I'll admit it - I spent some formative years in the 70s. One of the songs that was popular in '72 was Roberta Flack and Donny Hathaway's "Where is the love"? If you are dancing, it's one of those songs you are better off humming to your girlfriend instead of actually singing the words, because Roberta and Donny are two lovers who oh-so-smoothly hurl accusations at each other throughout the song.

In the last two weeks, as I've become aware of four extra-marital affairs among pastors in our near and distant community, I've thought of that song.

You read that right - four couples - all in vocational ministry and all in the span of two weeks. This seems to go way beyond the Tiger Woods headline du jour.

My reaction is complex - first, shock and disbelief. Then, sorrow, anger, confusion. Eventually I would like to get to - hope -, but honestly, I'm not there yet. I think of the spouses that have been left (both women and men). The kids that are now questioning. Their congregations, now wounded and grieved. I think of the time, courage and work it will take to recover.

Wouldn't this be a good time for cursing and railing in frustration at our brokenness?

In this kind of offense I am left pondering how this happens and, invariably, I think of myself. Perhaps because I've always been scared to death that this would happen to me - whether as offender or offendee, it doesn't matter.

For 28 years I've been known and loved by my wife, and I've prayed that I would never break my vow to her. But it seems to me, I've broken my vow over and over again by not loving her well, by being self-centered, by overworking and pouring myself into ministry; in short, by running from soul-intimacy with her and also by isolating myself from others. Because we've never suffered an outright "affair," it is easy to think we are somehow "better" than these other couples but we may not be - there is mystery here. I hear people pontificating about these couples: how the "signs were all there from the beginning," and "if only they had been confronted and received care earlier." To me, the words ring hollow; the solutions overly facile. I have known too many who DID have accountability and discipleship but they hid anyway. The temptations came upon them and they refused to stop hiding. Accountability, community, vulnerability can be a great gift, if you find Christ in it. But it doesn't change you on its own, and I propose that it's not enough to stop a soul that is moving toward a sexual partner outside of marriage.

May I suggest that, actually, infidelity has nothing to do with lack of discipleship, with sex or lust or the internet? In my experience, this issue revolves around a lack of intimacy, and also a loathing fear of it.

In the most atomized, individualistic society in world history, don't we long for true friendship - to be known, to belong, to know our place; even as that strikes fear in our deepest soul? Because "to be known" is to give another the power to see your shame and to despise you, just like you may despise yourself; or that intimacy can enable them to see the real you and walk with you toward the healing of shame and growth toward who God created you to be. Honestly, I know very few pastors who are engaging with others on this level.

Unfortunately, we complicate intimacy by always linking it with sex. This is apparent all the time in film, and I'm sure, you've observed this personally: someone in a crisis begins to open up to another. The other responds by becoming vulnerable as well. They share their real selves. Soon, they?re in each others' arms. Why? Well, we're told, isn't that what happens when souls touch? Sex is almost expected in that kind of situation, right? Not at all! That would make intimacy nothing more than foreplay. Intimacy itself is so much more.

Many guys that I know are longing for the "Band of Brothers" kind of connection; yet, they hold back, deathly afraid of same-sex intimacy, not to mention heterosexual intimacy. Why? You know why. When you read "same-sex intimacy," I bet you aren't thinking 'guy friendships' or "best friend" or "a significant, vulnerable relationship with my brother-in-Christ." It just sounds like a sexual relationship, right? We've been conditioned to think that intimacy demands a sexual expression.

Intimacy is what we're made for. (Seriously, how many times have you either said or heard that in a sermon?) We all say it, but how many of us recognize that a marriage is not big enough to bear the relational freight of our immortal souls? We don't need more sex. We need more beings with whom to be intimate friends. We need healthy vulnerability with people other than our marriage partner - with both our same gender and the opposite. "Doesn't that set you up for greater temptation?," you ask. "Aren't you just opening the door for a similar fall?" No. Actually I think you guard yourself against sexual temptation when you experience friendship-intimacy with the opposite sex outside of your marriage partner - with other men and women. If we were "made for intimacy" as we keep saying, doesn't it make sense that we would "act out" inappropriately when we that basic relational need isn't realized? With all the lonely and isolated pastors and spouses in the U.S., is it any wonder that we're seeing this problem?

As Christians begin to explore relational intimacy with people of both genders, as we learn to love others in more meaningful ways, and to separate that love from sexual expression, we will find that we experience stronger marriages, genuine loving intimacy among the non-married, and, as Francis Schaeffer used to insist, a more full expression of the "final apologetic" (love) of Christian faith to the world.

Ekal Professional: http://www.ekal.pkEkal Professional
is your ultimate online source for Barber Scissors & Beauty care
instruments. Find intensive and extensive range of Professional Barber Scissors,
Standard barber Scissor, hair Thinning Scissors, Standard Thinning Scissor/ Texturizing
shears, Fancy scissors, cuticle nippers, manicure kits, cuticle scissors, trimmers &
tweezers.Get perfect stylish look which you desire with our high quality hairdressing
scissors, haircutting scissors.
Ekal Team:
Ekal Professional is a leading source for professional and personal hair styling needs.
Our Professionals team continually strives to bring you the newest innovative Products to
help you to achieve the look you want. They are very open in discussions to produce new
designs of shears with different ideas of eye-catching look.
Ekal Professional is continuously expanding the company business to satisfy beauty
care industry needs. We offer wide range of unique design, elegant satin finish and
lightweight Professional Scissors along with finest collection of Beauty instruments &
Household Scissors constructed from top quality stainless steel.
Certifications:
EKAL PROFESSIONAL is an ISO 9001:2000 certified & CE approved company which
ensures that each an every instrument being produced at "EKAL PROFESSIONAL" is
crafted to its perfection. We are Manufacturers & Exporters of Professional Barber
Scissors, Tweezers, Nail & Cuticle Nippers, Cuticle Pushers & Cleaners, Manicure Kits and
Nail & Household Scissors.
We have been striving every moment to improve every aspect of our products so as to
offer you the products of High Quality.
Fairs & Exhibitions:
Since we started way back in 1984, These two decades we have been working hard to
provide best quality instruments at very competitive prices to our esteemed customers.
This consistent hard work helped us to develop links all over the world.
EKAL is an ISO 9001:2000 certified company which ensures that each an every
instrument being produced at "EKAL" is crafted to its perfection. Our Q.C department
keep a close look at each an every stage of manufacturing.
During these two decades of hardwork and dedication we achieved great recognition in
the field of MANICURE INSTRUMENTS and SCISSORS.Now our young educated &
professional generation have joined us and we wish them BEST OF LUCK. MISSION
STATMENT: "EKAL design & manufactures high quality stainless steel instruments to the
requirements of our customers for the use in diverse industries".
Quality Policy:
Our QA (Quality Assurance) Department checks the quality of instruments during the
various stages of manufacturing and finally before it is packing, to ensure that every tool
we produce must be of high quality. All of products are manufacture in compliance with
the international standards.
As an infinite range of Scissors and Manicure & Pedicure Instruments we tried to put the
most common range in our website. However if some articles are missing or if you
require any specific sizing or finish (Polish, Satin or Sand Finish) we will be glad to
hear from you in order to manufacture them. Please contact us and we'll be happy to
give you a quotation
Our Products:
**************************************************
Professional Barber Scissors & Shears
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/professional-barber-scissors.html )
Professional Thining Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/thinning_scissors.html )
Standard Barber Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/standard-barber-hairdressing-scissors.html )
Standard Thining Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/standard-thinning-texturizing-scissors.html )
Plastic Handle Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/fancy-barbar-scissors.html )
Barber Accessories
( http://www.ekal.pk/barber-scissors/pedicure-accessories.html )
Eye Brow Tweezers
( http://www.ekal.pk/tweezers/eye-brow-tweezers.html )
General Purpose Tweezers
( http://www.ekal.pk/tweezers/general-purpose-tweezers.html )
Nail & Cuticle Nippers
( http://www.ekal.pk/nail-nippers/nail-and-cuticle-nippers.html )
Cuticle Pushers & Cleaners
( http://www.ekal.pk/cuticle-pushers/cuticle-pushers-and-cleaners.html )
Manicure Kits
( http://www.ekal.pk/manicure-implements/manicure-kits.html )
Nail and Cuticle Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/scissors/nail-and-cuticle-scissors.html )
Household Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/scissors/household-scissors.html )
Fancy and Embroidery
( http://www.ekal.pk/scissors/fancy-and-embroidery.html )
Tailor and Trimmer
( http://www.ekal.pk/scissors/tailor-and-trimmer.html )
Utility Scissors
( http://www.ekal.pk/scissors/utility-scissors.html )
Contact Info:
**************************************************
Ekal Professional:
Ismailabad Pacca Ghara, P.O.Box. 2376
Sialkot, Punjab, Pakistan.
Phone No: +92-52-4265792
+92-52-4271437
Fax No:
+92-52-4264849
Website:
http://www.ekal.pk

In 1970, Sidney Greidanus wrote a dissertation on the Dutch controversy "exemplary versus redemptive-historical preaching". This controversy started in the 1930s, when a number of men in the Reformed Churches raised objections to the usual practice of preaching, in which the preachers would display the person mentioned in historical texts as models to be imitated, drawing parallels between the experiences of the Bible saints and the struggles of believers today. This so called exemplary approach was set over against the redemptive-historical approach, in which the preacher interprets the meaning of every character and event in the Bible in connection to the one redemptive history and its central character, Jesus Christ. The controversy over preaching brought to light at least six dilemmas, which Greidanus in his dissertation sought to overcome.

 1. Overcoming the relevance-truth divide

The motive of proponents of the exemplary approach was a concern for relevance, while the motive of proponents of the redemptive historical-approach was a concern for sola Scriptura, the desire to preach the Word of God and that only. The objections raised by the exemplary side to redemptive-historical preaching is that it tends to lack relevance. The redemptive-historical side objected that, in his laudable attempt to be relevant, the exemplary preacher tends to be more about the man in the book and the man in the pew than about Christ. 

To overcome the divide, Greidanus asserts that historical texts are texts. Sermons must seek their point of departure not in the man in the pew nor in the history of redemption but in the historical text. One cannot detail the meaning of a particular text until one has listened attentively to that text. Because the exemplary method views the biblical stories as recorded to illustrate and depict concretely certain timeless "truths" that must be believed or certain timeless "ethics" which must be lived, it does not really need a preaching text form the Bible. But the redemptive-historical approach is liable to similar consequences in that it seeks to reach the facts behind the text to the detriment of the preaching-text. The text becomes a window through which to view the panorama of the upholding redemptive history. The text itself is no longer taken seriously.   

2. Overcoming the objective-subjective divide

The redemptive-historical side objected that the exemplary side is subjective in that the preaching tends to be more about the man in the pew than about Christ. The exemplary approach, on its turn, criticizes the redemptive-historical approach for turning every sermon into a lecture about the history of redemption and the objective work of Christ. Again, Greidanus observes that are wrong. The subjective preacher speaks about only one dogma: the order of salvation, the application of redemption to the individual; and so does the objective preacher, speaking only of the dogma of Christ. The way toward overcoming the objective-subjective dilemma is sought in the view that historical text are proclamation.   

We can overcome the defect of the objective-subjective scheme only when we fully recognize that preaching is a moment of living intercourse between the Lord and his people. Scripture is address, appeal, kerugma. Seen in this light, the sermon is not a piece of objective dogmatic or ethical truth, nor a subjective sketch of the condition of my soul, but a living word of the God who comes to his people in speaking his Word to them. Preaching is not merely a lecture about redemptive history, nor a lecture about the order of salvation, it's the presentation of the gospel, the making-present of Christ. It's not merely a narration of historical events, nor a description of what one has experienced, but a powerful happening which gains effect for good or ill. Whenever preaching takes place in accord with God's command, it becomes a redemptive event and the Kingdom of God moves forges ahead.

 3. Overcoming the explication-application divide

The redemptive-historical side objects to the exemplary side that it neglects the historical context in the interest of preaching in an applicatory way. The exemplary side objects that redemptive-historical preaching lacks application. The historical context of text is not to be neglected in the interest of preaching in an applicatory way. As a matter of fact, it is usually through the perception of a text's relevance in the past that it begins to speak all the more relevant in the present. Even the presentation of the past relevance of the text aims at disclosing its present relevance. In that sense the whole sermon is applicatory explication.  Besides, preaching is not just reproducing. Theocentric explication is the first step op application. The preacher's task is not to add application to the Word, but to proclaim that Word today in all its relevance - a relevance which is already contained in the theocentric application.

 4. Overcoming the believer-unbeliever divide

In trait preaching, a sub-form of exemplary preaching, the preacher focuses on the distinguishing marks by which a person may know whether or not he is in Christ. while the purpose of this form of preaching is to provide assurance for the child of God and to unmask the hypocrite in the congregation, the redemptive-historical side objects that, in fact, it may have just the opposite effect: the hypocrite may come to false assurance and the true believer may become disquieted. On a similar note, discerning preaching - preaching with separate applications for each of the different categories of people in the congregation - seeks to cause the objective truth to be subjectively appropriated by each of the different varieties of spiritual life present. Again the divide may be overcome by viewing the historical text as proclamation. Holwerda says, "Let the preacher preach the gospel to all! Only then does he swing the ax of Christ. Woe the preacher who presupposes divisions in the church and directs the word of the text to only one group. He must preach it to all and by that means Christ shall make the divisions... The stumbling block lies in the Gospel itself." (p. 100)

 5. Overcoming the head-heart divide

Another division is made between the faculties of man, the intellectual, the volitional and the emotional moment in the sermon. Through the proclamation of the gospel, God grip the heart of man. The Word of God that is preached is directed at the heart of man. The word is not addressed to a part of man. It calls man to serve the Lord with his heart. Preachers are not learned people who must convince others with their knowledge. They are not moralists who must try to elevate the virtues of man. They are heralds. They bring a message that does not call for a reflection, and "I'll think about it", it calls for the total man to respond at once. (p. 167)

 6. Overcoming the private-public divide

Through the proclamation of the gospel, God lays hold of life. It calls man to serve the Lord with his whole life. Preaching is not merely concerned with some internal sector of a person's life; on the contrary, through the heart the whole of a person's life comes into view. From the heart, rooted in Christ, reborn through the Spirit, our whole life is being renewed and the communion with God is extended into all the relationships and functions of life. The church is not in politics, it is not a clinic for marital problems. The preacher is not the expert on social and economic problems, but he preaches the Word and that Word has implications for all of life. Preaching does not mean that one can busy himself with spiritual things only. Preaching the gospel discloses to us the meaning of all things. The preacher who holds this broad view of preaching need not worry about relevance. Because God speaks to us in all our relationships and functions, the relevance of the Word is as broad as life itself. The relevance of the Word can come to expression in any area of life, for no area is off-limits to the renewing Word. (pp. 231-232)

When considering the rising 'urban class', we often bring up Nietzsche and Freud as people who have played a key role in determining their philosophical outlook on life. Yet, perhaps we are missing out other thinkers who need to get a look in, if our understanding is to become even more robust. For instance, few people could claim to represent the cynicism and mild (hedonistic) nihilism of the modern urbanite more than Oscar Wilde. Few people could claim to represent the restlessness of the modern urbanite more than Oscar Wilde.

Oscar Wilde was easily one of the finest brains ever to grace the British Isles. Not only was his mastery of the English language supreme, but his clarity of thought and ability to gauge the 'reasons behind the reasons' was second to none.

This post constitutes an attempt to rehabilitate Wilde, for I think that in many ways he may help us to understand our context far better than many Christian commentators are able to. So, on the one hand, even though he most certainly rejected the very ground that Christian belief stands on by building his tent solely on a self-referencing reality: "But whether it be faith or agnosticism, it must be nothing external to me. Its symbols must be of my own creating", I'm not so sure that Wilde's preferred vision of religion was so far removed from the kind of religion that Christ actually produced. Today I came upon this gem:

When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, where on an altar, on which no taper burned, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become a religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith. (De Profundis, letter written in 1905)

If we unpack this statement, it proves to be quite revealing. Let us examine each statement in turn and compare it to the religion imagined by Jesus

1) Wilde: "I would like to found an order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless"

Christianity: The basic prerequisite of a Christian is not someone who has accomplished something great by believing but someone who has failed to trust in God their whole life and has only come to Jesus when they realised how 'faithless' they really are. In Christianity, since faith is a gift given only to those who have realised just how faithless they really are, Wilde is basically - and uniquely - describing true Christianity. There is no other system that resembles Wilde's suggestion here apart from Christianity. Modern secularism is hardly a 'confraternity'; it is rather a selection of individuals who are united less by their system than by other factors.

2) Wilde: "on an altar, on which no taper burned"

Christianity: This is where it really starts to get interesting. The reason why Christianity does/should not have altars is because the fire has already been spent. On the cross, Jesus passed through the fire of God's judgement so that those who turn to him would not have to. The sacrifice has been offered on the altar that is the cross of Calvary. What this means is that, in stark contrast to every other religion, both secular and non, Christianity is the only religion where its followers are not in the business of the daily grind of justification. The altar and the sacrifice upon it denotes just this grind, where people are constantly engaged in the struggle to justify their existence, their actions, their place in this world. When Christ passed through that fire, he made it possible for his followers to have "an altar on which no taper is burned"

3) Wilde:: "a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling"

Christianity: Jesus is called the great High Priest in the letter to the Hebrews. This great High Priest, before going to the cross, states, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death." Then, on the cross, he uttered a fateful cry, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." This, more than any other, was the cry of "a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling." On the cross, Jesus suffered the utter desolation and upheaval of his soul, so that peace everlasting could come into the hearts of those who trust in him. On the cross, he gave up his peace and perfect relationship with God the Father, so that it might be given to mankind as a free gift by faith. This is the religion Christ created, a religion whose great high priest became a man in whose heart peace had no dwelling.

4) Wilde:: "might celebrate with unblessed bread and a chalice empty of wine"

Christianity: The only reason that a Christian believer has to celebrate is through the cursing of Christ, in his body, on the cross. Christ's body - the bread he speaks of - was the most "unblessed bread" in all of history. It was broken so that those who trust in him would be able to celebrate in the new creation with the blessed bodies that he won for them through the cursing of his own. The resurrection is confirmation that this was done in the power of God and that the power that warred against the body had been defeated. Similarly, the chalice of wine (symbolising God's judgement) is empty because Jesus drank it all on the cross - every last drop. The Christian is able to celebrate because the wine he or she drinks speaks of life when it should speak of death. We deserved to drink this chalice, but Christ drank it instead; that is why the chalice is 'in remembrance' and always pointing to Christ's sacrifice on the cross; not our own offering to God, but that which he offered in our place.

In the end, we see that Oscar Wilde's desired "alternative religion for the faithless" is actually a description of the Christian faith. When people reject Christianity in favour of a fleeting "alternative religion for the faithless", is is perhaps possible that what they have in mind is the very thing they are rejecting? The onus is on us to show this to them so that the Holy Spirit may convince them it is true.

The Word GOD is an English word consisting of three symbols or letters. Each of these letters has a forever, fixed location within the English alphabet containing 26 letters. 

The postioning of letters in the alphabet are forever etched in stone. You, nor I, will never change their positions.

The fixed position of G is 7, O is 15, and D is 4. These three postions exactly equal the total number of letters that the English mind and brain use for thought.

The Letters G O D were with GOD in the beginning. These letters are the three measures of meal that will leaven the whole loaf of letters that the mind moves through the brain and the body, for their positions are as one with the whole.

When the human mind grasps the true significance of G O D, His Spirit will begin to move and rise within the body that is housing that mind as the mind has made a significant connection, or revelation within itself.

Have you ever wondered how lively, great, God-fearing, life-changing churches lose their verve, miss their groove and slowly fade away?

It's rarely one thing, but a 1,000 missteps, all taken one a time. It's a slow transformation from being led by God to adopting the ways of man.

I kind of liken it to the slow creep of the price of a cup of coffee. Do you rembember when it never cost more than a buck? Now, we have people regularly shelling otut $4 bucks or more -- and thinking nothing of it.

Stealthily, without warning, we were inexorably sucked into the vortex of some mad coffee conspiracy, perpetuated by Juan Valdez, his burro and the coffee cartel.

While we were looking away, the baseline; the cost of a single cup of coffee -- began inching its way up. I remember the day clearly when I bought a cup of coffee at a 7-11 and innocently handed over a dollar bill. The clerk looked at me like I was an alien... "Like it's $1.14, man," she said. I choked as I grabbed some change and handed it over.

Once it went over a dollar, it was all over. Now, the sky is the limit.

Frothy, steamy, murky concoctions with shaved chocolate and cinnamon are brewed with milk -- steamed, whipped, or stirred. By the millions of cups we shell out two, three and four dollars apiece because it's different than plain old "joe." We never noticed the incremental, upward shift of prices.

Our church passion works much the same way. I have allowed the slow creep of things I once opposed to bully their way into my life. What I once called a lie I now call a slip of the tongue. What society once called sin is now emancipation and freedom. What was once reprehensible and wrong is simply another lapse of good judgment.

Oh, for the day of a dollar cup of coffee and an innocent heart

Read more writings at www.redletterbelievers.com

1. La iglesia local tiene que apoyar la creación de cultura. La mayoría de jóvenes evangélicos interesados en integrar su fe con el arte cinematográfico, el periodismo, la financiación empresarial, etc., reciben apoyo e instrucción de redes de contacto informal u organizaciones para-eclesiales. El libro de Michael Lindsay Faith in the Halls of Power muestra cómo muchos cristianos que se encuentran en lugares desde los que se puede ejercer alguna influencia cultural, están alienados de la iglesia, porque en los mejores casos, no reciben apoyo de la iglesia por vivir su fe en el espacio público y, en el peor de los casos, lo que reciben es oposición.

A nivel teológico, la iglesia necesita ganar un mayor consenso sobre la manera de relacionar fe y cultura. Todavía existe bastante conflicto entre quienes quieren discipular a los cristianos para la vida pública, y quienes piensan que todo lo que sea "involucrarse en la cultura" al final conlleva su riesgo y [acaba por] distraer de la predicación del evangelio. Lo que hace [especialmente] difícil este debate es que ambas partes hacen una buena presentación de sus puntos de vista y presentan buenos argumentos.

A nivel práctico, incluso las iglesias que de entrada valoran la importancia de integrar fe y ocupación laboral, en realidad hacen muy poco a la hora de equipar a la gente para que ese sea el caso. A quienes estamos en el ministerio, el seminario sólo nos preparó para discipular a la gente sólo en la medida que los vayamos sacando fuera del mundo y metiéndolos cada vez más dentro de las paredes y ministerios de la iglesia. Así que, ¿cómo puede una iglesia ayudar realmente a sus miembros en esta área? Aquellos líderes que quieran empezar a trabajar en esta cuestión deberían echar un vistazo al Center for Faith and Work de Redeemer. 

2. Necesitamos renovar nuestra apologética.  En estos momentos hay una gran resistencia, por parte de líderes evangélicos más jóvenes, en contra de la apologética. Nos dicen que ya no necesitamos argumentos porque la gente [ya] no [sigue una lógica] racional. Lo que necesitamos es comunidad de amor. En mi opinión, éste es un planteamiento corto de miras por dos motivos.

Primero, los cristianos occidentales acabarán teniendo que hacer frente al reto que durante años muchos misioneros se han encontrado--cómo comunicar el evangelio a musulmanes, budistas, hindús y seguidores de otras tantas religiones populares.  Todos los líderes jóvenes deberían tomar cursos en y leer textos de las otras principales religiones del mundo. También deberían estudiar la presentación del evangelio escrita por misioneros que han estado interactuando con esas religiones. Una comunidad de amor será extremadamente  importante, tal y como siempre lo ha sido, para alcanzar a nuestros vecinos que tienen otras creencias; pero si han de venir a la iglesia, lo harán trayendo con ellos toda una serie de preguntas que un líder de hoy tiene que ser capaz de dar respuesta.

Segundo, existe un verdadero vacío en el pensamiento secular de occidente. Al morir Derrida, me sorprendió ver cuántos de sus antiguos alumnos admitían  que la Alta Teoría (lo que los evangélicos llamamos 'post-modernismo') es vista como un callejón sin salida, principalmente porque es tan relativista que no provee de ninguna base para la acción política. Y un importante intelectual británico como Terry Eagleton, en unas recientes conferencias en Yale (publicadas por Yale Press bajo el título Religion, Faith, and Revolution) no tuvo miramientos a la hora de cargar contra el viejo ateísmo científico de Dawkins y Hitchens al calificarlo también de estar en bancarrota. Eagleton sugiere que el optimismo de la Ilustración sobre el progreso de la ciencia y de la humanidad está muerto. No importa lo popular que sean los libros de Dawkins, pues el pensamiento occidental ya no va por esos caminos. Además, el postmodernismo no puede producir una base [sólida]  para los derechos humanos ni tampoco para la justicia. 

[Todo] esto es realmente una apertura, apologéticamente [hablando], para alcanzar a no-cristianos con inquietudes intelectuales, especialmente aquellos que son más jóvenes y que tienen conciencia social. Necesitamos pensar en nuevas maneras de entablar contacto, preguntar a la gente cómo pueden justificar sus inquietudes por los derechos humanos y por la justicia social. (Una excelente ilustración de este tipo de planteamiento se puede leer en  "Does Naturalism Warrant a Moral Belief in Universal Benevolence and Human Rights?" de Chris Smith en el recientemente publicado The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion(Oxford, 2009.)

Durante los últimos veinte años mi predicación y enseñanza se ha beneficiado mucho del esforzado trabajo de leer filosofía, especialmente la obra de viejos filósofos y eruditos cristianos (Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Mavrodes, Alston) y también de los más jóvenes. Un [predicador] tiene que ser capaz de escoger y dar unidad a varios argumentos [del pensamiento contemporáneo], presentándolo después de una manera que sea fácil de entender tanto al predicar como a la hora de evangelizar.

Estoy de acuerdo con los críticos que dicen que eI viejo racionalismo de las 'evidencias que exigente un veredicto' es algo que  hoy día no despierta el más mínimo interés. Pero ello no significa que la gente ya no haga uso de la razón o incluso construya argumentos. En estos momentos hay una gran grieta en la armadura del pensamiento occidental. La gente no quiere volver a la religión, todavía les asusta; pero tampoco le entusiasman tanto las implicaciones y los efectos de no-creer.

3. Necesitamos una gran variedad de modelos de iglesia. En su libro, Models of the Church Avery Dulles realiza un gran trabajo a la hora de delinear los varios modelos de iglesia [que se han dado] en occidente a lo largo de los siglos.  Después de dejar claro que estos son modelos que muy rara vez se dan en su forma más pura, nos presenta cinco modelos. Cada uno estresando o enfatizando: a) Doctrina, enseñanza y autoridad, o b) un profundo sentido de comunidad y vida compartida, o c) alabanza, sacramentos, música y arte, o d) evangelismo, proclamación, y predicación dinámica, o e) justicia social, servicio y compasión.

Muchos evangélicos hoy día, en su deseo de llevar a cabo su ministerio en una cultura occidental post-cristiana, se han decantado por uno o dos de estos modelos. De manera que los que, por ejemplo, creen en una aproximación del tipo 'encarnacional' más que la que [descansa en la capacidad de atracción de la iglesia], enfatizan el hecho de estar y de servir puertas afuera en medio del vecindario, la creación de pequeñas iglesias en casa y [experimentar] una comunidad más intimidad (una combinación de los modelos b y e que Dulles nos propone).  Por otro lado, muchos evangélicos que no se fían del liberalismo tan sutil de la iglesia emergente, lo que enfatizan es la combinación más tradicional de los modelos a y d. Cada uno de los bandos es bastante serio en cuanto a lo acertado de su modelo y procura hacer uso del mismo en todas partes. 

Creo que nuestra situación cultural es demasiado compleja como para tener una perspectiva tan genérica. Hay demasiados no-cristianos que nunca han ido a una iglesia. Árabes en Detroit, hmongs en Chicago, chinos y judíos en la ciudad de Nueva York, anglos en el Noroeste y el Noreste que han sido educados por padres seculares--algunos de ellos son artistas e innovadores, otros trabajan en el mundo empresarial. Todos estos son varios grupos de un creciente número de gente que no conoce lo que es la iglesia, y cada uno de estos grupos son muy diferentes entre sí. De manera que aunque no hay un modelo que pueda llegar a todos y cada uno de ellos por igual--al menos cada modelo  sí puede llegar a alguno de estos grupos.

4. Tenemos que mejorar nuestra teología del sufrimiento. Los miembros de las iglesias occidentales no saben cómo reaccionar ante el sufrimiento y la dificultad. Esto es un serio problema, especialmente [si tenemos en cuenta el tiempo de transición que vivimos y toda la incertidumbre que ello genera] --aunmento de la marginalización social--y tal vez más inestabilidad social y económica. Existen una gran cantidad de libros sobre '¿por qué Dios permite el mal?' pero su principal objetivo es sacar a Dios de en medio con la impaciencia [característica] del occidental que cree que la [única] ocupación de Dios es darle una vida [lo más segura posible]. La iglesia en occidente debe [ser capaz de superar este gran obstáculo], preparando a su gente para que sean capaces de hacer frente al sufrimiento y a la persecución.

En esta cuestión también podemos conectar con el Nuevo cristianismo global. Tendemos a pensar '¿qué podemos hacer por ellos?'. Pero en una cuestión como ésta es cuando podemos dejar que sean ellos los hagan algo por nosotros. Gran parte de la la iglesia en el resto del mundo está acostumbrada al sufrimiento y a la persecución. Ellos tienen un tipo de fe que no languidece, al contrario, crece cada vez más robusta frente a la amenaza. Necesitamos que nos instruyan en esta área. 

5.Necesitamos un gran número de iglesias en las ciudades más grandes del mundo.

¡Sé que siempre se espera de mí que diga esto! Pero no se trata simplemente de un añadido a las otras medidas para hacer frente a los grandes retos [que hemos ido mencionando]. De alguna manera, esta es la 'Gran Idea' que nos ayudará a ir avanzando en todos los frentes.

Si hubiera un rápido y vital crecimiento de varios movimientos de iglesias--de teología ortodoxa, ministerio integral y comprometido culturalmente--en las grandes ciudades globales, de manera que entre un 5% y un 10% de los habitantes de las 50 ciudades más influyentes fuesen creyentes, a) ejercería un gran impacto en la creación de cultura, b) ayudaría a que la iglesia aprendiera nuevas maneras de alcanzar a quienes nunca han tenido contacto con la iglesia (puesto que tienden a concentrarse en las ciudades), c) conectaría de una forma más inmediata a las iglesias occidentales con las nuevas iglesias del resto del mundo, d) uniría iglesias de diferentes tradiciones y modelos.

- Puedes leer original (en inglés) aquí

1. The local church has to support culture-making. Most of the young evangelicals interested in integrating their faith with film-making, journalism, corporate finance, etc, are getting their support and mentoring from informal networks or para-church groups. Michael Lindsay's book Faith in the Halls of Power shows that many Christians in places of influence in the culture are alienated from the church, because they get, at best, no church support for living their faith out in the public spheres, and, at worst, opposition.

At the theological level, the church needs to gain more consensus on how the church and Christian faith relate to culture. There is still a lot of conflict between those who want to disciple Christians for public life, and those who think all "engagement of culture" ultimately leads to compromise and distraction from the preaching of the gospel. What makes this debate difficult is that both sides make good points and have good arguments. 

At the practical level, even the churches that give lip-service to the importance of integrating faith and work do very little to actually equip people to do so. Seminary only trained us ministers to disciple people by pulling them more out of the world and inside the walls and ministries of the church. So how does a church actually help its members in this area? Leaders who want to get started should look at Redeemer's Center for Faith and Work.

2. We need a renewal of apologetics. There is a lot of resistance right now among younger evangelical leaders toward apologetics. We are told we don't need arguments any more because people aren't rational. We need loving community instead. But I think this is short-sighted for two reasons.

First, Christians in the West will finally be facing what missionaries around the world have faced for years--how to communicate the gospel to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and adherents of various folk religions. All young church leaders should take courses in and read the texts of the other major world religions. They should also study the gospel presentations written by missionaries engaging those religions. Loving community will be extremely important, as it always is, to reach out to neighbors of other faiths, but if they are going to come into the church, they will have many questions that church leaders today need to be able to answer.

Second, there a real vacuum in western secular thought. When Derrida died I was surprised how many of his former students admitted that High Theory (what evangelicals call 'post-modernism') is seen as a dead end, mainly because it is so relativistic that it provides no basis for political action. And a leading British intellectual like Terry Eagleton in recent lectures at Yale (published as Religion, Faith, and Revolution by Yale Press) savaged the older scientific atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens as equally bankrupt. Eagleton points out that the Enlightenment's optimism about science and human progress is dead. Serious western thought is not going back to that, no matter how popular Dawkins' books get. But postmodernism cannot produce a basis for human rights or justice either.

This is a real opening, apologetically, in reaching out to thoughtful non-Christians, especially the younger, socially conscious ones. We need to think of new ways to engage, asking people how they can justify their concerns for human rights and social justice. (For a great recent form of this approach, see Chris Smith's "Does Naturalism Warrant a Moral Belief in Universal Benevolence and Human Rights?" in The Believing Primate: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Reflections on the Origin of Religion (Oxford, 2009.)

Over the last twenty years my preaching and teaching has profited a great deal from doing the hard work of reading philosophy, especially the work of older Christian philosophers and scholars (Plantinga, Wolterstorff, Mavrodes, Alston) and the younger ones. Ministers need to be able to glean and put their arguments into easy to understand form, both in speaking and in evangelism.

I agree with the critics that say the old, rationalistic, 'evidence that demands a verdict' makes people's eyes glaze over today. But that doesn't mean that people don't still use reason and still make arguments. There is a big chink in the armor of western thought right now. People don't want to go back to religion, which still scares them, but they are not so sanguine about the implications and effects of non-belief.

3. We need a great variety of church-models. Avery Dulles' book Models of the Church does a good job of outlining the very different models of churches in the west over the centuries. After qualifying his analysis by saying these are seldom pure forms, he lays out five models. Each one stresses or emphasizes: a) Doctrine, teaching, and authority, or b) deep community and life together, or c) worship, sacraments, music and the arts, or d) evangelism, proclamation, and dynamic preaching, or e) social justice, service, and compassion.

Many evangelicals today have bought in to one or two of these models as the way to minister now in the post-Christendom west. So for example, those who believe in the 'incarnational' (vs. 'attractional' approach) emphasize being and serving out in the neighborhood, smaller house churches and intimate community (a combination of Dulles' b and e models.) Meanwhile, many evangelicals who are afraid of the 'liberal creep' of the emerging church, stress the traditional combination of a and d emphases. Each side is fairly moralistic about the rightness of its model and seeks to use it everywhere.

I feel that our cultural situation is too complex for such a sweeping way to look at things. There are too many kinds of 'never-churched-non-Christians'. There are Arabs in Detroit, Hmongs in Chicago, Chinese and Jews in New York City, Anglos in the Northwest and Northeast that were raised by secular parents--some are artists and creative types, some work in business. All of these are growing groups of never-churched, but they are very different from one another. No model can connect to them all--every model can connect to some.

4. We must develop a far better theology of suffering. Members of churches in the west are caught absolutely flat-footed by suffering and difficulty. This is a major problem, especially if we are facing greater 'liminality'--social marginalization--and maybe more economic and social instability. There are a great number of books on 'why does God allow evil?' but they mainly are aimed at getting God off the hook with impatient western people who believe God's job is to give them a safe life. The church in the west must mount a great new project--of producing a people who are prepared to endure in the face of suffering and persecution.

Here, too, is one of the ways we in the west can connect to the new, growing world Christianity. We tend to think about 'what we can do for them.' But here's how we let them do something for us. Many or most of the church in the rest of the world is used to suffering and persecution. They have a kind of faith that does not wilt, but rather grows stronger under threat. We need to become students of theirs in this area.

5. We need a critical mass of churches in the biggest cities of the world.

I know I'm always expected to say this! But this is not a mere tack-on to the other measures for addressing the Big Issues. In some ways, this is the 'Big Idea' that will help us move forward on all fronts.

If there were vital, fast-growing movements of churches--orthodox in theology, wholistic in ministry, and committed to culture-making--in the great global cities, so that 5-10% of the residents of the 50 most influential cities were gospel-believers, a) it would have a great impact on culture-making, b) it would help the church learn new ways of reaching the never-churched (since they concentrate in cities), c) it would connect western churches more readily to the new churches in the non-western world, d) it would unite churches across traditions and models.

My King came down and paid my debt I owed to Him. He came down as a servant to pay in His own blood the debt I owed to God because of my sins against Him and others. The debt was infinitely great. Even if I gave all I owned a millions times over and gave every good work a million times over, my debt would still be unpaid. So an infinite debt required an infinite payment. I am thankful for this servant who is also my King. I am thankful that Jesus in His grace has forgiven my debt and removed my guilt by giving Himself.

See forgiveness cost. It will either come at the expense of the one injured or the one who did the injuring. In death, on a Roman cross, my forgiveness was purchased at the cost of the one whose glory had been injured. Jesus Christ nailed my debt to the cross, forgave me of my sin and sent me free to rejoice in the gracious gift of life with others who have received the same.

This motivates Christian forgiveness. How great it is, that Jesus did not withhold this gift from those of us who are known by Him. With this knowledge of God?s work in our lives on the cross, the Holy Spirit prompts us to forgive those who have injured us in order that we would display the great work of God in Christ. In forgiving others, we pay the cost and take some measure of suffering. We will be bearing our cross and demonstrate to the world the power of the Gospel.

1. La oportunidad (por lo menos en los Estados Unidos) de influir en el devenir de la cultura. En una entrevista, el sociólogo Peter Berger opinaba que los evangélicos en los Estados Unidos están dando un giro, de ser mayoritariamente clase obrera a tener formación universitaria.

Su pregunta es-- Todos estos cristianos preparándose en letras, empresariales, política, medios de comunicación y artes escénicas a) ¿serán asimilados en la ya existente narrativa cultural, de manera que en sus puntos de vista y valores pasará a ser el mismo que el del resto de las elites y profesionales seculares? o b) ¿se encerrarán en sí mismos y harán de su fe un asunto privado [sin ingerencias en su trabajo], de manera que, a todos los efectos, no realicen su trabajo de una manera especialmente distintiva? o c) ¿trabajarán de forma lo suficientemente creativa desde una perspectiva cristiana en sus campos para que las cosas cambien? (Ver Peter Berger)

2. El avance del Islam. ¿Cómo se relacionan los cristianos con los musulmanes cuando les toca vivir codo con codo en una misma sociedad? ¡Lo datos que recogemos de lugares como África y Oriente Medio no son muy alentadores! Este es un problema que afecta más a la iglesia en Europa que a la iglesia en Estados Unidos, pero sin duda será una preocupación creciente también para América

¿De qué manera pueden los cristianos, en relación a los musulmanes, ser a) buenos vecinos, procurando su bienestar indistintamente de si se convierten o no, y aún así b) de forma atractiva y efectiva invitarles a considerar el evangelio?  

3. El nuevo cristianismo global no es occidental.  El centro de gravedad demográfico del cristianismo [a nivel mundial] ha girado, y ya no se encuentra en Occidente, sino en Asia, América Latina y África. Las iglesias urbanas que están despuntando en China podrían llegar a ser particularmente influyentes en el futuro. Aún así, Occidente todavía tiene las instituciones educativas, el dinero y un poder significativo

¿En qué términos debe desarrollarse la relación entre las antiguas iglesias occidentales y la nueva iglesia no occidental? ¿Cómo podemos utilizar nuestros bienes para servirles, de una manera que no sea paternalista? ¿Cómo podemos aprender de ellos más allá de lo superficial?

 4. El creciente distanciamiento cultural con respecto al evangelio.Los conceptos básicos del evangelio -- pecado, culpa y tener que rendir cuentas a Dios, el sacrificio de la cruz, la naturaleza humana, la vida después de la muerte -- están llegando a ser una rareza en nuestra cultura occidental por primera vez en 1500 años. Tal y como Lesslie Newbigin ha escrito, ahora es tiempo de 'pensar como misioneros'--para formular maneras de comunicar el evangelio que por un lado confronte, como también sepan conectar con nuestra crecientemente-descristianizada cultura occidental.

¿Cómo hacemos que el evangelio sea culturalmente accesible, sin poner en compromiso su integridad? ¿Cómo podemos comunicar el evangelio y vivirlo de manera que sea comprensible para gente que carece de la estructura mental básica para al menos ser capaces de entender las verdades esenciales de la Biblia?

5. ¿El fin de la prosperidad? Con la crisis económica, la cuestión que se nos plantea es -- ¿volverá a crecer el valor de las viviendas, seguros, comisiones, salarios e inversiones, al mismo ritmo que lo han hecho durante los últimos 25 años? O, por el contrario ¿el crecimiento será relativamente nulo por muchos años? Si es así, ¿de qué manera la iglesia occidental --que se ha acostumbrado a dar de unos activos que crecían a gran velocidad-- se ajustará en la manera en la que lleva a cabo el ministerio? Por ejemplo, el ministerio en los Estados Unidos hoy está altamente profesionalizado --los empleados de una iglesia son mucho más numerosos de lo que lo eran dos generaciones atrás, cuando de una iglesia de 1.000 se esperaba que quizá tuviera dos pastores y un par de trabajadores a medio tiempo. Hoy día esa misma iglesia seguramente tenga entre 8 y 10 trabajadores a tiempo completo.    

También a tener en cuenta, ¿cómo ajustamos el mensaje sobre la mayordomía? Si los activos se han reducido a la mitad, [nos encontramos con la paradoja de que] un ofrendar más sacrificado y con mayor riesgo será necesario para poder realizar menos ministerio del que hasta ahora hemos estado llevando a cabo.

Si, además de todo esto, sufrimos un atentado nuclear o de terrorismo biológico en los Estados Unidos o en Europa, podríamos tener que vernos obligados a dejar de un lado toda nuestra asunción más básica sobre el progreso social y económico que hemos ido construyendo durante los últimos 65 años. En la primera mitad del s. XX, tuvimos dos guerras mundiales y una depresión económica. ¿Está lista la iglesia para hacer frente a una situación similar? ¿De qué manera? ¿Qué puede significar todo esto?

 - Puedes leer original (en iglés) aquí

His question is--will Christians going into the arts, business, government, the media, and film a) assimilate to the existing baseline cultural narratives so they become in their views and values the same as other secular professionals and elites, or b) will they seal off and privatize their faith from their work so that, effectively, they do not do their work in any distinctive way, or c) will they do enough new Christian 'culture-making' in their fields to change things? (See http://www.virginia.edu/iasc/HHR_Archives/AfterSecularization/8.12PBerger.pdf)

2. The rise of Islam. How do Christians relate to Muslims when we live side by side in the same society? The record in places like Africa and the Middle East is not encouraging! This is more of an issue for the western church in Europe than in the U.S., but it is going to be a growing concern in America as well.

How can Christians be at the very same time a) good neighbors, seeking their good whether they convert or not, and still b) attractively and effectively invite Muslims to consider the gospel?

3. The new non-western Global Christianity. The demographic center of Christian gravity has already shifted from the west to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The rising urban churches of China may be particularly influential in the future. But the west still has the educational institutions, the money, and a great deal of power.

What should the relationship of the older western churches be to the new non-western church? How can we use our assets to serve them in ways that are not paternalistic? How can we learn from them in more than perfunctory ways?

4. The growing cultural remoteness of the gospel. The basic concepts of the gospel -- sin, guilt and accountability before God, the sacrifice of the cross, human nature, afterlife -- are becoming culturally strange in the west for the first time in 1500 years. As Lesslie Newbigin has written, it is time now to 'think like a missionary'--to formulate ways of communicating the gospel that both confront and engage our increasingly non-Christian western culture.

How do we make the gospel culturally accessible without compromising it? How can we communicate it and live it in a way that is comprehensible to people who lack the basic 'mental furniture' to even understand the essential truths of the Bible?

5. The end of prosperity? With the economic meltdown, the question is -- will housing values, endowments, profits, salaries, and investments go back to growing at the same rates as they have for the last twenty-five years, or will growth be relatively flat for many years to come? If so, how does the western church, which has become habituated to giving out of fast-increasing assets, adjust in the way it carries out ministry? For example, American ministry is now highly professionalized--church staffs are far larger than they were two generations ago, when a church of 1,000 was only expected to have, perhaps, two pastors and a couple of other part-time staff. Today such a church would have probably eight to ten full-time staff members.

Also, how should the stewardship message adjust? If discretionary assets are one-half of what they were, more risky, sacrificial giving will be necessary to do even less ministry than we have been doing.

On top of this, if we experience even one significant act of nuclear or bio-terrorism in the U.S. or Europe, we may have to throw out all the basic assumptions about social and economic progress we have been working off for the last 65 years. In the first half of the 20th century, we had two World Wars and a Depression. Is the church ready for that? How could it be? What does that mean?

Take for example the shopping center 1.2 miles from my home where we do all of our grocery shopping. There is a Target, Barnes and Noble, Kroger, Caribou Coffee, Best Buy, Lowes, Rue Sans (Sushi), Wachovia (Bank), and a Smoothie King, not to mention several upscale ($200 or more a pair)shoe stores, shops, and boutiques. It possesses all of the qualities of the "rough" areas of Seattle, so by my general definition, it is no longer a depressed area - except, because of gentrification and trend changes, for this situation, my definition is blown, why? The liquor store three blocks from this shopping center was robbed, and the clerk was shot to death just two month's ago. Just this past Sunday, a shoot out between two vehicles occurred in that same shopping center just a few hours after my family and I finished buying groceries there.

The point to this discourse is that the dividing lines between rich and poor, safe and dangerous, hood and hip are no longer so clear. This is a changing landscape that as a Pastor to this city I am going to have to carefully examine to understand, so that we can most effectively and faithfully engage and reach this entire area that does not in anyway lend itself to homogeneous ministry, if we are being true to engaging the whole of the community. How we will reconcile our culture clashes, I do not fully have an answer to yet, but for anyone else seeking to move into and work for the welfare of any major city through Gospel transformation, this is a question that has to be answered.

"I just visit a different church each week, that"s what I do."   In her early 50's, the woman making this statement to me had a sweet smile and warm eyes.   She had come very early to find the location and made herself comfortable in a cushioned seating area.  I found her to be a very friendly person.

That was until I started to try to move some of the storage boxes with our church supplies.  You see, we meet in an off Broadway theater.  And like many churches that rent where they gather to worship, we use storage bins to hold the basic items that we need.  If you come early enough on a Sunday morning you'll walk into a room filled with large plastic bins of supplies for all of the assorted things that we do in a service.

Our friend had found the corner where most of the bins were stacked and promptly nestled herself behind them.  The moment that I began to move some of the bins to put them away prior to the service, her demeanor changed; she became agitated.  The agitation started graciously at first, "Oh no, you don't have to move these for me.  I don't mind them at all."  I was very gentle at first, explaining that it was no trouble at all.  She would be able to see the service if I moved the bins.

She countered, "Please don't move these bins.  I can see just fine."  In New York, space is a premium, so I had to explain to her that we would probably need the seating area as people arrived.  This did not deter her.  In fact, she actually became more adamant.  As I put my hands on one of the bins, she grabbed it to keep it in place.  I found myself playing a little tug-of-war with this sweet woman!  Except now, she wasn't looking so sweet.  Then it dawned upon me - she sat there so no one could get close to her.  I did have to move the bins and we were pretty full, but she had to let me take down those walls.  Fortunately, a young lady in our congregation came over to meet this woman.  The distraction was wonderfully helpful.

After the service I thought on this awhile.  Isn't this a story for all of us?  We are attracted to what God can do in community, yet we are scared to be known.  Like a moth attracted to a flame, we are made for relationships. Yet like this woman, we want community to be on our terms.  But community on our terms is not really community, it's manipulation.  We keep building our walls of plastic bins to try to control the very people who can help us.

I think about the plastic bins that I use to keep people away while I'm in the middle of community.  Busyness, position, there are a lot of ways that I create artificial divides between me and those directly around me.  To go from anonymity to relationships can be a terrifying process.

Yet that is where God constantly takes us.  Christianity has doctrine, but that doctrine is about a relationship with God.  The fountainhead of our faith is relationship.  Why would we be surprised that the Holy Spirit keeps taking us to expressions of community?  The church is not man's idea; it's mandated in Scripture as God's plan for the world.

I'm praying for my new found friend.  I pray that she comes back to Grace, but if she doesn't I'm praying for people around her who won't let her stay hidden behind plastic bins.  We all need people to come and take those walls down.  It may be terrifying at first, but it is ultimately liberating.

Isn't that what Jesus came to do?  To set us free so that we could be free indeed?

I went to Seattle recently to visit my boy's at Mars Hill and get my retrain on, and me and Mike Anderson had an interesting conversation. We were talking about crime, impoverished neighborhoods, and the gospel. He then told me about the ghetto in Seattle, and some of what are considered the rough areas. You may notice that I have placed both ghetto and rough in quotations, it is indeed to show sarcasm, because what I discovered in seeing these areas made me come to the conclusion that if these were the rough areas of Seattle, then Seattle truly had no ghetto.

You see, in true hood areas, there are things you find and things you don't. Banks, Grocery Stores, Coffee shops, Sushi Bars, Target, Barnes and Noble etc. you do not find in the ghetto why Because these businesses generally do not feel they can be profitable in depressed areas of the city. What you do find in depressed areas of metropolitan cities are Liquor Stores, Pawn Shops, Corner Stores (that charge 80 cents for one pack of Kool Aid, true story, a couple blocks from my house), Burned out or Abandoned Buildings, and masses of people standing on street corners. The rough areas of Seattle had all of the former and none of the latter.

Something interesting seems to be taking place in recent years though in some major cities. As Young Professionals, and Urban Hipsters are moving back into cities, and gentrification is happening in once depressed areas, we are starting to see some light and some severe culture clash. Example...I live in Grant Park (Downtown Atlanta) Atlanta's oldest and most historic neighborhood. I live off of MLK, and everyone I know who doesn't live here or isn't familiar with what has taken place here always asks me,you living in the hood now? Well technically, yes, but conventionally, no. I live in what was once an abandoned warehouse turned chic overpriced loft space, with gated parking. More directly, I am living in what I would consider a mostly gentrified neighborhood. And it is diverse by race, ethnicity, culture and class. It is amazing to me to see $40,000 BMW's drive past homeless guys pissing in the street, and yet, I see it everyday. We have what is now a culture clash, and it is starting to spill over in more severe ways.

to be continued

As more and more ministries and churches are pushing forward into serving their communities, I just wanted to highlight some practical lessons from my time in an urban context.

1. Christ must be primary. The Savior of the people is Jesus Christ and not us. In our efforts to help others who are in need, many times we can unintentionally put forth the perception we are here to save and the name of Christ can be obscured. So be intentional and look forward opportunities to graciously point people to Jesus Christ.

2. Communication with God. Prayer is the most invaluable privilege afforded to believers. There are many things that are unknown when you minister and so it is important that you go before the Lord in prayer. The Scriptures state, that the prayer of the righteous availeth much. The disciples prayed that the Lord would stretch forth His hand to do healing and signs and wonders. So take opportunities to walk the community and pray. Pray for the things that you see and don't see.

3. Compassion. Jesus saw the people and had compassion on them, for they were like sheep without a shepherd. I have found people who are desperate in life and chase after things that more than likely will be damaging to them. Now you could throw the Bible at them with all your Scriptures while they are in their drunkenness, smoking weed or absolute anger because their bicycle wheel was taken by the neighborhood trouble maker. Or you can walk in the compassion that Christ continually demonstrates. It really goes along way and it will speak so loud that eventually the one you have been compassionate towards will listen to what you have to say.

4. Courage. Let's be real. There are many areas that some people just can not go. Some areas in our city are just crime magnets and it takes a depth of wisdom and discernment to go into dangerous spots. At the same time, I have understood that Christ said He would never leave nor forsake and that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter who dwells within those who are born again. Armed with that knowledge, many of us have been equipped by God to be courageous and bring the hope of Christ into areas that are just not safe. Courage is not seen in the presence of safety but the absence of it.

5. Confidence in God who saves. There are a lot of cool things to catch people's attention. There are many cool ideas that we can come up with to serve the needs of people. The Psalms said, some trust in chariots, horses or princes but true confidence is found in the Lord God. Do we dismiss chariots, horses, community lunches or medical outreaches? No, because God has gifted many to use such things. But let us never forget our confidence must be in the Lord who saves and who heals and delivers for the sake of His name.

I was reflecting today on Jesus Christ being the Good Shepherd. Obviously a shepherd has a flock of sheep as Jesus says of Himself in John 10. The Gospel writers point out that Jesus saw the people as sheep not having a shepherd and He had compassion on them. Surely shepherds have the aroma of their sheep that they spend so much intimate time with. So my question to myself was how did Jesus smell? The second question I then had was how should shepherds (pastors) smell?

The Gospel writers point consistently to how Jesus Christ spent the majority of his time with sinners. This reality angered the religious folk of His day, as they tried to use this as an argument to discredit Jesus ministry. Jesus pointed out to them that it was the sick that needed a doctor. It was the unrighteous He was calling to repentance.

So what would tax collectors and sinners smell like? What is the aroma or odor of a prostitute? As He moved through the crowds and the woman with the issue of blood touched Him. Was her fragrance worthy of being bottled by Bath and Body Works? (She did have an awfully long menstrual cycle) The leper that Jesus touched, was his aroma fragrant like a rose or the aroma of decaying flesh? I wonder what Jesus smelled liked, as He went in and among the people that needed repentance and hope and then left them to travel to others?

Is it possible that Jesus wasn?t the fragrance of Cool Water, Nautica or Usher? Yes I know, he was anointed with the fragrance from an alabaster box, but up until that moment, that was ushering in the preparation for His death and resurrection, Jesus surely smelled liked the people He served, touched and ate with.

So my second question is this, ?How should we shepherds smell?? Have you ever walked away with the smell of beer on your clothes? Have you ever sat in a smoked filled room of marijuana or tobacco; walking away thinking you took part in the inhalation? Do you smell like the hidden issues that exist in marriages that are falling apart, children who are in need of their father?s attention or men who wrestle with their sexual identity? Should we not follow in the steps of our Great Shepherd?

While we may walk away with the fragrance of sins that are not our own, let us leave men and women with the aroma of Christ Jesus. The aroma of Christ is described as fragrant and sweet to the Father as He died on the Cross. The sweet smelling fragrance of Christ not only in death but in triumphant resurrection is the aroma we bring to men and women, leaving with their aroma on us, reminding us how to pray and care for those whom God has given us to shepherd.

Just today I was discussing how trials bring about our good with a friend of mine. After I got home I realized that James already wrote about this in an incredibly clear manner...

James 1:2-4 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

What a sweet and comforting truth! We are to count it all joy when we suffer because it produces steadfastness. The reasoning here is just awesome. James tells us to be joyful when we meet trials because we already know that when our faith is tested we become more steadfast. He is rooting this on previous knowledge and experience, hence him saying "for you know". The reason this can be said to any Christian is because every new convert goes through the trial of persecution. It does not necessarily have to be grievous persecution, but it will no doubt come. So from the very early days of our faith, we have been tried and our faith has grown and increased steadfastness is the result. So, Christian, fuel your joy with the knowledge that every trial has made you more steadfast. James concludes his thought on being steadfast in verse 12...

12 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him.

More emphasis on how remaining steadfast is linked to our joy. We will be blessed and receive the crown of life if we remain steadfast. Despair is a wild spiral down from this glorious truth, and joy is a lifted head of steadfast faith.

Algunas impresiones de Tim Keller sobre el best-seller La Cabaña de W. Paul Young:

Durante las vacaciones leí una buena (y devastadora) crítica de La Cabaña  de William P. (Paul) Young en la última edición impresa de Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010). Fue algo que me recordó que yo era una de las últimas personas en el mundo que no había leído el libro. Así que lo leí. ¿Por qué escribir un artículo al respecto? [El libro en cuestión] vendió 7.2 millones de copias en poco más de 2 años, a mediados de Junio de 2009. Con esas cifras, seguramente ejercerá alguna influencia en el imaginario popular de lo religioso. Así que exige una respuesta. Esto no es una reseña [o crítica literaria], simplemente algunas impresiones:

El libro es un noble esfuerzo, en forma de narración, de ayudar a la gente moderna a entender por qué Dios permite el sufrimiento. El gran argumento que Young presenta en varias partes del libro es el siguiente: Primero, el mal y el sufrimiento en el mundo es resultado de nuestro abuso del libre albedrío. Segundo, Dios no ha impedido el mal, para así alcanzar un bien mayor y más glorioso que ahora los seres humanos no podemos comprender. Tercero, cuando tenemos amargura hacia Dios por alguna tragedia en particular, nos sentamos en la silla del 'Juez y Dios del mundo', y no estamos cualificados para ese trabajo. Cuarto, debemos adquirir una 'perspectiva eterna' y ver a todo el pueblo de Dios [lleno] de gozo delante de su presencia por siempre. (Al padre en la historia le es dada una vision de su hija muerta viviendo en gozo en la presencia de Cristo, y [esta visión] cura su dolor.) Todo esto es una teología pastoral bastante standard y ortodoxa (aunque un tanto excesiva en su defensa del libre albedrío). [Todo ello] es bastante accesible al lector por el uso que hace de la narrativa. He escuchado muchos testimonios de medio-creyentes y de no-creyentes diciendo que este libro les había dado respuesta a sus mayores objeciones a la fe en Dios.

Sin embargo, a lo largo del libro [se puede ver cómo] la historia de Young mina unas cuantas doctrinas tradicionales del cristianismo. Muchos se han metido de llenos a debatir sobre las creencias teológicas de Young, y yo tengo mis propias reserves. Pero este es mi principal problema con el libro. Cualquiera que haya quedado influenciado por el imaginativo mundo de La Cabaña  no estará en absoluto preparado [para un encuentro] con el Dios, realmente mucho más multi-dimensional y complejo, de la Biblia. En los profetas el lector encontrará un Dios que constantemente condena y jura juicio sobre sus enemigos, mientras que las Personas del Dios-Trino de La Cabaña no paran de decir que el pecado no les es ninguna ofensa. El lector del Salmo 119 es lleno de entusiasmo por los estatutos, los decretos y las leyes de Dios, mientras que el Dios de La Cabaña insiste en que él no nos da ninguna norma o ni tan siquiera tiene ninguna expectativa de los seres humanos. Lo único que quiere es una relación. El lector de las vidas de Abraham, Jacob, Moisés e Isaías aprenderá que la santidad de Dios hace que su presencia [sin ningún tipo de mediación] sea peligrosa o incluso fatal para nosotros. Alguien podría argumentar (tal y como Young parece hacerlo en la página 192) que a causa de Jesús, Dios es ahora sólo un Dios de amor; lo que hace obsoleto cualquier discurso sobre santidad, ira y ley. Pero cuando Juan, uno de los amigos más íntimos de Jesús, ve mucho tiempo después de la crucifixión al Cristo resucitado en la isla de Patmos, 'cayó al suelo como muerto' (Apocalipsis 1:17). La Cabaña deconstruye de forma eficaz la santidad y la trascendencia de Dios, Simplemente no están presentes. En su lugar, simplemente, amor incondicional. El Dios de La Cabaña no tiene nada de la estabilidad y la complejidad del Dios bíblico. Un Dios a medias no es de ninguna manera Dios.

Existe otro libro moderno que [también] busca comunicar el carácter de Dios a través de una historia. [Este libro] también intentó 'encarnar' la doctrina bíblica de Dios de una forma imaginativa que pudiera trasmitir el corazón [mismo] del mensaje bíblico.  Aquella historia tenía una figura de Cristo llamada Aslan. Sin embargo, al contrario que el autor de La Cabaña, C.S. Lewis siempre se esmeraba en mantener la tensión bíblica entre el amor divino y su abrumadora santidad y esplendor. En la introducción a su libro El Problema del Dolor, Lewis citaba el ejemplo del libro infantil El Viento en los Sauces en el que dos personajes, Rata y Topo se acercan al divino. 

"¿Miedo?" Murmuró la Rata, con los ojos brillando de amor. "¡Miedo! ¿De él? ¡Nunca! Y, sin embargo... ¡Oh Topo, tengo miedo!"

Lewis buscó trasmitir esto a lo largo de sus historias de Narnia. Uno de los momentos más memorables es la descripción de Aslan.

"¿Seguros? ¿Quién dijo algo de estar seguros? Por su puesto que él no es seguro, pero él es bueno. Y es el Rey."   

Esto está mejor.

Over the holidays I read a good (and devastating) review of William P. (Paul) Young's The Shack in the most recent print edition of Books and Culture: A Christian Review (Jan/Feb 2010.)  It was a reminder that I was one of the last people on the planet not to have read the book. So I did. So why write a blog post about it? It had sold 7.2 million copies in a little over 2 years, by June of 2009. With those kinds of numbers, the book will certainly exert some influence over the popular religious imagination. So it warrants a response. This is not a review, but just some impressions:

At the heart of the book is a noble effort -- to help modern people understand why God allows suffering, using a narrative form. The argument Young makes at various parts of the book is this. First, this world's evil and suffering is the result of our abuse of free will. Second, God has not prevented evil in order to accomplish some glorious, greater good that humans cannot now understand. Third, when we stay bitter at God for a particular tragedy we put ourselves in the seat of the 'Judge of the world and God', and we are unqualified for such a job. Fourth, we must get an 'eternal perspective' and see all God's people in joy in his presence forever. (The father in the story is given a vision of his deceased daughter living in the joy of Christ's presence, and it heals his grief.) This is all rather standard, orthodox, pastoral theology (though it's a bit too heavy on the 'free-will defense').  It is so accessible to readers because of its narrative form. I have heard many reports of semi-believers and non-believers claiming that this book gave them an answer to their biggest objections to faith in God.

However, sprinkled throughout the book, Young's story undermines a number of traditional Christian doctrines. Many have gotten involved in debates about Young's theological beliefs, and I have my own strong concerns. But here is my main problem with the book. Anyone who is strongly influenced by the imaginative world of The Shack will be totally unprepared for the far more multi-dimensional and complex God that you actually meet when you read the Bible. In the prophets the reader will find a God who is constantly condemning and vowing judgment on his enemies, while the Persons of the Triune-God of The Shack repeatedly deny that sin is any offense to them. The reader of Psalm 119 is filled with delight at God's statutes, decrees, and laws, yet the God of The Shack insists that he doesn't give us any rules or even have any expectations of human beings. All he wants is relationship. The reader of the lives of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Isaiah will learn that the holiness of God makes his immediate presence dangerous or fatal to us. Someone may counter (as Young seems to do, on p.192) that because of Jesus, God is now only a God of love, making all talk of holiness, wrath, and law obsolete. But when John, one of Jesus' closest friends, long after the crucifixion sees the risen Christ in person on the isle of Patmos, John 'fell at his feet as dead.' (Rev.1:17.) The Shack effectively deconstructs the holiness and transcendence of God. It is simply not there. In its place is unconditional love, period. The God of The Shack has none of the balance and complexity of the Biblical God. Half a God is not God at all.

There is another modern text that sought to convey the character of God through story. It also tried to 'embody' the Biblical doctrine of God in an imaginative way that conveyed the heart of the Biblical message. That story contained a Christ-figure named Aslan. Unlike the author of The Shack, however, C.S. Lewis was always at pains to maintain the Biblical tension between the divine love and his overwhelming holiness and splendor. In the introduction to his book The Problem of Pain, Lewis cited the example from the children's text The Wind in the Willows where two characters, Rat and Mole approach divinity.

"Afraid?" murmured the Rat, his eyes shining with unutterable love. "Afraid? of Him? O, never, never. And yet -- and yet -- O Mole, I am afraid."

Lewis sought to get this across at many places through his Narnia tales. One of the most memorable is the description of Aslan.

"Safe?...Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

That's better.

Do you wish to honour the body of Christ? Do not ignore him when he is naked? Do not pay him homage in the temple clad in silk, only then to neglect him outside where he is cold and ill-clad? He who said:"This is my body" is the same who said: "You saw me hungry and you gave me no food," and whatever you did to the least of my brothers you did also to me. What good is it if the Eucharistic table is overloaded with golden chalices when your brother is dying of hunger? Start by satisfying his hunger and then with what is left you may adorn the altar as well. -John Chrysostom

This quote is from the 3rd century, and interestingly this quote seems to be addressing something the Church then was struggling with, and it seems it is not different from how she struggles now. There is this tendency we have to adorn the altar while the sick, hungry, and helpless remain that way all around us. To quote a modern poet and scholar/rapper, my friend Sho Baraka, "the churches gettin bigger, but the block don?t change."

Essentially these two men, from different era's, different centuries, different cultures, are saying the same thing. The Church, as a whole, is an internally focused hospital for the well while the sick and dying continue to be sick and die. Jesus said that he came for the sinner, that those who are well needed no physician. Jesus came making wrongs right, crooked straight, and broken whole. Healing the sick, raising the dead, feeding the hungry, healing the broken hearted, and clothing the naked.

So what are the gospel implications? That the gospel is bigger than saving us from our sin sickness. There are social, ethical, and justice related indictments that are inherent in Christ' gospel, and if we are not involved in them, but our "alters" are covered with "gold" then we have failed to incarnate the Jesus of the bible, at least fully.

One of the challenges of pastoring people in a city center, is the amount of time people spend in their workplace. Unlike other parts of the country, people seem to live at their places of work. Rather than becoming frustrated that people are not available to serve in our church programs, we should see the time spent in a place of work as an opportunity to see the kingdom of God leave the confines of traditional church programming, come to the workplace, begin to do its work of industry and city renewal.

In order to move toward this vision, our church has been hosting industry roundtables for the last year for so. These roundtable discussions are designed to bring people from various industries together and help them form a theology of kingdom renewal for their respective career fields. Some of the questions we ask at these luncheons are...

What drew you to your industry?
What do you love about your industry?
What do you struggle with in your industry?
What ethical dilemmas do you often run into?
To what scripture do you turn to formulate a theology of your industry?
What are some of your doubts and uncertainties about how God could move in your industry?
What do wish that we as your pastors/leaders, knew about your industry?
How can the church help you live more missionally in your industry?
What is our church doing that is hindering you from being able to bring the kingdom of God to bear in your workplace?

I have been surprised and overwhelmed by the response of people in our church to these events. People have felt empowered, encouraged and have been given a new vision for what they do all week. Many of them now sense that it is making a vital difference in the world, and that it is important to God. I have also had several people comment on how good it is to hear that the church has a vision for something outside of itself, and how good it is to know that a pastor "gets" what they do Monday through Friday.

I have found that having an awareness of what it is people love, struggle with, are tempted by and need encouragement in, makes me a more effective pastor. My counseling is more empathetic, my preaching more informed, and the word of God more contextualized to do its work. I am not simply projecting my life and wishes onto their work-week, but am able to help bring the gospel to bear on the temptations, trials and joys they live in every day.

In order to really see a movement of the gospel through a city, it is going to take the equipping of our people to live and share the gospel where they spend most of their time: the workplace. Hosting an industry roundtable is a small step in that direction, but also an important one to see a local congregation begin this work.

Nuevo artículo de Tim Keller. En esta ocasión, el Dr. Keller nos habla de los motivos que han llevado a Redeemer a ser una iglesia de esas que se conocen como multi-sitio. Es decir, iglesias que se reúnen en múltiples localidades dentro de una determinada área geográfica; en este caso, tres vecindarios del distrito de Manhattan.

Hace poco Redeemer fue presentada ocupando un lugar prominente en un artículo de USA Today sobre [el fenómeno de las] iglesias multi-sitio. Aparte de mencionar el hecho de que Redeemer no utiliza la video conferencia,  [el artículo] no se refirió a las diferencias que existen entre nuestro enfoque y el de otros. Y en la consiguiente discusión online después del artículo, era evidente que a todas las iglesias multi-sitio se las ponía en un mismo montón [sin diferenciar unas de otras].  Para aclarar cualquier duda, puede que sea de alguna ayuda saber por qué y cómo Redeemer es una iglesia que se reúne en múltiples localidades.

1. Primero, no adoptamos el ser multi-sitio porque fuera más económico o más eficiente para nosotros. Cuando hace diez años empezamos a reunirnos en varias localidades, ya teníamos un culto por la mañana y otro por la tarde en un mismo local que era bastante grande. Hubiera sido menos costoso y a la vez efectivo simplemente incrementar los cultos, hasta cuatro o cinco, en ese mismo lugar. Trasladarnos a otro local significó un aumento considerable en gastos de alquiler, servicios de atención para niños, música y muchas otras cosas.

2. Segundo, no nos convertimos en multi-sitio para alcanzar más deprisa a más gente. El auditorio donde empezamos a reunirnos hace 10 años tiene capacidad para más de 2.000 personas sentadas, y otros espacios del mismo tamaño no están disponibles. Los lugares que hemos alquilado en otras partes de la ciudad son bastante más pequeños. Si hubiéramos continuado en aquél lugar y hubiéramos multiplicado allí mismo las reuniones, podríamos haber alcanzado a un número mayor de gente de forma más rápida.

Así pues, ¿qué nos llevó a adoptar el modelo del multi-sitio?

 1. Primero, extendemos nuestras reuniones a diferentes lugares para que la gente pueda celebrar el culto cerca de donde viven. La gente puede involucrarse mucho más en la comunidad e invitar a sus amigos [a la iglesia] con mucha más facilidad si los encuentros son en su vecindario. [En realidad esto lo hicimos a sabiendas que iba] en contra de la mentalidad típica de la mega-iglesia, puesto que las grandes iglesias generan un gran número de miembros que recorren grandes distancias para asistir a la iglesia. Nosotros queremos frenar esta tendencia y arraigar más a la gente en su contexto local.

2. Segundo, el modelo del multi-sitio es algo que hemos diseñado como una transición. Redeemer tiene un plan para convertir cada uno de los sitios en los que se reúne en una congregación o iglesia en sí misma para el vecindario en el que se encuentra, con su propio liderazgo pastoral. Yo he sido el predicador principal en todas las localidades, pero hace dos años pasamos de cuatro a tener cinco reuniones en tres lugares distintos, [con sus respectivas predicaciones], algo que resulta excesivo para mí en un solo domingo. Pero en lugar de proyectarme en video, decidimos que otros pastores en el equipo pastoral predicasen siempre al menos en esa quinta reunión. Cuando lleguemos a seis y a siete cultos, en unos dos años, en cada uno de los lugares habrá un pastor al frente que compartirá el peso de la predicación conmigo. 

Entonces pasaremos del modelo 'multi-sitio' al modelo 'colegiado'. Y aunque todavía continuaremos unidos bajo un mismo consejo de ancianos, cada iglesia tendrá su propio equipo pastoral, ancianos y líderes laicos. Otros modelos colegiados que podemos encontrar en nuestra denominación (PCA) serían Harbor Presbyterian en San Diego y Brooklyn Presbyterian también en la ciudad de Nueva York.

Durante la entrevista con el periodista de USA Today, me cuide mucho de no criticar a otras iglesias muIti-sitio. No sé qué es lo que motiva a otras iglesias a usar el modelo del multi-sitio, pero lo que aquí he expuesto es lo que nos motiva a nosotros.

___________

* Artículo original (en inglés) aquí

It has got to be the third person in the last two weeks that has asked me about the existence of God in light of the tragedy in Haiti. The last words I heard before I walked out of that Starbucks were "How can a good god exist and allow these things to happen, a god like that has no place in this world". As I reflected upon what I judge to be an honest angry statement I was reminded of another episode just last week. It happened here at my own church during a presbytery meeting.

At that meeting a Haitian movement leader updated us of the situation in Port Au Prince in the aftermath of the 7.2 earthquake. At the occasion he said that the situation was much worse than what has been reported by the American TV networks. Out of his own suffering he shared the fact that he had lost 10 of his pastors, all of their church buildings and many of their church members. He said that there was no food, scarcity of gas to transport whatever supplies they could gather from the DR or other immediate towns, tons of orphans roaming the streets and a lot of violence. But in the midst of all the destruction around them the church remained strong. He said that every single night sounds of prayers and songs are heard through out the desolated streets of the city. That in the midst of immense suffering people are turning to God more than they are turning to nations and to other human beings.

Interesting. Here we have one of the greatest catastrophes of history and then we have two kinds of people. Those who are mere spectators and those who are living in it. On one side you have those, like myself that can drive into a Stbx and pay $4 for a cup of coffee and then go home and watch what's going on on TV and then you have those who are actually there. A fool like the one I encountered today who can afford to have a comfortable life asks the question that the homeless, orphan, hungry, mutilated is not asking on the other side. They usually never do. On this side of the tragedy people are using what happened to run away from God while victims are desperately running to God. To me if someone had the right to ask the question; it would be the Haitian people. Except, they are not.

I've heard it say that "atheism ends at the grave" and I guess that's true for both types of people.

God raises up leaders to care for His flock. It is important to realize that the Church is God's flock and not the leaders. He purchased the flock, the Bride with His own blood. Out of this redemptive work, the Holy Spirit raises up leaders who care for His people.
This flock is extremely and infinitely precious because they were purchased with perfect and precious blood.

Matthew Henry stated, "the flock of God ought to be dear to us, for it is dear to him, because it cost him dear.."

Servant leadership calls also for an attentiveness to ourselves as well as the flock of God. Before we can care for others, we must bring ourselves into the presence of the Lord in order that He would renew our own minds and hearts first. Baxter stated, "it is easier to chide at sin, than to overcome it." So let us go to the Lord first and have Him deal with us gracefully. In doing so, leaders will serve the flock in the same manner. From there, the Holy Spirit actively works in our lives to wash the feet of the flock, feed the flock and protect the flock of God.

If you are a leader in your local church remember; the flock of God does not belong to you but to the Lord Jesus Christ. As well, the Holy Spirit has raised you up and so have a godly and humble jealously for the flock of Jesus Christ.
Read more...

"I heard my momma cry and heard her pray the night Chicago died...".

It was a decision made for me but not by me. Like many other Anglo Christians in the 1960's my parents fled the "difficulties" of the city for the safety of the suburbs. It is not my place to judge the reasons why but I do think the decision came in part due to a lack of theological commitment Romans 3:23. It wasn't so much that they thought there wouldn't be any sin in the suburbs, but more that they thought they could control it and keep their three children from delving too far into it.

Unfortunately while they worked hard to keep us from long hair, dancing, rock music and the other cultural shifts there was a failure to look under the covers of our lives and see the hypocrisies of self righteous arrogance, loveless separation and those other things that Jesus would describe as dead men's bones. The whitewashed tomb looked good but not even the suburbs could keep us safe from the evil that lurked within.

As a parent I have tried to apply the truth of Romans 3:23 into the lives of my two sons. By God's choosing my wife and I have raised our family in a rural community in northern New York. This is a vacation spot, a place people from the city come and assume would be great place to raise a family. In many respects it is and yet something lurks under the covers of rural America. Recently I was in a conversation with our county D.A. and asked him what the top three issues were that he had to deal with. The list he gave me sounded a whole lot like the reasons my parents gave as they fled Chicago and moved to the suburbs. His answer: Sexual crimes against children, Drugs and Alcohol abuse. If I have learned one thing in the twenty-two years of living in the country is this - sin may be more evident due to the density of the city but no place outside of the protection of the eternal fellowship will be safe from the effects of the curse.

As the movement of church planting grows in the city I pray that I may be able to make a return to the city of my birth. I love Chicago and will wait for God to open whatever doors may need to be opened if He desires me to join the effort. There is one thing for certain though - Theologically sound, Bible teaching, Gospel-holy-Gospel-missional churches are desperately needed in rural America. I will end with this observation. I was speaking with a pastor in Georgia not too long ago. He told me that in the two adjoining counties (both rural) there were 83 baptist churches. I asked him about the spiritual impact. He regretfully stated that the place was as pagan as any other place. I wonder why? Perhaps someone needs to look under the covers.

What does God want us to be and do, and where does he want us to go? These are questions that every church (plant) has to answer for itself. The answers given constitute what I refer to as "the foundations of the church".

Various terms are used to described the elements of these foundations: identity, vision, mission, strategy, core values, core capacities, core competences. Whatever terms one would like to use, these concepts rank - together with leadership - as "one of the most observed but least understood" concepts in the area of ministry. Of course I don't have the final answer, but maybe I can get shed some light. Before discussing the question "which foundations?", let's look at the "why" and "what" of the foundations of the church.

The "why" of the foundations of the church
A few decades ago, you'd hardly ever hear someone about the "vision" or "mission" of his church. Today, however, every self-respecting church has at least one of these "statements." What happened? What changed?

First, there is an element of shifting paradigms. From time to time, changes in our environment and changes in our thinking lead to a fundamental paradigm shift. Within today's churches, there is a growing dissatisfaction with the paradigm of the inward-faced church, operating from a majority position in society. The church has to become dynamic, open, and mobile again. Such a new starting point compels us to reconceive and redefined everything we used to think and do. (David Bosch, Transforming Mission)

Second, confessions have lost their function of formulating at the local level why we are a church with these characteristics. The church needs something that makes it move, a shared commitment at the local level, a vision to which everyone in the church can contribute. The foundations of the church seek to recover this function of the confessions. (Cees Haak, Church in the 21st Century)

Third, the Reformed confessions have been written to defend the church against heresy. The reformers build a wall around the church, to keep falls teaching out. They did not develop build a bridge to the world, to invite lost people in. Today we are called to look at different aspects of the Scriptures and apply them to our times. We have to read the Bible through a different lens. (Cees Haak, Church in the 21st Century)

Fourth, there is an element of increased church size. In larger churches, the distinctive mission and vision of the church become increasingly important. "A key reason for being in a smaller church is relationships. A key reason for putting up with all the changes and difficulties of a larger church is to get mission done. People join the larger church because of the vision, so the particular mission needs to be clear." (Tim Keller, Leadership and Church Size Dynamics).

The "what" of the foundations of the church
People speaking about "vision" or "mission" are bound to add adjectives like "clear", "compelling" and "unique". But what's essential for the church when it comes to its foundations?

First, foundations have to biblical. That is, in their concept as well as in their content. Not all of the terms mentioned above (vision, core values etc.) are biblical terms, just like there is no biblical term for 'officer'. But that does not mean that the concept cannot be found in the Scriptures. The point is that, after defining the concept of 'vision', we need to develop a biblical understanding of 'vision' before we can seek to create a truly biblical 'vision'.

Second, foundations have to be contextual. Because (large) churches in (global) cities are much more like other urban churches much of the foundational framework developed by one church can be meaningfully transferred to another church. But - and that's the point - every church will still need to come to 'own' the framework and flesh it out with specifics.

Third, foundations have to be logical. That is, there must be a relation between the various elements and between the various parts of each element. This is crucial, but rather difficult. How do you get from belief to commitment? How do you translate a theological vision into a practical one?

The "which" of the foundations of the church
As mentioned above, there's a wide range of terms used to described the foundations of the church. Thus, the question arises, which terms should be used? To create a framework that is biblical, contextual and logical, I would suggest to start with the question: 'What is the gospel about?'.

First, the gospel is a message that has a cognitive content that must be understood (Mat. 13:13-15) and an affective referent that we must attach ourselves to (Marc. 10:17-22). One of the things Jesus sought to do was to redefine people's "vision" of what the kingdom is all about and reorient people's life toward the kingdom's "core values" ("the things of God"). He did so by telling stories revealing the kingdom's "identity" (the kingdom is like..).

Second, the gospel is a plan that we are called to participate in. It sends people on a "mission" and tells them which "strategies" to us (cf. Mat. 28:19-20).

Third, the gospel is something that must be lived according to (Phil. 1:27). It presents Jesus and his church as sharing a certain behavioral "profile", which we may conceptualize as their "core competences".

Thus, the gospel has a theological logic, an strategic logic and an ethical logic. Which terms we use to describe these logics is less important than knowing why we use them and how define them.

Last week I was able to hook up with an old friend of mine who happens to be a pastor as well. He's not a senior pastor, a youth pastor, a ministry pastor, a worship pastor nor a, family's pastor. He's an "Availability Pastor."  Have you heard of such thing? I hadn't 'till then.  When I first heard him state his new title I had two feelings. One of disturbance and another one of compassion. Let me try to flesh my reactions out.

Disturbance - It's quite disturbing to me at times that the Church of Jesus Christ has institutionalized to the point that ministers perform according to labels. If you're a worship pastor you sing - can't preach. If you're a senior pastor, you preach and so why would you want to visit with someone who's sick? It disturbed me that I've followed this flow and that the western American church has become so industrialized that ministry roles have been created according to an organizational system and a personal profile to the point of naming someone "Pastor of Availability." I've never found these labels while reading the New Testament. Plus, what's this guy supposed to do anyways?

Compassion - To me it sounded like they had created "the bench pastor position." Now, I know my friend and I know the church he has worked for for many years. He has been instrumental not only in my spiritual formation but in the life of many godly men and women to this day. My wife included. Why would you put someone like him on the bench? He's a strong player! Much stronger than some of the "starters" I know they have. That's how I felt. For a minute I felt sorry for the guy and sorry for his church.

But then it dawned on me that if there was a title to define who he was and what all pastors are supposed to be, that was it! - Pastor of Availability. While in the New Testament you can't find the titles we've created for pastors, you find that pastors were available to people and to whatever Jesus required of them at the time. If healing the sick was needed they were there, if preaching was required they were there, if counseling was required they were there. They ministered to children, to the youth, the elderly and to people in prison.They were not bound to a tittles except that one of availability. Which to me is one that communicates both humility and boldness. Humility because they existed to serve as Jesus served and boldness because no challenge was a challenge. I could never imagine Paul saying to Jesus: "-Lord, send John, he has the gift compassion. He's our outreach pastor!" Nope. They did whatever came their way. They faced demons, incredulity, diseases, conflicts and, crisis whenever and wherever needed.

So- what at first was source of disturbance and compassion latter became a source of fascination and reflection. I started to ask myself: why am I not a pastor of availability as well?  I know from my own experience that the title I have received has many times handicapped me to truly be what Jesus wants me to be. I recall myself saying "I won't see him. That's not my job!" or "I don't have time to sit with that couple, I have to sermonize." I know that there's always a risk of being distracted off of our focus/ responsibility but is it possible that sometimes Jesus wants us to be available to meet random needs of people? And is it possible that we have hidden behind titles and have used them as an excuse to minister spontaneously? I'll say yes. What about you?

Recently Redeemer was featured prominently in a USA Today article about multi-site churches. Outside of the fact that Redeemer doesn't 'do video,' the differences between our approach and others were not referred to. And in much discussion on line after the article, it was clear that all multi-site churches were being Lumped Together. Just for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful to know these facts about why and how Redeemer does the multi-site.

1. First, we did not go to multi-site because it was more economical or efficient for us. When we began meeting at multiple sites ten years ago, we were already holding a morning and an evening service at a single site that was quite large. It would have been much more cost-effective to multiply to four or five services in that single location. Moving to other sites meant greatly increased costs for rent, for children's ministries, for music and many other things.

2. Second, we did not go to multi-site to quickly reach more people. The auditorium where we began meeting 10 years ago seats over 2,000 people, and other spaces that size are not available. The spaces we have rented in other parts of the city are far smaller. If we had stayed in that space and multiplied services there, we would have reached greater numbers more swiftly.

So what were the reasons that we adopted the multi-site model?

1. First, we sent our services out into different locations so that people could worship closer to where they lived. People can become more deeply involved in the community and can more easily bring friends if they attend services in their neighborhood. This was an 'anti-mega-church' move, since huge churches create a large body of commuters who travel long distances to attend church. We wanted to resist this tendency and root people more in their locales.

2. Second, the multi-site model is a transition design for us. Redeemer has a timetable for turning each site into a congregation in its own neighborhood, with its own pastoral leadership. I was the main preacher at all sites, but two years ago we went from four to five services at three sites, which is too many for me to preach in a Sunday. Rather than beaming me in by video, we determined that other pastors on the staff would always preach at least that fifth service. When we get to six and seven services, about two years from now, each site will have its own Lead Pastor who will share the preaching with me.

We will then transition from a 'multi-site' to a 'collegiate' model. Though still under one unified board of elders, each church will have its own pastoral team, elder team, and set of lay leaders. Other collegiate models in our PCA denomination include Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and Brooklyn Presbyterian here in New York City.

I was careful in my interaction with the USA Today journalists not to criticize other multi-site churches. I do not know what motives other churches have for using the multi-site model, but those are ours.

Christmas eve I found that the innocent growth in my leg was actually a tumor. New Years eve, I was told the "benign" tumor, had cancer cells.  When I told my family and friends they were shocked, sad, afraid, and concerned. I, however, was not.

No, I'm not some fanatical sadist. Strange, yes. Dark sense of humor, yes. "But to be perfectly honest," I explained to my husband as we were walking to church last Sunday, "I'd rather have cancer then plant another church."  He cautioned me to not use that expression around the women with whom I work who are currently in plants. I reassured him it would be no problem. "If they are planting, they already know how hard it is."

You see Cancer and Church planting share a lot of communalities. Both are foreign substances forced upon a culture that doesn't want them and where they don't belong. Both require a fight. Both come with tons of ambiguity. Both can leave you feeling sick to your stomach. Both require a complete change of life, as you currently know it. Both imply you will never be the same after this. Both take you for a roller coaster ride of emotions. "Both can kill you" my son calls from the couch. And neither one is something you choose. Or if you happen to willingly choose church planting or cancer for that matter, I know a psychiatrist I can highly recommend.

But there are also a ton of differences.

With cancer, just mention the word and everyone knows what you're talking about. You get a lot of support. People ask how they can help, when can they bring meals, what they can do. But with Church planting, you might as well be speaking Pashto plus you won't get much support. "Did you say you're in Church Planning?" Or if you live in a city like NYC, you might get a response like, "What the hell is that?" You quickly learn to come up with phrases people might remotely comprehend. "I'm in ministry."  "Oh, you mean state ministry?"  "Well, you could call it that," I've been known to comment.

How about, "I work with starting new churches" ?  Even in the south I would get responses like, "Why would anyone think there is a need for more churches. Haven't they caused enough problems already?"

Added to the confused responses I get from my non-Christian friends, try saying something among Christians. For, I'm not just in church planting. I'm a woman in church planting. I still get responses such as, "You mean your husband is in church planting."  "Well yes, he is but so am I."   "Well in our circles it's best to say he's the church planter. People might misunderstand you."

I soon learned they were going to misunderstand me anyway and a slight twist of phrases wasn't going to make that big of a difference.

One thing that makes church planting so difficult is those whom we expect to be in the trenches with us often have little comprehension of the tremendous battle taking place on a daily basis. Also, while my husband was "officially" the planter, that was part of the problem. We were both planting but rarely did others in the plant seem to understand that. And I won't deny some of that confusion was our fault. Sure we had different roles but without both of us completely committed and in this together, we didn't stand a chance of making it. We are fighting for the hearts and very lives of people. We were fighting unseen forces, bringing order out of chaos, building a spiritual community in enemy territory. The evil one does not want us to succeed. To be perfectly honest, sometimes I didn't either. It would have been much easier to just quit. But like cancer, this wasn't something we chose. It was chosen for us. Oh, don't get me wrong. When we were young and hopefully more naïve, we too thought it was our choice. But Church-planting is something to which you are called. It's not just a career you one day decide to chose.

And implicit in this calling is a call to battle and to suffer. Whether or not spouses have formal training in church planting, tons of people stream through our doors seeking counsel. We start new ministries. We cook. We teach bible studies. We lead worship. We wipe snotty noses. We often do sermon prep. We train leaders. We clean houses. We work other jobs to make ends meet. We impact what people think about the church. And hopefully somewhere in that mix, we love our spouse. But in the overwhelming confusion we receive little encouragement and less help. And we often forget we are cherished, chosen, called, and loved beyond our wildest imagining. For in Christ Jesus, we have already received the ultimate word spoken over us from our Heavenly Father. "In you, I am well pleased."

Tears came to my eyes when I was sitting in the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center last week waiting for another series of tests. I let them drip down my cheeks and splash on to my arms. But they weren't for cancer as much as they were for the many years in church planting when I needed the kind of care and attention I was now getting among strangers. They were for the many women who are in church planting right now who feel alone, unnoticed, scared, and with questions they don't know where to get answered.

What if we said to people with cancer what we say to women in church planting? Just in case you're wondering what I mean, I took the liberty of translating some comments I've received in the past about planting to see what they would sound like in the context of cancer.

"Oh, I thought you had breast cancer. I was only interested in helping if it was a more serious kind of cancer."
"You just aren't going to make it!"
"Cancer is consuming your life! You never spend time with me any more."
"What's so hard about cancer?"
"Cancer! Come on, isn't there enough of that going around?"
"So I know your spouse has cancer. But what about you? What do you do with your life?"

Surely, some theological minds are spinning with counter arguments they'd love to throw my way, appalled that I'd dare compare starting churches to cancer. And I'm sure they are right.

But you see I can get away with a lot right now because, well, I have cancer.

Note from web admin:  As of today, January 12, 2010, Shari is recovering at Sloan-Kettering Memorial Hospital after a successful surgery to remove the tumour in her leg.

Some time ago, after enjoying a scrumptious dinner with the family at the MickeyDs in Fort Lee, NJ, something kinda funny happened.  As I pulled out of the parking lot on Lemoine Ave (9W), a pedestrian was passing by on the sidewalk but stopped at the driveway to let me pass.  Well, I'm all about pedestrian (and bicyclists for that matter) right of way, so with a smile on my grill I wave-gestured the guy to make his way across the driveway.

Now, what happened next as he passed by in front of my minivan was what kinda took me aback for a moment.  The guy, a younger (twenties/thirties perhaps?), very white male, looked over in our direction, smiled, and then he bowed to me - at least it was his slightly unusual and awkward attempt at a bow.  At this, I looked over to Diane and asked her a bit incredulously, "Did that dude just bow to me?"

Immediate thoughts:  What in the world was that?  How un-politically correct was that move?!  Immediate feeling:  indignation.

Granted, according to city-data.com, of the 36,275 Fort Lee denizens 38% are of East Asian (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino) descent.  Although had he known anything about me, the bow would've been the last thing he?d have done because the fact of the matter is I grew up "whiter-than-white," as the All-American kid who played wall/box stickball at Tamblyn Field and two-hand-touch football on Addison Ave. and other streets of Rutherford, NJ - a mostly WASPy middle-middle-class town in Bergen County NJ where I was raised.  I was what some would refer to as a twinkie, or banana - white as can be on the inside, but yellow on the outside.  And back in my younger days, if anyone made any issue of my oriental heritage (sorry to all you PC folks out there as I am fully aware "oriental" has taken on offensively racist overtones but it simply is the Latin word for "Eastern"), it was an opportunity for immediate fisticuffs.  I was a diminutive kid but extremely irascible.

With that being said, at this point I will divert your and my attention to the Gospel.  Why?  Because we are sinners in the basest of ways due to our depraved nature.  I quote R.C. Sproul in his tremendous classic, The Holiness of God:  "We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners."  The good Word makes it crystal clear that we have inherited the sin of Adam and that it is a corruption that emanates from the core of our being.  The Bible declares that all our sin is an offense against God and that this sin is both in the flesh and the nature.  But thanks be to God, we have been ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, the perfect Lamb of God who was slain <1 Peter 1:18-19>, as Jesus "Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.  By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" <1 Peter 2:24-25>.

Despite my initial "knee-jerk," but nonetheless sinful response in mind & heart, by God's grace I was able to salvage something out of the experience.  Reflection on my reaction to "the bowing white dude" brought J. Hudson Taylor to mind as well as the many missionaries who are persecuted as they seek to incarnationally contextualize, and immediately I was reminded of how vital it will be for our mission, our church plant, Maranatha Grace Fort Lee, to be comprised of folks who have both an understanding of what it means to be missional and a desire to grow in missional practice & lifestyle.  We must be a church that obeys both the Great Commandment  and the Great Commission .  In fact, a proper understanding of and application of obeying the Great Commandment will naturally lead God's people to a posture, a readiness, a willingness to obey the Great Commission which is explicit in all the Gospel accounts.

So what is missional?  Well, here are a couple definitions from a missiologist and a church planting pastor:

Ed Stetzer > "Being Missional means actually doing mission right where you are. Missional means adopting the posture of a missionary, learning and adapting to the culture around you while remaining biblically sound" (Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches, 19).

Mark Driscoll > "It is imperative that Christians be like Jesus, by living freely within the culture as missionaries who are as faithful to the Father and his gospel as Jesus was in his own time and place" (Mark Driscoll, The Radical Reformission, 40).

The word "missional" is the adjective form of the word "mission," and it simply means "of or pertaining to a mission."  Now in contemporary missiological-speak/jargon, the word has amassed and accumulated baggage due to the Emerging Church Movement that really has no orthodox doctrinal backbone.  But we will utilize the word in the rightful way to describe our mission to be missionaries who contextualize without compromise.  At the foundation is a Christ/Cross-centered Gospel that informs & drives our missiology/missionality.  This involves being Gospel-centered & driven in our church community as we become sanctified, Christlike, thru discipleship - "body-building" thru teaching and engaging in all the "one anothers" (gathering & growing)  while never dare neglecting our call to be a city on a hill "shrewdly, compassionately preaching the Good News to our community after listening to our community, learning about our community" - the language, the interests, the music & arts, the demographics, the pervasive idols, and then sacrificially investing our time/talents/treasures into our community, and thereby loving our community.

In essence, we are following the examples of Paul & Peter and the rest of the rag-tag band of disciples.  Ultimately, we are simply following our Savior's lead as He gave us the ultimate example of being missional when He came from heaven to be a missionary here on earth - talk about contextualization!  And perhaps that?s what ?the bowing white dude" was doing?  Just trying to be friendly and sensitive to me and what he believed was my cultural context and heritage...who knows?  But thank You, Lord for the much needed reminder.

Recientemente, varias personas me han preguntado: "¿cómo afrontas la crítica?" En cada uno de los casos, quienes me han hecho la pregunta han sufrido lo que ellos han considerado ataques injustos contra su persona. En esta era de internet, cualquiera puede tener sus puntos de vista censurados de forma injusta por gente que ni tan siquiera conoce. Por lo tanto, ¿qué haces cuando eso ocurre? He aquí la esencia del consejo que suelo dar cuando me preguntan al respecto. Por muchos años he encontrado de gran ayuda una carta de John Newton, normalmente, titulada "Sobre la Controversia."

El mayor peligro [que corres] al recibir crítica no es para tu reputación, sino para tu corazón. Sientes la injusticia [de la crítica] y sientes lástima por ti mismo, y ello te tienta a no sólo despreciar a la persona crítica, sino a todo el sector o grupo al que pertenecen. "Esa gente..." susurras por lo bajo. Todo esto con el tiempo puede hacer de ti una persona más orgullosa. Newton escribe: "Cualquier cosa que nos haga pensar de nosotros mismos que somos, comparativamente, más sabios o más buenos, de manera que tratemos con desprecio a quienes no comulguen con nuestras doctrinas, o sigan a nuestro partido, es una prueba y fruto de un espíritu de justicia propia." Newton argumenta que cuando quiera que el desprecio o el [sentimiento de] superioridad acompañan a nuestros pensamientos, es una [clara] señal de que las "doctrinas de la gracia" están actuando en nuestras vidas "como simples conceptos y especulaciones" sin "ninguna influencia saludable sobre nuestra conducta."

Así pues, ¿cómo puedes evitar esta tentación? Primero, tienes que mirar a ver si hay la más mínima señal de verdad incluso en el más exagerado e injusto de los ataques. Normalmente, esa mota de verdad está ahí cuando la crítica viene de amigos, y a menudo también está ahí cuando la censura viene de gente que realmente te conoce. De manera que aún cuando la censura esté parcial o incluso mayormente desenfocada, aún así mira por aquello que efectivamente hayas podido haber hecho mal. Quizá simplemente actuaste o hablaste de forma imprudente. Tal vez la crítica es parcialmente correcta por motivos totalmente equivocados. De todos modos, identifica tus faltas , arrepiéntete de corazón ante Dios por lo que seas capaz [de identificar], y deja que ello produzca una disposición humilde en ti. Entonces será posible aprender de la crítica y tener una actitud de gracia hacia la persona que te critica aunque puedas [continuar estando] en desacuerdo con lo que él o ella haya dicho.

Si la crítica viene de alguien que no te conoce de nada (y éste es a menudo el caso en internet) es posible que la crítica no tenga ninguna base y esté completamente equivocada. A menudo soy ridiculizado no sólo por puntos de vista que defiendo, sino también incluso más a menudo por puntos de vista (y causas) que de ninguna manera asumo o defiendo. Cuando esto sucede, es incluso más fácil dejarse llevar por un sentimiento de superioridad y reírte de lo equivocados que están tus críticos. "Patético..." tal vez te sientas tentado a decir. No lo hagas. Aún cuando no haya ni la más pequeña brizna de verdad en lo que quienes te critican dicen, no debes burlarte de ellos [ni siquiera] en tus pensamientos. Primero, recuérdate a ti mismo ejemplos de tus propios errores, imprudencias e inexperiencia en el pasado, situaciones en las que realmente metiste la pata. Segundo, ora por quien te critica, que él o ella maduren en gracia. Newton habla de esto mismo de la siguiente manera:

"Si consideras a tu oponente como creyente, aunque seriamente equivocado sobre la materia de debate entre vosotros, las palabras de David a Joab sobre Absalón son aplicables: 'Por amor a mi tratad bien al joven Absalón.' El Señor le ama [a tu oponente] y es paciente con él; por lo tanto, no debes despreciarle o tratarle con dureza. El Señor te trata con la misma paciencia a ti y espera que muestres ternura con otros como muestra de que [realmente has entendido] lo mucho que tú mismo necesitas ser perdonado. En poco tiempo os encontraréis en el cielo; entonces [tu oponente] te será mucho más preciado que el más intimo amigo que ahora puedas tener en la tierra. Anticipa ese tiempo en tus pensamientos; y aunque encuentres necesario oponerte a sus errores, mírale personalmente como un alma hermanada con quien serás feliz en Cristo por siempre."

Así que cualquier cosa que hagas, haz todo lo que puedas para evitar el engreimiento y sentirte superior a quien te critica. Incluso si te dices a ti mismo que no te afecta y que no vas a responder a la critica, de todos modos puedes llevar a cabo toda una defensa y refutación en tu sala del tribunal mental, en la cual demuestras con éxito lo mezquinos y maliciosos que son tus oponentes. Pero eso es una trampa espiritual. El comentario de Newton a este respecto es convincente:

"Un hombre puede tener el corazón de un fariseo mientras su cabeza está repleta de nociones [muy] correctas sobre la persona y sobre las riquezas de la Gracia. Sí, yo añadiría, que ni los mejores de entre los hombres están completamente libres de esta levadura; y por lo tanto están demasiado dispuestos para actuar de manera que ridiculice al adversario y, en consecuencia halagarse de tener un juicio superior. Las controversias son tratadas, en la mayoría de casos, de manera que uno da rienda suelta, en lugar de reprimir, su mal carácter; por lo tanto, hablando en términos generales, producen más bien poca cosa buena. [Las controversias] provocan a quienes deberían convencer y llenan de soberbia a aquellos a quienes deberían edificar. Espero que [en medio de la controversia] saborees un espíritu de verdadera humildad, y que seas un instrumento que promueva [esta humildad] en otros."

____________

* Puedes leer el original (en inglés) aquí

Why is moving such a hassle? Well we are about to move in the next few weeks to Cliftonville Road to the house of the Living Room. Yet moving it is like flipping a coin in the air, there are two sides to every coin, in my case there is a side that is excited about the move and the other side is not very excited because of all the things that have to be packed, stored and yes moved.

But, I am relieved that I am not on my own in this, since I know that there is a story written in the Bible, which is the Word of God, that tells the story of a people that is always on the move. These people were on a journey to the promise land that God had promised. They moved from one place to an another till finally they settled.

They had to pack all of their possessions and move. So like them, moving for us means moving toys, clothes, furniture, electrical things and many of those things and of course many books!! Put all that into boxes and ... Well you can imagine.

Yet there is a positive side to this, you get the chance to delete, destroy, and dispose of all the rubbish and clutter accumulated over the years.

Moving means basically to change from one place to another, yet we can also experience an emotional move, we can change emotionally from one minute to the next and particularly during a big move we tend to change emotionally, that is my tendency, my stress level goes up and I tend to worry about the move and all that it involves.

It seems to me that we were created for change and never created for purposeless settling.

Settling is to be rooted somewhere, it is a place of arrival and it seems always in the present tense. Has anyone asked you this: Are you settling in okay? It could be about work, it could be about relationships, it could be in our case moving house. I am always under the impression that when asked that question I should answer: yes!! It is great!! But may be in my case it is not that great to move! I will leave behind all that it is familiar to me and start again. Sometime changes are difficult to handle.

The other side of this reality is more positive and full of hope. Since everything is new you get the chance to start again.

I may not be very familiar with the house, neighbors, the local shops, the post office, schools, well you can add to the list... and I can be feeling lost with all the changes that are happening around me or be excited and taking everything as an opportunity to learn.

Settling without a purpose is like dying while you are still living. We have not moved yet, but our move is guided by a calling, a vision and a mission.

We are moving to the North of the city of Belfast believing that the God we serve has called us there. Our vision is a vision to connect people to God through Jesus, God's Son. He is the hope of any change and our hope is that we are changing every day into the likeness of God's Son. That is our hope, not in the change itself but in God's Son. Now I don't believe that we can change by our own initiatives and best wishes, just think about Christmas and New Year's resolutions and wish lists, have they worked? In my case they have not.

That is why we are moving to plant this church - The Living Room - it is a place where you are welcome to be you and allow you the space to be changed by God.

Dario Leal

In his days, Jonathan Edwards was one of the theological instructors most sought after by Presbyterian students and missionaries preparing for the work of ministry. Today, he's still relevant. His significance for churches planting stems mainly from (1) his preaching during the Great Awakening, (2) his emphasis on prayer in his missionary writings, and (3) his understanding of the purpose of history. Let's briefly consider each of these.

Preaching  

As part of his attempt to re-arouse his congregation in Northampton, Edwards preached thirty sermons which constitute the History of Redemption. Although Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is the most famous of these sermons, only a few of his sermons are of the threatening, imprecatory sort. A much larger percentage is typed as evangelistic, theological, spiritual (i.e. dealing with the Christian experience) and ethical (i.e. dealing with personal and social ethics). Most of his sermons were not threatening, but had a positive theme: the beauty of holiness, the joys of heaven, the rest of the believer in Christ, and the practical virtues of Christian living.

 To understand the place of sin and grace in Edward's preaching, we must keep in view his testimony of his own spiritual life. Edwards was able to portrayed the depths of human sin against the highest reaches of divine beauty and holiness, because his own sins were that of every man and his own sense of the beauty and holiness of God could be that of every man who sought it earnestly.

 Once, as I rode into the woods for my health, in 1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation and prayer, I had a view that for me was extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek an gentle condescension. This?continued, as near as I can judge, about an hour; which kept me, the greater part of the time, in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him to live upon him; to serve and follow him; to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I have several other times, had views very much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.

 By this kind of vivid personal experience of grace Edwards communicated to his hearers a sense of the awfulness of sin and judgement and a fervent desire for forgiving grace.

 Many did indeed found forgiveness through Edward's preaching, as attested by those who came for counsel to his study each Monday as well as by the fact that one Sunday a hundred new members were received.

 Prayer

Edwards' writings wielded a still greater influence than his preaching. During his early ministry, he felt a growing concern for the advance of Christ's kingdom and the conversion of men, and through extensive correspondence he supported a number of Scotsmen in their institution of regular prayer meetings for the coming of Christ.

In 1748, Edwards published A Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God?s People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and Advancement of Christ's Kingdom on Earth, a work that became, on both sides of the Atlantic, one of the most potent means of missionary education and support. Based upon Zechariah 8:20-22, the appeal is for fervent, concerted and constant kingdom-centered prayer: prayer that Christ will "advance his spiritual kingdom in the world", prayer "for the promised glorious and universal outpouring of the Spirit of God." 

In his Thoughts Concerning Revival (1742) Edwards again proposed that ministers should actively encourage God's people "to abound in united fasting and prayer."

He proposed "to keep a day of fasting and prayer" with all God's people in America, who are well-affected to "the work of the promotion of religious revival; wherein we should unite on the same day, in humbling ourselves before God... that he would continue and still carry on this work, and more abundantly and extensively pour out his Spirit."

While some may think that all fasting and praying on the same day is "a circumstance of no great consequence", Edwards could not be of that mind. "Such a circumstance makes the unison and agreement of God's people in his worship the more visible, and puts the greater honour upon God, and would have a great tendency to assist and enliven the devotion of Christians. Christ delights greatly in the union of his people, as appears by his prayer in the 17th of John".

Many were stimulated by Edward's writings to begin prayer meetings and monthly Concerts of Prayer for mission.

Purpose

A key missionary text is Edward?s History of the Work of Redemption (1774), "a body of divinity in an entirely new method, being thrown into the form of a history". The thesis of History of Redemption is the unity and purpose of history. Redemption began before the fall in the Trinitarian "covenant of redemption" and will end with "a new heaven and a new earth." The revival of seventeenth-century America is seen as part of this history of God?s saving work.

God's plan is progressively realized in three stages. In the first period of history, from he fall to the incarnation, the keynote is the preparation for Christ's coming. Much went wrong in this period, but God wonderfully worked things so that whatever happened was ordered for good to his general design, and made into a means of promoting it. The very decline itself, was one thing that God employed as a further preparation for Christ's coming.   

The keynote to the second great period, from the incarnation to the resurrection, is "procuring and purchasing redemption." Christ's full act of humiliation from the cradle of the womb to that of the grave paid the whole account. "Then was finished that great work, the purchase of our redemption, for which such great preparation had been made from the beginning of the world."  

In the last period of world history, from the resurrection to the end of the work, the keynote is accomplishment. This period is that of "the kingdom of God", "the latter day's". Edwards comforts the church living in these days with "the constancy and perpetuity of God's mercy and faithfulness towards her, which shall be manifest in continuing to work salvation for her "and carrying her safely through all the changes of the world, and finally crowning here with victoryand deliverance." 

Lessons learned

The Reformed theologian Hans Burger recently designed a framework for understanding "being in Christ", consisting of four moments: representation, substitution, union and participation. Within this framework, Edward's contribution may be summarized as follows:  

Representation. God, not willing that man should remain in misery, sent his Son to take our nature. Heaven came to earth in Christ. His life and death became the foundation of a new earth. The church on earth is inseparable from that in heaven and the embodiment of God's redemptive purpose in and beyond time. Corruptions threatens the kingdom of God and its growth in the world, but the resurrection of Christ holds the promise that grace will revive, that death and decline itself is the one thing that God employs to bring life and multiplication. This is the church (re)planter's essential hope in doing the work of mission.   

Substitution. Edward's theological pattern was typical in demonstrating that man's moral judgements and his seeking of God cannot earn God's favour. Only God?s saving grace can rescue a sinner from judgement. Christ came to be our Mediator, to die for our sins on the cross, and thus to redeem us from the curse of sin and the power of the devil. Pardon in Christ is full and free. Justification in Christ is complete. The giving of his life was the deepest and the highest of satisfaction for the human sin. In the death of Christ, our redemption was purchased and God's work of redemption was in principle finished. This is the church planter's essential message to the world.   

Union. The moment of substitution is necessary but insufficient for a concept of being in Christ. Doctrinal knowledge of sin and grace is necessary but insufficient. Even the devil knows doctrine. What is needed is the Holy Spirit illuminating souls, turning them to Christ. A subjective sense of the beauty and holiness of God gives man a new discernment of scriptural truth, brings him unto vital union with Christ, and moulds his affections into exquisite harmony with the divine. This is the church planter's essential ministry within the church. 

Participation. God's work converts and justifies particular souls but this effect upon individual subjects is taken up into the corporate and the universal as there is participation in God's work: Christians enter actively into the work of advancing the kingdom of Christ, rich men generously contribute temporal goods, God's people abound in united fasting and prayer, and Christians attend to the duty of true love for their neighbour. The eternal kingdom has already begun, and one day it will be made complete. Then love begun on earth will be fulfilled in heaven. Fellowship with believers on earth becomes communion with the saints of all history. Great acts and small acts will all be taken up in the great design of redemption. This is the church planter's essential contribution to the city, equipping the saints for their work of ministry.   

Hay "iglesias" por internet en EEUU (léase en El Mercurio), no sólo compartiendo los sermones, sino también ofreciendo los sacramentos vía online. La verdad es que ya no pueden llamarse iglesias. De no haber discipulado, Santa Cena en comunión, una comunidad en la que recibir miembros bautizados, entonces no es iglesia, y miles de personas están siendo engañadas.

No critico el uso de la tecnología, lo fomento; con twitter (@iprovidencia), facebook (Iglesia Providencia), pero eso no debe reemplazar el valor y definición Bíblica de la iglesia; un grupo de personas, miembros de una comunidad, que se reúnen frecuentemente para adorar a Dios, en la predicación de Su Palabra y la celebración y buena administración de las ordenanzas (Santa Cena y Bautismo).

Los animamos a todos a "Seguir animándonos a las buenas obras" y a "no dejar de Congregarse" (Hebreos 10:24-5). Todo verdadero discípulo es parte de una comunidad real (no virtual) en la que debe participar, sirviendo a otros con sus dones, y reuniéndose para celebrar las maravillas de Dios.Con mucho cariño...

Felipe Chamy.

PD. Gracias Pame Figueroa por el link.

Are you a Spanish speaking church planter? Do you speak Spanish or do you know someone who does? Are you looking for Spanish resources that resonate with Redeemer's vision and mission to the city? Here you have all of Tim Keller's posts directly translated from this site as late as the day after they're published.

Falsos dioses

Xavier Memba

As I was reflecting on the Prodigal God and discussions about younger and elder brothers, I got to thinking about elder brothers and how they impact church planting.

At first, I thought about how elder brothers lack the desire to go after younger brothers and how often they complain about those who do. As Keller has said, "our churches are full of elder brothers". And, I am afraid that I thought about them pretty much as lost causes.

But then it struck me that one of the greatest church planters ever, was also one of the worst cases of "elder brother(ness)", Saul of Tarsus. I often wonder if any of the early church prayers included the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. I think most prayer that concerned him would have been of a different kind. And yet, God reached out the grab hold of Saul and turn him into the apostle Paul. God used all of that theological training and passion for good.

So, as I think of the many elder brothers who warm pews or chairs in North America, I pray that many of them will "see the light" and become wonderful servants in reaching other elder and younger brothers. It seems to me that this is a "mission field" that should not be ignored.

I'm a sports fan and for a while I've been wanting to write a short piece on it. Specially about where sports interacts and intersects with spirituality.

I've often found myself comparing what happens in my soul when I play a soccer match, read the sports section of an online paper and, watch one of my country-men fight an MMA match with what I experience in worship, preaching a sermon or reading my Bible.

There are some similarities. If there wasn't Paul wouldn't have compared his ministry focus with a race or a boxing match.

I don't know about you but, every time I go to a stadium or an arena of any sort it's very clear to me that there's a spiritual experience taking place. Worship is evident in the chants, emotional reactions, community expressions and, the feasting. I could even throw the offering element in there if you want me to.

It's funny how people will criticize organized religion because of all of the above and yet still pay their yearly tithe to their teams of choice, shout the name of their deities till they bust all their vocal cords, hug and drink with strangers and, practice apologetics to prove the existence of their team/ group/ player's superiority. In many ways there's no difference between a hard-core sports fan and a pentecostal christian.

We all have a longing to belong, an urge to triumph and a need to escape the boredom of reality. Sports therefore, become a great outlet for these needs. From this standpoint entertainment is extremely important for life in society. The Romans understood it well as their famous slogan of "bread and circus" revealed.

As with every good thing given by the Father of Light, sports were given to us so that we would enjoy and stimulate these soul cravings. Like sex and food, sports point us to a greater reality. A reality where we can solve our crisis of belonging, quench our thirst for everlasting victory and find true meaning in the midst of the repetitiveness of reality.

Though Sibbs and Baxter had a good deal to say about the redemption of the world, they were never involved in an actual church planting effort. John Eliot, on the other hand, was the founding pastor of a church in Roxbury, from where he further worked to plant an Indian church.

It took Eliot almost 25 years to establish a self-sustaining Indian church. The process was accomplished in four stages and has been well-documented in a number of missionary tracts.

1643: Early fruits and help sought. The first missionary tract, New England's First Fruits (1643), indicates that already during the first decade of the plantation in Massachusetts, concern for the Indians was present and that individuals were concerted, and at least one and perhaps more were admitted into membership of the church. These initial blessings were considered as an earnest of the greater harvest to come. For this gathering, help from England was sought to support full-time church planters among the Indians.

1646: Preaching to groups and dealing with individuals who responded and sought further counsel. The second tract, The Day-Breaking, If Not the Sun-Rising of the Gospel with the Indians in New-England (1647), gives increasing hopes for advance in the Indian work. Four meetings between the English and a group of Indians are described.

There were five parts to these religious exercises: (1) After an opening prayer, (2) Eliot catechized the children. Then, (3) Eliot preached and taught a sermon and applied it unto the condition of the Indians present. Following the sermon, (4) the Indians asked questions. The meeting ended with a prayer of fifteen minutes. Moved by the gospel, some Indians came to Eliot for (5) further personal council and admonition, to which the Indians submit themselves reverently. (6) After encouraging the Indians in their purpose, the English went home.

Prayer. Eliot was known for his love of prayer. At visits with friends, meetings with ministers, and gatherings in the church, one could expect an encouragement to prayer. "Come let us pray..." was often heard by him.

Preaching and teaching. Eliot emphasizes the preaching of the simple truths of the gospel and the teaching of the history and doctrine of the scripture both in winning converts and in their growth in grace. His manner of preaching and teaching was simple and plain so that even children and unbelievers could understand.

Questions. During the Q&A, the Indians asked many questions, some philosophical, others ethical or practical. "How may we come to know Jesus Christ?", "What does 'humiliation' mean?", "Why do the English call them 'Indians'?" "What is the Spirit?", "Should we believe dreams?", "Could they have a place for a town and learn to spin?" "How may one know wicked men, who are good and who are bad?", "Why did not God give all men good hearts that they might be good?", "How should we know when our faith is good faith, and our prayers good prayers?" "Why did not God kill the devil that made all men so bad, God having all the power?" "Why did the English wait twenty-seven years to teach the Indians about God?", "Since I am still so sinful and perhaps may fall back into sin, is it wrong to wish that I might now die?" "What happens to our children when they die?" "What must we do when we are sick, now we go no longer to the powwow?" "Should a man whose wife commits adultery and runs away receive her again when she repents?", "Why does God, who loves the repentant, still afflict them?", "What do English men think of Mr. Eliot because he associated with wicked Indians to teach them?" (prompted by a sermon on Eph. 5:1, "Have no fellowship with unfruitful workers of darkness")

Answering some of these more philosophical questions demands a learned gospel ministry; answering practical questions requires a decision whether or not to grand the request and how to provide for it. Thus, an important "obstacle to the gospel work among the Indians" was the lack of money to hire translators, preachers, teachers and ministry managers, which could not come from the poor Indians themselves.

The third tract, The Clear Sun-shine of the Gospel Breaking Forth upon the Indians in New England (1648), therefore, consisted of a straight-forward request to all English churches to give prayers and assistance. "Let those who have tasted God's mercy, be merciful." The sixth missionary tract, Strength out of Weakness (1652), was a further request for sacrificial giving on the part of the English.

Counseling. Many of the Indian converts wrestled with faith and doubt, with sin and assurance of pardon. To Eliot, these "recurring attacks of doubt and temptation" could only mean one thing, " a greater need for the means by which God strengthens those weak in faith": the means of grace.

1651: Encouraging the formation of a community of believers and community development. Although word of the Christian faith spread and aroused, the Gospel, as the Puritans understood it, was a way of life, not simply a few doctrines to be accepted. Many Indians accepted the doctrines as "gospel truth." (Who were they to deny that the English, who were so obviously superior in nearly everything, were not also superior in the knowledge of God?) But the "gospel way of life" they did not easily accept. What was necessary was the creation of a community with a patterned way of life which would both be Christian in its structure and provide opportunity for unbroken training in the Christian doctrine of life.

Eliot was not only concerned with the spiritual welfare of the Indian. He also responded with mercy to individuals in need, and worked for justice.

Mercy. An old Indian, who regularly brought his wife and children to the meetings, came naked to Eliot in the cold. Eliot gave him some cloths. At this the Indian was overcome with emotion and responded, God I see is merciful.

Justice. Eliot regularly brought cases to court to prevent defraud of Indian land, sought to secure lands for Indian use, pleaded clemency for convicted Indian prisoners, and fought the selling of Indians into slavery.

Community Development. Because of the unsettled way of life that the Indians led, Eliot believed that he should first bring the Indians to some form of a more settled way of life, with their own civil government and school system, before he could gather them into a formal, organized Indian church, with its own officers and teachers. Therefore, he worked with English volunteers to build bridges, erect houses, and establish schools for the Indian adults and children.

1660: Developing leaders and organizing local churches. Eliot agreed with Baxter that Christians should remain in their own parochial churches and be salt to others. This he has insisted upon for his Indian converts rather than they should leave the Indian villages and join the spiritually stronger English churches. "No, rather let them keep Sabbath: worship together, and the strong help the weak."

This was not needless to say, because (1) the first Indian church members were not those organized in an Indian church but those worshipping in an English church, and (2) in reforming their lives, some Indians left all of the Indian customs, rejecting their names and abhorring to dwell with the Indians any longer.

Leadership Development. Because the Indians were "not furnished with any to be an able pastor and elder over them, by whom they might be directed and guided in all the affairs of the church, and administration of the household of God", Eliot put much work in developing native leaders: training Indians men and youths that had begun to speak to one or the other of the things they had heard to become elders and evangelists.

Eliot feared an underestimation of the significance of the office of ruling elders. Eliot not only assigned traditional duties to the presbytery (receiving new members, calling new officers, disciplining offenders) but also duties that concerned the execution of the mission task of the church. The presbytery was (1) to fast and pray for fit laborers for the service of Christ, (2) to send forth ministers to carry the gospel, and preach Jesus Christ unto the unconverted, and (3) work with these ministers to gather and plant churches among them.

For example, the Indian church was established during a public day of confessions, before the Lord and a council of elders and other 'messengers' from the nearest churches. After the public meeting the messengers met together and unanimously declared the confessions satisfactory and the Indians fit matter for a church-estate. Many adults and children were baptized, the Lord's Supper was celebrated with many Englishmen also participating. Two teaching elders were ordained to serve as pastors. Ruling elders and deacons were chosen, and encouragement was given for the planting of two new churches.

Lessons

As New England has become one of the least churched parts of the United States (see the item Church Planters target New England on this web site), let's notice a few important lessons.

First, new churches don't come falling from heaven. They must be planted and require help from established churches. First fruits require workers to bring in all the harvest. I think of the help that New York pioneers sought from the Mission to North America (before Redeemer could be planted) or the first letter to the RCPC from the Reformed churches in Amsterdam (before Via Nova could be planted). The missionary task of the local church concerns more than just an occasional or annual contribution. Church planting require sacrificial giving on the part of the established churches. And more than money, it requires prayer and "presence ministry", from the presbytery as much as from regular members or a special committee.

Second, those who seek to evangelize their city (planters or pastors) do well to understand the inextricable connections between evangelism, counseling, community formation and social work. Preaching prompts existential questions and practical requests. Time is needed to express or share these concerns and capacity is needed to respond to them properly. Without it, preaching and teaching will be in vain.

Third, becoming a Christian (community) means leaving an old way of life and developing a new (corporate) way of life. This process must be planned for and guided. In recent years, missiologists have developed excellent manuals for doing this. Both planters and pastors do well to make use of them.

Richard Baxter, though perhaps best know as author of the Reformed Pastor, was not just a caring, loving Christian pastor but also an evangelist whose 'Call to the Unconverted' was heard far beyond the bounds of his life. What can we learn from him?

Baxter on Evangelism

Begin with the essential truth that God is good. According to Baxter, we must begin our communication of the gospel with that which is clear and fundamental truth, namely that God is good. We must not permit later matters (such as judgment) to qualify this first principle.

I have found this very helpful in answering questions from people struggling with the 'negative' side of the Christian faith, as well as in meditating on passages in which God or Jesus seems to "offend our Western sensibilities". Some difficulties will always remain, but for many people it can be a liberating thing to start theologizing from the principle that God is good.

Teach all that is of flat necessity to salvation and as much of the rest as possible. According to Baxter, we must distinguish between the essential necessary truths and the smaller controversial truths, and keep the later in the background. "God has made the points that are of necessity to salvation to be few and plain," yet "so few of the multitudes of Christians have a clear idea of the real grounds of faith."

I have often sat with people who had mostly grown up in the church but did not know what the word "gospel" meant and could not summarize the message of the church in a few sentences (while they could comment in length on the reason why one particular (way of being) church was better than another!). A friend recently pointed out to me that an important question left unaddressed by many Christians is: what is the good news of the gospel for me, personally?

The first duty of ministers is to preach to the unconverted in such a way as to accomplish their conversion. According to Baxter, it is simply "the work of faithful ministers, to have men's soul saved." True pastors thirst after the conversion of men to Christ and present the words and works of God in such a way as to accomplish this. The Commission to bring people out of the world into the church is "the first great business of the gospel and ministry in the world." It is necessary because the far greatest part of the world is without the gospel today, and because even where the gospel has long continued, for most part there are many still that are unconverted.

Two things may be noted. First, in the church's use of the metaphor of the pastor, the focus is often on the pastor as the man who spends time with the sick and elderly. As important as this role is, it must not lead to a neglect of the role of the pastor as the one who spends time with the lost. Second, the key indicator of successful preaching is not the number of seats filled but the number of people changed.

The believer's plain and urgent duty through the church is to do all he can for the conversion of others. In several lengthy passages Baxter sets out the believer's duties for the conversion of others. Three "duties of the tongue" are (1) to pray for conversion, (2) to communicate the love of God, and (3) to repeat the truths taught by faithful pastors. Three "duties of the hand" are (1) to procure faithful ministers where they are lacking, (2) to bring others to pastors who teach sound doctrine, and (3) to bring others into the fellowship of believers (e.g. placed in good families, married to a believing wife, steered away from bad into good company). Every Christian bears these duties and ought to exercise them: there is a "common obligation on all men to do their best in their places to propagate the gospel and church, and to save men's soul."

Several things may be noted about Baxter's instruction here. First, while every believer is made instrumental to the conversion of others, not every believer is called to be an evangelist. The first duty of the tongue is not to evangelize, but to pray for the conversion of others. The third duty is not to teach by yourself, but to repeat or explain the teaching of pastors. Second, all the duties of the hand are focused, not on private communication, but in bringing men to profitable relations. Every Christian should work to draw the unconverted and weak in faith to large and small group meetings of Christians where (1) the gospel can be lived out in interaction between (many) people of and (2) explained to them by those who are gifted to do so. This instruction takes the pressure of ordinary Christian who want to be obedient to the duty to be instrumental to the conversion of others but do are not particularly gifted to communicated the gospel verbally.

Baxter on Christian & Community Formation

There are three parts to conversion: mind, will, and behavior must be changed. The first is the change of the mind. When the Spirit illuminates our understanding, ignorance is put away. The Spirit opens the eyes to faith, causing the mind to know the ugliness of sin and the loveliness of God. The second is the change of the will. The will receives a new inclination. It chooses right ends, commits to everything the Lord has commanded and changes affections from material to spiritual objects. The third is the change of behavior. A life of habitual works, witness and compassion for those in need.

I've found this teaching especially helpful with regard to the vision of the church. A theological and ministry vision is not only a particularly renewed understanding of God, self and world (expressed in the church's core values), but also consists of a renewed commitment to new "priority areas" (expressed in the church's mission fronts) and a renewed practice (expressed in the church's core competences).

Unchanged people are a great hindrance in evangelism. Hypocrisy and evil conduct of Christians is the great stumbling block for the conversion of heathens. The wicked and scandalous lives of Christians is the grand cause that they abhor Christianity. Baxter points to the fact that Satan capitalizes on people's natural weaknesses and defects of character to hinder the advance of the gospel. Christian character formation has a missionary thrust.

Baxter on Lay Ministry

The duty to minister to others consist first in getting one's heart affected by the misery of others, being compassionate towards them (affinity), second in taking every opportunity that you possibly can to help others to attain salvation, and third in increasing your ability to do so effectively through instruction. Right performance increases success, we must especially learn how to minister in a way that suits the character and situation of the person.

Baxter on Mercy & Justice

Faith is exercised in works of charity and justice. Love for God cannot but bring well-being to man. The believer's plain and urgent duty through the church is to exercise compassion for men's bodies as well as their souls. The expression of love to God necessarily involves a love for others. "Love is the most powerful preacher in the world."

We please God when we readily share his gifts to us with others. We must share our goods with men of all sorts, high and low, rich and poor, old and young, neighbors and strangers, friends and enemies, good and bad, none excepted that are within our reach. There are to be no bounds to our endeavors to seek the good of multitudes and to exercise a healing love to all mankind.

Human trafficking is one of the worst kinds of thievery in the world. "To go...and catch up poor negroes or people of another land, that never forfeited life or liberty, and to make them slaves and sell them, is one of the worst kinds of thievery in the world; and such persons are to be taken for the common enemies of mankind."

Baxter on Faith & Work

All the believer's work is characterized by "heart work" and "heaven work". The Christian, in his love for God, will show a hearty love and a heavenly disposition in all his work...

Baxter on Movement

The church's unity of spirit fortifies and fits it for the conversion of the world. "A united army is likest to be victorious." We must pray and labor for the reformation and concord of all the Christian churches as the most probable means to win to Christ the world of unbelievers. Baxter regrets that many pastors care only for their own particular churches, rarely giving a thought to other reformed churches. "Are we to pray only for our party as if it were all of the church? Is God so narrow as we?"

"Tell me," said I.

"To start a campaign to privatise music," he said.

"No chance," said I.

"Just give me a chance," he said. "I'm not a fan and it's everywhere these days. You can't escape it. But if I have my way, we'll change all that."

"But why?" said I.

"Surely you can see," he said. "Music stimulates fanaticism, encourages all kinds of weird behaviour. It stops people thinking clearly, stirs up emotions and passions. Music is subjective. There's nothing solid about it, nothing measurable. You can't analyse it. It's not real."

?" know you can measure sound scientifically. But it's not sound that people value; it's those abstract things like melody, rhythm, poetry, sentiment. These are just figments of overactive imaginations."

"So what's the plan?" said I.

"Oh simple," he said. "It has five parts.I know it will take a while but I think it can work.

"Part One: I find a few people like me. They will think that music is an undesirable force in our society that we'd be better off without. But since there's no chance of that, we'll do the next best thing; we'll make it a private affair.

"I will find influential people in various sections of society. We will start talking about how music is a very personal thing so it would be better kept for private places. We won't criticise music per se, just point out how people have different tastes in music, different ideas about what is good and what is not. It?sall about preference. So with such a subjective force it's better to confine it to certain areas and not have it freely available."

"Ok,? said I. "I understand part one, but I still don't see it working."

"Part two," he said, "is to work with the musicians, the songwriters, the singers. We convince them that their music would be better off played to the real fans, the people who believe in them. Why make it accessible to critics and cynics when you can keep it for those who really loved it?

"Then we convince them that their musical work should focus on... music. We persuade them to stop writing songs about real things like love, politics, tragedies, triumphs, cheating lovers and second chances. Instead we persuade them only to write songs about music - how good it is, valuable, interesting and so on. Then music will begin to turn in on itself. Eventually music and normal life will be separated. They will be two different and unrelated categories, one real and one imaginary."

"You have me worried," said I. "What's next?"

"Third," he said, "we remove music from the academic world. Instead of studying music itself, people will only be able to study about music, the history of music, the different music traditions. In public colleges you will be able to study anything to do with music except music itself. If you want to study music itself you'll have to go to a private college, a place set up by enthusiasts for one type of music.

"Fourth, we would reduce music in the media. We won't be able to remove it altogether but it should be easy enough to confine it to certain narrow areas. A paper might have a weekly column called "Thinking musically." Radio or television programmes on music will be at unusual hours. They would be quaint, ethereal or even bizarre - anything but normal.

"In time part five will come into play. It will become offensive to play music in public. People who do it will be seen as intolerant and insensitive, imposing their musical tastes on others. People will only discuss music in official "music gatherings" or while visiting a professional musician. Playing music will be confined to private places or specially built halls. No one else will ever go near them."

"What do you think?" he said. "Will it work?"

"Will it? said I. "Perhaps it already has."

Is Calvinism basically a theology of the elect for the elect or is it a theology of redemption for the world? This is the question Sidney Rooy addressed in The Theology of Missions in the Puritan Tradition: A Study of Representative Puritans - Richard Sibbes, Richard Baxter, John Eliot, Cotton Mather, and Jonathan Edwards.

Let's look at the first one, Richard Sibbes, who was a Puritan minister at Cambridge whose writings were among the most read and quoted by the Puritan fathers of New England.

Sibbes on the Ministry of the Gospel

All of salvation is in Christ. For salvation to be achieved, there must be concurrence between heaven and earth. Heaven came to earth in Christ. His life and death became the foundation of a new earth. All of salvation is in him.

Christ comes to us through preaching. "Preaching is the chariot that carries Christ up and down the world." We must hear the gospel to know Christ, experience the converting power of the Spirit and be saved. 

Christ is the purpose of preaching. The purpose of the ministry of the gospel is (i) to win souls for Christ and (ii) to renew Christians.

Christ and only Christ is the object of preaching. To minister the gospel is to show the sinner his true state, to "lay open Christ" and his riches and then sweetly persuade the sinner to come to Christ.

Preaching must be inclusive. Sometimes by ekklesia the Word of God intends all under the regular hearing of the gospel: believers and unbelievers are included. Other times it is used more narrowly in referring to the bride of Christ: only believers are included. Sibbes' conclusion: ministers must address both sorts of people.

Preaching must address the mind. The knowledge of theology and liberal arts go hand in hand. Theological spears strike harder, go in deeper, when soundly brandished by logic and rhetoric.

Preaching must address the heart. In the ministry of the gospel, the Spirit of God stirs up the heart. Motives of fear of judgement or damnation are usually short-lived, but motivation based on an attraction to God is lasting.

Sibbes on Personal Change

Salvation requires change. Through fire and brimstone preaching is infrequent in Sibbes' sermons, his view of the implications of human sin is plain. There is necessity for change. No one can be saved without the change of a new birth.

All of salvation is grace. Salvation, from beginning to end, is all grace. Faith is the first grace of the Spirit, the one that precedes and stirs up all other graces. Glorification is the final grace, which completes and surpasses all other graces. But all is grace.

Sibbes on Community

The church is a community. This community is a precious thing, a preserver, a necessary act. Isolation halts grace. Sibbes refers to the Christ's prayer in John 17 and to the trinity as the "pattern" of our community.  

The church is a paradoxal community. The church of God is his house, but it often bears a contradictory character because there is a mixture of good and bad in it. First, in every church there are many in the church who are only Christians in name, who profess the gospel but are not in Christ. Our thoughts are not to stray far away when we think of lost people. Second, churches are made up of imperfect Christians. Even without unbelievers in it, the church would still be imperfect.

Sibbes on Serving

Because God has a gracious good will toward all men, we most love mankind. If Christ has compassion with all men, shall we see so many poor people and not have compassion?

Sibbes on Lay Ministry

God makes common Christians ministers. Not only ministers, but everyone must labor to enlarge the kingdom of God. The individual Christian should be at the heart of the gospel's spread.

The gospel is to be spread wherever the Christian is to be found. Sibbes places a heavy responsibility upon all Christians to spread the gospel where they are. Every Christian in his place must employ his talent to answer his calling.

Sibbes on Movement

God's love is a spreading love. Because love is by nature diffusive, we must be of a spreading disposition. The love and grace received must flow out to others. Sibbes often uses the metaphor of sunshine and light. Those not heated with grace cannot kindle others. God shines first, and we shine consequently on others.

The end of election is mission. Rather than just weeping over their own sins, Christians should mourn for any sins that may stand in the way of others' salvation. The end of light is not to shine in our hearts to no purpose, but to shine to others.

God is the sovereign Lord of mission. God has done great things. He still does. He is working his victory for us and in us. His name be praised!

I often get asked how I personally became acquainted with the pervasive influence of idolatry in the human heart.

Like many younger ministers I worked far too many hours, never saying "no" to anyone's request for my pastoral services. When salary increases were offered to me, I turned them down. When administrative help was offered to me, I declined. I was quite proud of being the kind of person who worked very hard, never complained, and never asked for any help. This regularly brought me into conflict with my wife, who rightly contended that I was neglecting my relationships to her and to my young sons. It also led to health problems, although I was only in my early thirties.

Nevertheless, I continued to feel that the way I was living was noble and good. I believed I was sacrificially committed to the ministry of the Word. I was especially delighted to make sacrifices that nobody saw -- not my people or even my family. That made me feel most noble of all. If all this created some problems for me personally, wasn't that just evidence of how truly devoted I was? It was a very dangerous situation. My future was bleak, though I didn't know it. In the short run, this kind of ministry workaholism is often rewarded by admiring people all around.

Some well-meaning friends, however, saw the problem and literally "laid the law" on me, showing me that I was violating the commandments of taking Sabbath and of honoring my family. I usually responded with incremental changes that never endured. Others used the modern technique of self-esteem -- "You need to think of yourself; you need to do things that make you happy." I despised that advice as terribly selfish. I valued self-sacrifice.

It wasn't until I began to search my heart with the Biblical category of idolatry that I made the horrendous discovery that all my supposed sacrifices were just a series of selfish actions. I was using people in order to forge my own self-appreciation. I was looking to my sacrificial ministry to give me the sense of "righteousness before God" that should only come from Jesus Christ. People make idols out of money, power, accomplishment, or moral excellence. They look to these things to "save them" -- to give them the sense of purity, value, and acceptability that only Jesus can give. In my case, I was using ministry (and my own people) in this way.

I remember sitting through a sociology class in my high school in Brazil as the teacher presented to us students the rural exodus phenomenon. His negative tone to the presentation connected well to our contextual reality for as many of you know, there are many urban problems in Latin America such as high crime, favelas (slums), and unemployment. All world cities face variations of these issues.

For a long time I saw the urbanization of the world as something inherently bad. After all, God had created the world rural. In my imagination heaven was a place for plants, animals and human beings dressed in long white robes. While those things will probably exist in heaven (except for the white robes, of course), the Bible portrays heaven as an urban place with a main boulevard, streets, buildings and tons of people. Density, diversity and creativity are overtones of this depiction. Don't believe me? Go read Revelation 21-22.

History does start in the garden but it ends in a city. A city that God is building and that one day he will bring down from heaven. A city that will fuse into our Metropolis (New York, Sao Paulo, Seoul...), will bring them all together into one mega-mega-mega Metropolis, will eliminate what's bad in them and enhance to the maximum what's already beautiful in them.

This changed things for me.

I guess for this reason its not all that bad that more and more people in the world move to cities. Its inevitable that this rural exodus intensifies. The reason why the world is becoming more and more urban is because history is moving us to the biggest and the greatest city of all -- The City of God.

In the time being this makes me appreciate more and more where I live (God forbid I move to a farm town in the middle of nowhere!). It makes my adrenaline levels rise with the thought of engaging the mission of beginning this urban-fusion process here and now.

I've been contemplating writing a book about my experience as a Hmong-American who meets Jesus then poor urban Detroit then secular-pluralistic university life then Reformed Theology then Church Planting then Globalization then his own Hmong people again. Seriously! I mean you could use it in either church planting or anthropology classes!

As interesting as my life has been, I don't know if it has the same appeal as let's say the storyline to Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino! (Which by the way was filmed practically in my backyard! My aunt, brother-in-law and practically half my circle of friends were casted as extras.) Church planting among urban Hmong gangstaz! Now that's uber-cool! Right?! Well, probably not to most American planters.

Really I'd like to provide insight on a slice of America for planters and planting networks with hopes that we'd see more consideration and resources poured into what Dave Gibbons calls Third-Culture people. Second generation immigrant Americans have the unique circumstance of still being connected to their native people in their native land. So in a sense, the idea of globalization (glocal Kingdom work) seems just that much more logical and feasible to them. That's because by situation (not necessarily by choice) they are a glocal people. America is browning/yellowing no doubt. The world is coming to America's doorstep like never before. (Even though our political system is trying to prevent that. Ha!)

So, do you think planters would read this book? Better yet, do you think there are any Reformed-leaning churches/networks interested in being a resource for church planting among 2nd generation immigrant Americans?

Lord willing, I'll be leaving Detroit for a few years to part-take in a residency program at a church that does a great job of church planting out of Fort Worth, Tejas. It'll be interesting how a Hmong from the hoods of Detroit will survive in the burbs of Texas. Ooooo, but that could be material for a sequel to the first book. ;)

In my blog post on Willow Creek, I said that many Reformed evangelicals think of sound, expository preaching as something of a 'magic bullet.' We may think that as long as we are preaching the Word--preaching the law and the gospel rightly--that everything else in congregational life will somehow take care of itself. We may give lip service to the other two marks of the church--the administration of the sacraments and discipline--but we don't give them proper weight. Fully considered, the administration of the sacraments includes pastoral care, education, and discipleship, while the ministry of discipline means rightly ordering the community, that is, pastoral leadership.

I have often seen many men spend a great amount of time on preparing and preaching lengthy, dense, expository messages, while giving far less time and energy to the learning of leadership and pastoral nurture. It takes lots of experience and effort to help a body of people make a unified decision, or to regularly raise up new lay leaders, or to motivate and engage your people in evangelism, or to think strategically about the stewardship of your people's spiritual gifts, or even to discern what they are. It takes lots of experience and effort to know how to help a sufferer without being either too passive or too directive, or to know when to confront a doubter and when to just listen patiently. Pastors in many of our Reformed churches do not seem to be as energized to learn to be great leaders and shepherds, but rather have more of an eye to being great teachers and preachers.

I'd point us to the example of John Calvin himself. No one put more emphasis on expository preaching as central to ministry. And yet Calvin sat nearly every Thursday in the Consistory, hearing hundreds of practical pastoral cases each year brought by the elders of the city to the council of pastors and other elders. He applied his theology to the intimate details of "adultery and fornication, disputed engagements and weddings, family quarrels, incest, rape, sodomy, buggery, prostitution, voyeurism, abortion, child neglect, child abuse, education disputes, spousal abuse, mistreatment of maids, family poverty, embezzlement of family property, sickness, divorce, marital property disputes, inheritance..." (Witte and Kingdon, Sex, Marriage, and Family in John Calvin's Geneva, Vol 1, p. 15.) Also, Calvin's voluminous correspondence shows what a forceful and wise leader and statesman he was. Because Calvin was not only a preacher but also a great shepherd and leader, he built up the church in a way that changed the world.

I pastor a church with a large staff and so I give 15+ hours a week to preparing the sermon. I would not advise younger ministers to spend so much time, however. When I was a pastor without a staff I put in 6-8 hours on a sermon. If you put in too much time in your study on your sermon you put in too little time being out with people as a shepherd and a leader. Ironically, this will make you a poorer preacher. It is only through doing people-work that you become the preacher you need to be--someone who knows sin, how the heart works, what people's struggles are, and so on. Pastoral care and leadership (along with private prayer) are to a great degree sermon preparation. More accurately, it is preparing the preacher, not just the sermon. Through pastoral care and leadership you grow from being a Bible commentator into a flesh and blood preacher.

By Scott Sauls, Senior Director of Community Formation

Redeemer Presbyterian Church of New York City

Building an Atmosphere that is "Full of Truth"

This section is the second of two sections dealing with what it means to cultivate the "aroma of Jesus" in our ministries. We will consider how specifically to encourage a Jesus-like ministry atmosphere that is "full of truth" (John 1:14), to the end that people of all stripes (whether Christian or not) become convinced that there is nothing more wonderful, nothing more exciting, and nothing more life-giving than being an obedient follower of Jesus.

As we think about forming Christ-centered messages, we must keep in mind several key attributes of a message that is truly Christ-centered and therefore "full of truth," we must consider several factors with regard to our use and presentation of the Law of God. As was the case with Paul, our mission and primary dream for those under our ministry is that "Christ be formed in (them)" (Galatians 4:19), meaning that their character as well as ours become conformed to His, that they become obedient to God's commands as a way of life. But this is tricky, because true obedience that aligns with Jesus as "the truth," is obedience from the inside-out - the kind of obedience offered not to use God and put Him in our debt, but rather to experience in greater depth the riches of His loveliness and worth. In short, we must encourage an obedience that responds to the love of Jesus. Any other kind is religion, not Christianity.

First, it is important to discern and to reject the three primary misuses of the Law of God.

Following are three "misuses" that we would do well to discern and reject:

The liberal misuse of God's Law. Those who come from this perspective tend to be resistant to the actual commands of God. Instead, liberally-minded people will see God's commands as oppressive and will replace them with a new law - the law of tolerance. For the liberal person, the only real "absolute" is that there are no absolutes. All people should be tolerated and accepted, except for those who are intolerant! The problem with this approach to ministry should be obvious - to add to or to take away from the Word of God puts one in great danger (Revelation 22)!

The conservative misuse of God's Law. Those who come from this perspective tend to view the commands of God primarily in terms of duty. If you keep the commands, you have done your duty. If you don't, you will be judged and things will not go well for you. Period. God's Law by conservatives is viewed almost exclusively in legal terms and little if at all in relational terms. For the conservative person, there is generally very little if any dancing in the heart over the beauty of God's commands. In some conservative circles, a primary sign that you are in the center of God's will is that you are miserable and grumpy! The Bible gives such a different picture, however. Psalm 1 teaches us that the Law of God is the believer's delight! The writer of Psalm 119 says (you can almost hear him shouting it!), "O how I love Your law!" He absolutely adores God's commands and in no way sees them as a "burden that must be kept" or "a duty around which I must center my life." While the Law is duty, it is so very much MORE than duty! If we or those in our ministry are consistently burdened by our presentation of God's commands, then it is likely that we are missing the heart of the Law altogether. 1 John tells us that for the rightly-motivated believer, God's commands are not burdensome!

The antinomian misuse of God's Law. Those who come from this perspective tend to view the commands of God as being optional. Antinomian means "against law" - the thought being that one can receive Jesus as Savior yet refuse Jesus as Lord. The problems with this are obvious from Scripture. Jesus Himself said, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and not do what I say?" James reminds us that "Faith without works is dead." Martin Luther, the champion of grace himself, said that we are saved by faith alone, but never by a faith that is alone.

The following chart attempts to distinguish between the various uses (and misuses) of God's Law. We do well to labor passionately to present the Law of God, but to do so from the Christ- and Gospel-centered approach and none other.

Second, it is important to treat God's commands as an expression of His love.

Remember, God's Law is not merely legal. While it does have a legal thrust, it is also deeply relational. God gives us His law in order to set us free, not to burden us. Consider the following:

God's commands, rightly understood, are to be adored. The overwhelming testimony of the writers of Scripture was that the Law of God was a breathtakingly beautiful thing. To them, it was not oppressive and freedom-robbing, but life-giving. It was not merely "duty" but delight. It was not an option but a blessed treasure, the only thing that made sense!

God's commands are given to provide freedom. It is crucial to understand the original meaning and context of the word torah (Law). For the Jew who lived in the time of Moses, this was the word used to describe a loving father's instruction to his children. When presenting any command of God to people under our ministries, we need to start with the question, "What motivates a parent to tell his/her children to stay out of the street, or to eat vegetables, or to get 10 hours of sleep?" The answer to this question, always and forever, is that the parent has a deep desire for the health and well-being of the child. As such, the parent surrounds his/her children with loving, life-giving laws! This is a mere reflection of the heart of God who gives His Law from the same motivations toward His children.

God's commands are given to provide protection. God's Law communicates the Creator's design for what it means to be truly human. It tells us how we can pursue our potential, how we can "be all we can be!" If you take a fish out of water, what happens? The fish becomes anxious and afraid. All sorts of immediate distortions are introduced into the fish's existence. Only when you put the fish back in his designed habitat will the fish thrive again. Otherwise he will eventually die. It is no different with a human being where the Law of God is concerned. The Law is our habitat! So, when we present the Law of God to our own hearts and to the hearts of those under our ministries, we must constantly be communicating the following things about it:

- The Law will benefit you! Labor to show them how life "within God's design" will enhance the quality of their lives!

- The law will protect you! Labor to show them the inevitable distortions that will be introduced if they choose to depart from God's design. Show them how God's Law will "bite back" if they ignore or refuse it. As Francis Schaeffer was so well known for, learn to take people to the logical conclusion of their unbiblical worldviews and life-choices.

- The law is lovely! We must bring people to the place of seeing God's Law as the writers of Scripture saw it - as beautiful, the only thing that truly makes sense for those who wish to live life to the fullest.

Third, it is important to emphasize obedience at the motivational level, not merely the behavioral level.

Jesus Himself said that it is a good root that makes a good tree bear good fruit. The implication is that we obey God because of the people we have become on the inside, and for no other reason. We love (and therefore obey) God because God first loved us. It is only a clear vision of the loveliness of Jesus and the Gospel that we or the people under our ministries will obey in a way that will honor God and set the heart free. This has several implications for ministry:

We must encourage a "WANT to" obedience rather than "HAVE to" obedience. True obedience comes from a heart that loves and enjoys the things of God, not from a heart that is duty-bound. As leaders, we must not be satisfied with any kind of "obedience" except the kind of obedience that comes from a heart that desires to obey God and does so naturally, almost without even thinking about it. Think of Michael Jordan as an example. Michael is known as one of the hardest working athletes ever - he spent unparalleled amounts of time and energy honing his skills (just as we as believers must "train ourselves for godliness!"). But when Michael got to game time, basketball had become so much a part of him that he excelled without even thinking about it. When you become a certain kind of person rather than trying to be a certain kind of person, it completely re-orients your motivational dynamic. One example is the "methods" we choose to get people to share their faith with non-Christians. Evangelism technique seminars can be very helpful, but the truth of the matter is that most of them lead to a very short-term commitment to share the Gospel, one that will fizzle away sooner rather than later. Why is this the case? It is because many of our "training programs" fail to address the why of evangelism. We focus so much on technique and "how to relate to people" that we ignore the heart! Consider the primary evangelists in the New Testament on the other hand. The Samaritan woman (John 4) went immediately into Samaria to tell as many as she could about Jesus. The Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5), when told by Jesus to go and tell his family what the Lord had done to heal him, instead goes into the Decapolis (Ten cities!) to tell as many people as he could about the healing he had received! What motivated these people to "share their faith"? It was the fact that Jesus had become so breathtakingly beautiful and irresistible to them that they absolutely had to tell others! I remember when Mark McGwire was about to hit his record-breaking home run for the St. Louis Cardinals several years ago - when he got up to bat I just HAD to call my wife Patti in to watch it with me (even though she's not a big sports fan!). The point is that when things become beautiful to us, our enjoyment of them is not complete until we have shared it. So here's the application if teaching people to evangelize is our issue - we teach the heart first, and the behavior follows once the Gospel becomes beautiful to the heart! This is the case with any command of God as we present it. If we present the Law as primarily behavior-modification, the behavior will happen on the outside but the heart will not change, it will fizzle as soon as the guilt wears off. On the other hand, if we present the Law as a beautiful expression of God's care for the people we teach and lead, we will begin to see people change at the motivational level, which then produces lasting fruit that is in keeping with repentance. I think it was Steve Brown who once said, "I love to sin, but the reason I choose not to is because I love Jesus more!"

So, our "strategy" for encouraging people to obey God is to show them the beauty of Jesus on a regular basis! When Jesus becomes truly beautiful, truly lovely to people, they cannot help but follow Him! His commands become irresistible! We will always give our lives effortlessly to the things that give our lives the most meaning!

Fourth, it is important to emphasize the many rewards of obedience.

The truth of the matter is that God's commands, when followed from a Gospel-motivation, enhance life. Here are just a few of the ways we need to present this to be true:

The reward of fulfillment. As Augustine once said, "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in God." Obedience to God's commands gets us in touch with the "true us" - with the design of our Creator which gives life! Remember Joshua's words, "Do not let this book of the Law depart from your mouth. Meditate on it day and night, and be careful to do everything that is written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful (Joshua 1:8)! When we teach any command of God, we must be careful to highlight enthusiastically how that command will bring ultimate fulfillment and blessedness (happiness!) to those we teach and lead.

The reward of inner peace. There is no fear that God's Laws will "bite back" when we obey them! When we disobey God, it brings distortions, anxiety, and even misery to our inner lives. But when we obey and follow, there is inner peace - an integration of life! Remember the fish out of water example!

The reward of deepened intimacy with God. Once we belong to God through faith in Christ, our position with Him can never be threatened. Nothing in all creation (including ourselves) can separate us from His love (Romans 8)! However, our fellowship with God (our experience of intimacy with Him) is and will always be weakened by disobedience, and strengthened by obedience to His commands. Jesus said, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him" (John 14:23).

Fifth, it is important to emphasize the relief that can come from knowing we have failed to keep God's commands.

It is both ironic and beautiful that both obedience and disobedience to God's commands can ultimately lead to deeper joy. The rewards of obedience are obvious (as stated above). And there are also deep rewards for those who have come to terms with the fact that they fall short of God's glory every day.

The reward of humility before God and others. As ironic as it may sound, there are few things more wonderful and life-giving than coming to terms with our failure to obey God's commands. As Paul says, "Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more." Knowing that we are saved by mercy and not by our best efforts is extremely liberating. What's more, it makes us tender rather than harsh, gracious rather than judgmental, humble rather than defensive. Don't we all want to be these kinds of people? I for one am absolutely convinced that the most miserable people in the Bible were those who could not bring themselves to admit their failures, because they had built such an identity in their supposed law-keeping. The Pharisees, rather than pleading for mercy and entering into the life of God's grace and forgiveness, chose instead the miserable path of performance, offering "moral and behavioral resumes" to God and other people (and to themselves - remember the Pharisee who prayed "to himself" in Luke 18, so as to feel confident in his own righteousness). This left them in the awful position of either being puffed up with pride (because they thought they were being righteous), despair (because they failed at the laws upon which they built their identities), or denial (because they couldn't handle the thought of being seen as sinful). Those whose hearts were set free, on the other hand, were those like the tax collector who prayed, "God have mercy on me, the sinner," and went home justified and healed.

The reward of knowing that even our most lame efforts evoke the smile of God. Isaiah reminds us that even our best efforts to obey God's commands are going to be tainted with motives that are sinful and therefore damnable - like "filthy rags" (lit., like a used menstrual cloth). Nonetheless, we have assurance that even our weakest desires and attempts to obey God's commands bring pleasure to God's heart! Zephaniah 3:17 is breathtaking, "The Lord... will take great delight in you... He will rejoice over you with loud singing!" I'll never forget the scene in the movie Radio, where the football coach tries to teach the mentally handicapped man (named "Radio") how to write his name. The coach writes it down for him: R-A-D-I-O, and then says, "Now you try it." Radio then smiles, takes a pencil and paper, and proceeds to scribble a bunch of inarticulate nothingness onto the piece of paper. He looks up at the coach and smiles, and the coach, rather than showing his deep disappointment or frustration, looks at Radio and says, "YOU DID IT!" If the people under our care and our teaching are to ever be motivated to attempt obedience (even while knowing their very best efforts will still fall short), we need to regularly pour grace all over even their weakest attempts to follow Jesus. This is how the Gospel is applied to the Law.

The reward of having a BIG Jesus instead of a little Jesus. Another thing that our failure to keep the Law of God does for us is that it enlarges our sense of Jesus, who He is, how much we need Him, and how willing and eager He is to meet our deepest need! The paradox of the gospel is that the more we see our sin, the more large and significant it becomes to our senses, our picture of Jesus and His infinite grace and mercy grows as well. Take a look at Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 1:15-17 to see the truth of this!

 While most thinking about urban mission is biased toward New York and Chicago, most (US) cities are much smaller. C.J. Green (Church, Cities and Human Community), therefore, argues that we should consider whether or not the small city (i.e. urban areas under about 250,000) should receive special attention.

The Regional City

A special feature of some of these smaller cities is that they are distinctively regional cities. Richard Clark (Urban World/Global City) writes about such cities with a region-serving function: "Beyond the physically built-up area, which is commonly constrained by planning policies, is an extensive commuting area from which the city draws many of its daily workers. It encompasses an area of towns and villages in a predominantly rural setting in which the population focus their activities upon the core. The strength of the diurnal ties between the core and the ring means that the two areas together function as a daily urban system. They are tightly bound together in a relationship of interdependency by morning and evening flows [for work] and by movements between the two areas for shopping and recreation.." and church attendance we might add!

 The Regional Church

My own church for example, the Christian Reformed Church in Groningen (CRCG), a regional city in the North of the Netherlands, is what Francis DuBose (How Churches Grow in an Urban World) refers to as a "regional church", a large and traditional church drawing most of its members from the white middle class, not from any one community but from a range of communities within the region. The most distinguishing feature of such a church is the regional configuration of its membership.

In addition, the CRCG is also a "multi-congregational church", a church consisting of multiple congregations that meet at different times and/or places, while ministries are organized collectively and united under one administration.  

Interestingly, the CRCG has a long history of interaction with the surrounding area. Soon after the establishment of the church in the 1890s, the church began to count among her number members living outside the city. For years on end, especially when there were many of them, services have been held in various locations in the surrounding area but it never came to the establishing of new churches there. It was only in the 1950s that (with much ado!)  a second congregation (not a new church!) was established at the southern part of the city (not in the surrounding area!).

Lack of leadership has been a significant factor here. First, there was no vision for church planting. The satellite locations were opened for the convenience of existing members, not with the purpose of establishing new churches. Second, even if there had been a vision for church planting, there simply would not have been enough planter-pastors available (it was hard enough to staff the existing churches!). Third, lack of pastoral leadership often caused financial difficulties that made it difficult to sustain the satellite locations long enough for them to develop into self-sustaining churches. 

Now that the CRCG is working to transform and develop itself more in line with the "urban mission" paradigm, I've spend a lot of time thinking through what this means with regard to church growth and church planting.

City and surrounding lands

Here I've found the work of F.S. Frick (The City in Ancient Israel) helpful. Frick points out that there are several biblical expression which denote the city with its surrounding lands and villages. The phrase 'ir we haserim, for example, refers to the walled settlement and the unwalled or provisionally walled settlements in the vicinity of the urban center, which were subordinate to it (Lev. 25:31). Closely related to this phrase is the use of the term 'ir we benoteha, the city X and its daughters.

This later designation, according to Frick, is instructive with regard to the relation which existed between the city and the villages in its vicinity. The mother, although clearly subordinate to the father, had considerable authority over her daughters, hence the analogical control of the mother-city over the dependent daughter-villages. The mother had major responsibilities in producing children and caring for them, and similarly the city, expanded through villages to which it provided protection.

Similar, C.J. Green notes that the word metro in "metropolis" comes from the Greek word mētēr, meaning "mother." Originally referring to a city that was the "mother" of a region, the metaphor reminds us that it is the metropolis which is the mother of its people and necessary for their life.

This kind of language resonates well with people in my city. In the local idiom we have an expression for "city and surrounding lands" (stad en ommeland) that is not often used in other parts of the country, while it is used in the regional anthem. When local people speak of "city" the thought of "surrounding lands" is never far away.  

The concept of "city and surrounding lands" is helpful in explaining how the church should relate to the city. With many of us living in the surrounding areas, we must not become "parasites" on the city, making use of the amenities that the city offers without seeking the welfare of the city. Rather we must become "investors" in the city, which (much like the church) is mother to all of us.

 Church Planting

But what about church growth and church planting? Since a few years, the CRCG is supporting church (re)plants in cities in the West of the country, but not where we are, in the North. Although these partnerships are partly undertaken with the purpose of learning from these plants, one of the recent vision document explicitly states that we will not ourselves participate in church planting in the next five years.

My question is: shouldn't we? Although our Sunday (youth) services regularly attract a lot of "outsiders", most of these are already Christian. Some of them actually transfer and thus the CRCG is growing sure enough, but mostly due to what is referred to as "the circulation of saints": disappointed or dissatisfied members transferring from other (reformed) churches in the city or the surrounding lands. This way the CRCG is after all living as a "parasite", not with regard to the city, but with regard to churches in the surrounding lands!

It is the opposite of the kind of movement that urban mission envisions: people (re)turning from the city to the surrounding lands to plant churches there. Nevertheless, I see an opportunity in the coming of "surrounding-landers" to the church in the city. If we ever are to plant a church in the surrounding lands, it will be much easier when we already have a number of them among us!

Yes...

If ALL the Christians make it their priority to fulfill that vision

If If EACH person turns their heart to love those younger with every form of love: as fathers and brothers, as disciplers, mentors, advocates, friends and coaches.

If If EVERYONE focuses on children, particularly the orphans, natural, spiritual and emotional, who lack someone to bring them God's love.

The young and the adolescents, free from family obligations, could lead. They can organize themselves and dedicate their faith, their energy and their creativity to this misión.

The INITITIVE BELONGS TO THE YOUNG, because they can reach upwards and downwards, the adults and the children.

The REST OF US will join them as they need us and calls us.

Only an all-out vision like this can reach and rescue the children before they are out of reach.

I'm always glad to pass on anything that helps to steer both new and old churches towards recognizing the full scope of "outreach responsibility" each church has been given in Acts 1:8

Ed Stetzer in Five Reasons Missional Churches Don't Do Global Missions - and How to Fix It, recently asked, "So how do we fully embrace missional without losing the mission? In answering that question he proposed the four following principles ... each followed by helpful insights:
1) In rediscovering God's mission, many have only discovered its personal dimensions.
2) In responding to God's mission, many have wanted to be more mission-shaped and have therefore made everything "mission."
3) In relating God's mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost.
4) In refocusing on God's mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news."

Spurgeon's "Faith Checkbook" entry for October 5th is an encouraging read for city reachers...

"And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men. Micah 5:7"

If this be true of the literal Israel, much more is it true of the spiritual Israel, the believing people of God. When saints are what they should be, they are an incalculable blessing to those among whom they are scattered.

They are as the dew; for in a quiet, unobtrusive manner they refresh those around them. Silently but effectually they minister to the life, growth, and joy of those who dwell with them. Coming fresh from heaven, glistening like diamonds in the sun, gracious men and women attend to the feeble and insignificant till each blade of grass has its own drop of dew. Little as individuals, they are, when united, all-sufficient for the purposes of love which the Lord fulfills through them. Dew drops accomplish the refreshing of broad acres. Lord, make us like the dew!

Godly people are as showers which come at God's bidding without man's leave and license. They work for God whether men desire it or not; they no more ask human permission than the rain does. Lord, make us thus boldly prompt and free in Thy service wherever our lot is cast.

Find the link here.

In Acts 14:21-23, we get a glimpse of the first church planters' usual routine at church planting. First, they "preached the gospel to [the] city". Secondly, they "strengthened the [new converts]". Thirdly, they "ordained elders" and "commended [the new church] to the Lord".

Evangelism. Church planters have a lot of work to do: strategizing, networking, fundraising, administration. But you cannot plant a church without spending time with lost people. If the planter does not preach the gospel and calls people to repent and convert, there can be no church.

The first thing Paul and Barnabas do, therefore, is to seek an opportunity to preach "the word of salvation." Such an opportunity they find when, in 13:14, they are asked to deliver a sermon at the synagogue.

The Greek word here refers a piece of deliberate rhetoric meant to urge a change, not just of belief but also of behavior. The sermon was a means for public education and moral exhortation based on the Scripture passage read. And indeed, Paul's speech is not an exegesis of the text. Rather it is a creative and persuasive gospel presentation.

When we look at how Paul presented the gospel, there are basically two modes of gospel presentation in Acts 13-14. The first mode is related to his Jewish audience, the second to his Gentile audience.

In his first mode of gospel presentation, Paul emphasizes "covenant". The gospel is the good news that, in Jesus, God has fulfilled the promises which ware made to the fathers: a representative of the people who shall fulfill all God's demands for the people and not see corruption. This savior is Jesus, in whom they found no cause, yet they desired that he should be slain. "Through him" forgiveness of sins is preached and "through him" all that believe are justified.  

In his second mode of gospel presentation, Paul emphasizes "worship". The gospel is the good news that, in Jesus, God has revealed to all men what has been hidden since the foundations of the world: that he is the Lord of all the earth, who has made all nations, whom is not far from all of us, and whom desires that we all might find him. Jesus is the clue to the meaning of history. To repent is to turn from committing oneself to things that pass away to binding oneself to the living, eternal God.

What can we learn from Paul's presentation?

Rhetorically-skilled. Why did Paul deliver a sermon and not Barnabas? Paul was a student of Rabbi Gamaliel and a scholar from Israel's "homeland". As such he would be a much-desired speaker and, indeed, Paul turns out to be a gifted orator.

The urban church of today would do well to follow the example of the urban church of the early days of Christianity, which perceived the crucial importance of the sermon in the articulation of the gospel message and the Christian doctrine. Such a heavy responsibility was assigned only to those with the maturity to wield it properly.

Audiences in the cities are less easily convinced, and so skilled presentation of the gospel is of vital importance. Knowing how to deliver an argument and speak persuasively is of paramount importance in urban preaching. An unskilled preacher can work more harm than good, simply through not considering his words carefully enough, or not having enough knowledge of the worldviews and experience with the doctrinal problems of the urban audience.

Audience-inclusive. In his first gospel presentation, Paul realizes that his audience is mixed and begins by discerning two groups in his audience: "Israelites and god-fearers." More preachers begin to follow this example, realizing that their audience might and should not only consist of "brothers and sisters, boys and girls" (as if boys and girls are not also brothers and sisters!), but of "(Christian) friends and (non-Christian) neighbors".

Contextual-oriented. But more than a matter of address, this is a matter of "modus". The first church planters knew their religious and cultural "market", consisting of other (Near-) Eastern religions, magic and other forms of popular religion, and Greek philosophies. Today the situation is not much different. At one hand, the church has a message over against the other Eastern world religions, while on the other hand, it has a message over against Western secular cultures. Different audiences require different modes of gospel presentation.

Trinitarian-based. Paul's preaching is fully Trinitarian. The Gentiles must first learn about God before he can tell them about his Son and Spirit. An understanding of the message about Jesus requires an understanding of God the Father and God the Spirit and their relation to creation and humanity. 

Biblical-historical. In his address to his Jewish audience, Paul gives a short biblical historical introduction before he arrives at his point. And even when preaching to Gentiles, he makes use of Old Testament language and concerns himself with the moment of creation before turning to the moments of salvation and consummation. 

Gospel-centered. The good news centers around the events of Jesus' incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and return. What Paul does is summarized as "gospel-tell-ing" (evangelizestai) (14:7). Whether he preaches to a Jewish or to a Gentile audience, the resurrection of Jesus is emphasized in both presentations.

Community Formation. The second activity of the church planters is community formation: counseling and education, leadership formation.

Education. After the church planters had preached the gospel to the city, they taught many (14:21). And after the synagogue service was over, many of the Jews and godfearers came to Paul for further instruction. The church planters "encouraged" the new converts in their faith (14:22), meaning in their practice of the Christian belief. Later, when Paul could not personally instruct these converts, he wrote a letter to them, the letter to the Galatians.

Leadership Formation. One way in which in which the first church planters "strengthened" their church plants was by providing them with indigenous leadership. It was Paul's strategy to stay (or at least return or sent a delegate) until he had established as gospel-centered council of elders as the firm foundations of a local church. Circumstances permitting, it was only when after the first "Session" the call "Church planted!" could be made that Paul would leave and move on.

This summer I spoke at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit. It was an honor to be invited. No one pulls off a conference like Willow Creek. Who else could bring their content to 120,000 people? And the three other talks or sessions that I saw were extremely high quality.

The time at Willow led me to reflect on how much criticism this church has taken over the years. On the one hand, my own 'camp' -- the non-mainline Reformed world -- has been critical of its pragmatism, its lack of emphasis on sound doctrine. On the other hand, the emerging and post-modern ministries and leaders have disdained Willow's individualism, its program-centered, 'corporate' ethos. These critiques, I think, are partly right, but when you are actually there you realize many of the most negative evaluations are caricatures.

John Frame's 'tri-perspectivalism' helps me understand Willow. The Willow Creek style churches have a 'kingly' emphasis on leadership, strategic thinking, and wise administration. The danger there is that the mechanical obscures how organic and spontaneous church life can be. The Reformed churches have a 'prophetic' emphasis on preaching, teaching, and doctrine. The danger there is that we can have a naïve and unBiblical view that, if we just expound the Word faithfully, everything else in the church -- leader development, community building, stewardship of resources, unified vision -- will just happen by themselves. The emerging churches have a 'priestly' emphasis on community, liturgy and sacraments, service and justice. The danger there is to view 'community' as the magic bullet in the same way Reformed people view preaching.

By thinking in this way, it makes it possible for me to love and appreciate the best representatives of each of these contemporary evangelical 'traditions.' Nobody provides more practical help for organizing and leading ministry than Willow Creek. I also am humbled that Redeemer is well-regarded in each of these 'streams' of evangelicalism, though we have our feet firmly set in our own Reformed tradition. That is quite unusual, and it makes it possible for us to both teach and learn across the spectrum of church life today.

According to statistical reports every year more than 4,000 churches close their doors in America compared to just over 1,000 new church starts. While clearly more church planting is needed to change the scenario, church re-planting presents itself as a valid alternative to expand the Kingdom of Jesus in global cities. There are several places in the world today (specially in the Northern Hemisphere) where Christianity "once was". With main-line churches loosing strength and influence in these areas, a large amount of resources is going to waste. First, think about the people in some of these dying institutions that would give their lives up to see the gospel transforming their communities. I think we tend to underestimate the holy-discontent that exists in such contexts because we tend to generalize the condition across the board. Now, think about the assets that some of these institutions possess. Many of them end up being sold at the price of bananas only to be converted into private schools, clubs and, concert venues. In a green-friendly era church re-cycling should be highly considered. In this article I want to share some of the learning principles that have taken place in my life and in the life of my friends as we replanted a church in the beautiful and messy Miami. This week we will be celebrating Crossbridge's one year anniversary previously known as Immanuel Presbyterian Church. Immanuel was handed to us in the following conditions: A remnant group of 52 members, in the average age of 57, followed with a multi-million dollar-debt-free facility in the affluent Pinecrest neighborhood. Today we are a church of 200+ in attendance, 32 being our average age and, getting ready to launch a new campus next month Downtown Miami. If the Lord happens to lead you to an opportunity like ours, here are some of the things we have learned along the way.

They have to come to peace with dying - Let me start by saying this. A replant is impossible unless the vast majority of the congregation is willing to die. Unless this is the case, you might as well give up. That being the case (that the church is willing to die), your job coming in is to flesh out for them the practical implications of the death and resurrection scenario. You have to be systematic, patient, loving and, trust that ultimately the Holy Spirit is speaking to their hearts. This is a crucial phase because it will set the tone for the whole process. Once people are convinced that they have to die for the sake of Jesus and his Gospel the soil is ready for the seed of the new church to germinate. When I was called by Redeemer to visit Immanuel Pres at the time, I admit, I had a large level of skepticism towards the whole idea (other local pastors shared the same skepticism). Thankfully the folks at Immanuel were faced with this reality and they were alright with it. They had lost all hopes of revitalization and the Spirit made them realize that they needed to start over.

-Find a "proxy" - Don't try this by yourself. Often times dying churches will see you as the person that will come in and restore to them the "good ol' days". Obviously that's not what you have in mind coming in but, that's what they are hoping for. You will spend time planning and talking about change and they will not be listening. Ultimately they will hear what they want to hear. We're all like that. For this reason, you need another entity that both you and the congregation can trust to mediate the process. This is important for you and for the congregation. For them it's important because the last thing they want is be taken advantage of. For you its important because your proxy will help you with coaching and mentoring which will minimize bad decision-making as well as providing you with protection from being bullied by the congregation. In our case Redeemer served as the proxy. Before I came in they had a Board of Governors established where two of Redeemer's elders were a part of it along with three members of their session and myself. This board had full autonomy to execute decisions without the need to get the approval of the session. Looking back, I don't think it would have worked otherwise.

Get them excited about new life - One of the things that was in the original partnership agreement (that we ended up changing) was the idea of two separate congregations. According to the agreement the church planter would play a double role. He would care for the existing congregation while giving birth to this new church. The two congregations would share facilities and staff. From the start Beth (my wife) and I thought that would be an impossible task to accomplish not only because it would divide resources but because it would give room to all sorts of relational problems. Instead, I proposed the idea of a single multi-generational (they liked this word) and multi-cultural congregation to which they really got excited about. Deep inside they didn't want to stand by the side lines but desired to be participants of the new. And, they have participated in a big way.

Bring small changes. This was one piece of advice that I got in the beginning from a pastor in town who had gone through a similar situation. For a couple reasons. First, it helps to build momentum and anticipation of what's coming. Secondly, it gets them off-balance. It helps them to disconnect from the ways things have been done. Some of the things we did right away were rearrange chairs, change worship time, dress casually, buy new office furniture etc.

Bring radical changes. If you are re-planting, you need a clear slate. Even before I arrived I asked the Board of Governors to clear the decks. That meant, letting go of all three staff members, eliminating all programs and, shutting down all committees. The last thing to go was the church's name. We did that a month before we launched Crossbridge.

Bring new people from day one. One of the first things Terry Gyger told me was: "-Felipe, the name of the game is bring new people in". He was right. If all they see is the same ol' group of peeps week in week out, they will lose trust in you as a gatherer and as a leader. Beth and I worked really hard at meeting new people all the time, everywhere. It worked.

Build a new launch team with new people. You need a new group of people from the outside and maybe a few from the inside that can help you to craft the vision for the new church. As a planter you have a keen sense of what you think needs to be created in relation the ministry but you need some collective intelligence to help you to contextualize the church's ministry to the community/ city. Through some networking, I was able to meet and invite some emotionally stable (make sure this is the case), mature people that believed in the vision and that were able to contribute in a big way.

Get the "old folks" excited about them. The last thing you want is jealousy to be fostered within the existing congregation. One of the ways I did this was to talk about the "new folks" in public and ask the existing congregation to welcome them well. They did a good job at that.

Set a day for the launch and a day for the memorial service. The old church needs closure and the new church needs a new beginning. It needs to be evident. Six months into the transition phase we held a memorial service for Immanuel where some of the members got up to share stories of how they had seen God in their midst along the years. After that, we shut the church down for two weeks, offered a new membership class for all of them to go through and launched Crossbridge.

Be careful with "shady" offers. I thought about not bringing this up but, the more I thought about it, it seemed important. In the beginning you will find folks trying to be generous in order to gain leverage for negotiation.

Don't be afraid to lose people. Often times pastors find themselves negotiating with people to keep them and their money in. In reality they are negotiating their vision. Money and people can be replaced, not vision. Once it's gone, it's gone. So, don't negotiate, don't accommodate, don't adapt.

Fight "well intentioned dragons" smart. "Within the church, they are often sincere, well-meaning saints, but they leave ulcers, strained relationships, and hard feelings in their wake. They don't consider themselves difficult people. They don't sit up nights thinking of ways to be nasty. Often they are pillars of the community, talented, strong personalities, deservingly respected but for some reason, they undermine the ministry of the church. They are not naturally rebellious or pathological; they are loyal church members, convinced they're serving God, but they wind up doing more harm than good. They can drive pastors crazy or out of the church (Well-Intentioned Dragons - Marshall Shelly, p. 11)". We had a couple of these laying around and we spent time strategizing of how to approach them. Al Barth (my Redeemer coach) was very instrumental here. We met with these guys, allowed them to speak their mind, and respected their points of view. As a last resort, we suggested that they check out a few churches in town that were closer to their style.

Keep new things coming. If you bring a bunch of new things at once, it might overwhelm people and you might run out of cards. If you can afford to time them and spread them out weekly, monthly, quarterly, semesterly... it will help you to always have momentum.

Keep thanking "the old folks". I know it's hard but they need recognition. After all, without them you wouldn't be replanting so whenever you have the opportunity thank them. Do it in public, on a one on one basis, through emails, notes, whatever it takes for them to feel appreciated.

Pound the Vision. Make sure that if someone attended your church a month they would be able to articulate the vision. You can do this in several ways. Through published materials, your website, as you preach, give announcements, send newsletters etc.

Preach the Gospel every Sunday. Don't waste your time preaching anything else. You need to form a gospel culture in order for it to work. When the gospel is embraced by the people both younger brothers and older brother types will rejoice and an outstanding community will be formed. It will cross through economical, ethnical, cultural and generational lines.

Strategy answers the question how we will go about reaching our goal. Strategy honors the fact that, even if we have a large vision, we have to begin somewhere small. Even if the goal of mission is to spread the gospel everywhere, the question still arises: "Where to begin?"

It is a common place in church planting literature that the strategy of the first church planters was "completely urban centered". It is important that we understand correctly what is meant by "urban centered".

When we follow the first church planters in Acts 13, we find (in verse 4) that the team travels towards Seleucia, where they embark on a ship that takes them to Cyprus, where they arrive in the city Salamis, from where they move on to the city of Pafos. Let's look at these moves in more detail.  

Seleucia was a large city 16 mile from Antioch, and served as a port for the entire region. This meant, among others, that the Roman fleet was stationed there and that this was the place where most of the region's grain was imported. If the strategy of the first church planters was completely urban centered, why did they not stay here, Seleucia surely seemed to qualified as an important commercial and administrative centre?  

One reason why the team moved on could have been that Barnabas happened to be in charge, and that it was his idea that the team should move on to Cyprus, because there he had some natural ties that would make it easier to plant a church there.

But I don't think this was the reason.

The strategy of the first church planter focused on the city, because they saw the city as the centre of a certain region. The reason why they moved on was because the region in which Seleucia was situated already had a sending church, the Antioch church. The mission of the first church planters was not aimed at planting a new church in the next village or even in the next city. Their mission was to plant a new sending church in a new region. Barnabas and Paul did not only move on to the next city, they also moved on to the next region. 

Roland Allen writes this: Both Luke and Paul speak constantly of the province rather than of the cities. By establising the church in two or three centres Paul claimed that he had evangelized the whole province (Rom. 15:23), for when he had occupied two or three urban centres he had really and effectually occupied the province.

What we see is that reaching the city is instrumental to reaching the province. Roland Allen writes: Paul's strategy for evangelizing a province was not to preach in every place in it himself, but to establish centres of Christian life in two or three important places from which the knowledge might spread into the country round.

There is no particular virtue in focusing on urban centres and establishing a church there unless the church established in the city is a church possessed of sufficient life to be a source of light to the whole country round. It is not enough for the church to be established in a place where many are coming and going unless the people who come and go not only learn the Gospel, but learn it in such a way that they can apply it to their lives and propagate it to their neighbors.

Urban centres were not strategic centres because they were centres of intellectual and commercial activity, but because church planting made those centres of intellectual and commercial activity into centres of Christian activity. Paul understood that, if he was to win the province, he must make the cities into centres of Christian life, from which new Christians could start new work.

Paul actually had a three-pronged strategy. Michael Green writes that Paul's vision was "the gospel for the whole world". But to attain this goal he focused on personal conversion of individuals whom he gathered into communities that would spread the gospel in the cities of the world. Let's look at each of these aspects.

First, Paul's strategy was personal. Roger Greenway points out that "Paul built his entire missionary strategy on the bedrock of repentance and conversion. The individual convert whose life had been changed by the divine disclosure of God's grace in Christ was the material with which he built churches and influenced the world.

Second, Paul's strategy was local. After baptizing converts into membership of Christ's visible body, the church, Paul appointed elders who were to lead the new disciples to form a fresh expression of the gospel in that place.

Third, Paul's strategy was global. Paul planted new churches in major urban centra, with the purpose and expectation (a) that the local community would take the initiative to evangelize the surrounding region and (b) that the planters would move on to the next city, so that eventually the whole world would be reached.

What does this mean for us? First, we must recognize that the city is the most strategic place for church planting. There must be a shift in focus as well as in thinking, a shift from "missions to the jungle" to "church planting in major cities". The global cities of the world must make it to the top of our priority list.

Second, we have to understand that the challenge is not to reach the city, but to multiply churches there. There have been churches in the cities for ages, organizing all kinds of activities, sometimes even increasing in size, but in general not succeeding in increasing the total number of believers in the city. This is because these activities are not intentional about church planting. They may be intentional communicating the gospel, but they are not intentional about gathering converts into a (new) church.

Third, it is not enough to create new churches that can sustain themselves. There must in new churches be a readiness and an ability to multiply converts, leaders, groups and churches. New churches must be able to develop leaders who undertake missionary initiatives.

We need not just more churches, we need more missional and reproductive churches. We must not forget that the focus on the city is a means to an end: to reach the world. The purpose is not "a big fat mega church that exists for itself, but a community and ministries aimed at a local and global movement."

Fourth, rather than focusing too much on instructing individual converts and officers, our church planting strategy must focus much more on forming a church. It is not enough to have a collection of non-related individuals. Those are not going to transform the city. We need a community of believers able to serve as a counter-cultural light-in-the-world and a shared leadership able to show and lead the way.

When I moved to New York to start our church, the great question everyone asked me was, "What are you going to do to reach New Yorkers?" Though I wasn't exactly sure what approach to use, I was sure of this, there wasn"t just one kind of new Yorker, there were several.

In his outstanding essay, Here Is New York, E.B. White categorizes the New York's like this.

"There are roughly three New Yorks. There is, first, the New York of the man or woman who was born there, who takes the city for granted and accepts its size, its turbulence as natural and inevitable. Second, there is the New York of the commuter--the city that is devoured by locusts each day and spat out each night. Third, there is New York of the person who was born somewhere else and came to New York in quest of something. Of these trembling cities the greatest is the last--the city of final destination, the city that is a goal. It is this third city that accounts for New York's high strung disposition, its poetical deportment, its dedication to the arts, and its incomparable achievements. Commuters give the city its tidal restlessness, natives give it solidity and continuity, but the settlers give it passion. And whether it is a farmer arriving from a small town in Mississippi to escape the indignity of being observed by her neighbors, or a boy arriving from the Corn Belt with a manuscript in his suitcase and a pain in his heart, it makes no difference: each embraces New York with the intense excitement of first love, each absorbs New York with the fresh yes of an adventurer, each generates heat and light to dwarf the Consolidated Edison Company."

After living here for several years, I see the truth of his observations. There are the locals, the locusts and the settlers, and reaching each of them has its own challenges.

But upon reflection, I would add a fourth kind of New York, the Resume Builder.

The Resume Builder is a modified version of the commuter. The Resume Builder comes to the city for 1-3 years, lives here, enjoys the benefits of the art, culture, business, surrounding areas, social scene and nightlife, while never committing to build the culture of the city, only consume it. It's not that they are opposed to this, they are simply not conscious of the opportunity around them.

One of the great opportunities that exists for church planters is the ability to transition a Resume Builder into a settler. To take someone who is a consumer of the city into a creator and contributor. How does one go about doing this?

With three essential components.

1. An unexpected, yet robust spirituality.

2. A diverse, loving community,

3. A holistic, missional vision.

Our goal is to plant communities that offer these realities for those in the city.

1. The intense, challenging nature of the city causes people to revaluate ultimate things, and a clear, compelling message of the gospel is appealing to the newly spiritually open.

2. Cities can be a lonely place, even though people are surrounded by literally millions of others. When the church shows hospitality, love of neighbor, outreach and concrete acts of hospitality, the lonely can find they have a place in a new kind of family. This new kind of urban family often acts as a real relational force that functions as a family tribe, that gives meaning and coherence to the urban life.

3. People are living more fragmented lives than ever. The beauty of the Christian story is that God is making all things new. Individual hearts, communities, art, business, commerce, entertainment, families, neighborhoods, and even the world. Being able to integrate a career with gospel mission, community with acts of justice, and personal transformation with a balanced view, people get swept into the story that is larger than themselves.

Ultimately we would love to hear, "I simply cannot leave New York, I could never give up the spirituality the city offers me, the deep relationships I have formed in this community, and the holistic vision for city renewal that pulls me into a larger story."

In cites all over the world, this resume builder lands each year, and it's our job to give them the vision, mission and community that compel them to stay and join God in the renewal of the city.

As I was studying the Acts of the Apostles, I found several lessons that existing or sending curches might need to learn about church planting. Let me share some of those findings.

Acts is the book of the birth of the church. In Acts 2, we learn about the first spirit-born church at Jerusalem. Then, in chapter 6, there is the first daughter church, founded to serve the Greek-speaking Jews. Next, we hear about the first spontaneous expansion church, in the gentile city of Antioch (Acts 11). Finally, we learn about the first sending church, about the first planned effort by a church at church planting (Acts 13-14).

Acts 13 to 14 is a turning point in Luke's narrative. From Acts 13 onwards, it is Paul the Church Planter (rather than Peter the Founding Pastor) who is the central character in the narrative. So this story of the first church planters, what do we learn from it? Welearn about all the basics of church planting. We learn about (1) the commission of the first planters (who to send church planters?), (2) the team of the first church planters (who to plant churches?), (3) the strategy of the first church planters (where to plant churches?) and (4) the ministry of the first church planters (how to plant churches?).

Let's look at the first point, the commission.

First, the initiative for the commission is a matter for church leadership, not for some enthusiastic individuals. The story opens with a period of fasting and prayer. The Greek suggests a regular, prevailing and corporate prayer sustained by the church leadership. It is under this circumstance of regular, prevailing prayer that the leadership of the Antioch church hears Gods Spirit.

Much of the crisis in church leadership is due to a departure from 'biblical beginnings'. Church leaders are used to think about "mission" as a matter to be handled by a special committee and about "prayer" as a matter of opening and closing meetings. These prayers are typically short, mechanical, and totally focused on needs inside the church.

First, church leaders need to learn how to make regular, prevailing and corporate prayer an integral part of decision-making. I believe that, when they do so, decision-making processes will be much more exciting and less of a burden. Second, leaders have to understand that a 'missional church' gets really going, not with some enthusiastic individuals, but with a 'missional leadership', dedicated to, among others, the front work of church planting. Experience shows that church members and core members are often ready to commit themselves to this important work. What churches often lack is the vision, the leadership and the prayer for it.

Second, the church planters are called and sent by God's Spirit, not by the church leadership. Luke tells us that, although the leaders of the church make decisions and plan actions, it is ultimately the Spirit who calls and sends. The British missiologist Roland Allen wrote that, being part of the movement of the Spirit requires planning and organisation, but planning can never take the place of the Spirit. As a church we can make plans, allocate resources, and hire church planters, but that does not mean that we can control the birth of a new church. As church leadership we can choose a moment, location and leadership for a church plant, but the Spirit is free to choose quite another moment, an entirely different location, and wholly other people to do his work. Churches are spirit-born. To be truly part of a church planting movement, we must follow, not lead. This is why fasting and prayer is so important. It is to bring us into a position of dependence (interestingly, it is exactly in this spirit of dependence that churches are led to take big and bold decisions).

Third, church planters are commissioned by a church through its leadership, they do not go about planting a church on their own. In verse3, we read that the church leaders lay their hands on the church planters as a sign of recognition, identification and participation. With this gesture, the Antioch leaders say that they take part in the work of church planters and take responsibility for their work. The first church planters were not alone. They acted in the name of the Antioch church, a church that bound her name, herself, to the mission.

Church planters cannot be soloists. They have to connect to and be supported by a mother church. That is not just a matter of church law (in some churches), it is also a matter of effectiveness. Empirical evidence shows that in every year that a church plant is old, attendance is higher when a mother church is closely involved with the work than in church plants without such involvement from a mother church. Church planting coach Ed Stetzer writes about how often he has sat with church planters who were discouraged because they did not have the support and encouragement of a mother church. "Having a supportive mother church makes a big difference. It is the best way to plant a daughter church." Church planting is not the work of a missionary team, but the work of a congregation. Does it matter if you are involved in this work? Yes, it does! Church planting is Gods work. Yet it is his chosen method to work with and through people. Your prayer, your ideas, your encouragement matters!

Fourth, church planting is a matter of costly giving. You'll easily miss it, but verse 3 tells us that the Antioch church makes Barnabas and Paul available for the work of church planting. Then there is a short, but beautiful sentence: "and they let them go". They let Barnabas and Paul go, two of the most prominent and gifted leaders of the church, two of their best workers. Barnabas, the Founding Pastor of the Antioch church, and Paul, one of the most promising leaders of the early church, the man whom Barnabas personally brought from Tarsus to help him build up the new church. They let them go.

With the relief collection for the Jerusalem church the Christians at Antioch had already shown themselves to be ready to give up their financial resources for the Judean brethren in need. Now they show themselves to be ready to give up their human resources. Apart from the Fillipian church no church in the New Testament is a better example of a church with a kingdom mindset than this church. They let them go.

When the churches in New England got a letter from English planters at Barbados, telling them that at one part of the island there was no one to break the bread of life to feed the hungry, this letter was read before the congregations. The response? They spared from the bread from their own mouth to save these people, and sent two of their best preachers to the island.

There are enough churches that (gruntingly or not) pay their annual contribution to the cause of mission, but few churches are volunteering to make available their best leaders and to allocate substantial budgets to the planting of new churches.

In one meaning, the biblical word koinonia means "partnership". It does not only refer to sharing the experience of being saved by grace. It also refers to a concrete and costly giving, to an understanding that the gifts that God gave to his church were meant to be shared with others.

God sent his Son to the world for our salvation. The most precious he had, he gave it up, for us. On the cross, Jesus Christ gave up his spirit to open the way for the sending of the Spirit to us. In communion with him we may participate in the work and the movement of the Spirit. Are were ready for this?

This potent description from a radio show host on the book of Acts speaks to me as a church planter. The church that I've been privileged to help plant, Grace, is approaching the two year mark in September. It's been a journey of ups and downs, despair and joy, setbacks and progress. I've learned more about myself and my strengths and weaknesses than any Keirsey report could ever show. My idolatries of being successful or important are constantly exposed by the tossing waves of weekly attendance or offerings. Yet in the midst of this cauldron of insecurities and challenges, I feel more alive than ever.

My wife and I will tell you that leaving behind the secure environment of an established church to start something new has been one of the most refreshing and invigoratingsteps of our spiritual lives. It ranks up there with salvation and marriage. There was something about stripping off the comforts of certainty that caused us to seek God in fresh, real ways. My prayer life is rich. My spiritual senses have been renewed. Like the crispness of the autumn air, we feel alive.

Church planting is epic. By that I mean that church planting is a series of adventurous and heroic acts over a long period of time. It's not like a two-hour movie where everything is resolved conveniently in time for dinner. This is an epic marked with miraculous provision, lives being transformed before your very eyes, and twists and turns that you could never have imagined. In short, it's the adventure of a lifetime.

I think that all of us were made for adventure. The box office returns of action/adventure films reveal to us our longing for something that is worth putting our lives on the line for. I remember when God called me to plant this church. I had a divine dissatisfaction with the status quo. When the Holy Spirit revealed to me that I was to lay down all of my former ministry to follow the guidance of the Master, God's grace caused everything else to pale in comparison. It wasn't easy, but it has certainly been good.

I pray that this blog stirs your heart to be willing to bravely and dangerously go onward in whatever the Lord puts in front of you. That fact that you don't know how the story ends is one of the things that makes an adventure what it is. But this is what we were made for on this earth: to lay down our life and take up our cross. We know that this is where life is truly found.

Looking forward to hearing from you as we journey together.

It is pretty common in the Netherlands that the church plants close for the summer. Especially plants that just started close for the summer. Most plants close for a month. Reason is that there are not enough people to keep things moving on a normal level. But this closing of a plant has also side effects. The thought is that people go on holiday for the same period. So closing in that case would make sense. But this is for sure no longer the case. A lot of people go four or five times a year on a short trip. People that go for a 3 or 4 week trip is more rare. A lot of plants in the Netherlands have young people that prefer not to go on holiday in the main season. It is more expensive and to busy because everybody goes on holiday. That is my case.

Closing down for a month means you don?t have contact with people for a month. And in many cases more than that. Taking into account that a lot of church members not attend that regularly.

I would prefer that plants would at least offer something. Organise a bible reading event, a music event, a picnic or whatever that does not take to much energy and is also of a certain quality so that is not contraire on what happens during the other Sundays in a year. So the church plant will still be the place on a Sunday where you can come too, even in the summer, to spiritual relax and keep the plant running.

"An embrace involves always a double movement of opening and closing. I open my arms to create space in myself for the other. The open arms are a sign of discontent at being myself only and of desire to include the other. They are an invitation to the others to come in and feel at home with me, to belong to me. In an embrace I also close my arms around the others-not tightly, so as to crush and assimilate then forcefully into myself, for that would not be an embrace but a concealed power-act of exclusion; but gently, so as to tell them that I do not want to be without them in their otherness. I want them to remain independent and true to their genuine selves, to maintain their identity and as such become part of me so that they can enrich me with what they have and I do not".

- Miroslav Volf

I believe that what differentiates an outward faced community from one that is ingrown and inward faced is the issue of hospitality. I believe that life and vibrancy always flows out of the openness of doors, minds, arms and hearts. Death comes as a consequence of closed doors, hearts, arms and hearts. It's sociologically proven (I think) that countries that have closed their doors to other ethnic groups and cultures will grow old (in average age), resulting in the loss of their own culture. The very culture, they are trying to keep pure. Because when it comes to culture, architecture, books, culinary, territory, and even language, are proven not to be the best preservation tool. People are.

This principle translates equally to the church and the preservation of its essential message, the Gospel. In the first three chapters of the Bible, we are able to draw the same parallel. Out of the openness of the Trinitarian God, the world came into existence. Out of this same openness, humanity was created and invited to participate in the Trinitarian dynamics. However, we later read in that section of Scripture, that death entered into the picture as soon as mankind decided to follow the example of Lucifer. And that was, to BE their own gods, to focus on the desires of their own hearts and its craving for self-satisfaction.

Sef-satisfaction is the essence of sin and as Scripture points out clearly, "the wages of sin is death". For those who have had the opportunity to go to Europe I'm sure it's mind-bothering to visit Christianity's cemetery. There, you will see buildings, books, museums, art pieces of a culture that once was. Why so?

Ecclesiologists and missiologists will generally agree that it had to do with an inward faced/ ingrown church that grew old, and irrelevant. A church that once was. Signs of this passing are beginning to show up in America where every year, less young people attend while at the same time more people drop-out to never return. Other statistics such as the number of churches closing every year are quite alarming, to say the least.

The city where I live in (Miami) is certainly a witness of this reality. The million-dollar question is: what is the church missing out? I would have to say that it's the whole issue of hospitality.

When we think of hospitality we usually think as Tim Keller says, "of Martha Stuart". He's right. Google search the word and you will find resorts and vacations websites as well as, Martha Stuart stuff. Those are all good things however, that's not what the Bible's means when it speaks of hospitality. Mainly because when we think of hospitality we are really thinking about ourselves. We are thinking of places we would like to go, enjoy and be well accommodated and, people that are like us and that we find pleasure hosting and spending time with.

What the Bible means when it comes to hospitality is
a. an intentional lifestyle not something done once in a while
b. something to be extended to all people not just to people that are like us
c. more than just a few days of shelter and an open fridge, it means meeting all needs
d. not to be exercised with what can be spared for example, an extra bed, left-over food, pocket change. It implies in sacrificing your comfort in favor of others.

Bottom line is this. Hospitality is about others. Its about the neighbor and even the enemy. Through these lenses hospitality can be seen as the embodiment of the Gospel. This implies that If the church misses out on hospitality it will eventually miss out on the Gospel. And, a church without a palpable gospel has no business in being alive.

History will show that the times when Christianity thrived, were the times when the Church exercised radical hospitality to its neighbors and enemies. While there are indicatives that the church in the northern hemisphere at large is at the very least stagnant, the church in the southern hemisphere is thriving.

Reason? Many but one of them certainly is hospitality that flows out of a genuine understanding of the Gospel.

One thing I more and more recognize. I see young church planters that are able to create a 1) friendship environment in the church in which you can invite people and there will be from the first moment attention for those people that they feel at home and be taken care of by the other church members. Are they being taken out after the service for a drink or diner? And I mean everyone new that is visiting the church. And are we able to organize 2) events other than a regular worship service. It is easy to think that if we are inviting people for a Sunday and people are under the Word of God the Spirit will work. True! But there are other aspects that are of great(er?) importance too. We need to create an environment in which people get connected which each other. That non-Christians will make friends and see that Christians are not strange people. So that people start to trust the other one and become open to the word of God. Like the Hamburgprojekt is organizing this Friday a big party in one of the coolest clubs and members can invite their friends. They are celebrating their first year of the project. The guest list will easily hit 150!
So we need to be extremely creative on how to not only reach people but also how relationships can grow and our church members can have heart to heart conversations with non-Christians.

This morning I was present at the first Baptism of the Hamburgprojekt. A very special occasion for the people in the Hamburgprojekt. We were at the ?beach? of the Elbe. A big river that goes along Hamburg. After some words from Daniel Bartz, a prayer they went into the water and a girl was being baptized. For me that is always a very special occasion, emotional too. A new convert that?s enters the Kingdom.

Tonight at 18.00 we will have the worship service. So after that, tomorrow when I am in train, I will put my thoughts on paper what I have learned that can be of benefit for other plants. But first enjoy the nice pictures of a live changing moment!!!

Today I will take a train for a weekend visit to my friends in Hamburg. Daniel Bartz and Dominic Marx started a year ago with planning to plant a church in Hamburg. The first test service started the 6 of July. This weekend they will have a special Gottesdienst with Baptism.

Hamburg is a big city with almost 2 million of inhabitants. It is the city for the media and artists. So it is supposed to be a cool city. Starting a church in that environment is a great challenge! Bu I also think it takes a lot of courage to work over there.

Daniel and Dominic are both trained by Redeemer. Daniel worked as an intern before at the Berlinprojekt. So I think they have the best preparation they can wish.

If you understand some German it is worthwhile to download some of the sermons and to listen it.

I will try to give some update about the visit this weekend (and to take some nice pictures!)

In Amsterdam the Sunday is still a very special day. We still have a Calvinistic way of celebrating the day of the Lord. Church, for Christians, is still a central activity. So staring a new church plant with people that do not know anything about Christianity or all the 'rituals' they have is really challenging. It is very interesting to think about the fourth commandment and to talk to people how it was in the Old Testament. We feel it very liberating to get a better idea our self what God wanted to say about the Sabbath. It would be very interesting to know how other parts of the World, and especially church plants in essence talk and teach about the Sunday as a special day. 

"Beginning with Moses and the prophets, Jesus interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself."

Luke 24:27

"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 grace and truth."

John 1:14

What are We About, Anyway?

There is a very real sense in which the work of Jesus is completed. Indeed, when it comes to our standing as beloved, forgiven, treated-as-blameless children of God, it is finished as Jesus said. His sinless life satisfied God's requirement that His favor be gained by a life of perfection. Jesus lived that life on behalf of all who make would look to Him as their trust. And, His sinner's death (though He was without sin) satisfied once and for all God's requirement that justice be satisfied toward the sins of His people. Jesus died the death we should have died, so that we would live. What a breathtaking reality in which we now live. God does not treat us as our sins deserve, because He treated Jesus as our sins deserve!

In another sense, there is still much work that Jesus intends to do! The very first verse of the book of Acts indicates that the work of Jesus on earth was not completed with His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. Luke writes, "In the first book (the Gospel of Luke), O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach."Began to do and teach? How could there be more? That's where we as Christ's ambassadors come into the picture. We are now the chosen ones, called into the world as His messengers, as those who, filled with His Spirit, represent Him to the world. In short, the ministry of Jesus continues on through Christians.

Implied in the fact that we are His "ambassadors," His true representatives to the world, is that we labor in every way possible to model our ministries and our message after His. We will be a people "full of grace and truth," a people whose churches and ministries, because we are acting and speaking as Jesus did, will be attracting the types of people who were attracted to Jesus, and (without intending to do so) offending the types of people who were offended by Jesus.

This purpose of [my blog], then, is to flesh out some of the implications of what we need to be emphasizing in our ministries as we seek to build Gospel-driven ministry cultures and herald a Gospel-driven message, both of which will be, as Jesus was, "full of grace and truth."

Building an Atmosphere that is "Full of Grace"

Before we talk about building Christ-centered messages, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of an overall Christ-centered atmosphere of ministry. The Christ-centered message will be heard and received only to the degree that it is embodied in the overall culture of our ministries.

This section is the first of two dealing with what it means to cultivate the "aroma of Jesus" in our ministries. We will consider how specifically to encourage a Jesus-like ministry atmosphere that is "full of grace" (John 1:14), to the end that people of all stripes (whether Christian or not) know without a doubt that we (like Jesus) are for them not against them.

As we think about forming Christ-centered messages, we must keep in mind several key attributes of a message that is truly Christ-centered, whether that message is given from a pulpit, in a small group, or in a casual conversation over coffee or beer.

First, to be "full of grace," we must take great care to eliminate all barriers that stand between the real Jesus and people's false impressions of Him.

Gandhi was once asked why he had rejected Christ. His answer (this is a paraphrase), was as follows: "It is not Christ I have rejected. It is Christians I have rejected. I am not a Christian because I see so few of His followers acting like their Master."

If we are serious about having Christ-centered ministries, we need to listen very carefully to statements like this one. We must examine the most common barriers that stand between the real Jesus and people's false impressions of Him - impressions which, unfortunately, have been projected to a watching world by sincere yet misguided Christian brothers and sisters. These barriers include:

The condemnation barrier. Christian writer Philip Yancey often asks people on airplanes what they think about Bible-believing Christians in the Western world. The answer he gets, with very little exception, is that Christians are judgmental, intolerant, and holier-than-thou. When the September 11 terrorist attacks took place on the World Trade Center, one very well-known Christian leader confirmed this stance by saying on national television, "If you are a homosexual, a member of the ACLU, in favor of abortion, or part of the People of the American Way, then I point my finger in your face and say YOU DID THIS. YOU made this happen."

A Christian friend of mine who is an actor once invited a gay friend over to have dinner with him and his wife. Their guest soon realized (from the Bible on the coffee table) that they were Christians. He then asked my friend, "You are a Christian, and you actually like me?" This is tragic, yet all too common.

If we are serious about giving off an "aroma" that is Christ-centered, we must humbly own up to the fact that many people, especially those regarded as "sinners" by many religious communities, think Christians dislike them and are against them. Whether this is specifically true or not, it is our starting point in the minds of most non-Christian people. If we are not guilty ourselves, then we are at the very least guilty by association with our brothers and sisters who have misrepresented the biblical Jesus to our culture. Therefore we must take personal responsibility in our ministry atmosphere, in our message, and in our way of life, to reorient people's perception of Christians, and especially of Christ Himself.

The separation barrier. In a day when many of Christ's followers wish to separate themselves and their children from anyone and anything that is secular, would-be Christ-centered ambassadors must do all we can to lean against this thinking - doing everything we can to become friends with as many non-Christian people and non-Christian groups as we can - with no strings attached. This needs to be a central, core value of our Christian communities. It is helpful to look at the life of Jesus in this regard. Luke 15:1-2 tell us plainly that ALL the tax collectors and "sinners" made a habit of hanging around Jesus. They wanted to be near Him, and they wanted to hear what He had to say. Meanwhile, religious insiders were regularly accusing Jesus of being a glutton, a drunk, and a friend of sinners (Luke 7:34). We know that the allegations of sin were false - Jesus was tempted in every way but without sin. But He was unapologetically a true friend to the least and the lost, and to those typically marginalized by religious sub-cultures of His day. The one who "welcomed sinners and ate with them" now beckons Gospel people to do the same. This needs to become more than just part of our theology - it needs to characterize the life and practice of our ministries!

The reputation barrier. There is a price to pay if we get serious about creating environments that are "full of grace." In becoming a "friend of sinners" as Jesus was, we should expect significant resistance. The simple fact is that when we start doing some of the things Jesus did, some believers will become suspicious of us. Consider Luke 7, for example, when a "sinful woman" enters the home of Simon the Pharisee. In the name of love, and in the spirit of being "full of grace," Jesus received her very UN-orthodox display of worship and affection toward Him. He breaks with religious customs, allowing the woman to touch His feet (feet were considered unclean, and you couldn't even ask a slave to touch them for this reason!). He breaks with social customs also, receiving her as his disciple. It was scandalous in Jesus' day for a Rabbi to take a woman as a disciple, much less a woman with a questionable history. But not for Jesus. Most scandalous, however, is the way that Jesus breaks with moral customs. The woman lets down her hair (in the first century this was grounds for divorce - a woman was only to do this in the presence of her immediate family). She touches Him with the tools of her trade. He lets her anoint Him with a prostitute's perfume and kiss her with a prostitute's lips! Of course we know the rest of the story - Jesus was discarded as a man of ill repute, as guilty by association, by religious "insiders" who failed to see the eternal value of loving the least and the lost.

But let's bring it into our day and age. This has serious ramifications for those of us who wish to represent Jesus well. The reality is that if Jesus were a 21st century American, He would not associate godliness with membership in a political party. He would not tell a lesbian she was outside of God's will without also offering her a personal, no-strings-attached friendship. He would not talk about how smoking destroys God's temple (while at the same time devouring a porterhouse steak with a buttery potato!). He would not condemn adultery as being any worse than studying the Bible for the wrong reasons! If we are accustomed to setting up our own Mishnah, our own set of "clean laws" that define one's worthiness to be received into the fellowship, we need to give serious re-evaluation to our methods and priorities!

The pride barrier. Becoming a "friend of sinners" begins with coming to terms with the fact that we are often more like Hitler than we are like Christ. Our approach with people (whether Christian or non-Christian) must be as "fellow beggars humbly telling others where to find the bread" (Steve Brown). If we sincerely want people to see the impact of the Gospel, and if we sincerely want them to see the beauty of God's grace, then they must first see in us the humility of those who have been truly and deeply impacted by God's mercy and grace, and that humility must be the real thing and not just an act. Paul was not above humbling himself. In Romans 7 he gives us a window into his personal struggle with the sin of coveting (a sin nobody would see unless he told them!), and the ways in which the Gospel heals that sin.

In 1 Timothy Paul identifies himself the chief of all sinners. If we would be Christ-centered in our ministries and our messages, we need to get over our love for reputation and image. Without realizing it, we can begin to build our identities on how good we look?the "model Christian" that all will look up to. This is a trap and will rob our ministries of power. If people in our ministries are to be changed by the grace of Jesus, they must regularly see the Gospel working effectively in our lives - healing us of our sins and deepest wounds and fears.

Second, to be "full of grace," we must take great care to ensure that, relationally speaking, our Christian communities are sinner-safe.

There was a reason why ALL the sinners ran to Jesus on a regular basis (Luke 15:1-2). Though they knew He was against their sin (He never watered down the law's demands!), they wanted to be around Him because they knew precisely why He was against their sin because He was for them! If we would be a "full of grace" people, several commitments must characterize us, our ministries, and our message:

A commitment to respect and value all people. People under our ministries must sense us defining them by their God-given dignity, not by their failures. If we are not careful, we can easily fall into the trap of diminishing the worth of a human being in this way: When we think of them, we think first of their sin and the ways they need to be "fixed" rather than thinking of them as image-bearers made for glory. The following quote from CS Lewis is extremely helpful to this perspective:

It is maybe possible to think too much of your own potential glory hereafter. But it is impossible to think too often or too deeply about that of your neighbors. The weight of my neighbor's glory should be laid daily on my back. So heavy a weight it is that only humility can carry it. It's a serious thing to live in a society of immortals.

To remember that millions of years from now, the dullest and most uninteresting person you meet may one day be an incredible creature, who if you saw him now you would be strongly tempted to worship. All day long we are in some degrees helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is therefore in light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the proper amount of awe and circumspection that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to our life as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals with whom we joke, work, marry, snub and exploit?your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses. (CS Lewis, The Weight of Glory)

A biblical view of sin. Defining people by their dignity does not imply that we should not challenge sin! If we are really going to love people as Jesus does, we will love their welfare, which means we will deeply desire that they be obedient to God! So, the question is not, "Do we confront sin?" but rather "How do we confront sin, and with what motivation do we confront sin?" We must be on God's agenda here. He is so vehemently opposed to sin both for His own glory and (how easily we can forget) He is so passionately FOR the human being! God?s desire is that we live by His design, which is life to us!

A grace- and mercy-filled attitude toward those who commit sin. Whenever we speak against sin of any kind, we must take great care to ensure that we speak against sin because we care so deeply for the one who is sinning. Otherwise, we shouldn?t say anything at all about sin. If you watch the news you are no doubt familiar with the group who picketed the funeral (!) of Mathew Sheppard (the young homosexual man who was beaten to death by some of his peers) with signs that said things such as "God hates fags" and "Thank God for AIDS." This example is certainly extreme. However, we must guard zealously against the seeds in our own hearts that are prone to despise sinners rather than welcoming sinners and eating with them. We must guard our hearts from desiring a sinner's harm instead of his/her well-being (Even the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked!). We do well to remember Jesus, who stood over Jerusalem (who had rejected His message and His Person) and wept for them.

This being the case, the "feel" of sin-talk in our ministries must be such that people feel deeply exposed and at the same time NOT REJECTED! If we would be a "full of grace" people, then people who are driven to repentance and grief over their sin will no doubt be certain that we as leaders, and those under our leadership, accept and love them right where they are, wherever they are in the process toward knowing and obeying Christ. Jesus did much more than merely tolerate sinful people in His midst. He cherished them, and pursued their hearts that they might become free indeed.

Third, to be "full of grace," we must take great care to keep first things first.

This essentially means two things:

Jesus, and nothing else, is our "main thing" at all times! Keeping first things first means that our primary emphasis, our primary "hang up," is always the Person and work of Christ. Even Paul himself "decided to know nothing among (those under his ministry) except Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2)."What this means is:

Everything else takes a back seat to Jesus! As a "full of grace" people, we will become most concerned that people "get on board" with Jesus than that they "get on board" with whatever our agenda is - whether political, ethical, or otherwise. While these things do have their place, they must always be secondary to a vision for people to meet Christ and know Him for who He really is. Consider the following quote from Rev. Timothy Keller:

We (need to) be careful with the order in which we communicate the parts of the faith. Pushing moral behaviors before we lift up Christ is religion. The church today is calling people to God with a tone of voice that seems to confirm their worst fears. Religion has always been outside-in: "if I behave out here in all these ways, then I will have God's blessing and love inside." But the Gospel is inside-out: "if I know the blessing and grace of God inside, then I can behave out here in all these ways." A woman who had been attending our church for several months came to see me.

"Do you think abortion is wrong?" she asked. I said that I did.

"I'm coming now to see that maybe there is something wrong with it," she replied, "now that I have become a Christian here and have started studying the faith in the classes."

As we spoke, I discovered that she was an Ivy League graduate, a lawyer, a long-time Manhattan resident, and an active member of the ACLU. She volunteered that she had experienced three abortions.

"I want you to know," she said, "that if I had seen any literature or reference to the 'pro-life' movement, I would not have stayed through the first service. But I did stay, and I found faith in Christ. If abortion is wrong, you should certainly speak out against it, but I'm glad about the order in which you do it."

This woman had had her faith incubated into birth in our Sunday services. In worship, we center on the question "what is truth?" and the one who had the audacity to say, "I am the truth." That is the big issue for postmodern people, and it's hard to swallow. Nothing is more subversive and prophetic than to say Truth has become a real person. We, of all people, ought to understand and agree with fears about religion, for Jesus himself warned us to be wary of it, and not to mistake a call for moral virtue for the good news of God's salvation provided in Christ. (Timothy Keller, Religion-less Spirituality)

To sum it all up?

When it pertains to cultivating a "full of grace" ministry culture and message, we need to consider how we are presenting Christ to people who are either not Christian or somewhere along the journey of overcoming sin (that's all of us, isn't it?). The following chart is given as an aid for preparing our atmosphere and our messages to be in line with the Gospel of grace. Obviously, we want to lean against both the legalistic grid and the liberal grid, and saturate everything we think, say, and do from the perspective of the Gospel grid.

Different models of ministry and the "hurdles" people feel they must overcome in order to become "insiders:"

Click Related Media on the right to see a grid of the different models of ministry.

Parts 2 & 3 to this blog post will appear later this summer.

I Loved A Girl is a book that is required reading for all couples for whom I do premarital counseling, and it has taught me personally not only about marriage, sex and love, but also about being a pastor who can speak the truth in love.

Walter and Ingrid Trobisch were a missionary couple in Cameroon in the 1960s. Francois, a young African man who had attended the mission school where they served, and who later was hired as a teacher at the school at the recommendation of Pastor Trobisch, wrote a letter to Trobisch for advice on what to do after he was fired from his job for a sexual indiscretion.  Thus began a long exchange of letters between the two (along with some letters from Ingrid, as well as a young woman Francois wishes to marry named Cecile) that chronicles the journey of Francois from immaturity and recklessness to a faith in Jesus Christ that enables him to make steps towards hope, joy and obedience.  

I Loved A Girl is a book the authors did not know was being written until after it was done, and because of that, the book contains an honesty and tenderness that is both stirring as well as deeply moving.  I remember the first time I read the book: before I was 10 pages in I was weeping at the depth of care and wisdom shown by Trobisch.  I was also compelled to finish the book in the same night I began it, anxious as I was to know how the narrative that unfolds through the letters was resolved.

I Loved A Girl is a book that holds various treasures for a variety of readers.  My first impression was that the primary genius of the book was in its revelation of an uncommonly excellent pastoral voice, and that anyone wishing to become a pastor would do well to spend time with the book to listen in as Trobsich (and his wife) skillfully counsel this young couple in the way of Jesus Christ.  I still believe this to be imminently true, but as I mentioned above, I also ask young couples to spend time with the book, believing that the book is just as valuable for the way it can instruct anyone as to what real marital can and should be.