets of patterns.”11 Rowe further states that culture is social, meaning it happens in groups.12 “The basic aspects of culture,” according to Rowe, “seem invariably to include, in some form, beliefs, values, and behaviors (or customs).”13 And arguing what he feels is most important of culture, Rowe quotes the Willowbank Report’s definition, stating, “culture gives the people group ‘a sense of identity, dignity, security, and continuity.’”14

Culture is not entirely based on geographical area, as is often stereotyped, but adopted as a way of identification within a collection of people. As evangelists, missionaries, and church planters prepare to enter a culture that is drastically different than their own—like Russia, Swaziland, or China for example—they might reasonably focus on the great cultural differences. However, when the gospel communicator is entering an area with a similar culture, potentially a bordering state, the subtlety of cultural differences becomes more apparent. In arguing the role of government in cultural management, Kymlicka suggest that in any given society where freedom of expression is allowed, there is actually a marketplace of cultures. As individuals unconsciously select a subculture, the overarching culture of the community shifts, ebbs, and flows toward what the majority of individuals see as preferable cultural option.15 The Willowbank Report also suggests that more than one culture can exist in a geographic area but warns that rather than a grocery-style marketplace for the selection of culture, subcultures may actually war against one another. The report states, “Culture implies a measure of homogeneity. But if the unit is larger than the clan or small tribe, a culture will include within itself a number of subcultures, and subcultures of subcultures, within which a wide variety of diversity is possible. If the variations go beyond a certain limit, a counterculture will have come into being, and this may prove a destructive process.”16

Finally, Hesselgrave articulates that culture has layers. “At the core is worldview.”17 The closest layer to the core is the layer of values, specifically the value system of the community. “Then comes the institutional layer—education, law, marriage, and so forth,” writes Hesselgrave.18 The outer layer, as Hesselgrave explains, is the observable layer made up of artifacts and behaviors.19 Based on this definition, the core, that is, the worldview forms the curvature of all the other layers. Like an onion, the layers tightly hug the center; they are shaped by the inner most parts. Therefore, if one is seeking to communicate the gospel within the context of culture, one must address the core, the worldview.

Examining Utah, specifically the large LDS community, it is easy to see the outer layer. Sunday morning means the man puts on a white shirt and tie, maybe a suit jacket; his boys mirror his look. The women wear dresses. In the summer, they may walk to church because it is just around the corner. Many avoid the coffee pot at work. During the commute on the bus or train, many LDS faithful use the time to read the Book of Mormon, sometimes the Doctrine in Covenants, rarely the Bible. There are large families and high expectations that all the children will be baptized at age eight and the men will go on a two-year mission for their church when they turn nineteen. The Mormon has duties in the church and those who are considered worthy do regular work in LDS Temples. “Temple Square, the biggest tourist attraction in Salt Lake City,” writes Rowe, “not only serves as the symbolic center of the LDS Church (its equivalent of the Vatican or the worship center in Mecca) but also sits at the center of the city street system.”20 (The streets are number in all four directions according to their distance from the Temple with the Temple itself serving as 0. This patter is replicated in many other Utah cities, only the Stake Center often serves as ground zero.) July 24th is a holiday celebrated with more enthusiasm than the 4th of July. Ice cream is consumed in epic proportions, most boys are boy scouts, and tattoos and piercing are not as vogue as they are in the rest of the country. The local news often reports that Utah tops the charts for the most breast augmentation, prescription drug abuse, and depressed homemakers; but even if these statistics are not true, few Utahans seem to doubt the claims.21

Often, welling-meaning missionaries come to Utah for a short-term mission trip and evangelize to the observable outer layer with little success. But while a gospel communicator can discuss these aspects of life in Utah, gospel communication that addresses these layers does not reach the core of the culture. To get to the core, one must understand the Mormon worldview.

THE UTAH-MORMON WORLDVIEW
To some, the title of his section may seem almost silly, but to LDS members in and around Utah, there is a clear understanding that the Mormon living in Utah is somehow different than the Mormon living elsewhere. It has nothing to do with religious practice or doctrine. Instead, it is due to culture. Because there is a dominant community of people holding to an extremely similar worldview, the layers are able to grow large without influence from warring subcultures. Essentially, the zeal and expressive nature of the cultural majority is enjoyed more openly than by Utah-Mormons than those distant Mormons who might otherwise not fit as well within the layers of another cultural onion.

The core of the Utah-Mormon culture has to do with the blending of LDS doctrine and LDS history. This hybrid shapes the worldview. To effectively communicate the gospel in the culture of the Utah-Mormon culture, one does not necessarily have to master every tenant of Mormon doctrine or every significant Mormon event of the past two hundred years. One must simply understand the driving force behind the Mormon worldview. However, too often evangelistic materials will attempt to show Mormon doctrine in contrast with the Bible. McKeever and Johnson for example, write, “Many have sought a resource that compares the teaching of Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible. We believe this book you hold in your hands [Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-day Saints] will meet this need.”22 McKeever and Johnson then offer eight pages of LDS history followed by nearly 300 pages of excellent theological comparisons. But regardless of the theological quality, the communication is still lost without an understanding of the culture. The gospel communicator is too often dismissed as “Bible bashing” as Rowe identifies it.23 To summarize Rowe, the Bible bash is the engaging in a comparative theological discussion. However, what a Christian might see as conversation, the Mormon sees as hostile attack. Why?

There are a number of reasons for the Mormon’s uneasiness with gospel communication. First, the in their early history, Mormons endured difficult persecution at the hands of Bible-believing Christians.24 This persecution left a “profound feeling of ‘We are a persecuted people’ in the bones of Latter-day Saints.”25 Consequently, there is still sensitivity in this area. Rowe warns, “Conversations that include any element of questioning by a non-Mormon, disparaging remarks, jokes that slight them—almost always these will be perceived as a form of attack on them for their faith, as just one more persecution, whether intended or not.”26 The second reason for the uneasiness has to do with the Mormon’s understanding of the Bible. While the LDS canon includes the Bible, it is not a trusted document. The 8th statement of the LDS Articles of Faith reads, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the world of God.”27 In addition, McConkie taught that the present day Christian is likely to be of the “Church of the Devil,” and this church has corrupted the Bible. He writes, “this church took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that it was ‘the mother of harlots.”28 McConkie draws his support from the Mormon book of First Nephi 13:24-42, a passage contained within the Book of Mormon. So one should be able to see the root of the uneasiness a Mormon feels when a Christian tries to argue against Mormonism with the Bible. This is one example of getting to the core of the culture.

Cutting through the various layers of culture—in order to reach the core—is not often an easy task in Utah. An examination of the doctrine is a useful start, as well as a review of LDS history; but it is not always so easy. A question must be asked: ‘Why?’ and the evangelists, missionary, or church planter must continually ask this question of the Mormon culture, removing layer after layer. At times, the Mormon will not even know the answer.

Utah’s fascination with bees serves as a good example. Beehives emblazon the highway signs. Salt Lake City’s baseball team is named the ‘Bees.’ Brigham Young, the 2nd LDS leader and man who brought the Mormons to Utah named his home the ‘Beehive House’ and the doorknobs of the Salt Lake Temple are shaped like hives. The original name of the territory was ‘Deseret,’ derived from the Book of Mormon (Ether 2:3), meaning, “honey bee.”29 Of the two daily newspapers, the LDS owned one is titled the ‘Deseret News.’ There is a beehive depicted on the state flag. So the observant gospel communicator should ask, “Why?” Simply asking a Utahan will usually yield some kind of answer about Utahans being an industrious people. Rowe observes that Utahans value a solid work ethic. He writes, “LDS folks become from childhood very responsible, entrepreneurial, industrious people. They seize opportunities and do not fear hard work, both in Church life and in the marketplace.”30 At this point, a value of the Utah culture has been identified—a strong work ethic. But a value is not at the core, it only closely wraps around it. The next question then is “Why is this a value of this culture?” Digging a little deeper, two answers surface and they are from the worldview ingredients of LDS history and doctrine. Turning to an LDS teaching guide titled, “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by Righteous Works,” which is still in use today, one learns that Young selected they symbol of the bee and the beehive to remind the pioneers and settlers that they would have to work hard in order to survive the harsh conditions. This lesson also asks question about God’s and “our own work,” with the answer being “To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” 31 And as one starts to understand the LDS religion, one will see that there are many works required in an effort to obtain righteousness. On this doctrine, McConkie writes, “By believing the truths of salvation, repenting of his sins, and being baptized in water and of the Spirit, the seeker after salvation places himself on the strait an narrow path which leads to eternal live. (2 Ne. 31.) Thereafter his progress up the path is achieved by the performance of good works.”32 From an obsession with beehives to insight to a worldview issue, questioning helps remove the more shallow layers of culture to get to the core. With this now in mind, the gospel communicator has a better understanding of one aspect of the Mormon’s worldview. And understanding the cultural aspect at its core will make the communicator far more effective in bring his or her message.

In looking at another example, one can observe that Mormons do not drink coffee, tea, and alcoholic beverages, and they do not smoke. What is observed is behavior, an outer layer aspect of culture. Living in Utah, one will notice a strict regulation of alcoholic beverages and smoking. The grocery stores only sell beer under 3.2% ABV. Higher gravity beer, wine, and spirits must be purchased in state owned and operated liquor stores, which are few. The question is “why?” It could be that as one works though the question, he or she learns that health is a value driven by some aspect of the Mormon worldview. However, health is not the case this time. As it turns out, Doctrine and Covenants 89 prohibits, the use of tobacco and the drinking of hot drinks, wine, and strong drink. The promise of this passage is that one will find wisdom and greater physical health. But there is more behind D & C 89. McConkie outlines that this passage requires LDS members to “abstain from tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor.”33 He further states, “Abstinence from these four things has been accepted by the Church as a measuring rod to determine in part the personal worthiness of church members. When decisions are made relative to the granting of temple recommends or approving brethren for church positions or ordinations, inquiry is made relative to these four items.”34 A recommend is required to enter the Temple. Temple ceremonies are required for a family to be married and together for eternity—one of the highest and most valuable aspects of Mormonism for its adherents. Being married in the temple and “sealed” to family for all eternity is also a requirement to enter the highest and most sought after level of heaven. In light of this doctrine, it is much easer to see the driving force behind the action of abstinence of coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol. (Incidentally, giving a full tithe is also required to obtain a Temple recommend.) Once again, the worldview aspect driving the other aspects of culture has to do with a works based religion. The Mormon is placed on a path but must work to reach salvation (or so he or she believes). In this case, coffee, tea, tobacco, and alcohol in-and-of-themselves are seen as an evil or sin with the ability to bar one from heaven, and therefore these items are heavily regulated with the Utah community.

While only a few specific aspects of the Utah-Mormon culture were examined here, the methodology should be apparent. The steps are to make observations and ask “Why?” The key is to continue to pull back layers until the worldview is reached. Once the worldview is understood, the gospel communicator can share the gospel message within the context of culture and with a clear understanding of the worldview held by the culture.

NOW IT’S TIME TO COMMUNICATE
Once the evangelist, missionary, or church planter has asked the “Why?” question and pealed back the surface layers, it is time to communicate the gospel message to the Utah-Mormon culture. This culture is likely carries subtle differences from which the communicator was sent. What should this look like? While each instance of communication is going to be different depending upon aspects of the worldview, the personalities involved, and the work of the Holy Spirit, only basic guidelines will be offered here.

First, as already indicated, the “Bible bash” is ineffective. The gospel communicator will only run headlong into deeply held convictions shaped by worldview when he or she attempts to share the gospel message with a Utah-Mormon by demonstrating where Mormon doctrine is in disagreement with the Bible. “This problem occurs,” says Rowe, “when we view Mormons as two-dimensional information processors who simply need to have their bad information replaced by our good information.”35 Instead, the evangelist, missionary, and church planter should pray for opportunities to show the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible in positive manor and in consideration of the worldview that shapes the culture’s ideas of the Bible. And when these opportunities surface, the information should be shared to people, with layered culture, not ‘two-dimensional information processors.’

Once the brakes have been put on the typical American approach to evangelizing the Mormon culture, the second step in communicating the gospel in the cultural dominated by Mormonism, is to treat the effort as if one has entered into a cross-culture mission. Elmer’s cross-cultural servanthood model offers an excellent guide. Elmer teaches that first step is openness. “Openness with people of another culture,” writes Elmer, “requires that you are willing to step out of your comfort zone to initiate and sustain relationships in a context of cultural differences.”36 Too often missionaries and church planters come to Utah hoping to change the community but they greatly lack this openness. From openness, according to Elmer, grows acceptance. This is not an acceptance of the culture’s worldview or beliefs about God, but instead that the Mormon feels welcome and safe around the gospel communicator.37 Next comes trust. At some point after acceptance, the Mormon may start to trust the communicator and feel that the communicator actually values him or her as person.38 The next step is learning, and it is here where the evangelist, missionary, and church planter need to continually be asking “why?” It is at this stage that the gospel communicator begins to really peal back the layers to get to the core of the culture. And in doing the hard work of learning what shapes the culture, the communicator will achieve the next step of cross-culture servanthood—understanding. Of understanding Elmer writes, “You can’t understand another person until you have learned from them and, eventually, with them. A learning attitude signals humility and a willingness to identify with the people.”39 No longer will the Utah-Mormon be seen as an information processor with bad information; no longer will the subtleties of the culture seem so subtle. Now, the entire shape of the culture will make sense. Pathways will present themselves to communicate in a manner that is not offensive or abrasive to the culture. Bridges will begin to fall in place so the communicator can address the issues at the core and engage them with the gospel. This kind of gospel communication will actually bring transformation to the outer layers of the culture. And at this point, when an understanding is gained, true Christ-like servanthood will come naturally.

Achieving the first step is fast; it is just a matter of putting a halt to a communication method that actually does more harm to the Utah-Mormon culture than good. Yet, on any day of the week there are men and woman standing around Temple Square with signs and tracts. They shout Scripture and try to tell passersby that their top religious leader is a liar. Nobody stops to listen. Still, busloads of teenagers pour into Salt Lake ready to place DVD movies about the Bible verses the Book of Mormon on front doors, material that usually goes straight into the trash as anti-Mormon material from the “Church of the Devil.” These Christians come to communicate the gospel with good intentions, but they do not understand the second step of this communication; and therefore, they are much less effective in their effort to share the gospel. If they would take the time and do the hard work to understand the culture and it subtle differences, they would be able to share the gospel in a context within the culture, not against it.

For most evangelists, missionaries, and church planters, reaching into the Utah-Mormon culture for Christ means living with and among the people for long periods. It means working and playing along side Mormons. It is about getting to know Mormons and establishing trust and acceptance. It is about taking the time and doing the work to understand the Utah-Mormon culture. And it living among the people as servants, the gospel communicators begin to see just how the culture communicates in meaningful way. Part of the worldview (which has not been addressed in this post) is a strong respect for personal testimony and shared experience. As the cultural layers are pulled back, the communicator begins to see the significant of personal testimony and the ‘Mormonese’ in which it is shared. The gospel communicator begins to grow comfortable with this language just as a missionary in a foreign country does with the non-English language. Over time, the gospel communicator develops a healthy since of need to reach the core of the culture beyond the desire to count the numbers of souls saved, and than he or she prays for opportunities to communicate the message of life-changing hope and Truth deep into the center of the culture.

CONCLUSION
It is the desire of this author to share the gospel with the Utah-Mormon culture. I have lived in Utah for eleven years and am only now starting to develop the necessary understanding of the core of this culture, its worldview. Acceptance is just beginning to happen. Although Utah is one of the fifty states, and it looks like every other state with its corporate businesses and typical American bustle, just under the surface is a foreign subculture deeply in need of the transformation of gospel of Jesus.

The examination of the Utah-Mormon culture in this post only scratches the surface; entire volumes could and should be written on the topic. However, it is my hope that the methodology of understanding subculture differences was presented in such a way that they may be applied not only in Utah, but also in any other effort to communicating the gospel with people of similar cultures. While this post is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion on the matter, I hope it encourages readers to continue to study the methodology of effective cross-cultural and subcultural evangelism and servanthood. It is also my prayer that God will call more harvesters to Utah, a dry part of the vineyard, not to come for a week and ignorantly shout and the lost, but instead to live and work among them, understand them and be accepted by them, so that the gospel may be communicated to the very heart of the culture, so some may be saved.


BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Association of Religious Data Archives, “China-Tibet,” http://www.thearda.com/
internationalData/countries/Country_51_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “United Arab Emirates,” http://www.thearda.com/
internationalData/countries/Country_232_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “United States: Denominational Groups, 2000,”
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010].

Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,”
http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010].

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Index. Salt Lake City: The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by
Righteous Works.” Gospel Library Lessons,
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63eb76797
8c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM
1000004d82620aRCRD [accessed July 8, 2010].

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

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

Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics.
Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Hesselgrave, David J. Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000.

Kymlicka, Will. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002.

Lausanne Occasional Paper 2. “The Willowbank Report: Consultation on Gospel and Culture.”
Lausanne Committee for World Evangelication. 1978

McKeever, Bill, and Eric Johnson. Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day
Saints. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000.

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.

McRaney, Will. The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture.
Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

Rowe, David L. I [Love] Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints. Grand
Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005.




1  David Hesselgrave, Planting Churches Cross-Culturally: North America and Beyond (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000), 28-29. 
2 Will McRaney, The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 5. 
3 Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
4 Association of Religious Data Archives, “United States: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
5 Although the LDS church argues that their faith is “Christian,” for the purposes of this post, the term “Christian” will apply to all faith structures that hold to a Trinitarian view of the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and believe that Jesus is the exclusive Savior of the world. 
6 Association of Religious Data Archives, “China-Tibet,” http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_51_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
7 Association of Religious Data Archives, “United Arab Emirates,” http://www.thearda.com/internationalData/countries/Country_232_2.asp [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
8 Association of Religious Data Archives, “Utah: Denominational Groups, 2000,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp [accessed July 7, 2010]. 
9 Walter Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 227. 
10 Elwell, 227. 
11 David Rowe, I [Love] Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 25. 
12 Rowe, 25. 
13 Rowe, 26. 
14 Rowe, 26. 
15 Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 244-252. 
16 Lausanne Occasional Paper 2. “The Willowbank Report: Consultation on Gospel and Culture,” (Lausanne Committee for World Evangelication, 1978), 4/50. 
17 Hesselgrave, 145. 
18 Hesselgrave, 145. 
19 Hesselgrave, 145. 
20 Rowe, 30-31. 
21 This author’s observations of Utah’s culture come from personal observation living in and around Salt Lake City for eleven years. 
22 Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101: Examining the Religion of the Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2000), 9. 
23 Rowe, 17-22. 
24 Rowe, 43-47. 
25 Rowe, 44. 
26 Rowe, 44. 
27 The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, from History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535-541, verse 8, (emphasis added). 
28 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 138. 
29 The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Index (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), 78. 
30 Rowe, 33. 
31 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “Brigham Young: Building the Kingdom by Righteous Works,” Gospel Library Lessons, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=63eb767978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=32c41b08f338c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD [accessed July 8, 2010]. 
32 McConkie, 328. 
33 McConkie, 845. 
34 McConkie, 845. 
35 Rowe, 80. 
36 Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Books, 2006), 151. 
37 Elmer, 151. 
38 Elmer, 151. 
39 Elmer, 150-151. 


*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 by flickr.com user alh1 is registered under a Creative Commons license. 

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.