TILL HE COMES Blog

Following the theme of my last post, I want to take several posts and simply raise questions. You don’t reinvent the wheel by setting out to reinvent the wheel. The first step is to simply raise questions about the current model, and dream about what could be. In the next few posts, I will share some of the questions I have been asking myself.

Since in years past, I saw “preaching” as the central function of the church, I will begin by questioning it. Please understand that my questions are NOT statements of what should be, but simply “What if?” questions…what would happen if…?

What if Preaching and Teaching were Different?

What if we didn’t preach…at all? This is near heresy for some of us (it was for me a few years ago), but really, what would happen? I imagine at first, all those people who are used to showing up on Sunday to hear a 45 minute sermon would sit around staring at each other, asking, “What are we supposed to do now?” Exactly. If we didn’t spend 30-45 minutes on a Sunday with the sermon, what would we do instead? On a related note, what if we stopped telling people how important it is for them to read the Bible daily? It wasn’t until about 500 years ago that people even had the option, and even then, it wasn’t until about 100 years ago that there was widespread literacy. I’m not suggesting we jettison preaching and Bible reading from our churches. The opposite in fact. But I wonder what would happen in our churches if we fasted from gorging ourselves on Scripture for a while?

What if, when we did preach, instead of trying to be funny and cute in three easy-to-remember points, we simply taught the Word of God? What if we didn’t mask what we were doing by changing a book series into a topical series (calling Preaching through Psalms, “How to Praise God.”), or trying to be more “relevant” by speaking to people’s needs, or mask that we preaching a text by giving lots of illustrations, stories, and images? What if we just said, “Today we going to study Ephesians 1:1-10.” What if, in doing so, we taught as long as it took to adequately explain the text, whether 10 minutes or two hours? Would this be a wise use of time? Would this be an effective way to teach Scripture? Who would it be for? All people or just some? Who gets to decide what “adequately explain the text” means?

What if we didn’t apologize for biblical terminology, but used it and explained it? Are simpler translations of Scripture actually better? Or do they tend to dumb us down?

What if the preaching/teaching was more dialogue/interactive than monologue? Would this depend on group size?

What if we used movies and art and music to teach from, and bridges with culture to direct us to Scripture? What if instead of condemning movies and art and music, we looked for ways to redeem them?

What if the teaching and preaching was not done only by those with seminary degrees and formal education? Who else would do it?

What if we stopped trying to make sure a person was “orthodox” (by our standards) before we let them teach? If the argument is that we need to protect our churches from false teaching, just look at our churches. Can we honestly say that preaching and teaching only by the “seminar-trained and ordained” has kept false teaching at bay? Would allowing “untrained lay persons” the opportunity to teach really introduce heresy (by our definition) or would it open up more streams for dialogue? Would doing this be too dangerous in some settings? Would it make a difference if the teaching setting was set up as a dialogue instead of a monologue?

What if, after every time we opened the Bible to read and study it, we wouldn’t move on until we had asked “What is this passage telling us to do, and how can we as a church do it?” What if we didn’t move on to the next passage until, as a community, we obeyed the first passage? Week 1: Teach. Week 2: Obey. What if obedience and service were built in to the teaching aspect of the church?

What if, as we taught, we added humility to everything we said? Everything. What if, rather than say, “This is the way it is” we said, “This is my current understanding”? Do people really learn better from teachers who are certain of their beliefs, or do all the conflicting certainties from various teachers just confuse them further?

What if we refused to draw lines of orthodoxy about which people were in and which people were out?

What if in our teaching, we refused to judge a group of people unless/until we actually were friends with some people from that group? Would this keep us from judging them? Is that wise?

————————

Feel free to offer suggestions to the questions above, or to ask a few questions of your own below.

4 Comments »

When it comes to church, I can’t tell you how often I’ve heard people tell me, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.”

I imagine back in cave-man history when they had square wheels, a certain caveman— we’ll call him Firestone—noticed that square wheels didn’t roll too well, and so started asking some “What if” questions. His first was probably, “Square wheels are easy to make, but those corners sure cause problems. What if we rounded them off?”

Probably the other cavemen came around and, through a series of grunts and club beatings, told Firestone, “Don’t reinvent the wheel.” He especially got grief from the wheel cutters, because they had been making wheels like this since their great, great grandfathers developed opposable thumbs. “Besides,” the stone cutters said, “if we have to round off the corners, it will take us a lot more time to make wheels. Right now, we can cut two square wheels a day. If we have to round off the corners, we can only make one wheel a day.”

For a while, Firestone was a little discouraged. But then one day, he came across a wheel cutter named Michelin who shared similar ideas. They sat for long hours into the night, talking about round wheels, and that even if it took longer to cut round wheels, it would save everybody a lot of time, because now the wheels could actually be used. “Why doesn’t everybody see this?” they wondered.

So one day, they stopped talking about it, and actually made a round wheel. At first, people made fun of them. Firestone and Michelin were scoffed at and ridiculed. “A round wheel,” they were told, “doesn’t look right on a square cart.” But then people noticed that the carts were actually moving and transporting things, and so the criticism shifted. ”All that rolling,” they were told, “will cause the wheel to crack. Square wheels are better because they don’t roll, and so don’t crack.”

But Firestone and Michelin just kept making round wheels. After a while, they even had a few disagreements with each other on how to make the best wheel, and so agreed to go their separate ways. At first, the naysayers cheered, and said things like, “I won’t say ‘I told you so’” even though “I told you so” was exactly what they were saying. However, wheel production actually increased. Instead of one group making round wheels, there were now two. And the competition caused both cutters to continually refine and redesign their wheels.

Today, both Firestone and Michelin continue to “reinvent” the wheel, adding treading that sloughs off rain, traction that handles curves better, and studs for driving on ice and snow. A day may come when they will reinvent the wheel again, so that all of us can do life faster, smoother, and more efficiently. Maybe, eventually, they will get rid of wheels altogether, and we will ride on air.

I want to reinvent church. Why? A lot of it has become square and isn’t going anywhere. People come week after week, and work, and serve, and sweat, and teach, and give, and pray, and the church doesn’t go anywhere. There’s lots of lights and big, white-toothed smiles, warm handshakes, and media glitz, but the people aren’t going anywhere.

Don’t reinvent the wheel? Sorry. It needs to be reinvented.

3 Comments »

I have a confession to make.

I just finished reading a book by Brian McLaren.

Yes, yes, I know. Many of my old friends and acquaintances have long thought that I was sliding into apostasy, and now their suspicions are confirmed.

So since there is no chance of persuading them otherwise, let me go further and make another confession: I not only read the book; I enjoyed it.

As long as I’m making confessions (this feels good to get some of this off my chest), I might as well come out with all of it. I read the book, I enjoyed the book, and (gasp) I agreed with much of what McLaren said! I even cried at one point, and reread the chapter – out loud – to my wife!

Oh, and I guess that leads me to another confession, this one directed to Brian. I am sorry that in the past, I condemned you and your writings as “heresy” without ever actually reading or listening to anything you wrote or said, or trying to understand your views. That was wrong of me. I am planning on obtaining and reading more of your books, because even though I may not agree with everything, I like to read books that challenge me to think. Your books certainly do that.

The book I read was Adventures in Missing the Point by Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo. The book contains individual chapters on various topics, such as salvation, the Bible, evangelism, seminary, homosexuality, environmentalism, worship, sin, and postmodernism. Brian and Tony argue that many of us Christians approach these topics in the wrong way, and are therefore neutering the gospel of much of it’s redemptive power.

Aside from the fact that the book makes you think about these topics, one nice feature of the book is that the authors give you permission to disagree with them. They want the reader to think through the traditional views on these topics in a new light, so that we hold our views more lightly, with humility and grace. They help the reader do this through the format of the book. Each topic is assigned to one author, but the chapter concludes with a response from the other author. On nearly every topic, the two authors disagree with each other in some way, but they do so with gentleness and respect.

Christians are never going to universally agree on how to approach the “hot topics.” Personally, I am not sure that in this life, 100% agreement would be glorifying to God. What if God purposefully left things vague in Scripture and in life for a purpose? Maybe if we can learn to disagree in love, to maintain unity despite differences of opinion, to discuss tough issues with humility and grace, then we will no longer be “missing the point.”

2 Comments »

In this last post, I want to reveal the primary reason I believe “Christianity” is true. And remember, I’m not alking about the religion of Christianity, but the aspect of my life where I believe in Jesus for eternal life, and try to follow His leading and His example.

It seems that most studies in comparative religion look at all the various options, find the scores upon scores of similarities between the religions, and conclude that “they are basically all the same.” To me, that’s like taking an orange, an apple, and a mango and saying, “They all basically round, they’re all fruits, they can all be eaten, they all grow on trees,… so they are all the same.” Yet as everybody knows, these three fruits are certainly not all the same. You distinguish them not by focusing on the similaraties, but by focusing on the differences.

When it comes to “Christianity” and all other religions, there seems to be one primary difference: grace. (Diane and William mentioned this in the comment section of the previous post!) Grace is the reason I believe “Christianity” as true. Grace makes Christianity unique, and grace provides the only way for sinful people to be restored to God. Without grace, Christianity is just another religion.

And I don’t mean the weak-kneed concept of grace that is found in most our churches where we talk and teach it, but don’t really believe it. No, I mean true, no restrictions, no fine print, limitlness, boundless, liberating grace.

Let me be clear. As I observe people of all religions (including many Christians), most have a concept of grace. But the popular religious idea of grace does not come close to what I believe the Bible teaches about grace. Most religious people (including most “Christians”) believe that we have to gain and maintain a certain level of morality in order to stay in God’s good graces, in order to please and appease God. Most religious people I have talked to, speak about being “saved by the grace of God” (or some sort of similar terminology). But as I ask more questions, and dig a little deeper, I find that most people believe that God’s grace only extends as far as our obedience. If we rebell against Him, or persistently act contrary to His will and commands, He removes His grace from us. For many, being a recipient of God’s grace means that God gives us the grace (or gift) of having the power and ability to obey God.

This is not what I believe about grace, nor is it what I believe the Bible teaches about grace. I believe the Bible teaches that God’s grace is without limit, stipulations, or conditions. Once we have received God’s grace through faith in Jesus, there is nothing we can do or say to separate ourselves from God’s grace. His grace covers all sin, past, present, and future.

When people of most religions hear this (even “Christians”), they often say, “Well then, why can’t you just go out and sin all you want?”

When I hear that, I know I have done a good job explaining grace. This is the same reaction Paul got when he explained grace (cf. Romans 6:1). If your understanding of God’s grace does not lead to this objection, then let me suggest that you don’t understand grace.

So why do I think that grace separates “Christianity” from the rest of religions? Because grace teaches us that God, who loves us, wants so much for things to be restored between us and Him, that He did everything necessary to restore that relationship. He left nothing up to us. God knew that if He left anything up to us as far as obedience is concerned, all of us would fail. Without grace, nobody could be sure they were good enough, obedient enough, holy enough to be on “God’s good side.” But with grace, all of the fear and effort fades away, and we can simply focus on enjoying the presence (and presents) of God.

So there it is. Why is Christianity true? I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to it’s “trueness,” most of which, however, can be found in other religions as well. But the one characteristic which sets Christianity apart from all other religions is grace. And grace is the only way for sinful people to get back into a relationship with a holy God.

26 Comments »

Let’s say you just arrived on planet earth, and were trying to pick a religion to follow. You didn’t know much about any of them, and so decided to interview various members of each particular faith, and ask them why you should join their religion, and more importantly, why they believed their particular religion was true.

In a previous post, I stated that in general, Christians would give four different answers:

1. I’ve experienced God and so I know it’s true.
2. Following Christianity results in more substantial life change than other faiths. In other words, Christians live better lives, so it must be true.  
3. The Bible, which Christianity is based on, doesn’t have the errors and contradictions that are present in the “Holy books” of other faiths. It doesn’t contradict itself, nor does it contradict the facts of history and science (considering evolution is a theory). Therefore, the Bible can be trusted as true revelation from God.
4. God answers prayer and provides signs and wonders, which proves Christianity is true. This includes things like prophecy and healing.

There may be a few others that Christians would use, but these are the four most common.

But did you know that people of other religions would use almost the exact same reasons for why they believetheir religion is true? Let me give examples of the four explanations. 

1. If you have ever talked with a Mormon, you know that most of them believe Mormonism is true because they had an experience with God such as an inner warming of the heart or a vision, proving to them that Mormonism is true. Nearly all religions have similar experiences.
2. I don’t care which religion you pick, if you talk to someone of that religion, they will say that in general, their adherents are more obedient than people of other religions. This is true of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus…possibly even Satanists. (If you saw my post on Satanism a few weeks ago, in the comments, a Satanist informed me that while Satanists don’t practice mercy, their teachings ”prohibit all illegal activity.”) When it comes to morality, Christians would be hard pressed to prove that we are morally superior to those who practice other religions.
3. Did you know that every religion practices apologetics? We Christians are not the only ones who try to explain the supposed factual, historical, and scientific “problems” in our Scriptures. All religions do this, and many of the arguments are quite sophisticated and compelling. For example, I am currently reading a book called What Jesus Really Said which is a book in which the author tries to prove that Jesus actually taught the Muslim faith! It is a book of Muslim apologetics.
4. People of nearly all religions pray for healing (and see frequent healing as a result – See the recent TIME magazine article on this), receive visions, have ecstatic experiences, speak prophetic words (and see them come true), and observe signs, wonders, and miracles performed through the power of their god(s). Some groups even speak in tongues.

So in four of the ways that Christians believe their religion is better than others, it really is not. At least, not to an outside observer who is only doing surface-depth investigation.

So why hold to Christianity? Why should people believe in Jesus and follow Him? More personally, why do I? I’ll tell you my primary reason in the next post.

8 Comments »

In this post, I wanted to address the four common responses I get from Christians when they are asked why Christianity is true and other faiths are wrong.  I will have to save that for my next post.

Why?

I blame my good friend Stephen Hammond and what he pointed out in the comments of the previous post. Thank you for the insight, Stephen! You always make me think.

Before we can ask “Is Christianity true?” we have to ask “What is Christianity?” There are so many different versions of Christianity, it is impossible to pick one as “true Christianity” or to lump them all together as one unified “Christianity.” As we are all aware, it is certainly not unified. And so, since not all of these versions can be completely right, some of them must be false, or at least partially false.

Let me take it a bit further. There is no version of Christianity which is completely true. That’s right. You and your church do not have a corner on the truth market. Nor do I. We all believe and practice some error. Yes, there is some heresy in you too. (The trick is finding it.)

Furthermore, when we talk about Christianity being true, and other religions being false, just as we cannot say that all of Christianity is true, we also cannot say that all aspects of all other faiths are untrue. To the contrary, there is a lot of truth in every religion in the world. Let me go so far as to say that certain religions probably have more truth than some versions of Christianity!

So in the following posts, when I continue to ask “Is Christianity true?” what I really mean is, “Why do you believe and practice what you do? How do you know that it is true?” 

Even this question is too vague, but I’ll have to leave it at that…

No Comments »

Do you like books?

Do you like FREE books?

Then check these out:

Global Missiology for the 21st Century

Leadership Learnings from Bloggers

Houses that Change the World

This Book Will Change Your World

No Comments »

As much as possible, I have always tried to observe and interact with people of many different religions and faith backgrounds. My current job affords me this opportunity much more than ever before.

A question I keep coming back to is “How do we know that Christianity is right and other faiths are wrong?” When I pose this question to various people of Christianity, I generally get one of four answers (if I am not immediately condemned for asking such a question). They are:

1. I’ve experienced God and so I know it’s true.
2. Christianity results in more substantial life change than other faiths. In other words, Christians live better lives, so it must be true.  
3. The Bible, which Christianity is based on, doesn’t have the errors and contradictions that are present in the “Holy books” of other faiths. It doesn’t contradict itself, nor does it contradict the facts of history and science (considering evolution is a theory). Therefore, the Bible can be trusted as true revelation from God.
4. God answers prayer and provides signs and wonders, which proves Christianity is true. This includes things like prophecy and healing.

Here is the curious thing: As I interact with people of other religions, and through the course of conversation find out why they hold their beliefs, I find that nearly all people of all religions have these same four basic arguments for why their beliefs are true. Some throw in a few other explanations (I just grew up with it… It’s the oldest religion… We have a great tradition.), but generally, these are the four I hear.

Personally, I think only one of these answers has much merit, but none of these four are the top reason I believe the Christian faith is uniquely true.

So before I tell you what my primary reason is, I am curious what you think. What do you think of the four reasons above? Are they compelling? Why or why not? Are there others you frequently hear? Why do you think that Christianity is (or is not) true?

18 Comments »

Today is the Jewish holiday of Purim.

Purim celebrates the events found in the biblical book of Esther, and specifically, the victory of the Israelites against the wicked plot of Haman to destroy the people of Israel.

I love the story of Esther for many reasons. Let me share a few.

First, it’s a great story. It is full of twists, turns, and ironic reversals. Eventually, I will get around to posting my commentary on Esther at www.gracecommentary.com. Until then, read the story for yourself to see how masterfully the story is told. I’m glad they made a movie of the story (One Night with the King) but the movie does not capture the story as well as the biblical narrative. The book is much better than the movie.

The second thing I love about the book of Esther is that God is never mentioned. Jewish tradition does reveal a few “hints” of God…such as in 5;4, where the first letter of  the Hebrew words for “let the King and Haman come today”  spell the divine name YHWH (7:3 also contains a possible reference. But God is never explicitly referred to. For this reason (and for other reasons), some have argued that the book does not belong in the Bible. But I think exactly the opposite. A careful reading of the story shows that although God is not explicitly mentioned, He is everywhere in the story. I believe that God does not have to be mentioned or talked about for a story to reveal God. This is also the approach I take to music, movies, and art. For the person who is looking, God can be found anywhere and in anything. I love “secular” music, movies, and art because I think they often reveal more about God and the human condition than “Christian” music, movies, and art. God doesn’t have to be mentioned for something to be spiritual. Sometimes, as with the story of Esther, bringing God up can just get in the way of what God is trying to reveal.

Finally, it is valuable and important for every follower of Jesus to go through times in their life when they feel that God has abandoned them. We can be certain that many of the Israelites who went through the events in the story of Esther were asking “Where is God? Why isn’t He acting? Has He forgotten us? Is He punishing us? Is he neglecting us? Has He abandoned us? Why isn’t He being a better Father? I am a better parent to my children than God is to me!” It is only by going through events that cause us to ask these sorts of questions that God can do in us what He wants to do, and get us to where He wants us to be.

This last point has had personal significance for me.

Those of you who know me and have followed my blog know that I went through a period like this for about eighteen months. As a result, I am now in a place I never imagined myself being. Never. But in many ways, it is way better than any other plan I had made for myself. Yet even now, I ask myself almost every day, “Was it worth it? If I was given the choice to stay as I was or to go through what I went through personally and spiritually to get where I am now, what would I choose?”

I’m afraid to say, “Yes, it was worth it” out of fear that God will take me through another period like the one I am only now coming out of. Yet I cannot say “No” for I am certain that I am much better off  now emotionally and spiritually than where I was two years ago.  So my answer is, “Ask me again in ten or twenty years.” 

Like the story of Esther, our lives are a story as well, and we’re all still in the middle of it. And we have yet to see how the pieces of the jigsaw will fit together.

3 Comments »

A few posts ago, I complained that the typical “church planter profile” is based only on the big and successful churches which have “Type A” personalities at the helm. I questioned the idea that “mega-church” status should be the goal for all churches, and therefore, that only “Type A” people should plant churches.

Someone once told me that “It takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people, and all kinds of churches require all kinds of planters.” I agree. So what is it about the Type-A person that attracts crowds and convinces so many people that their way is the right way?

One answer may be that such leaders are louder.

A recent Time article revealed that these loud leadership types are wrong more often than the quiet types, but people will often follow and agree with them, for the simple reason that they speak up first and loudest. Here are a few quotes:

Repeatedly, the ones who emerged as leaders and were rated the highest in competence were not the ones who offered the greatest number of correct answers. Nor were they the ones whose SAT scores suggested they’d even be able to. What they did do was offer the most answers — period.

“Dominant individuals behaved in ways that made them appear competent,” the researchers write, “above and beyond their actual competence.” Troublingly, group members seemed only too willing to follow these underqualified bosses. An overwhelming 94% of the time, the teams used the first answer anyone shouted out — often giving only perfunctory consideration to others that were offered.

3 Comments »