To my friends who say that America must get back to our “Christian roots.”

2651529566_87eb235900 (2)During this election cycle, I have seen many calls for our nation to “return to God.” I believe, however, that it is dubious at best to suggest that America was founded upon Christian values.

In fact, quite the contrary.

Please consider the following Americans, all who suffered while the actions of their oppressors were protected by our constitution:

  • Africans who were kidnapped to America and subjugated into a life of slavery, their families torn apart, their women and children sold off.
  • The indigenous people who were expelled from their homes and driven with millions of others down a “trail of tears,” abused and oppressed.
  • Women who were denied the right to vote until 1920.
  • The “colored” person who suffered the humiliation of being relegated to the back of the bus and being forbidden to drink from the same water fountain as “whites.”
  • The poor white coal miner who lived a life of indentured servitude to the boss, and passed his crushing and expanding company store debt along to his children and widow when he died at 40 of black lung, completely unprotected by labor law.

Would any of these Americans believe that they were ever governed by a Christian nation? Would any of them wish to return to our “Christian values?” Would they believe that they had the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”

Please know this: all of the above suffering was completely legal under the laws of this land. Our government – our values – supported and perpetuated all of these injustices. Every oppressor, from the slave owner to the mine boss, enjoyed the protection of the law. Yet, the preamble of the Declaration of Independence presupposes that “all men are created equal.”

I love my country, I am proud to be an American. However, I don’t believe that it is or ever was a Christian nation. I find it inconceivable, considering our past injustices, to make this claim. Our great nation has come a long way since then, we still have a ways to go, and I definitely do not want to go back to where we once were.

If we consider ourselves followers of Jesus, it is now time to stop calling for a return to the “Christian values” of America, and start working instead to bring about the Kingdom of God, to which we owe our first allegiance as its citizens and subjects – even if this means that we must lay down our rights as Americans in order to do so.

The first thing that Jesus said about his kingdom is this: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.”

Jesus himself said that gospel is supposed to be good news for the poor. Therefore, as citizens of his kingdom, we should advocate and work for the protection and provision of those among us who are marginalized and oppressed. When we turn our hands to this work, we might be surprised to learn that we are the answer to the prayer that Jesus taught us, “Thy kingdom come!”

Little Green Men and Lines in the Sand

In the movie Paul, Kristin Wiig plays Ruth Buggs, a young woman who lives in a trailer Paul-Alienpark and who was raised as an Evangelical Christian. She encounters Paul, an alien voiced by Seth Rogan, while she is wearing a t-shirt depicting Jesus shooting Charles Darwin and underscored with the tag-line “Evolve This!” In denial of what she has just seen and of the implications of meeting someone from another world, she steadfastly proclaims that the world is 4000 years old, that it can only be the product of an intelligent design, and that nothing can shake her faith that God made heaven and earth and created us all in his own image.

Paul, who is anti-religion, then communicates telepathically to Ruth, showing her the cosmos and the wonders of the universe. Upon discovering that the earth is in fact not 4000 years old, Ruth’s entire belief system is shaken. She concludes, since science is correct, that her faith must be incorrect. She then, quite humorously, realizes that she now can curse, fornicate, and drink. We are subsequently treated to Kristen Wiig’s comedic genius as her character attempts cursing for the first time.

Christians create a false dichotomy between faith and science when we insist that our faith depends on the earth being 4,000 years old and on Charles Darwin being wrong. By doing this, we unnecessarily draw a line in the sand between the realm of authentic faith and the realm of modern science. Young people like Ruth are therefore forced to step over that line and leave their faith when they eventually become convinced that the findings of modern science are indeed correct. It is my belief that this departure is a needless tragedy.

Ruth was correct: God did make heaven and earth and he did make us in his own image. The heavens themselves declare these glorious and profound truths. Rather than destroying her faith, Ruth’s encounter with the vastness of the cosmos could have, and should have, inspired wonder and strengthened her faith in our great Creator God. To link the truth of a Creator God, however, with the age of the earth and the manner at which diversity of species came about is not only unnecessary, but it also does great violence to the biblical text and the faith of countless of young adults like Ruth.

As a former youth pastor whose students are now in their 20s and 30s, I have witnessed firsthand the damage caused by an insistence on the notion that our faith depends on interpreting the creation account in Genesis as historical narrative. Like Ruth, many young people today are concluding that if science is true, then our faith must be false. The next logical step is to reason, as Ruth did, that the moral guidelines which are derived from our faith must therefore also be invalid.

To Christian parents, teachers, youth pastors, and any other people who have influence in the hearts and minds of our young people: I implore you, stop equating a belief about the age of the universe and diversity of species with orthodox faith. This does not protect our young people. Quite the contrary, it forces them to cross over the line you have drawn in the sand. Furthermore, and most tragically, it is absolutely unnecessary. It is my passionate belief that the great truths of our faith, such as the fact that we are made in God’s image, are even more powerful when we interpret the creation story in Genesis as we do Psalms: as scared poetry that reveal profound truth about God, humanity, and the universe!

“The Children’s Director” – Facing Inconsistency In The Use Of Church Leadership Titles

We have all clicked on the “Meet our Staff” page on the website of a church we are checking out. We are greeted by many smiling faces – a list of portraits each taken under the same tree. There is Joe, the Lead Pastor. He is the oldest, with a touch of gray at the temples. Jayden, the Student Ministries Pastor is wearing a t-shirt and sports a tattoo or two. Sam, the Worship Arts Pastor, is a bit more conservative. He is the youngest, even though his glasses are a bit out of date. Then there is Emily, the Children’s Director, with long brown hair and a smile a mile wide.

Each portrait is accompanied by a short description of the role of the respective staff member. Even though the context of each ministry is different, they all have the same general responsibility: to lead their respective ministry to accomplish the mission of the church. The usual responsibilities of such positions are to recruit, train, and mobilize volunteers; submit a budget; plan and implement programming and events; and deal with mountains of administrivia.

So, if each leader has the same general responsibilities, why then is Emily’s title “Director” while the other staff are “Pastors?”

The obvious answer is that Emily is not a man.

Before I address this any further, let me first qualify my position by stating that I am a complimentarian. In short, this means that I believe that the genders are absolutely equal in dignity and value, different in nature, and that humanity reflects the Image of God though the two genders functioning together in their respective God-given roles. One expression of this relationship, I believe, is the existence of certain gender specific roles in church leadership such as male eldership.

The danger, however, in being a complimentarian is that it can be too easy to hold women back from fully flourishing as leaders and gifted members of the body of Christ – even inadvertently. One subtle way that we hold women back is through inconsistency in our use of leadership titles.

Take Emily for example. She functions exactly the same as the other associate pastors, even having an equal and respected voice in staff meetings. However, her title is different because she is a woman. This to me is a grave injustice and a laughable contradiction. She functions as a pastor, but is not given the title of pastor, because we don’t believe in woman pastors.

To misquote Shakespeare, “A rose by any other name is still a rose.”

If the title “Pastor” is used to refer to those paid to lead ministries, and if you pay women to lead ministries, then they are pastors no matter what you call them. To give them a different title just because they are women, and then allow them to function as pastors anyway, is an insult to our intelligence and to her dignity. Furthermore, it alienates the next generation who hold sincerity among its highest values and view this inconsistency as nothing less than a lie for expedience sake.

The above church really has only two options to stay consistent: Give Emily the title “Children’s Pastor,” or fire her and hire a man to do the job. I sincerely hope they choose the former.

Part of the work of the gospel is to redeem the relationship between genders in a manner that fully restores God’s original intent of reflecting the Image of God. This is precisely why it is important to fully affirm women in all that they are called to be. It is very possible to do that and still affirm gender specific roles. I suggest the approach used at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, which states that anything a non-elder male can do, so can a female. I would extend that and say, any title a non-elder male can have, so can a female – even “Pastor Emily.”

Science, Poetry, and The Meaning of Life

jupiterI often encounter people who are trying to reconcile what they believe in their hearts to be true about science and the origin of life with their Christian beliefs. Is the theory of Evolution incompatible with being a person of faith? Does science discredit the Bible?

I beleive the answer to this question is found in the most unlikeliest of places: poetry.

1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
In the heavens God has pitched a tent for the sun.
5 It is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is deprived of its warmth. – Psalm 19:1-6

When you read this poem, what comes into your mind and heart? For me, it connects my heart to the faithfulness of God. It creates in me great awe, as I contemplate the mysteries of the universe which declare God’s glory.  It brings comfort and strength by reminding me that God is still sitting on the throne. I am once again assured of God’s love for me. Sacred poetry does that; it communicates truth in a way that evokes responses in the soul.

Poetry is the literary context, or kind of literature, of Psalm 19. The poet, in this case King David, used several literary techniques appropriate for this context. For example, he used personification, giving the heavens a voice and giving the sun a human dwelling. Also, the repetition of the sun’s circuit communicates to us with certainty that life is not random and that God is reliable. By describing the sun’s motion from the observer’s point of view, the poet places you and me, who are like insignificant specks of dust in relation to the vastness of the heavens, at the very center of God’s love – at the place of significance and honor. Wow.

King David, inspired by The Holy Spirit, wrote Psalm 19 with the intent to magnify the glory of God, not to describe the dynamics of the solar system. Since the literary context of the Psalm is poetry and not prose, we easily understand that the description of the sun’s movement around the earth is not meant to be taken literally. Therefore, although scientifically inaccurate, it nonetheless communicates absolute truth with authority. We say this because, as Holy Scripture, it perfectly communicates what The Holy Spirit intended to communicate: the glory and faithfulness of God.

In the 17th century, the Pope, failing to understand this literary context, decided that the words of Psalm 19 were meant to be taken at their surface meaning. His conclusion was that the sun and other planets literally revolve around the earth, which was understood to be at the center of the solar system. This put him at odds with Galileo, who had pointed his homemade telescope at the heavens and discovered the contrary. When he requested permission to publish his findings, the church accused him of asserting “that the language of Holy Scripture does not mean what is seems to mean” and of placing the authority of Scripture “at the last and lowest place” below the observations of “natural phenomena.”

They missed the point. In an attempt to use the Bible as a science book, they overlooked the grandeur and mystery in the poem and reduced it to a mechanistic handbook.

In response to the church’s objections, Galileo quoted a famous church leader who explained that in the Bible, “The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” This did not go over well, and Galileo spent the rest of his days under house arrest because the church failed to understand the importance of literary context.

Since then, science has continued to observe natural phenomena all around us. In addition to peering upward through the lens of a telescope, scientists have peered downward through the lens of a microscope.

Yet again, the discoveries on the other side of a small lens have revealed complexities beyond our wildest imaginings.

Yet again, these discoveries have resulted in a conflict between science and the religious establishment because they seem to assert that the language of Holy Scripture does not mean what is seems to mean.

Yet again, the solution lies in defining literary context.

Scientists have discovered that humanity, indeed all of life, has arisen through an ancient and elegant evolutionary process. Yet, the first two chapters of Genesis seem to say that the heavens and earth, and all that is in them, were created in in their present form in just 7 days. Is this a conflict between science and the Bible? Absolutely not. The answer lies in understanding the literary context of the first two chapters of Genesis.

The creation account in Genesis is not prose describing the manner of creation – it is poetry describing the meaning of creation.

Some may say that I am just picking and choosing what I take literally in the Bible and what I don’t. I would respond by pointing out that the main goal of Bible interpretation is to determine the author’s intent. Determining the literary context is one of the first steps in doing so. For example, we understand the Gospels to be historical narrative, so that is the foundation of our decision to take the resurrection account literally. We already determine context in every conversation we have every day. In fact, all communication is framed in a context. The Bible is no different.

Understanding the creation account as poetry in no way implies that it is not true! It is true because it perfectly communicates what the Holy Spirit intended to communicate: the way things ought to be.

I love science. I spent my childhood dissecting frogs and insects. I asked for microscopes and test tubes for Christmas. I often read physics books on my day off. However, despite my love for science, I understand its limitations. Science can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. It certainly can’t tell us what the purpose of all this is. We need theology for that.  We need poetry for that.

The Enlightenment gave us modern science. As a result, our lives are greatly improved. From heart transplants to the iPhone in your pocket, we owe it all to the development of the scientific method.

In spite of all the good The Enlightenment brought, it also led to a materialistic worldview: only that for which there is physical evidence is true and real. As a result, the unseen became the untrue because it was not measurable. Ethics, or what ought to be, became an ever-changing and never-reaching pursuit. Purpose and meaning dissipated into thin air.

Rather than challenging this materialistic worldview, the church domesticated the Bible to fit it. Rather than affirming the validity of our faith, which is full of mystery and beauty, we instead capitulated to materialism: “we are logical too – we have evidence.” Then, we turned the Bible into a science book – we tamed it to serve our apologetic purposes, and in doing so ironically weakened our credibility. We also began to rob humanity of the rich theology communicated so profoundly through the creation poem – theology that is absolutely foundational to the Christian faith and deeply relevant to every human made in the image of God.

In my next post, I will take a look at the creation story in Genesis as poetry. Together we will rediscover the many important truths that the Holy Spirit is saying to us – ancient and yet relevant truths regarding the nature of God and the nature of humanity – rich doctrine for which prose simply will not suffice.

Political Intolerance in the Church

He was a first time visitor, sitting in the front row with an American flag pin adorning his lapel. His Bible was open in his lap as he eagerly anticipated the preaching of God’s word.  My text that morning was Mark chapter 12, wherein Jesus commands that we “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”  During my lesson, I made the observation that Jesus did not allow himself to get pulled into a heated political debate over taxes, and instead focused on the need for everyone to follow God. After a few other connections, I stated what I thought was obvious to all: “God is not a Republican.”

It is not much of an exaggeration when I say that our guest’s face turned red before my very eyes. He abruptly stood up, causing me to flinch, since he was only a few feet away. To my relief, he turned around and swiftly headed out the door. A witty parishioner pointed out the elephant in the room by shouting, “John, was it something you said?” We had an uncomfortable chuckle and continued on.

Politics is a heated issue in the church. Some believers in our church can’t understand how any Christian can vote for a Democrat, who they view as being anti-religious and hostile toward primary biblical concerns such as families and the unborn. Others can’t fathom how a Christian be a Republican, who they view as lacking compassion and concern for the vulnerable and oppressed – people for whom Jesus cared deeply.

If you feel your blood beginning to boil at the misrepresentations of your particular view, then you know why it is so difficult for people of different political ideologies to worship together. In America there is democracy and freedom of political expression. In many of our churches, however, there is little freedom of political diversity. Many churches tend to be either exclusively “red” or “blue.” So, as citizens of a free society, let us consider the question of political expression in the church and propose some considerations for Christians engaging in politics.

Practice Gracious Speech In a land where lively rhetoric is encouraged,
it is common to hear harsh speech, accusations, and name calling in a political discussion. Each side accuses the other of lacking compassion, one side for the poor, the other side for the unborn. Name calling abounds with labels such as “bigot,” “gay basher” (just overheard at the table next to me in Starbucks), “elitist,” and “baby killer.”

The Apostle Paul reminds us in his letter to the Ephesians: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen” (4:29). Then, in verse 31, he commands us to get rid of “slander” and “malice”. The Greek word for slander is Blasphemia, which means to say something that would damage or harm someone’s reputation. The word “malice” carries the meaning of strong feelings of dislike and hostility.

The New Testament is clear regarding the standard by which followers of Jesus should form their speech. We must speak in such a manner as to build others up, without hostility, false accusations, or name calling. It might interest the reader to know that name calling falls into the clinical definition for abuse. If you have called another a name, you have abused that person. This is simply not an option for followers of Jesus.

The ninth commandment famously commands against false accusations. Since we most often make accusations without awareness of the full context, we rarely have adequate basis to make them responsibly. Therefore, we must find ways to express our views respectfully and without accusations or name calling. Rather than engaging in personal attacks, we must address the issues with kindness and respect towards others.

An excellent recent example of gracious speech is Bishop Timothy Clark of the First Church of God in Columbus, Ohio. The Bishop opposes gay marriage and publicly addressed the issue with his congregation.  Even though he disagrees with the president’s recent remarks on the issue, he never resorted to accusations or name calling. Instead, his speech was gracious and respectful:

“I believe the statement the president made and his decision was made in good faith. I am sure because the president is a good man. I know his decision was made after much thought and consideration and, I’m sure, even prayer.”[1]

More believers should follow this example of Christ like speech. Graciousness such as this opens the door to helpful dialogue on issues and portrays a positive witness for Christ.

Believe The Best Do we believe that Jesus was serious when he commanded us to love our neighbors? If we do, then we must allow ourselves to be confronted with a key point in Paul’s definition of love: that it “believes all things” (1 Cor. 13:7), or as the NIV translates it, “always trusts.” This means that we must trust, or believe the best in people.  Believing the best frees us up to listen, ask gracious questions, hear peoples’ hearts, understand their concerns, and find common ground. As Jesus’ own brother, James, reminds us, “everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19).

As I have listened, I have found that many Republicans do indeed have a tremendous heart to protect the oppressed, and that many Democrats care deeply for the unborn. For example, I have listened to my friends who are Democrats and pro-life. As I have respectfully asked them about their views, I have found that they believe that the Democratic positions will result in lower actual abortion rates due to preventing pregnancy in the first place. They are also concerned about protecting vulnerable women from unscrupulous people should abortion become illegal. Now, one may agree or disagree with their reasoning, but it is clear that they are motivated to prevent abortions and protect women, which is a common interest for all believers. Likewise, I have listened to very fiscally conservative Republicans who deeply care about the poor, and believe that their view on taxation will result in more poor people finding jobs. They believe that finding employment leads to dignity and self-worth, and results in even further achievement and escape from poverty – also common interests for all. Again, one may disagree with this line of reasoning, but it is clear that the motivation is a heart to benefit the poor and not personal greed.

As I have believed the best, I have many times also found it.

Respect Governmental Authority It seems to me that people often feel justified in speaking disrespectfully about Presidents. For example, I remember seeing a bumper sticker on a car that said regarding President Bush: “He’s not my president.”  I lost count of how many times I have heard President Obama referred to as the “Antichrist” and President Bush referred to as an “idiot.” If we believe that God is sovereign, then we must also believe that the president who sits in office is the one that God has placed there. As the Apostle Paul reminds us, “let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Rom. 13:1). Therefore, we must acknowledge that whether we agree or not with a particular president, he (or she) is indeed our president and entitled to our respect.

Under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero, the many believers who were scattered throughout the empire were severely persecuted. The Apostle Peter wrote his first letter to encourage these faithful servants who were enduring such harsh trials. When addressing the question of authority, Peter agreed with Paul that governmental authority, in this case the Emperor of Rome, was established by God: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him…” (1 Peter 2:13-14, emphasis mine). If the notion that Nero was “sent” by God is not shocking enough, he then goes on in verse 17 to conclude that Christians must “honor the emperor.”

Because our true citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), followers of Jesus must look beyond our political interests, and acknowledge God as our true King. We honor God by honoring the authority that he has placed in our lives. It is true that as American citizens we are permitted to speak disrespectfully of our leaders. However, our greater citizenship is of heaven, where we simply do not have that freedom.

Stand For Justice Over Political Ideology Our political views should be motivated primarily by the desire to preserve biblical justice rather than the desire to preserve personal liberties, constitutional rights, or financial resources. Biblical justice means that we protect the vulnerable and the oppressed. Doing justice is required of all followers of Jesus: “Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor;  Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Although there is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying freedom, the concern for justice for other people should supersede all other objectives. Whatever our political views may be, their ultimate goal should be biblical justice.

It is important to remember that it is possible for two people to have the same interest of justice, but believe in different methods to carry it out. Going back to our previous example, two people may have a common interest to help the poor, but hold opposing methods to carry out that interest out—namely, higher or lower taxes. I would suggest that whichever position you might hold on taxation, it should be because you believe that your view is the best interest of justice.

Always Seek Unity Among Believers  When Jesus went to the garden to pray for us before he went to the cross, he asked the Father to make us one: “I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:22-23). The Apostle Paul commanded the Corinthians to “agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10). Whether Democrat or Republican, it is most important that we stay unified under the banner of the cross. When we quarrel, we distort that unity and harm our reputation. Notice that Jesus said that the result of our unity would be that the world will know that Jesus was sent by the Father? Our love and unity communicates to the world that Jesus is who he said he is!

Therefore, even though we may believe in different methods, we must focus on our common interest for the poor. The Apostle Paul instructed people who disagreed over methods of observing the Sabbath, but shared the same interest to obey God:  “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom 14:5). Then he commands them to “stop passing judgment on one another” (Verse 13).  Amen to that.

Always Seek Heart Transformation Jesus loathed external conformity to religion without heart transformation. Therefore, he reserved his harshest criticism for religious leaders called “Teachers of the Law,” who enforced rigid adherence to the law upon others, but did not love justice or mercy. Referring to them as “blind,” his employed a metaphor to communicate the primacy of internal transformation: “first clean the inside of the cup and dish, then the outside will naturally become clean” (Matt. 23:25-26).

Modern Christians are sometimes guilty of the same hypocrisy as the Teachers of the Law. Yes, we must do justice and protect the vulnerable, but ultimately only forgiveness of sin through the cross will affect permanent change. When we try to change society merely by imposing external law without nurturing heart change through the gospel, we in Jesus’ words “shut the door of the Kingdom in their faces,” and make people “twice as much children of hell” as the Teachers of the Law were. Why the harsh words? Because only through the grace of God can we be truly transformed.

When we teach people to trust in the law instead of in the gospel, we rob them of the very power that will change them permanently. We must always remember that laws are important to protect people, but we must also seek to proclaim the life changing message of the gospel if we are to realize true transformation.

[1] Black churches conflicted on Obama’s gay marriage decision By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY 5/14/12

The Gospel and “Obamacare”

The Gospel.

The simplest expression of our faith – the most elegant solution in the universe.

It is so simple that the Apostle Paul was able to explain it to the Corinthian believers using only two verbs:

Christ died for our sins, and he was raised on the third day.

Baptism captures this simplicity with one beautiful picture. When going into the water, believers are identified with Christ’s death. Emerging from the water identifies us with his resurrection.

Two verbs with immense implications: “Christ died” wins forgiveness of sins. We are declared “not guilty” because the punishment we deserved was placed on him. We become acceptable to God not because of our own works but because of his work. “Christ raised” thrusts us into new life – a resurrection life that results in rescue not just from spiritual death, but physical death as well. As new creations, we experience restoration of our souls; as restored souls we are invited to participate in restoring the world around us – both spiritually and physically.

Two verbs require a complete response. Christ died means dying to ourselves – repentance. We turn from our idols and follow Jesus. We believe by faith in his perfect work on the cross and provision for our sins which make us instantly and completely acceptable to God. Christ raised means that we must follow. There is simply no “turning from” without a “turning to.” We enter into a life where he makes us into new creations who become more like Christ. Therefore, we increase in holiness, we preach the gospel, we help the poor, we  heal the sick, we stand for justice, we defend the weak, and we do all of the other things we see Jesus doing in the Gospels.

Why did James say that religion was “true” only when we care for widows and orphans in their distress? Because it is only part of the gospel to say that Jesus died for our sins. Calling people to merely trust Jesus to forgive their sins is calling people to respond to only half the gospel. We must call them to identify not only with “Christ died” but with “Christ raised.” We must invite them to follow – to experience transformation and to labor for transformation of the world around us. Therefore, we work to both save souls and to help the poor.

One of the most significant sources of distress for the poor in the US today is lack of health care. Many of the 50 million Americans without health coverage are either foreign-born residents or low-income families with an annual household income of less than $25,000.[1] This fact should motivate all who believe in true religion. Poor people, even undocumented poor people, without health care should be an unacceptable condition for all those who believe the whole gospel. However, when Health Care Reform was upheld by the Supreme Court last week, my Facebook newsfeed erupted with the complaints of angry Christians. It saddened me that many Christians appealed to personal liberties or the Constitution, seeming to ignore the implications of “Christ raised” in their political rhetoric. I believe that our gospel mission, not what best preserves our constitutional rights, should inform our political views. I believe that when we turn to Christ, we must turn from our idol of personal liberty.

So, here is my challenge to those who oppose Health Care Reform: If you seek to repeal health care reform, please let it be because you feel that your fight will ultimately be most beneficial to the poor (as some genuinely believe) and not because you feel it violates your rights. As believers, we relinquish our rights in light of the gospel and we submit to a much higher authority than the Constitution. If you believe Health Care Reform hurts the poor, then you should fight against it and work toward a better solution. If you fight Health Care Reform because you don’t like higher taxes – or you don’t like the government interfering into your private life – or because you believe it to be unconstitutional, then I would challenge you to reconsider your view in light of the gospel. When we cling to our rights as Americans over fulfilling our obligations to the poor, we distort the message of the gospel. The gospel is not about what’s fair (thank God), but about restored people who bring restoration to the whole world.

Christie, Les, Number of people without health insurance climbs, September 13, 2011,, accessed July 2, 2012.

Why Don’t New Yorkers Visit Church?

We have worked hard and talked to many people to answer this question. Surprisingly, we have found that the obstacle is not lack of spiritual interest. In fact, quite the contrary, New Yorkers are very spiritually minded people, and even the most seasoned New Yorker has deep spiritual questions. In our experience, we have learned that the main obstacle to New Yorkers visiting church is not lack of interest, but lack of trust.

Although New Yorkers do have spiritual needs, many don’t believe that the church has the credibility to meet their needs. In many cases, this is due to the perception that the church has not done much to benefit the community, but is instead mainly interested in its own benefit. Others fear that if they visit, they will be judged. If I were to be very honest, I must agree that unfortunately some of this perception is quite accurate. Therefore, when New Yorkers seek answers to life’s questions, they seldom seek out the church for answers.

As a result of the above discovery, we have established three mandates:

1. We must take responsibility to rebuild the credibility of the church in NY and to regain the trust of New Yorkers. We must genuinely care about all the needs in our community: emotional, physical, social, financial, intellectual, and spiritual. Then, we must do something to meet them – with no strings attached.

2. We must not rely on attracting people to church. We must also go out and connect people to genuine, gospel-centered community.

3. When people do visit our church, we must provide an environment that meets them wherever they are in their spiritual journey. It is essential that people are allowed to belong to community before they believe, and to move at their own pace.

One way that we are accomplishing the above mandates is through our new “Homework Help” program at a local homeless shelter. We arrive Saturday afternoons at the shelter, where the kids have their homework assignments ready. As we sit with them, not only do we help them with their studies, but we also try to encourage them in their abilities and to stay in school. Finishing school is a significant factor in breaking the cycle of homelessness. Last week we helped some students with Math and English, while another just needed help learning her “ABCs.” Afterwards, we helped the kids fix a broken bicycle.

We see this as not just an activity for “church people.” We believe that it is also necessary for us to engage all New Yorkers in serving the community. Therefore, we invite all of our friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers to come with us to serve the homeless. We have found that New Yorkers are very caring people; and most seem to be very happy to hear that we are doing this.

Our motivation in all of this is to be more like Jesus by caring for the vulnerable. We hope that as we do so, we will begin to rebuild the credibility of Jesus’ beloved bride. As we bring our friends along, we also hope that they will see that Christ has truly changed us, that he is real, and is able to meet our spiritual needs. We pray that this will result in many of our friends visiting our church, where they will see and experience the transformation that comes only through Christ.

Top Ten Mistakes: Second Five

Here is the second half of my list of what I believe to be the top ten mistakes made by Evangelical churches in America. See the first five here.

Closing the Communion Table: Communion is the most effective evangelism tool ever invented, because it utilizes all five senses to communicate the Gospel. When we ban people who do not yet believe from the table, we are withholding a powerful, life giving message from them. In our church, we take time every Sunday to share a meaningful meal together, and we have seen several people who don’t yet believe grow in their understanding and acceptance of the gospel through participating in the table. Concerned that unbelievers might eating and drinking judgment to themselves? Read my very first post.

Blending Politics With Theology: While serving as a pastor in Arizona, the reddest of red states, I received a “voting guide” from a Christian organization. This “impartial” guide was meant to be distributed in our church, and claimed to give a non-partisan account on how various candidates voted on issues which were supposedly pertinent to Christians. Included in the guide was data on how each candidate voted on various right wing (but not necessarily biblical) interests such as gun control, school vouchers and tax codes. What was missing was Jesus’ interest of how each candidate acted to protect the poor, oppressed and helpless in our community. This unbalance causes Christians to seem as if we have an hidden alternate agenda, and that we do not really believe what we teach. Jesus is not a Republican. Nor is he a Democrat for that matter. We should want to create an environment where the lesbian pro-choice feminist who sits in the cubicle next to us will feel welcome in our gatherings; and perhaps even feel as if she can belong before she believes. Therefore, we need to consider removing obstacles such as mini anti-Obama rallies at the bagel table or proselytizing for Sean Hannity. We must create an environment where the only obstacle in our churches is the already offensive enough stumbling block of the cross.

Failure to Release People to Lead: Many churches function as what I like to call “benevolent dictatorships.” This model, borrowed from business, keeps power centralized among a few highly trained and competent (and many times very godly) individuals. In this model, people are trained to serve in the church using their gifts. Whether in the sound booth or greeting at the door, we excel at helping people find ways to use their gifts for ministry. However, in most cases, these servants are merely implementing the mission of the executives. Rarely do we truly let go and release people to take responsibility and lead. Some resist letting go out of a genuine concern for excellence, others from a less noble fear that if they allow another to lead, they will be usurped. However, the biblical model is that we must raise up leaders, then release them to lead—with real authority. Like Jesus, we must become examples of humble, servant leadership which seeks to empower and send people to fulfill all the dreams for which God has prepared them. The gospel is about God taking ordinary people and using them in extraordinary ways. We must therefore let go of the need to control every outcome, and allow room for the Holy Spirit to mold our communities through many gifted men and women whom we have unleashed. Then we will really have something to show to this culture which is far more accustomed to leadership which “lords down” upon them.

Using the “Talking Head” Model Exclusively: After I visited a church where I was the guest speaker, my wife and I stood in the empty worship center after all the people went home. I asked her: “Hon, if you were an alien from outer space, and came into this room, what would you guess the purpose of it was just by looking at the way it is set up?” Her answer: “I would say it is a place where a bunch of people come to hear the same information at the same time.” Unfortunately, my wife made a correct assessment of what many churches have become – merely seminars were nameless people receive a one way flow of pre-determined information, then go home. This is even true of many of our small groups, where we pop in a DVD and listen to a famous teacher. However, if we truly believed in the doctrine of “The Priesthood Of All Believers,” then we should be greatly motivated to create environments where the Spirit will work through us to be each other’s teachers. Nonbelievers value speaking with someone, not being “talked at.” If we truly demonstrate a desire to hear what someone besides ourselves has to say, perhaps that same someone might be more inclined to listen when there is a talking head. At our church, we have implemented an alternating Sunday morning format where on certain weeks the lesson is in a discussion format. We truly leave space in the lesson for people to teach each other. Yes, this is getting trickier as we grow, but it is worth it.

Confusing Numerical Church Growth With Church Health: Turn on your TV and watch a Christian channel for a few minutes. If that doesn’t convince you that numerical growth does not necessarily mean health, then nothing will! Some of the largest and fastest growing churches in America are unfortunately perpetuating many of the above dysfunctions to such a large degree, that a rapidly increasing number of Americans are viewing the church as completely irrelevant and worthless. Perhaps we should begin to measure success not by asses in the seats, but by asking ourselves if we see the effects of the gospel in our community: restored lives, healed marriages, reconciled relationships, sent leaders and transformed hearts. Otherwise, our numerical growth may lull us into a false sense of success, leaving many people outside unaffected by the gospel because our delusion has caused us to stop pursuing innovative ways to fulfill our mission. Disclaimer: I am not arguing against increasing attendance per se. I am arguing against programming our gatherings with the primary goal to increase numbers, and against measuring success by our attendance.

Top Ten Mistakes: First Five

Here is the first five of my list of what I believe to be the top ten mistakes made by Evangelical churches in America, in no particular order. I believe that each of these mistakes cause us to be less effective in our mission to participate with Jesus in bringing about restoration through the gospel. I hope you enjoy reading this post, because it came at the expense of my youngest son’s lunch, which I burned because I paid more attention to this article than I did his knockwurst. Next week, I will post the next five of top ten mistakes.

What do you think? Disagree with one? Have more to add? Please comment and let me know!

Sharing Half the Gospel Message: Recently, an unchurched friend asked me, “Why do Christians use the term ‘saved,’ don’t they realize how judgmental that sounds?”  My answer was that many times, we Christians communicate our message as merely rescuing, or “saving” someone from hell–that Jesus only died on the cross to “forgive your sins so you can get to heaven.” I then let him know, that while I do believe that that Jesus died for my sins and that I will go to heaven when I die, that sometimes we forget to mention that there is also a life in-between! Jesus not only died to provide legal forgiveness, but he also rose to give us a transformed life in the here and now. Jesus has a story in which he invites us to participate. That truth should also be part of our message. Amazed, my friend said “Yes! I never heard that before, That makes a lot of sense. I need to take some time and think about that.” My friend has always understandably seen the church as completely irrelevant, since he had heard little or no talk about a restored life the present, but much talk about how he needs to be saved. Hopefully he is beginning to rediscover the relevance of the Gospel in his everyday life.

Lack of Timeliness in Baptisms: Baptism is also a powerful evangelism tool because it is a picture of the complete gospel: that Christ both died and rose again. It is also an opportunity for people to take a tangible and meaningful step after coming to faith. In fact, for some people baptism is the very step that they take to profess their saving faith – much like the “sinner’s prayer” does for others. Some churches delay baptism after a profession of faith to allow for some sort of process. However, a timely baptism demonstrates that nothing else is necessary but God’s grace. I have always been amazed to witness people who were close to believing finally come to faith immediately after witnessing a baptism.

Drawing a Line in the Sand Over the Theory of Evolution: The church made a similar mistake 400 years ago when it drew a line in the sand over a geocentric view of the universe. This view that the earth was the center of the universe was based on literal interpretation of verses such as Psalm 19:6, which says about the sun: “It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other.” Galileo’s good science eventually proved not that the Bible was incorrect, but that the church’s interpretation of the Bible was. The resulting causalities were the many people who were alienated from faith, because when the church drew a line in the sand, they had no choice but to step over it. Likewise, we may be drawing a line in the sand by insisting that Genesis is meant to be taken as historical narrative, thereby laying out a necessary time sequence for the origin of life. However, it is conceivable that Genesis may be in some way intended to be taken in a more figurative, poetic way, much the same way as we now understand Psalm 19. This does not mean that we understand it to be any less true. Among the people who held this view was St. Augustine, who is way out of any of our theological leagues, and had no pressure from science to interpret it that way.

So, let’s just admit that we are not scientists, that we don’t really know anything about Potassium-Argon Dating, and allow science to run its course before we alienate even more millions of people. If it is done well, science will certainly reveal new amazing truths about God and his work in the universe, much like Galileo’s telescope has done for us today!

Lack of Emphasis of Corporate Prayer in Worship Gatherings: When I was in college and involved in a campus ministry, we took time every at every meeting to share prayer requests and pray for each other – it seemed so natural, even though there was easily 100 people present. Then, when God answered prayer it not only strengthened our faith, it also demonstrated to the people among us who did not yet believe that God is real. It was exciting to see the result of many students on campus coming to faith. Compare my experience to a recent study showing that prayer consists of merely 5% of the worship service in the average contemporary evangelical church.

Deemphasizing corporate prayer potentially shields people from seeing God do his best work. Prayer also demonstrates that we are a community of people who love and care for each other. I recently met a young woman who came to faith because during a service she witnessed a church gathering around to pray for a member recently diagnosed with MS. The love of the community demonstrated in that act is what won her over. Our church takes time in every gathering to share prayer requests and pray for each other, and it has been a highly effective form of evangelism lately as nonbelievers have been witnessing God answering several prayers.

Having Separate Events for Outreach: I guess we can also call this “Having Events for Christians Only.” The transformative power of the gospel working in and through the people in the community of faith is a very powerful evangelism tool. When the gospel changes people, others notice! This means that we must be patient and gracious enough to create an environment which allows people to belong before they believe. We must create a paradigm in which it is typical to include unbelievers at every event, whether they are worship services, service projects, bowling nights, or informal Sunday afternoon dinners in one’s home.

We have made a commitment to no longer get together with “just our Christian friends.” I now grieve over years of missed opportunities when we did not invite our unbelieving friends to join us for the evening because they did not fit into the correct “category.” We falsely believed that they would not relate to the gathering. Now, I understand that the problem was not in their inability to relate to the environment, but in our inability to create a relatable environment. My middle son, who is also my proofreader, reminded me on this point that our exclusivity at times also makes us appear “stuck up.” Good point.

Sausage One: “Fencing” The Communion Table

My wife Caryn and I recently visited a large evangelical church in another city. As the worship leader transitioned into Communion, he gave a disclaimer which is so often heard in churches across the world: “This meal is for those who call Jesus Christ their Savior and Lord. If that is true of you, then you are invited to partake. Otherwise, please let the elements pass you by this morning.” Then, as the elements were being distributed, we sang these lyrics:

“Open wide the gates tonight…

Jesus come and flood my life with grace amazing”

This combination of lyric and practice seemed so discordant.

As I pondered the contradiction of “open wide” gates and a fence around the table, I wondered if “grace” which excludes people from our table can really be celebrated as “amazing?”

I believe that an honest Bible student will find that nowhere in Scripture are unbelievers commanded to be excluded from Communion. In fact, it is my assertion that excluding people from the Lord’s Table is actually a contradiction to the concept of grace the meal is intended to proclaim.

Now, I know that many would respond against my claim very passionately. Many understand The Bible to teach that the table is reserved for believers “with no unrepentant sin” only, and it is our responsibility to protect people from “eating damnation unto themselves.” These are certainly legitimate concerns. They come from a passage in First Corinthians, Chapter 11. So, let’s start with an honest examination of the biblical data. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 says:

“So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

The immediate passage context of this passage deals with the misuse of Communion. There seems to have been a problem in Corinth in that some people were getting drunk at the Communion table, while others were gluttonous, not waiting for their turn to eat. At the same time, the poor were excluded from the meal. (Incidentally, it is interesting to note that Paul rebukes the Corinthians for the exclusion of certain people, but never for the inclusion of anyone.)

In response to the rabblerousing at worship, Paul gave the warning against partaking in an “unworthy manner,” following his warning with the instruction that “everyone” should therefore “examine themselves.” Many people have the misconception that the self-examination is meant to be aimed inward – that Paul is instructing each to examine one’s own worthiness in order to receive the body of Christ. They then ascribe criteria foreign to the passage context such as being a “professing believer,” having no “unrepentant sin,” or even participating in “regular church attendance” as rules of examination. However,this is not at all what Paul is instructing. In this context, the subject of examination is not the worthiness of one’s soul, but the worthiness of one’s actions.

The Greek word translated in the NIV as “in an unworthy manner,” is an adverb meaning “unworthily.” As an adverb, this word must agree with a verb. Therefore, this adverb modifies the verbs “eats” and “drinks,” not “everyone,” since “everyone” is a noun, and adverbs do not modify nouns! This means that the warning pertains to unworthy eating and drinking, not unworthy people. Paul was commanding the Corinthians to examine the worthiness of their practice, not their person.

Paul wanted first for their eating to become worthy. Instead of excluding others, as they had been through their gluttony, they should have instead invited all to the table, just as Christ invites all to come and “eat of his flesh.” Then, he wanted their drinking to also become worthy, practicing moderation in their consumption of wine rather than getting drunk. Their gluttony and drunkenness were convoluting the very message that Communion was meant to proclaim, and that is why Paul gave the warning.

I would hope that if anyone examines the worthiness of his or her person to come to the table, they would find that they are indeed not worthy! Isn’t that what the gospel is all about, unworthy people invited to the table based on the worthiness of another? We come to the table in spite of our unworthiness, not because of our worthiness!

I believe that in our zeal to be biblical, we have inadvertently convoluted the very message of grace that Communion is meant to depict. I believe that we have allowed people to hear and see the gospel, but not have allowed them to taste or touch it. I believe that in our effort to elevate Communion, we have actually diminished it by excluding those who need it most.

In our little church, we eat the meal weekly. We have made the decision to open the table to the non-believers who frequently gather with us, many of whom are international students from India or China, and quite unfamiliar with the gospel. In order to help them to understand what the meal is meant to convey, we publish and refer to the following statement weekly:

“During the course of this gathering, we will participate together in a small meal called Communion. This meal, celebrated by Christians for thousands of years, consists of a piece of bread, and a cup of grape juice or wine. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus Christ; and when we break the bread, it symbolizes the injury and death he endured as a sacrifice for our sins. The juice symbolizes his blood, which was spilled to cleanse us from the guilt of our sins. The purpose of this meal is to remember and celebrate this great act of love for us; to eagerly anticipate his return; and to communicate this good news in a tangible way. As our guest, you are invited to share this meal with us, for it is a symbol of the grace which is offered to all. Please also feel free to let it pass by if you prefer–we will not be offended, nor will you be judged in any way. Thank you for honoring us with your presence today.”

It is our prayer as our guests experience the gospel demonstrated in our community each week, whether through speaking, singing, praying, eating or drinking, that their hearts will be filled with understanding, and that they too will trust in the worthiness of he who gave his body and blood for our salvation.