75 Years of Southern Baptist Faith

/
INTRODUCTION
In a letter written to Timothy, Paul encourages his friend to, “Take hold of the eternal life which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presences of many witnesses.”[1] The exact nature of this confession is a mystery, but hints throughout the New Testament suggest that Timothy was certainly not alone in making a public confession of faith.[2]  In the early Church, simple statements may have served to publicly demonstrate belief or doctrinal positions. Norman and Brand suggest that the phrase, “Jesus is Lord” was a confessional expression used to determine those who were generally saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.[3] These statements are often called confessions of faith or creeds. “These proclamations,” state Norman and Brand, “are intended to declare the doctrinal perspective of the group on the matters addressed in the document.”[4] In addition, statements of doctrine by their nature, create theological guidelines or boundaries of belief used to communicate to others, but also to address heretical ideas. John includes the delectation that “Jesus came in the flesh” in two of his letters, potentially to deal with a heresy at the time.[5] And even included in the New Testament canon are longer statements of doctrine that include greater detail.[6]

Examining confessions of faith and creeds offer insight into what was most important to the authors of the statement. Through their confessions, one can also glean clues about what doctrinal battles were being waged at the time. For example, a review the Waldensian Confession of Faith (1120) shows a strong argument against specific Roman Catholic beliefs such as papal intersession, the veneration of Mary, the existence of purgatory, and the status of sacraments. As a group of people change or rewrite their doctrinal statement of faith, one can see either shifts in the most important matters of doctrine or a need to address changing heresies, or both. By comparing and contrasting the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) 1925 Baptist Faith and Message with the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, this post will attempt to identify shifts in doctrinal focus and changing heresies over 75 years of Southern Baptist history. While the SBC revised their 1925 statement in 1963 and 2000, this post will only focus on the change between the first and the most recent statements.

ADDITIONS FOR 2000
The most obvious addition to the 1925 statement was the presence of more biblical references. At the end of each section, lists of biblical passages that support and guide the ideas of the section are provided. Each section has nearly twice as many references listed in the 2000 statement compared to the earlier statement. There are various reasons for this—possibly due to greater time and reference material, or to stress the importance of Scripture—but most likely, they are included to biblically address challenges to the statement with even more scriptural material.

Moving to the content itself, it is easiest to handle the additions in a linear fashion. There are many minor additions—a word here or there—but for the sake of brevity, this post will only address those that may offer changes to orthodoxy or orthopraxy, address heresies, or serve as points of interest. Starting in the first section, titled “Scripture” in both statements, the phrase, “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation” was added.[7] A declaration such as this appears to be addressing Old Testament Scripture where the physical appearance of Christ is not present in the narrative; however, this inclusion argues that the meta-narrative is wholly centered on Jesus Christ, placing a significant and equal importance on both the Old Testament and the New.

“God,” the title of the next section, is where the majority of added material appears. In 1925, the SBC felt that 65 words were sufficient in expressing their position and doctrinal beliefs about God. The word count jumped to 264 in 2000. What was a simple statement about God in 1925 has been expanded to specifically cover and describe correct belief about the three members of the Holy Trinity. Nothing changed theologically, however. And when the 1925 statement cited 14 Bible verses for support, the 2000 statement appeals to approximately 187 scriptural references. Why the need for the addition (which primarily occurred in the 1963 revision) is open for debate, but it appears as if this addition was specifically made in an effort to deal with heresies. For example, a modified version of second century modalism—associated with individuals such as Noetus of Smyrna, Praxeas, and most notably Sabellius[8]—found popularity again in the twentieth century among Oneness Pentecostalism, also know as the Jesus Only movement.[9] Mormonism, although birthed in the nineteenth century, was also gaining popularity in the twentieth century. These additions found in the 2000 statement address ideas such as modalism or the wickedly-mutated idea of Christ’s deity by sects and cults.

The next notable addition to the 2000 statement is found in the section called “The Church,” (titled “The Gospel Church” in the 1925 statement). The twentieth century witnessed many social changes in race relations as well as a shift in the understanding of the roles of the sexes. This shift is likely the reason behind the addition of the sentence, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”[10] While this statement is not addressing heretical ideas and practices infiltrating the Church, it does attempt to answer the changing social question of the role of women in the office of pastor. Addressing this matter, Grudem asks,
Most systematic theologies have not included a section on the question of whether women can be church officers, because it has been assumed through the history of the church, with very few exceptions, that only men could be pastors or function as elders within a church. But in recent years a major controversy has arisen within the evangelical world: may women as well as men be pastors? May they share in all the offices of the church?[11]
Grudem’s questions are just as relevant today as they were the day he originally penned them; so it seems that the SBC has included this statement and additional scriptural references to clearly answer these questions.

Another two additions worth noting are found in the section titled, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” and “Education.” The first addresses a theological issue while the latter deals with issues practical arising in a changing society. Over the 75 years between the two Baptist Faith and Message statements being reviewed in this post, people have grown more aware of differences among religious practices. In some circumstances, churches have attempted to syncretize differing areas of faith and practice. One such practice is that of the Lord’s Supper and the result is often a practice that is decidedly not Baptist in theology. Therefore, a line has been added to clearly identify what the Lord’s Supper is and how it should be understood. At stake is the departure of churches not adhering to this understanding of the Lord’s Supper; although many would argue that right practice and belief is more important than stout membership rolls. In similar fashion, additions were made to the “Education” section of the 2000 statement in order to guide and shelter the Christian educator but also allow the school or institution to remove the educator for teaching outside the “pre-eminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.”[12]

The final addition discussed for the purposes of this post is the section titled, “Family.” This section does not appear in the 1925 version in any form. In 270 words, the 2000 statement attempts to define the role and purpose of the family unit within society. In reading the section on family, it is clear that this addition is offered to not only to identify the worldview of the SBC and the understanding of the differing roles within the family unit, but also as a defense of the family within society. On the family, the committee charged with drafting the 2000 statement state in the preamble, “The Convention added an article on "The Family" in 1998, thus answering cultural confusion with the clear teachings of Scripture.”[13]

SUBTRACTIONS FROM 1925
Unless items addressed in a previous statement of faith are no longer issues among society or heresies no longer in practice, theoretically, there should be little reason to remove any material from faith statement. Deeply held beliefs should not be so fluid that they change every 75 years or it would seem that they were not doctrines worth holding so deeply. An organization entrenched in the social aspects of society, such as a political party might be expected to exhibit statements of purpose and ideology that change from year to year, decade to decade. And if a church organization is likewise entrenched in the politic of the social and moral aspects of society, one should expect to see this same pattern of change. If on the other hand, the Bible simultaneously speaks to humanity today and remains timeless, one should see little to no change among those who allow the Bible to dictate their beliefs. Therefore, one might ask what the SBC held deeply in 1925 that they are so quickly willing to drop. As it turns out, very little, if anything was removed from the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message in the drafting of the 2000 version. Instead, items were redacted, which will be addressed in the following section. It should be noted that not a single redaction changes any theological doctrine contained in the 1925 and 2000 statements.

REWRITES, REVERSALS, AND REDACTIONS
As previously stated, nothing was outright removed from the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message. Neither was any doctrinal position reversed. There are a number of redactions or rewrites present, however. Some redactions expanded a section to allow for more explanation. Other modifications shortened sections because either the material has become commonly accepted knowledge or a less lengthy paragraph, sentence, or word choice presents a thought more precisely. At times, word choices are made in order to combat a heresy that uses the same words with different meanings. While many specific examples can be provided, only a small selection is necessary to examine to understand the reason for nearly every change.

Section III, “Man” for example, changed the title from “The Fall of Man” and explains the fall of man through an explanation of creation, transgression, a sin nature, and the likeness of man and woman in the image of God. The original paragraph placed more focus on the fall of man; whereas, the new sections looks at a holistic view of man as a creation of God. Another redaction took the 1925 sections IV-X, “The Way of Salvation,” “Justification,” “The Freeness of Salvation,” “Regeneration,” “Repentance and Faith,” and “Sanctification,” and consolidated them into one section titled “Salvation.” The new section not only includes each of the areas previously addressed, it also presents them as a connection chain of the bigger picture and progression of salvation.

In what might look like an addition to the 2000 statement, the single 1925 word “unchangeable” in the ninth section sentence, “It is a most glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable,” is turned into a full paragraph in the 2000 version.[14] This paragraph, while not changing anything theologically, attempts to greatly expand on the idea of unchangeable. Essentially the argument it makes is that one cannot lose salvation after genuine election and regeneration. From time to time, this issue is debated within the Church; and therefore, by offering more detail, the SBC has staked out their position in the debate. Should one attempt to argue that this redaction adds theological material to the statement, it is important to realize that in actuality, the paragraph is simply trying to remove the ambiguity that could be present in the single word “unchangeable.”

Another redaction, while seemingly short, addresses church offices in the 1925 section titled, “The Gospel Church.” In 1925, the offices were called “bishops or elders and deacons.”[15] In the newer version, the titles are changed to “pastors and deacons.”16 In our present day, one might see a Roman Catholic bishop or a Presbyterian elder and feel these positions are not comparable to a Baptist pastor. However, this is not a matter of duty, but rather, a change in the generally understood meaning of the words. For example, the Greek word episkopos, which the King James Version of the Bible often translated as “bishop” is translated overseer or pastor by recent translations. With the change in words, confusion was more likely without the redaction. Therefore, to remain true to the meaning of the 1925 statement, the 2000 statement made these changes, changing nothing theologically.

CONCLUSION
As one examines the SBS’s Baptist Faith Messages from 1925 until 2000, additions  and redactions are present, but the theological under girding remains intact over the 75-year history. The 2000 statement demonstrates the doctrinal confession and beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention just as the 1925 original did. Not only is this significant in showing consistency of belief over this period of time, it also continues to announce to the world the major ideas as demonstrated by the Bible and held by those who adopt the statement. However, neither the 1925 nor the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message statements were provided here, so it is the hope of this author that the reader will find these statements and examine them for oneself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brand,  Chad, Charles Draper, and Archie England. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
Nashville, Tenn: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003. Under “Confessions and Credos.” Prepared
by OakTree Software Incorporated, Accordance Bible Software 9. (Accessed October 2, 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.
Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.
SBC.net. “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.” Southern Baptist Convention. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010).


1. 1 Timothy 6:12b, ESV.
2. See Romans 10:9-10, 2 Corinthians 9:13, Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 10:23.
3. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Tenn: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), under “Confessions and Credos,” prepared by OakTree Software Incorporated, Accordance Bible Software 9 (accessed October 2, 2010).
4. Brand, 2003.
5. See 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7.
6. See Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 Peter 3:18-22, Hebrews 1:1-3, Philippians 2:5-11.
7. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), I.
8. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 360.
9. Edward Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner,  The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 371-376.
10. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, section VI.
11. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 937.
12. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, section XII.
13. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, Preamble.
14. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 1925, IX.
15. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 1925, XII.
16. SBC.net, “Comparison of 1925, 1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message,” Southern Baptist Convention, http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfmcomparison.asp (accessed October 2, 2010), 2000, VI.

*SBC logo is listed as released to the public domain.  

** 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.

Ordination

/
Ordination—from the Latin word ordinare—means, “to set in order,” “to arrange,” “to organize” (Elwell 1984, 869). This is not exactly how we understand the word when we think about ordination in terms of a pastor. But Elwell says, “In later Latin [ordain and ordination] came to mean ‘to appoint to office” (ibid.). Criswell defines ordination today as, “the setting aside of a God-called preacher for a particular office, it may be that of a pastor, or of a chaplain, or of a staff assignment, or of an evangelist, or of some other specified assignment in the church or in the denomination” (Criswell 1980, 219). Some, having seen an ordination ceremony, might think it nothing more than a public ceremony; others claim ordination is something more than that. The question for this post, however, is if ordination as we see it today is scriptural. It is if we see it not as a title but an attitude toward a person and ministry.

Although ordination is found in both the Old and New Testaments, the best understanding of the concept for pastors is found in the New Testament. In Mark 3:13-19, Jesus choose and appointed (epoieson in the Greek) twelve men to do a number of tasks including preaching and casting out demons. Eventually most of these twelve also became the leaders of the Church as Apostles. In this instance, it is seen that Jesus, that is, God incarnate, “called to him those whom he desired” (Mark 3:13, ESV). In today’s vernacular, pastors often feel called by God in to ministry. What is not seen in the account recorded in Mark is any kind of public ceremony, likely because there was not one.

In Acts chapter 6, seven men were chosen to serve the Church as deacons. Once they were selected, they were presented to the Apostles. The Apostles then “prayed and laid their hands on them” (Acts 6:6, ESV). In this instance, there is a lying on of hands associated with the ordination of the deacons. Another event recorded in Acts shows that after worshiping and fasting, the Apostles were instructed by the Holy Spirit to “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2, ESV). Here, God called and set apart two men for his appointed task. The Acts 13 passage continues, “Then after fasting and praying they laid their hand on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:3, ESV). This event of ordination demonstrates both calling at a public ceremony of sorts. Note, there is first prayer and fasting after God’s call. On the matter of prayer and fasting in nearly every case of ordination, Grudem states that it is “perhaps in connection with the process of selection of elders (Grudem 1994, 918). Calvin says, “It is certain, that when the apostles appointed anyone to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated” (Calvin 2008, 708). Therefore, it seems that the ordination is first God’s choice and calling, followed by the public acceptance of God's calling which is often little more than a public announcement and conformation of God’s will.

Paul, in instructing Timothy, outlines the qualifications for selecting elders and deacons. First Paul says, “If any one aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task,” suggesting that the desire should be present, likely a calling from God (1 Timothy 3:1, ESV). However, there is also a list of criteria, indicating that the selection, possibly like the duel nature of scripture, is also inclusive of man’s actions and choices. It is probably that the selection is influenced and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul also told Timothy that he should not be “hasty in the laying of on of hands,” indicating that the selection, public announcement, and conformation of God’s called one should not be done without serious prayer, fasting, consideration, and contemplation (1 Timothy 5:22, ESV).

In conclusion, given even the brief treatment of Scripture here, it is clear that ordination as seen as a setting apart for the purpose of ministry is not only biblical, it is necessary and should be conducted in accordance with the Word of God. An elder-pastor (and even deacons) should be installed to office only after prayer and fasting, in order to know and work in conjunction with God’s calling upon his people. It is not a suggestion of Scripture; it is a direction.

References:
Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.

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

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

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


* Photo by Niall McAuley is registered under a creative commons license.

How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart

/

CRITIQUE OF
Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2003.

INTRODUCTION
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, two seminary professors, set out to write a book capable of assisting students of the Bible in understanding what they are reading and then discover the appropriate personal application.[1]  While there are many books on how to read the Bible, Fee and Stuart felt it was necessary for academics to provide a book that could serve not as a simple list of rules to be mechanically applied, but rather a discussion to bring about an understanding of principles.  After reading How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, the authors imply that with a better grasp of concepts discussed in the book like context and literary devices, for example, their readers should be able to return to the Bible with a greater ability to correctly understand and apply what they read.   This critique will examine Fee and Stuart’s claim, as well as the tools they suggest make the claim possible.  A brief overview of the authors’ backgrounds will open this post, followed by a summary of the book, an interaction of the author’s work, ending with a conclusion. 
According to his website, Fee is “Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Regent College.”[2]  Not only is Fee the general editor for the New International Commentary Series, he also serves on the NIV review committee.[3]  The Assemblies of God denomination has ordained Fee as a minister and he teaches and speaks at conferences.  He is the author of a number of books to include, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, God’s Empowering Presence, Gospel and the Spirit, The Desis of the Health & wealth Gospels, To What End Exegesis?, and Listening to the Spirit in the Text.  Many commentaries round out his published work including Corinthians, Philippians, and 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, of which are part of the New International Bible Commentary Series and part of this critic’s personal library. 
Douglas Stuart is a professor of Old Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and the senior pastor of Linebrook Church in Massachusetts.[4]  He also worked with Fee on How to Read the Bible Book by Book.  In addition, his other books and commentaries include New American Commentary: Exodus, The Preacher’s Commentary, Vol. 20: Ezekiel, Word Biblical Themes: Hosea-Jonah, and Old Testament Exegesis. 

BRIEF SUMMARY
            As early as they could—the opening of Chapter 1—Fee and Stuart pitch their tent in the camp with those who believe that correct interpretation, often with sound exegesis and hermeneutics is extremely important to the proper understanding and application of God’s Word.  While it is unlikely that a Christian from the other camp, that of “any person with half a brain can read it and understand it,” as the authors describe this argument, would pick up this book, Fee and Stuart do appear to feel the necessity of arguing for their principles from the start.[5]  Once the tent is firmly standing and the camp flag raised, they move into a basic overview of what interpretation is, how everybody does it, be it poorly or rightly, and a brief discussion of the tools used in studying the Bible.  As they are presenting their argument and overview, they raise a point this critic has not seen elsewhere.  They present an argument that to use an English translation, or any translation for that matter, is to be involved in interpretation.  “For translation” writes Fee and Stuart, “is in itself a (necessary) form of interpretation.”[6]
            Next, Fee and Stuart address the matter of translation.  As is typical of these discussions, they outline the differences between formal and functional equivalence.  They demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of both and further explain why a translation group would select one over the other in their translational theory.  And just coming off their argument of the importance of proper interpretation, they offer an example of poor interpretation from Clarence Jordan’s Cotton Patch Version.  It is also as a part of this discussion that they deal with the problem matters of weights and money, euphemisms, vocabulary, grammar and syntax, and gender.  By the end of the chapter, they recommend that a student of the Bible should have two or three different translations from a list of translations they feel are good.  As for the the ESV, they pay it no attention, greatly preferring the TNIV. 
            At this point, the book takes a shift.  With each new chapter, a couple different hermeneutical questions and principles of interpretation are demonstrated with the use of sections of Scripture. Fee and Stuart start with the epistles.  They started here because on the surface, the epistles appear to be easy, but in fact, they can be rather complex.[7]  Through the epistles, the concept of thinking contextually is presented as are some introductory hermeneutical questions.  Next, they spend some time in the Old Testament in and effort to teach on the proper tools for understanding the narrative.  This is followed by a look at Acts and the historical precedent.  What was prescriptive and what was descriptive; what is normative.  This teaching model continues throughout the rest of the book.  The Gospels are used to show the many dimensions and complexities of Scripture.  Fee and Stuart then look at how to read parables, then the law, and on to the prophets.  Stuart’s strong point, Hebrew poetry, is dealt with next as the lessons draw from the Psalms.  The Psalms present a challenging question, surprisingly not mentioned by C.S. Lewis in his Reflections on the Psalms, but extensively addressed by Fee and Stuart.  “How do these words spoken to God function as a Word from God to us?” ask Fee and Stuart.[8]  As the book is wrapping up, the authors deal with the then vs. now concepts of interpretation and use the wisdom books as their teaching aid.  Revelation serves as the conclusion of the book.  Following the last chapter, an appendix on the use of commentaries is offered as is a list of commentaries these two commentary writers recommend. 

CRITICAL INTERACTION OF THE AUTHOR’S WORK
            Before a critique is offered, the authors should be commended for attempting to write a book that captures the heart of exegesis and hermeneutics from a perspective different than others on the shelves.  The book straddles the easy tone of books for a broad audiences but remains close to the academic tenets of interpretation found in seminary lectures and the large textbooks on the student’s desk.  Given that How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth is in its third edition with over half a million copies sold, it is evident that this book offers something of value to its readers.  It is the belief of this critic that the value of this book is not purely entertainment, but educational and thought provoking. 
            Possibly the greatest strength of Fee and Stuart’s work is their tone.  The material is approachable because it is presented using questions that could very easily be asked by the reader.  There are memorable examples.  One such example is the preacher that says topknots are unbiblical.[9]  And many examples taken from Scripture are offered.  It seems as if at lease one passage from every book of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are addressed and many books are dealt with in great detail.
            The greatest weakness of the book comes out in the areas where teaching methods of interpretation affords opportunities for specific denominational understanding and interpretation to take center stage over the methods themselves.  Hints of their interpretation rise to the surface concerning the controversial matters of speaking in tongues, roles of church leadership, and gender issues for example.  There are many different understandings of the book of Revelation, but rather than addressing the need for caution in the hermeneutical principles as they suggested in their opening arguments, they offered more commentary than teaching on hermeneutics.  It is difficult to demonstrate any blatant arguments from personal agenda because the insight into the author’s positions comes in bits and pieces.  For example, when discussing gender issues in translation, the ESV translation is branded as a translation that has an agenda to “stem the tide” of feminism and gender neutral language.[10]  However, in the previous section on formal equivalence, the authors state that the objective of the translators is to best match the words even if it becomes more difficult for the reader.[11]  The ESV is attempting to be a formal equivalent translation but then it is attacked by the Fee and Stuart for its formal equivalence.  Rather than demonstrating how the ESV incorrectly translated the words, the matter is simply dealt with by appealing to the shift in attitude.[12]  This is even more complicated when contrasted with the problem of vocabulary in the same chapter.  And by the time women in ministry or women teaching men is address, the authors have already reviled an area where they seem to be letting their preferences lead their interpretation, the very thing they argue against.      

CONCLUSION
            Many of the principles taught in the book are sound and the teaching, if applied, will lead to a greater understanding of God’s Word, despite some of the weaknesses presented here.  Therefore, unless an alternative book with a similar tone for the laymen can be found, this book might be the best option.  It is not too cumbersome, dry, or technical so the reader stays interested, and yet it is not as light or shallow as one might expect seeing it on the shelf at Barnes and Noble.  With a slight caution, it is still worth recommending to the Christian that desires tools to better understand what he or she is reading in God’s Word.  If the student of the Bible is willing to go for a larger text book, then Grasping God’s Word by Duvall and Hays is a better selection.        

BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Douglas K. Stuart.” Gordon-Cronwell Theological Seminary. http://www.gordonconwell.edu/
     prospective_students/douglas_k_stuart (Accessed November 14, 2010).

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids,
     Mich: Zondervan, 2003.

“Gordon D. Fee.” Gordon Fee. http://www.gordonfeeonline.com/ (Accessed November 14,
     2010).
     [1] Fordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2003), 13-16.
     [2] “Gordon D. Fee,” Gordon Fee, http://www.gordonfeeonline.com/ (Accessed November 14, 2010).
     [3] Ibid.
     [4] “Douglas K. Stuart,” Gordon-Cronwell Theological Seminary, http://www.gordonconwell.edu/prospective_
students/douglas_k_stuart (Accessed November 14, 2010).
     [5] Fee & Stuart 2003, 17.
     [6] Ibid, 19. 
     [7] Ibid, 55.
     [8] Ibid, 205. 
     [9] Ibid, 30. 
     [10] Ibid, 50. 
     [11] Ibid, 40. 
     [12] Ibid, 50.


* This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website. 
** Purchases from this website help generate revenue that supports this ministry.  

Into Hildale-Colorado City: Reaching Unreached People Groups

/
INTRODUCTION
Depicted in the film, Peace Child, Don and Carol Richardson ventured deep into the jungles of New Guinea to share the gospel with a small cannibalistic tribe that placed treachery as its highest value.1 The year was 1962 and few people could have imagined the success that the Richardson’s would experience. Seminary and Bible college students viewing this film today in comfortable classrooms, nestled safely in American communities, probably see missions of this caliber as only available to those who wish to canoe up piranha-filled rivers to visit tribal people who speak an unknown language, where they will have to eat insects, risk malaria, and translate the New Testament. These students do not likely imagine that pockets of unreached people groups exist in America; but the reality is they do. One such group is the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), a polygamist community situated on the Utah-Arizona border. On the Utah side is the smaller community of Hildale; its larger counterpart is Colorado City, Arizona. This totalitarian community—recently famed by the media’s coverage if its leader’s legal troubles, Warren Jeffs—is a community basically void of any Christians. Hildale/Colorado City is essentially a community of polygamists and nothing else. It is an unreached people group within the United States.

Few missionary efforts to reach an unreached people group could be done with so little time and travel expenses as a mission to Hildale/Colorado City. Certainly reaching and evangelizing to a group such as the polygamists is no less important than the Richardson’s efforts in the jungle, but this mission comes without a language barrier, bugs, or cannibalism. There are nearby Christian churches in neighboring towns, likely ready to offer support. And there happens to be a small group of former polygamists that could serve as an access point in understanding the theology and culture, even provide a bridge to opportunities. In what follows, this post will offer a background of the Hildale/Colorado Community, a brief survey of the mission work or lack there of already being done, and a proposal for a mission to this American unreached people group.

BACKGROUND
 Located on in Washington County along the southern border of Utah, Hildale is the smaller northern portion of the Hildale/Colorado City community. The 2000 Census reports that Hildale’s population was 1,895 people. It is a small town, covering only 2.9 square miles.2 Considering that in 1970, the population was reported at only 480 people, this town has experienced a consistent growth with each new census.3 Just over the Arizona border—which cuts through the northern third of the community—is Colorado City. Originally named Short Creek, the town remained a small cattle rancher gathering, until approximately 1930 when “a group of religious fundamentalists came from Utah seeking refuge and played a major part in pioneering the community to the thriving little city that it is today.”4 They renamed the town Colorado City, and in 2008, the Arizona Department of Commerce and the US Census Bureau listed its population at 4,042. Krakauer however, argues that this joint Utah-Arizona community has nearly 9,000 inhabitants, and “all but a handful of the town’s residents are Mormon Fundamentalists.”5 At least three Mormon Fundamentalist or polygamist sects call Hildale/Colorado City home according to Krakauer; one of them being the world’s largest and most well known sects, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also know as the United Effort Plan or simply FLDS.6 “They live in this patch of desert” Krakauer writes, “in the hope of being left alone to follow the sacred principle of plural marriage without interference from government authorities or the LDS Church.”7 

The Primer, a guidebook by the Attorneys General of Utah and Arizona, written for those working with Fundamentalist Mormon families states, “there are approximately 37,000 people (residing primarily in the Rocky Mountain region) who consider themselves to be Fundamentalist Mormons. This means they adhere to the religious doctrines of early Mormonism which include polygamy or ‘plural marriage’, sometimes called ‘The Principle’.”8 As McConkie explains, “In the early days of this dispensation, as part of the promised restitution of all things, the Lord revealed the principle of plural marriage to the Prophet [Joseph Smith]. Later the Prophet and leading brethren were commanded to enter into enter into the practice, which they did in all virtue and purity of heart despite the consequent animosity and prejudices of worldly people.”9 Brigham Young, the next LDS prophet, continued teaching the ordinance of plural marriage, which was openly practiced among Mormons in Utah until 1890 despite outside pressure. McConkie writes, “At that time conditions were such that the Lord by revelation withdrew the command to continue the practice, and President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto directing that it cease.”10 But this did not end the practice of plural marriage among Mormons. Krakauer argues, “For the next two decades members of the Mormon First Presidency privately advised Saints that polygamy should be continued, albeit discreetly, and top leaders of the church secretly preformed numerous plural marriages.”11 In 1910—after the Salt Lake Tribune cast light on the underground practice, and under tremendous pressure, the LDS Church finally ended plural marriage among its members. However, “a significant number of dedicated Saints,” writes Krakaur, “were convinced that Wilford Woodruff had been grievously mistaken when he’d issued the Manifesto, and that heeding it ran counter to the religion’s most sacred principles.”12 Holding to the prophecy of Joseph Smith, this group of entrenched Mormons eventually came to proudly call themselves Mormon Fundamentalists. With the exception of plural marriage, the Fundamentalists initially shared in the faith and practice of the mainline LDS; but over time, shifts in theology and practice, along with splinters in leadership birthed not only many different sects of Fundamentalists Mormons, it also caused a divergence from the mainline Mormon religion.

Today, Fundamental Mormon residents of Hildale/Colorado City are highly shaped by the direction and teaching of their prophet-leaders and the actions of the outside world beyond their city lines. It is probably not easy for the residents to forget 100 police officers raiding Hildale/Colorado City, arresting the men and bussing frightened women and children to southern Arizona, even if it was 1953. And although not in the same community, recent raids in Texas have likely stirred the memories of those living in Hildale/Colorado City. “These events have resulted in deep scars among Fundamentalist Mormons” states The Primer, “and helped to foster a fear of government agencies and a distrust of ‘outsiders’.”13 There is a high likelihood of mistrust of anything with the appearance of a government agency and the polygamist group tends to prefer “non-traditional therapies, including herbs, reflexology, massage, homeopathy, naturopathy, spiritual healing and lay midwifery.”14

The influence of religious control might be shocking to many Americans. Most of the land is owned by a trust called the United Effort Plan, which until recently, was ran by Warren Jeffs and five other leaders of the FLDS organization. A strong influence over the local government agencies also tends to keep the community homogenized. The Primer states, 
The community values obedience to leaders. For many years, church members have occupied roles in most phases of civil government in the twin towns. This has led to some criticism that opposing voices have little opportunity for influence. It has been alleged that the FLDS Church controls the police force, city council, city government, and elected officials.15

The grip of church leadership also holds strong control over the community’s ability to receive outside information. Members of the FLDS, at least in Hildale/Colorado City “are forbidden to watch television or read magazines or newspapers.”16 The Primer continues, stating,
Those who have left the community have reported that popular music, radios and television are considered “worldly” and are thus inappropriate and forbidden in this community. Children are usually home-schooled or attend a church school until junior high, after which time they are assigned “work missions” or they get married. Former members state that they did not receive sex education, they were taught the Holocaust never occurred and that the government fabricated the story of man’s landing on the moon.17

Few members of the FLDS leave Hildale/Colorado City voluntarily; and if they do, family and friends are forbidden from communicating with them, they often lose their land, and are excommunicated from their church.18 “Former members say that leaving is seen as a terrible sin,” reports The Primer, “and may incur the most severe punishment and divine condemnation.”19 Wives may even be reassigned to other men in the community.20 Disagreements with leadership or leaving the dominant religion may result evection from the community. And for whatever reason, the community has forced hundreds of boys and girls between the ages of 13 and 17 (dubbed “The Lost Boys”) to leave Hildale/Colorado City without any support.21

Women dress with a distinct appearance, very modest, covered from neck to toe. Their hair is kept long, but styled in such a way that it is not free flowing. Long pants and collared long sleeve shirts are typical of the men.22 Jewelry is unthinkable. Clothing is about function, not fashion, but then, there is little reason to create an impression with apparel. “Dating or courting are forbidden” and the women tend to marry very young—often to older men—and children bearing begins immediately.23 Author Elissa Wall paints a chilling picture in her book, Stolen Innocence, narrating how she was forced to marry her 19-year-old first cousin at age 14.24

Fundamentalist Mormons may use Christian terminology but they have altered the definitions. They are not, by all standards of doctrinal orthodoxy, Christian. Those living in Hildale/Colorado City are not only geographically isolated in the middle of the desert, they are imprisoned by their own religious culture. Converting to Christianity may likely result in a complete separation from family and friends, termination of employment, removal of all property, and potentially banishment from the city. And without much of an education and a mysterious upbringing void of social norms like the Internet, television, and magazines, leaving the city is likely a frightening proposition. For those who have never lived outside Hildale/Colorado City, there is a good possibility of never having heard the gospel. This is a mission field no less significant than Don and Carol Richardson’s jungles of New Guinea.

A SURVEY OF MISSIONS IN AND TO HILDALE/COLORADO CITY
While there is a small number of secular organizations publicly reaching out to the people of Hildale/Colorado City, it is difficult to determine what the missional work of the Christian Church might be. Because of the reluctance to trust outsiders, and because the state of Utah is already a population grossly short of Christians25 (making the entire state a potential mission field), the Christian mission efforts to evangelize Hildale/Colorado City are few and generally kept out of the public awareness.

Presently, there are no local and openly public Christian churches located in Hildale/Colorado City. Being substantially removed from any other Arizona cities, the closest reasonable churches are located 25 miles north in Hurricane, Utah; but even then, there are a couple small Christian churches within the neighboring community—First Southern Baptist and Northbridge Chapel. St. Paul Catholic Center is also located in Hurricane. Approximately ten miles to the north of Hurricane (which is a total of about 35 miles from Hildale/Colorado City), is La Verkin, home to a single Christian church called Mountain View Bible Church. Ten miles to the southwest of Hurricane is St. George, the largest city in Washington County. There are just under a dozen or so Christian churches located in St. George, which includes the Catholic assemblies.

Examining Washington County—of which most of its population resides in St. George—the Association of Religious Data Archives reports that in 2000, only about 2.4% of the population were either evangelical or mainline Christians.26 This number is nearly half that of the entire state of Utah (which is only 4.3%), both being substantially lower than the national figure of 46.7%.27 Because Utah has such a low number of mainline and evangelical Christians within its boards, the churches that are working to evangelize their communities are already facing a large mission field on limited resources. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the few Christians living in St. George and Hurricane are working to reach their immediate neighboring cities and have little time to venture into the neighboring, untrusting community of Hildale/Colorado City. This is not to say, however, that there is no Christian mission work targeted at Hildale/Colorado City.

Various secular cooperative groups such as Safety Net and Tapestry Against Polygamy are working to eliminate the atrocities that can arise in polygamist families, but these groups do not generally focus on theology or spiritual matters. Additionally, many Christian churches are working with organizations such as Holding out Help, which provides housing for women and children that flee polygamy. And some churches have even developed ministries targeted specially to Fundamentalist Mormons living throughout Utah. One such ministry, A Shield and Refuge, produces a local television show that seeks to answers the questions of polygamists. Main Street Church of Brigham City supports it. Other ministries work to generate awareness about Mormonism and Fundamental Mormonism and occasionally conduct evangelism efforts directed at these groups. These ministries include Standing Together, Mormon Research Ministries, and Utah Lighthouse Ministries. But secular or not, this author is aware of no recent Christian organizations to have directed efforts into the geographic area and people group of Hildale/Colorado City.

POTENTIAL MISSION STRATEGY FOR HILDALE/COLORADO CITY
The overarching purpose of any mission strategy should be the fulfillment of Jesus’ command commonly known as the Great Commission. Jesus told his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”28 Mark’s writing of this commission might be more encouraging to missionaries headed to Hildale/Colorado City. It simply reads, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”29 Therefore, a strategy must be developed in order that the gospel is proclaimed to the people of Hildale/Colorado City.

While the purpose of evangelism into any community is to share and proclaim the saving gospel of Jesus, some special consideration is necessary for Hildale/Colorado City. The community is not only an enclave of Fundamentalist Mormons, it is a totalitarian city with a specific design to exclude and persecute those not of the same faith as well as those no longer submitting to the authority of the FLDS. As The Primer indicates, those leaving the faith may face immediate needs and challenges to include “no means of transportation, no income (no food, clothing or household goods), no housing arrangements (in some cases for numerous children), no education arrangements, incomplete birth or Social Security records, no family or friends for support, an uncooperative or combative relationship with an ex-partner, legal custody conflicts, fear of reprisals, no knowledge of how to seek social services assistance, and ostracism from the former faith or congregation.”30 Therefore, any Christian effort in Hildale/Colorado City must also be prepared to help overcome these difficulties. That may be in the form of direct help or guiding the individual or family to other agencies that may be of assistance in specific trouble areas.

Being willing to go into the Hildale/Colorado City community and realizing the magnitude of need that may arise upon conversion, the first and most important step is prayer. “In prayer” writes Grudem, “God allows us as creatures to be involved in activities that are eternally important. When we pray, the work of the kingdom is advanced. In this way, prayer gives us opportunity to be involved in a significant way in the word of the kingdom an this gives expression to our greatness as creatures made in God’s image.”31 An example of the early Church praying before mission work is found in Acts 13:1-3. Here, the Holy Spirit set apart Barnabas and Saul for missionary work and then the disciples still prayed some more before sending them. And not only will prayer among those venturing into Hildale/Colorado City be important, it will be necessary that the missionaries have a support network regularly entering into prayer for the community and the missionary work.

The next step of the mission strategy is investigation and reconnoiter. In order to get an understanding of the area, it will be important for the missionary or missionaries32 to journey to Hildale/Colorado City for short mission trip simply to look around and get a “feel” for the community. There are no lodging options so the missionaries will need to find a hotel in Hurricane or St. George. It may be beneficial to visit with the local churches of Hurricane and St. George to find out if they are engaged in any missionary work in Hildale/Colorado City, and if not, determine what kind of support they may be able to offer, if any. Then as much time as possible should be spent in Hildale/Colorado City. Meals should be eaten in the few restaurants such as Mary Wives, the lone sit-down restaurant on the Hildale side of the border, and at The Border Store, the highway gas station. If possible, purchases should be made at the single grocery in town. A visit to the city park might also be in order. If asked, missionaries should be honest about the reason for their visit, saying, “We are followers of Jesus Christ and have been praying for your community. We wanted to come here to see if we might be able to serve you in some way, pray for you, and share the love of Jesus Christ with you.” Missionaries should be prepared for any reaction. In addition, the missionaries should use this time to ask if there is anything they might pray for the person.  Also, the missionaries should try to make time to pray for the Holy Spirit’s work in the city, and they should engage in some prayer walking. While this trip is primarily for the missionaries, they should also have material to leave with residents if the opportunity arises.  However, this material should not be argumentative-style tracts. 

Following this initial trip, the missionaries should continue to pray about this mission. They should also use any preparation time to read and learn as much history of the FLDS and their theology as possible. Materials that can be left for people in the community should be selected, such as Bibles and other helpful guides in understanding the gospel. These materials should be small enough that the curious polygamists can easily hide them and prevent any unwanted trouble. Support from churches and fellow believers should be well established so the missionaries are able to afford food and housing for a long-term mission. Housing should be secured in Hurricane or St. George until the missionaries have established enough acceptance to be granted housing in Hildale/Colorado City. Likely, the missionaries will never be accepted as part of the community. And the missionaries should have transportation reliable enough to travel back and forth between Hurricane and Hildale/Colorado City.

Before starting a long-term mission, the missionaries and supporting churches should determine if they know any former polygamists who have converted to Christianity but may still have family members living in Hildale/Colorado City. If so (and if the former polygamists are willing), they should meet with the missionaries to share their backgrounds, conversion stories, present situation, magnitude of Christ’s influence in their lives, and anything else they may wish to share with their family still entrenched in Mormon Fundamentalism. The missionaries should ask the former polygamists to commit to regular prayer for the FLDS community, family members, the missionaries, and the mission efforts. The former polygamists should also be encouraged to send e-mails, letters, and photos to the missionaries. Additionally, a system should be instituted so that in the event that the Holy Spirit creates opportunities, the missionaries can act as an underground communication vehicle between disconnected family members willing to break the command of no communication. (Hopefully, this small rebellion directed at learning about a loved one could prove to be a critical relationship opportunity for the missionaries.) It might also be helpful for the missionaries to have a small digital camera so they may take photos to send back to the former polygamist.

Finally, the missionaries should familiarize themselves with the various programs that offer assistance to fleeing polygamists. They should introduce themselves and make a small list of contact numbers and information they can give out if necessary.

Once the missionaries have their support in place, it is time to move to Hurricane. While the option of finding employment is an easy possibility in Hurricane or St. George, they should refrain from working unless they can find employment in Hildale/Colorado City; and even then, employment should only be seen as a way to get close to people in the mission field. Regular routines of life should be established. They should try to eat every meal in the few public places, becoming “regulars” at every place possible. In doing so, they should not only remain accessible, they should be intentional about initiating natural conversation with the other patrons and staff. Asking about the specials or what the waiter likes best could be good starter questions. The missionaries should also determine if one of these locations might be appropriate to engage in a short Bible study together. Eventually as the missionaries develop routines, they will understand those of the staff and community and potentially have the opportunity to notice when something has changed in the routines of others. This opens the door for personal questions, such as “I missed you on Wednesday; were you on vacation or out sick, or was it something else? It’s not the same around here without you.” Missionaries should also attend events that are open to the public such as town meetings. And they should start a regular routine of prayer walking.

Another possibility (as determined by the missionaries) might be to turn back to open-air style preaching from time to time. In the early years of American history when entertainment was sparse, people attended tent meetings for something to do. This may be a possibility, but not at the cost of other missional efforts in the community. If a missionary is musically gifted, this kind of entertainment might also be tried. But again, this is only after the missionaries have been in the community long enough to determine how effective it may be and whether or not it is appropriate.

It is possible that the Holy Spirit will act quickly and results could be surprising; however, it is likely that missionaries will see little success and few open opportunities for a long time, potentially even years. The significant key however, is sticking with the mission over a great duration. Therefore, the missionaries should establish routines and rhythms of work and rest that will prevent discouragement and burnout. This should include daily Bible reading and study as well as ample prayer throughout the day. They should seek opportunities to worship God.

As missionaries are able to establish relationships and proclaim the gospel, hope should be held that entire families are saved and wish to remain in the community rather than flee. Should this occur, an effort to set up worship gatherings and services with the believers must take place. On the other hand, should converts desire to leave the community, the missionaries should be ready to connect the new believers with any services they may need and a good Christian community wherever they my desire to go.

CONCLUSION
No piranhas can be found on Highway 59 between Hurricane and Hildale/Colorado City. The FLDS are not cannibals. Everybody involved speaks English. And the mission field is in the United States. But as Bible college and seminary graduates are getting fired up about gallivanting into tropical rainforests to take the gospel to unreached people groups, they should not overlook Hildale/Colorado City. Sure, the residents might frequently use the name of Jesus, but they do not know him and have never heard his gospel, the real gospel of the Bible. There are potentially 8,000 to 9,000 unreached people only 5 hours away from Salt Lake City, only 3 hours from Las Vegas, and under 6 from Phoenix. There is no language barrier. Nobody eats bugs. And still, this people group is waiting to hear the gospel, waiting to meet Jesus. It is the hope and prayer of this author that the unreached people group of Hildale/Colorado City are no longer unreached, but reached, and gloriously praising the Lord, Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of Religious Data Archives. “County Membership Report: Washington County, Utah.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/49053_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

Association of Religious Data Archives. “State Membership Report: Utah.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

Association of Religious Data Archives. “U.S. Membership Report.” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).

AZ.gov. “Colorado City.” A “Community Profile” listed under “Community Profile Index.” http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/colorado%20city.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

Krakauer, Jon. Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. New York: Anchor Books, 2004.

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

Multnomah University. Peace Child, DVD. Directed by Rolf Forsberg. Worshester, PA: Vision Video, 1972

Offices of the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General. The Primer: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Human Services Agencies who offer Assistance to Fundamentalist Mormon Families. Updated August 2009. http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf.

Utah.gov. “Census 2000: 235 Utah Cities Ranked by Land Area and Population Density” under “Documents.” http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/Rankings/Cities/00CityDensity.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

Utah.gov. “Office of the Attorney General: Mark Shurtleff.” “The ‘Lost Boys’ Law” under “Press Releases.” http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/298.html (accessed October 12, 2010).

Utah.gov. “Utah Municipalities / Census Designated Places” under “Documents.” http://www.mountainland.org/Demographics/Historic_Data/Utah%20Municipalities%20-%20Unincorporated%20Areas.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).

1.  Multnomah University, Peace Child, DVD, Directed by Rolf Forsberg (Worcester, PA: Vision Video, 1972).
2.  Utah.gov, “Census 2000: 235 Utah Cities Ranked by Land Area and Population Density” under “Documents,” http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/Rankings/Cities/00CityDensity.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010), 2.
3. Utah.gov, “Utah Municipalities / Census Designated Places” under “Documents,” http://www.mountainland.org/Demographics/Historic_Data/Utah%20Municipalities%20-%20Unincorporated%20Areas.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010), 5.
4. AZ.gov, “Colorado City,” a “Community Profile” under “Community Profile Index,” http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/COMMUNE/colorado%20city.pdf (accessed October 11, 2010).
5. Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 18.
6.  Krakauer, 18.
7. Krakuaer, 18.
8. Offices of the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General, The Primer: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Human Services Agencies who offer Assistance to Fundamentalist Mormon Families, Updated August 2009, http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf, 7.
9. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1966), 578.
10. McConkie, 578.
11. Krakauer, 255.
12. Krakauer, 255.
13 The Primer, 8.
14. The Primer, 6.
15. The Primer, 18.
16. Krakauer, 11.
17. The Primer, 19.
18 The Primer, 18.
19. The Primer, 18.
20. The Primer, 18.
21. Utah.gov, “Office of the Attorney General: Mark Shurtleff,” “The ‘Lost Boys’ Law” under “Press Releases,” http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/298.html (accessed October 12, 2010).
22. The Primer, 19.
23. The Primer, 19.
24. Elissa Wall, and Lisa Beth Pulitzer, Stolen Innocence: My Story of Growing Up in a Polygamous Sect, Becoming a Teenage Bride, and Breaking Free of Warren Jeffs (New York, NY: William Morrow, 2008).
25. When members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are excluded from the definition of Christian.
26. Association of Religious Data Archives, “County Membership Report: Washington County, Utah,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/counties/49053_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).
27. Association of Religious Data Archives, “State Membership Report: Utah,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/state/49_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010), and Association of Religious Data Archives, “U.S. Membership Report,” http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/US_2000.asp (accessed October 13, 2010).
28. Matthew 28:19-20, ESV.
29. Mark 16:15, ESV.
30. The Primer, 5.
31. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 377.
32. No indication of how many missionaries should go will be given in this paper. It should remain in the hands of those willing and able as well as those sent by the Holy Spirit. While this author believes there should be no less than two, it will be assumed that this strategy is for multiple missionaries.

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

There's Something About Community Groups

/
Why community or small groups? Are these things really necessary?

In understanding the need for community groups (interchangeably called small groups or home groups), it's important to realize that 100 years ago, people lived their lives with one another differently than we do today.  Most people worked and played together and met as friends and neighbors on days other than Sunday.  However, because our populations are consolidating into larger cities, distance separates members of local churches. In addition, multiple services can cut across church connections and the churches themselves are growing in overall size. Therefore, it has become necessary that Christians meet together in community groups to grow and find support with fellow believers.  And it's also becoming a place for Christians to share their faith with nonbelievers who might not otherwise feel comfortable in a larger group setting within a church building.

What is a community group?

Here's my stab and defining a community group:  A community group is a smaller unit of people—generally from within the local church body—that intentionally meet to sit under the authority of God’s Word in order to grow as disciples by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through open, shared, and genuine relationships with one another.

While this definition works broadly across the Church, no two local churches will have the same community groups; and in fact, not even two community groups will be alike. This is because God’s people are a family, not a computer or corporate franchise.  Relationships between one another grow strong families; whereas, computers and corporations are systems that are built so people can be “plugged in” to them. The Church is like a big extended family and the community group works like an immediate family unit. This is the model for community groups.


What do healthy family community groups look like?

I can honestly say that I have no idea how to successfully measure and qualify the health of community groups. I don’t think it can be done. We can measure the total number of groups, attendance, growth rates, and frequency of meetings, but these things do not fully demonstrate the health of the group, its spiritual growth, its submissiveness to the Word of God and Holy Spirit’s guidance, or its unity within the body of Christ. I believe we will know when we have it right and the Holy Spirit will prompt us when we need to make adjustments.


If you're thinking about starting a small group in your home or if you're church is looking at starting a small group ministry, jump in.  There is no one way or basic program.  Every small group is different, but the only way you'll know what your group should look like is to start praying about it with others and start meeting.  It's just that simple.

If you're interested in getting involved in a small group or starting one and you'd like to chat with me about it, please don't hesitate to contact me.  If you don't have my contact info, feel free to contact me with this form.


*Photo by Lil Larkie is registered under a creative commons license. 

Scientism 101

/
What is scientism?  People will differ on the answers; but generally, it's an ideology that the natural sciences (or some mutation of them, which I will discuss momentarily) can and does provide the answers to any and all questions about any and all topics.  Unlike philosophy, theology, or mathematics for example, scientism is characteristically unwilling to submit to other methods or schools of thought.  Of those who practice scientism, there tends to be an attitude of extreme superiority of this single method of thought.  Atheists often come to their positions through the use of scientism.  And scientism is often treated like a religion to be worshiped by those who hold to its methods (although they would never call it "worship" or "religion").  A notable practitioner of sceintism is Stephen Hawking.

Some will mistake scientism for science because scientism masquerades as science.  But please do not confuse science and scientism; their methods and objectives are completely different.  Also, I need to say that science and Christianity are not at odds with one another, what-so-ever.

In my undergraduate studies in behavioral science (at the University of Utah), I engaged in a number of classes focused on research design.  These classes emphasized scientific principles and even the scientific method.  I also took a number of natural science courses that re-enforced the same principles.

This is science. The first step of the scientific method is to ask a question, typically based on some kind of observation. This question should be structured in some way as to take a measurement and correctly gather data.  At the point of simply asking the question, it should be free of any definitive answers, at least at any point before the research is concluded.  An open mind is necessary.  Next one should survey the body of knowledge to gain an idea of what work has been done to answer the question.  From here, a testable hypothesis should be formed.  The objective from this point forward is to prove or disprove the hypothesis. In order to accomplish this, testing with experiments must be employed.  This can be laboratory work or organized methods to arrange data in a useful way, or even some other way to test a hypothesis.  Sometimes it is only a matter of collecting data and running it through a statistical formula.  Other times elaborate and lengthy tests must be conduced.  Once complete, the data must be analyzed.  It is here that answers are forming (and not until this step).  Then the answers are to be reported.

Scientific practice often requires that the testing is repeatable.  Also, academic scientists are highly encouraged to use language that suggests they do not hold definitive answers.  As more and more testing and reporting provides more and more evidence, people will tend to lean in the direction of the evidence.  There is hardly ever a "smoking gun" or "absolute" proofs.  Instead, as more and more research is completed the evidence becomes more and more compelling.  In addition, unsuccessful attempts to disprove the reports will also lend credibility to the answers.      

Scientism on the other hand starts with an answer.  It then uses a mutant science to develop the question in order to get back to the desired answer.  Plus, you will often find that scientism reports definitive answers and demands total proof of positions in which they do not agree.  For example, a worshiper of scientism will demand complete and total proof that God exists but they themselves cannot prove by the same standard that God does not exists.  This is because the approach is flawed.  We should be weighing evidence.  Scientism does not however, because it has already started with a position that God does not exist.

Take this article by Stephen Hawking for example:  "Why God did not create the universe."  You might notice the lack of cautious scientific language.  You may also see that Hawking makes amazing observations, that when weighed against other evidence, such at the Bible, or other people's personal observation could suggest a creator.  A scientist should remain open to all options until disproved.  However, lines like "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going" suggest a predetermined objective and lack of academic caution.  It is perfectly okay that he makes these claims; however, it is not okay that he masks them behind science.  (He would be better off making claims such as this one in the realm of philosophy.)  And this is where I run into problems with sceintism.      

*Photo of a young Stephen Hawking provided by NASA and is in the public domain.

Theology of Missions

/
INTRODUCTION
The Church today, at least in America, is conflicted about missions. Distinctions are argued between the terms, “mission” and “missions.”[1] In their book, Introducing the Missional Church: What it is, Why it Matters, How to Become One, Roxburgh and Boren spend an entire chapter explaining how and why the term “missional” cannot be defined.2 Some argue that the American Church is becoming inward focused, moving away from local and overseas missions in both sending qualified people and support. Many Christians avoid sharing their faith at home, let alone engage in missionary work beyond the borders of their suburbs. Could a move away from missionary work throughout the world be a result of the Church simply checking out of these theoretical and philosophical arguments? Or might it be that the Body of Christ in the United States is not educated about God’s Word regarding missions? This paper will argue that the problem is a checking out due to a lack of understanding. Therefore, a survey of missions found in the Old and New Testaments will precede a discussion of the theology of missions

MISSIONS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The Church’s mission, or the idea that God’s people are to engage in missions,3 finds it start the moment Adam and Eve (after listening to the serpent) decided to rebel against God’s single prohibition in the Garden of Eden.4 As Moreau, Corwin, and McGee state, “As a result of their blatant denial of respect for their creator; God judges them and the serpent.”[5] God’s instruction to Adam (written in Genesis 2:17) indicated that the consequence of violating God’s command was death that very day. Yet, when the first sin accrued, neither Adam nor Eve fell down physically dead. Neither does God completely cast off humanity in judgment without a picture of his love for future humankind or his plan of redemption. On this matter Calvin writes, “For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy.”[6] Genesis provides the first hint of this supervening grace when God says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”[7] Moreau, Corwin, and McGee call this hint the “initial promise of salvation, knows as the protoevangelium.”[8]

As the meta-narrative advances deeper into the Old Testament, God calls upon Abraham. Genesis 12:1-3 records this contact, which ends with an indication of the necessity of missions and a forthcoming redemption. Verse 3 states in part, “. . . in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”[9] While not entirely clear at that point how all the families of the earth would be blessed, New Testament readers sit at a vantage point that affords them the ability to see this promise come to fruition. On numerous occasions, Old Testament writers look forward to this redemption, but they also serve as God’s agents to bring about his revelation of himself to other people groups. Leviticus 19:33 indicates that decedents of Abraham, the Israelites, were to love foreigners as much as the loved themselves. Kings 8:41-43 outlines how the Israelites were to share the revelation of God to foreigners and allow them to worship him in the temple. The key running through the passage is that “all the peoples of the earth” may know God’s name and worship him.[10] In prophesying the restoration of Israel, Amos declares that all nations called by God will take part in that restoration.[11] And Isaiah 56 shows that salvation is soon coming available to all people.

In light of Old Testament passages that show God’s love for all nations, it is important to see the role of the Israelites in God’s plan of redemption for all people. Too often, new students of the Bible will feel that God’s chosen people were the only ones he loved or blessed; but in fact, God’s people were and are actually called to be his missionaries and servants to the rest of the world. For example, Isaiah says that God has called his people, among other things, to be a light to the gentiles.[12] “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”[13] And in fact, Old Testament readers will find that Jonah—unwilling, but still under the command of God—went on a missionary journey to the gentiles in Nineveh. Ester too seems to demonstrate her God’s glory in a foreign land, as do Daniel, Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abednego). As Moreau, Corwin, and McGee conclude, “Mission in the Old Testament involves the individual and the community of God’s people cooperating with God in his work of reversing what took place as a result of the fall.”[14]

MISSIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament—coming by way of the fulfillment of promises made many years earlier—is not only the good news of Jesus’ gospel, it is also the call to missions. Even before Christ went to the cross, he presented a picture of a people reaching out to the world in order to proclaim the good news of salvation. Much of the New Testament implores the Church and the individual believers to engage in mission and live sent. Jesus tells his disciples that just as the father sent him, he is sending them; and to help them, Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit.[15] On numerous occasions throughout the gospels, Jesus is shown going throughout the towns and villages, teaching, healing, forgiving sins, and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The woman who met Jesus outside Samaria at the well became a missionary to the entire town, of which “many Samaritans from that town believed in [Jesus] because of the woman’s testimony.”[16] Jesus sent out his disciples, after saying, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”[17] And Jesus continually preaches that his people must be a light unto the world.[18] Even John’s Gospel was written with a missionary/evangelistic purpose. John writes, “but these [signs in the presence of the disciples] are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”[19]

As the gospels end, Jesus gives the Church what is commonly known as the Great Commission, the very mission and duty of the Church. Jesus says to his disciples, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”[20] In Acts and the epistles that follow, the very setting is within the backdrop of Christ’s commission for his Church. Paul and others are continually seen journeying to other lands and other peoples, faithfully preaching the gospel. Indeed, these texts provide the models after which most present-day missionaries and church planters structure their missions and church plants. However, it would seem that at times the Church reads over the many calls to missionary work throughout the New Testament. Duffield and Van Cleave remind their readers, “The Church has frequently needed special urging to get on with her assigned task.”[21] But for those who engage in missions, the hope that the biblical meta-narrative points to, which believes long for, is the picture seen in Revelation 7; that is, a multitude from every tribe, people, and language continually worshiping the Lamb of God.

MISSION THEOLOGY
Mission theology is essentially a biblical understanding of evangelistic outreach to the world. It addresses the questions of what does the Bible say about mission, missions, and the Missio Dei, and how these ideas are to be carried out in practical application. Like most aspects of theology, there are internal arguments about the answers to these questions. Theologians and missionaries struggle to land on single definitions. In part, it is the objective of this paper to avoid the minor details of these debates. Instead, this section, in light of the previously offered biblical survey of missions, will address how the nature of God relates to the mission of his Church, how mission theology fits within the broader systematic theology, and some motifs and themes running through mission theology today.

From the highest perspective, God’s people reach out to the lost because we are reflecting God’s desire for the redemption of his creation. This should be only natural for the regenerate believer being made in the image of God. As seen throughout the Old and New Testaments, the believer is sent—from the moment of conversion—on mission for the gospel. Therefore, it is important to understand other theology through the idea of mission. Moreau, Corwin, and McGee argue, “If Gods’ concern is truly that all nations be called to worship him [...], then it is natural to build a theology of mission at the core of all theological studies.”[22]

Balancing various other theologies with mission theology tends to be simple in areas dealing with creation, sin, and the fall of man. It gets difficult in soteriology or the order of salvation for example. Does God’s sovereignty even require missions? This question is sometimes asked specifically by Neo-Calvinist; however, the Bible clearly demonstrates God’s people on mission. Although there are some differences in the theology of the Calvinist and Arminian or Reformed and Free-will camps, there is no doubt that believers in Jesus are to be reaching others, living sent. Packer specifically address this issue in his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, writing, “Always and everywhere the servants of Christ are under orders to evangelize[...].”[23] Paul also speaks of this matter, writing to Timothy, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”[24] If Paul understood the elect like those doubting the need for missions today, why would he “endure everything”? Grudem, a theologian of a Calvinist/reformed position explains it like this: “It is as if someone invited us to come fishing and said, ‘I guarantee that you will catch some fish—they are hungry and waiting.’”[25] Notice that Grudem’s statement still requires one to engage in the act of fishing, guarantee or no.

Even still, important questions have to be asked even in areas of missiology. Does one work to reach the lost close to home or should the Church still engage in overseas missions? Traditional missions or church planting? Long-term or short-term missions? There are no simple answers, and the Bible demonstrates a variety of different models for mission work. That being said, it is important that those asking the questions spend much time in the Word of God and equally as much time in prayer. Ideally, like for Paul, the Holy Spirit will be the guide and helper.[26]

Primary dependence upon on the Holy Spirit’s lead is one motif or theme of mission theology. Moreau, Corwin, and McGee define motif as “a recurring pattern or element that reinforces the central guiding theme for the house.”[27] Motif is the look or feel that dictates other choices such as furniture style and paint colors. Among mission theology, Moreau, Corwin, and McGee identify a variety of motifs, that is, mission theology preferences. As already mentioned, the Holy Spirit is one motif. Those that gravitate to this theme tend to place the Holy Spirit in the guiding position of all that they do. Another motif is the Kingdom of God, which deals with the paradoxes of the Bible and tends to be driven by the idea of the coming Kingdom in and beyond the end times. The Jesus motif sees the Great Commission as the command and example of Christ. With this motif, Jesus is the absolute focal point and driving force behind missions. With the myriad of books publishing recently on the function of the local church and church planting, there is a high likelihood that the Church motif will also gain in popularity. The purpose and role of the church, in this motif, becomes the primary theme one views mission theology through. This motif seems much more community driven than some of the others and the church—having a strong purpose in this theology—plays a strong role. The Shalom motif tends to place a high priority on the peace of Jesus in world thrust in the conflict between Christ and Satan. And finally, the Return of Jesus is motivated by a strong leaning toward Eschatology. “The coming of Christ,” according to Moreau, Corwin, and McGee, “motivates Christians to be preservers in the lost world.”[28]

CONCLUSION
Regardless of the motif one’s mission theology might prefer, it is important that one have a mission theology that leads them to live sent, on biblical mission. Considering that God’s mission is assigned upon conversion, it applies to the missionary, church leader, and layperson alike. This paper only offers a brief survey of the vast material in mission theology, most of which is worth further exploration. However, one most eventually leave the theoretical and engage in the practical, as did the many missionaries of the Bible.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Calvin, John. Translated by John King. Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol 1., Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.
Duffield, Guy P., and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave. Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Moreau, A. Scott, Gary Corwin, and Gary B. McGee. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. Encountering mission. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004.
Packer, J. I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Roxburgh, Alan J. and M. Scott Boren. Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009.


1. Scott A. Moreau, Gary Corwin, and Gary B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey, Encountering mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2004), 17.
2. Alan J. Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren, Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How to Become One (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 27-45.
3. It is not the intention of the author to differentiate between the terms mission, missions, or missional in this paper. Therefore, the terms will be used interchangeably and simply mean the intentional effort to share the gospel with others in the vain of Matthew 28:19-20.
4. Genesis 3.
5. Moreau, 30.
6. John Calvin, translated by John King, Calvin’s Commentaries, Vol 1., Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2009), 128.
7. Genesis 3:16, ESV.
8. Moreau, 30.
9. Genesis 12:3b, ESV.
10. Kings 8:43, ESV.
11. Amos 9:11-12.
12. Isaiah 42:6.
13. Isaiah 49:6, ESV.
14. Moreau, 37.
15. John 20:21.
16. John 4:39, ESV.
17. Luke 10:2, ESV.
18. See Luke 8:16-18 for just one example.
19. John 20:31.
20. Matthew 28:19-20.
21. Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angles, Calif: Foursquare Media, 2008), 440.
22. Moreau, 75.
23. J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 13.
24. 2 Timothy 2:10, ESV.
25. Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 674.
26. For examples, see Acts 13:2, 16:6, 20:23, and 21:11.
27. Moreau, 79.
28. Moreau, 85.


* 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 Seth Anderson, registered under a creative commons license.

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

/
The Bible is God's revelation of himself to creation.  It's God's Word.  2 Timothy 3:16 says it's "breathed out by God." Hebrews 4:12 says that it's "living and active," and "discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart," which is significant considering 1 Samuel 16:7 teaches that while man looks at the outward appearance, God looks on the heart.  "In the beginning was the Word," says John 1:1, "and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." And then John tells us that the Word--the revelation of God to his Creation--became a man.  He writes in John 1:14, "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the father, full of truth." The man John is talking about is Jesus.

Therefore,  is it too much of a stretch to think that the entire Bible is about Jesus, the Word of God?  "Of course," you might say, "the New Testament tells us about Jesus, but the old Testament is about the Father."  Well, consider this: reading through even the Old Testament, there are many prophecies about Jesus, but there are also many types or pictures of the Christ.  Why would this not be the case?  Consider the purpose of Word of God.  Consider who and what the Word is.

There are many studies demonstrating the presences of Jesus throughout the Old Testament, but maybe you should hear it from Jack Stockton, an 11-year-old boy who can stir you to see my point far better than I.
  


So if Jack is right, and I believe he is, this should change the way you read the Bible.  Keep your eyes open for Jesus; be on the look out.  Thanks Jack!

The Bible: Chapters and Verses

/
I always find it humorous when someone comes out with a new fancy Bible "code" that's based on chapter and verse notation.  If you're one of those people who get excited about these goofy things, please let me explain.

The Bible in its original form had no chapter or verse notations.  In fact, it wasn't even collected into a single binding like we have today.  Originally, each book or epistle was composed and copied on its own individual scroll (or in some cases, like Psalms, more than one scroll).  Sometimes they would even run out of room and have to write on the back (maybe the case for the scroll mentioned in Revelation 5:1).  Eventually, collections of books were assembled into a type of binding called a codex (the precursor of the book).  Based on what we know from archeological findings, it is highly unlikely that the original books had the same paragraph structure or punctuation we see today.  Actually, they didn't have any punctuation at all.  And even among the canon, there is no requirement that the books be collected in the same order as we see in the typical printed Bible of our day.  

In Jesus' day, the Scriptures were divided into the Law and the Prophets.  Of course after the canonization of New Testament, we could delineate between the Old and New Testaments.  And with the Old Testament, the common divisions are the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ester), Wisdom (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon), and the Prophets--broke up by major and minor books by length (majors are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentation, Ezekiel, and Daniel; minors are Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi).  For Protestants, this is where the Old Testament ends, with 39 books.  For Catholics, the Deutero-Canonical books also known as the Apocrypha, are another category found in with the binding of their Bibles.

The New Testament is also broke up by common divisions.  These are the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), History (Acts), Epistles (Romans, 1st & 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st & 2nd Thessalonians, 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd Peter, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd John, and Jude), and Apocalyptic (Revelation).  These are the 27 books of the New Testament.  Together with the Old Testament, 66 books make up the canonized Christian Bible. 

However, even with these divisions, it's very difficult to find a single passage of Scripture.  For example, the ESV translation of the Bible contains 757,575 words--it's a big book.  The Jews did have some kind of breakdown by verse to make synagogue reading a bit easier, but the chapter breakdown didn't come until the 13th century.  Some credit Hugo de St Caro with the addition of chapters to the Bible, but others say it was Stephen Langton.  Either way, it is clear that chapters were not a part of the original books and they are not a part of the Word of God.  The verse identification within the chapters was soon to follow.  But even with the addition of chapter and verse notation, reading older commentaries from guys like Luther and Calvin, it is clear that there was not a consistency among the notations.  That too came later.

So when the next book, article, or blog post published about a newly discovered Bible code, remember what parts of the Bible are the Word of God and what parts are not.  It might also be helpful to remember, "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9, ESV).

For those who are interested, here are some statics about the Bible (but don't bother trying to find secret codes in these numbers because that's just a silly waste of time):

Number of Chapters in the Bible: 1,189.
Number of Chapters in the Old Testament: 929.
Number of Chapters in the New Testament: 260.

Number of verses in the entire Bible: 31,218.
Number of verses in the Old Testament: 23,261.
Number of verses in the New Testament: 7,957.

Number of words in the King James Version (KJV): 790,676.
Number of words in the English Standard Version (ESV): 757,575.
Number of words in the New International Version (NIV): 726,109.
Number of words in the New Living Translation (NLT): 747,974.

Purgatory and the Cross

/
I'm struggling to understand the idea behind purgatory.  No, that's not exactly right.  Purgatory, as I understand it, is something of a refining furnace that extracts the impurities from the soul prior to entering heaven.  Those impurities are the results of sin committed by the Christian. The idea then is that Christians, upon death, go to purgatory (or potentially straight to heaven), while non-Christians go to hell.  In the pre-Reformation church, the Roman Catholic pope could authorize indulgences, a transferable certificate that bought or earned less time in purgatory. However, there was really now way to know how long one would be refined in purgatory.  (These same indulgences were one of the fueling fires behind Martin Luther's swing toward reformation.)

So more accurately, what I don't understand is how purgatory lines up biblically with the cross.  The idea of purgatory is a mockery of the cross.

To the issue of purgatory and daily blasphemies needed to prop it up, John Calvin says,
"We are bound, therefore, to raise our voice to its highest pitch, and cry aloud that purgatory is a deadly device of Satan; that it makes void the cross of Christ; that if offers intolerable insult to the divine mercy; that is undermines and overthrows our faith.  For what is this purgatory but the satisfaction for sin paid after death by the souls of the dead? Hence when this idea of satisfaction is refuted, purgatory itself is forthwith completely overturned.  But if it is perfectly clear, from what was lately said, that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, expiation, and cleansing for the sins of believers, what remains but to hold that purgatory is mere blasphemy horrid blasphemy against Christ?  I say nothing of the sacrilege by which it is daily defended, the offenses which it begets in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we see teeming froth from that fountain of impiety" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Ch 5, Sec 6.) 
I realize my statements here may be offensive to my Roman Catholic friends.  I am open to conversation on this topic, but I make no apology.  I hope that there is a mutual realization that purgatory is offensive to the Protestant understanding of passages such as Romans 5:8, Romans 8:1, Hebrews 9:25-28, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 53:6, and Philippians 1:23.

*Painting by Ludovico Carracci is in the public domain.

Year One of SaltyBeliever.com

/
A year ago I decided to start SaltyBeliever.com.  Looking at the site one year later, I find it interesting to reflect on what's here.

I had a number of reasons for starting the website.  The first was to have an easy place to provide links and resources that I could point people to as the need surfaced.  Second, after the first year of seminary, I saw a lot of my studies being filed away for no future use or benefit to anybody.  What a waste. Why not post parts of this work on-line so maybe someone else could get something from them. . . even if only one person.  And the third reason was to demonstrate to other ministries how simple and inexpensive it is to have a presence on the Internet.

About the time of the birth of this website, I was looking at the websites of a few churches in the Salt Lake valley.  I saw some very good websites and some very poor ones.  What really shocked me was how many churches had (and still have) no site on the Internet.  So I set out on a little experiment to see how even the smallest church with the smallest budget could get on-line.  I've spent a total of $10 to register SaltyBeliever.com for the year (although I also registered the .org domain too, but that's not necessary).  I set up Google Analytics account to keep an eye on traffic numbers.  I use FeedBurner.com for the RSS feed, podcast help, and e-mail subscription.  The blog is a blogger run site and I use Archive.org to store the few podcasts I've done.  The widgets like the search box are free and simple to use and set up.   In fact, all of the website was free with the exception of registering the domain.  I don't have any server space and I'm not a very web-technical guy.  And yet, the first year seems to have been a good one.  (Churches, if you don't have a website at all, this is a simple way to do at least something!)   

By the Numbers:
Just under 550,000 words were published in the first year of SaltyBeliever.com, comprising a total of 131 posts.  151 photos were uploaded--all free, all obtained and used legally.  40 books of the Bible were quoted or cited at least once, but some much more than that.

Google Analytics reports that from 7,000 unique visitors, SaltyBeliever.com had nearly 9,700 visits, resulting in almost 15,500 total page views (my visits are removed from this tracking).  311 countries are represented among the visitors of the website; but the majority of visitors came from the United States, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.  Surprisingly, Utah ranked third in the states with the most visits, behind Texas and Virgina.

The most popular post over the course of the year was Knowing Jesus Through The Old Testament By Christopher J.H. Wright. It seems that many of the posts that saw the highest repeat traffic were from portions of seminary papers, especially the book reviews.  However, the posts that generated the highest single-day traffic were the ones dealing with current events, such as the discussions on Ergun Caner and Glenn Beck.

I received over 100 comments or questions via the Contact Me form, mostly positive but not all. I've also connected with a couple dozen people on Facebook and Twitter specifically through this website.

Heading into Year Two:
I wish I had a clear idea what the second year of this website is going to look like, but the truth is, I don't know.  The site is more academic that I had originally hoped.  That being said, I don't want to make any reductions in content, but I do want to make the material more accessible.  I want to make complicated things easy, not the other way around.  I also want to add more content, more often, and not just seminary work.  I'm thinking about more issues from current events and maybe more apologetic work.  But most importantly, I want to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in what is posted here and how this site is used.  If I do that, it really won't matter what the second year of SaltyBeliever.com looks like because it will be what it is intended to be.

Thank you for reading!

My God bless you,
Bryan



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

Music Makes the People Come Together

/
Introduction. Of the non-essential to salvation matters where Christians disagree, the type and style of music in the Church for worship (or otherwise) has been a hot topic, maybe in your church, the hottest. At times, this disagreement settles down and at other times, it surfaces with a roar. Fights develop over questions like hymns or contemporary music style. Organ or drums; how big should the choir be, if there should be one; to what extent should the lyrics be evaluated theologically; at what level should the volume be set; how many songs; when; how much music; who is qualified to lead the choir or band? Sadly, these matters have split churches and fractured fellowship among communities of believers. These disagreements however, do not negate the fact that Paul told the Ephesians not to get drunk but instead, “be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:18b-20, ESV, italics added for emphasis). Music is an important aspect of the Church, stirring hearts toward God to give thanks and praise. Therefore, a strong music ministry is a necessity for the local church.

What is Music Ministry and Why. In her song “Music,” Madonna sings, “It's like riding on the wind, and it never goes away. Touches everything I'm in, got to have it everyday. Music makes the people come together” (Madonna 2000). Although her secular song is about music, she still captures the power that music has to move us deeply in our souls and communicate a certain beauty between one another that is not easily shared in other forms. And in this way, people can communicate that moving beauty with God; while at the same time, the Holy Spirit can use music to stir our hearts and affections toward our Creator. (It is worth noting that because music does stir us so deeply, it also has the ability to stir other emotions and potentially turn us away from God, shifting our affection toward a false idol.)

A good music ministry helps bring people into a place where they can openly worship God. Hymns or songs can be selected to work in conjunction with the sermon or teaching. While the worshiper speaks to God through music, God also uses music to speak to the worshiper. In addition, music serves as a way to worship throughout daily activities, so teaching songs and hymns helps the congregation take their praise and thanksgiving everywhere, and into everything they do.

Typically, a music ministry leader will have a selection of songs that are used regularly. The lyrics may be projected on a screen or the printed in the program. If hymns are used, hymnals should be available. Some churches will print the lyrics of music into a booklet to simplify worship in settings were screens are not available, not necessary, or not wanted. And a music ministry affords people the opportunity to use their gifts and talents to play an instrument, sing, dance, run sound boards, or write songs.

A strong leader is necessary for music ministry. Partly because music is a powerful way that the gospel is ministered in the lives of both believers and non-believers, but also because the music ministry is an area where it seems everybody as an opinion and often wants it done their preferred way. Criswell says “Of course everybody will want the organ softer or louder. Everybody will want different music. The church that has a broad spectrum of music presented in its worship services will have all of the people quite happy most of the time (we hope!)” (Criswell 1980, 191). It is arguable that appeasing people to make them happy should not be a requirement of a music ministry, but Criswell is right in that there will be competing desires among the members of the church. Therefore, the leader of the music ministry needs to be capable of leading in such an environment.

Examples of Music Ministry. The most obvious example of music ministry is the leading of worship during corporate services, but there are other ways to use music ministry. Worship gatherings made up of a few local churches are one example. Having a concert and barbecue in the street is another. Some churches offer music workshops to children. And finally, incorporating other art forms with the music, such as dance, poetry, painting and sculpting, and theater can have a powerful impact on those coming together to worship. It is important however, that no matter what type of style of music, the music ministry serves to point to God, not to become the focal point of the worship. The band should be insignificant in light of the worship and the one being worshiped.


References:
Criswell, W.A. Criswell's Guidebook for Pastors. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1980.
Madonna and Mirwais Ahmadzaï. 2000 Music. “Music.” Preformed by Madonna and others.
Warner Brothers. [CD, Track 1]. 

*Photo by Any Burnfield is registered under a Creative Commons License. 

Carey on missions, then and today

/
It seems that overseas missions are a delicate subject today.  People feel strongly about them--either arguing for them or against them.  I think overseas missions are just as necessary as they've always been, but I admit, while I have been to a number of overseas countries, at the time of writing this post, I have never been on an intentional Christian mission in a foreign land.

What get's really interesting is the arguments against overseas missions.  They are the same tired arguments made for over 200 years.  William Carey faced some objections in 1793 that (at least in the US) we still hear today.  In summary, they were (and still are),

1. The Great Commission was an instruction/command ONLY to the Apostles (and maybe the disciples of the time) to get the Church to start to spread out. 

2. There are many in our own nation that need to hear the gospel so we should focus are efforts here.

3. There is great hardship and hazard in doing mission work in many places throughout the world.

To the first objection, Carey argued that if it was only to apply to the Apostles, than the same should hold true for baptism.  If so, than all the many churches preforming baptism are doing so against the instruction of God.    His second response to this objection is that if the Commission was only for the Apostles than engaging in missions is actually acting without warrant or authority.  And finally, he asserts that there would be no reason for Jesus to say, "Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the world. . ."  Carey implies, and I would also add, that if the Great Commission and baptism were only for Apostles, than preforming these duties would actually be saying that one feels he or she is as the original Apostles, therefore, the actions should be avoided.  However, the reality is that it is wrong to conclude that this instruction was only for the Apostles.   

To the second objection--one that is extremely prevalent today, Carey says that those in our own lands at least still have an option to attend church or pick up and read a Bible.  But there are some places where this is not an option and Carey believed we should be working to make churches and Bibles available where there are none.  We should preach the gospel where it is not being preached at all rather than work harder to preach it where it is being rejected. 

And finally, Carey addresses the third objection by simply saying, "It is no objection to commercial men.  It only requires that we should have as much love to the souls of our fellow creatures, and fellow sinners, as they have for the profits arising from a few otter-skins, and all these difficulties would be easily surmounted. . . "(Winter 2009, 316).

If I may take a moment and offer my confession.  The first objection seems very minimal and easy to overcome.  And where the third objection is a challenge for some, I personally have no issue with it having endured substantial challenges of hazard and hardship in the early phase of the Iraq war.  However, I often find myself dealing with the second objection.  It kills me to see how much money is spent to send missionaries overseas when our neighbors are just as lost.  Yet, Carey's argument is extremely valid.  The problem I am facing is an either/or type of thinking. And my either/or thinking here is wrong.  The reality is we must still be sending called missionaries AND we need to be empowering and encouraging all the believers in our area to engage in the the thing they were called to the moment they were saved--to declare the Good News.   

_____
Winter, Ralph D., Steven C. Hawthorne, Darrell R. Dorr, D. Bruce Graham, and Bruce A. Koch. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Pasadena, Calif: William Carey Library, 2009.

*Photo of William Carey is in the public domain. 

The New International Version 2011

/
Walk into any Christian bookstore and it's hard to miss the wide assortment of Bible translation options. This is in part because it is impossible to translate one language from a different time and culture into something that reads exactly same way today, in a totally different time and culture. But given the importance of the message of the Bible, this does not mean we should not try.   Many have tried and many have had different ideas and theories about translation.  And again, we are seeing another attempt--this time, a revision or update of a previous attempt.

I'm not yet sure want to make of the NIV 2011, but I thought I'd share this advertisement from the chair of the NIV 2011 translation committee, Dr. Douglas Moo.

Planned Revival?

/
I did not grow up in a church that had an annual revival meeting or planned revival outreaching weeks, so I always find it strange to hear churches planning revival meetings.  What are these meetings and what to the planners actually expect? 

During the First Great Awaking for example, three specific points would need special attention the sovereignty of God worked as God works. As is often the case, there was not no “sure model” or method that brought about spectacular revival. There are some key elements—most specifically a dedication to preaching the Word of God—but between Edwards and Whitefield, there were two entirely different styles and reactions in revival.  And it is widely know that Edwards read his sermons word for word, without emotion.  Whitefield, on the other hand, did show emotion, even weeping while delivering his sermon. Edwards did not plan for the reactions he received and it happened outside of his orchestration. Gonzalez writes, “He had been preaching in Northampton for several years, which average results, when his preaching began evoking a response that surprised him” (González 1985, 228). God brings about revival, not a program, planned revival, or marketing plan of man.

Also worth noting is that the revival was not limited to one denomination, geographic location, local church, or preacher. Edwards was a Congregationalist; Whitefield was an Anglican.  Others were Methodists; some were Baptist.  Some were Calvinist, but not all.  It can been shown that during this period Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Baptist saw fervor and excitement in various forms, and the zeal was spreading to multiple locations (although in this case, like most, it was in the mostly in country rather than in the cities). Revival it seem, is not a program or outreach for one church to plan into the upcoming year, it’s God’s working in a people.

And finally, it is valuable to see that just as quick as revival comes, it goes. Some people will hold on to the past memories and some will look to future hope. González writes, “In a few months, the movement swept the area and reached into Connecticut. Soon it subsided, and after three years its extraordinary signs had almost disappeared. But the memory remained, as well as the hope that it would be rekindled” (González 1985, 228).

We should realize that revival is not something to be taken lightly and it is not something that we simply build into our annual plans as an outreach program.  Revival is God’s revival, to happen as he sees best fit, when he makes it happen.  We must always remember that.

___
González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Vol II. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984.

*The photo of Methodist revival in USA 1839, watercolor from 1839, is technically depicting the Second Great Awakening.  It is in the public domain.  

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.