SUDDENLY THEOLOGY JUST BECAME PRACTICAL!

One of the shots that theology sometimes takes as a study is that it is a horribly impractical way to spend one's time. I mean, what's the point. Doesn't God want us to just love people (forgetting, of course, the fact that even the words "God" and "love" are so abused as to make theology quite necessary)?

So here's an example of theology being quite practical. A church in my town is thinking about doing $130 million worth of renovations soon. Here is a quote from the pastor explaining the reason for the renovations:

"As I look around [...], I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government – many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them – a spiritual oasis in the middle of downtown."

How does that make you feel? Does it make sense to you? Is it the best way to spend $130 million? How would you justify your gut reaction? You see, whether you realize it or not, you are reacting from some latent understanding of the Church and her mission in the world. It is in studying theology that we start to understand, refine, and perhaps change, our beliefs about very important things.

Let me give you some questions to help you think through your reaction. And remember: there's $130 million at stake, so don't tell me this isn't relevant!

1) What exactly is the Kingdom of God? What is its relationship with the Church? With each local church? Is this the best way to advance it, whatever it is?

2) Is it appropriate to talk about church buildings as temples? Is there anything equivalent to the Temple in the New Covenant? Where does God's Spirit dwell on earth now? If church buildings aren't temples, then what does that mean for the money we invest in them?

3) If a church gets too big, is physical expansion of the facilities always/usually/never a good choice? When should options like planting new churches or replanting existing churches with current members be considered, if ever?

4)What does it mean to be a local church? Is there a size that eventually makes it impossible for believers to still fulfill their roles and responsibilities within a local church?

5) How is God best represented in the world? Is architectural beauty an appropriate way to express God's majesty and induce worship, or does God not care at all what things look like and all excess funds should be put directly into practical ministry? How do we balance these two, or do we not even try?

6) When the pastor talks about being inspired by other "temples" nearby, is he compromising the uniqueness of the Church in the world by trying to be like the world, or is this a legitimate way to present the gospel to the world by expressing it in familiar terms?

These are just a few questions that popped into my mind while reading this pastor's defense of how his church will spend $130 million.

Did you think through the questions? Did you look up any portions of Scripture? Did you consult any persons or books around you? Congratulations! You just did theology! See how practical it was?

PAT ROBERTSON IS FAMILY

Wow, haven't blogged in a while. This is sort of a pattern, I'm afraid, faithful reader(s). Another part of the pattern is that I sometimes vomit up many entries at once; I think today is going to be one of those days.

I don't really think I need to give any background on the situation in Haiti or Pat Robertson's rather bizarre comments concerning it. So I'll just jump in.

You know that weird, drunk uncle who always shows up to family events and embarrasses the heck of out of everyone with his inevitable, bizarre rantings (disclaimer: I don't actually have an uncle like this, personally)? Well, this is how I see Pat Robertson. He embarrasses me. He makes the rest of the family (the Church) look horrible by association. Yet he's still family.

That's the irritating part. The fact that Pat Robertson is a Christian (I don't see any reason to deny this) is very troubling. It means that we're part of the body of Christ together; it means that I am obligated to treat him certain ways because of our relationship through Christ. It means . . . *gulp* . . . we're family. I will spend eternity with Pat Robertson.

And it means that when I talk about him, I'm talking about one of God's children. That should give me pause, although it doesn't always do so. There are so many things I want to say about this man. There are so many names I want to call him. There is so much bile and venom I want to spit at him until it consumes his entire ministry and everything that this man represents goes up in a huge ball of flames. In case all that wasn't clear enough, let me be a little more explicit: if I were God, and it was in my name that Pat Robertson kept talking, I would wipe Pat Robertson off the face of the Earth. I would literally and immediately end his life. And I can justify it in my mind by saying that the world would be a better place without him.

But God allows him to remain. And that is only capable of truly surprising me when I forget what it means for God to allow me to remain, as well. What damage control has God had to do to allow me to keep living and claiming the title Christian? Am I truly doing better than ole Pat, or is it just that I don't have a TV show to help me make things worse around me?

And it's so much bigger than that. God didn't just save me; He saved us (me and Pat). And He made us both part of a larger community called the Church -- the Bride of Christ. I can't stand Pat Robertson, yet God had decided to spend eternity with both of us. Pat Robertson is family to me, or I don't take the gospel seriously.

And so fellow Christians, I hope you'll guard your words when talking about our embarrassing uncle, the way you would hesitate before bashing and destroying your physical family. Pat Robertson may be a fool (and I don't have a problem with that label) he is our fool, the Church's fool, God's fool forever.

THE WRONG QUESTION

The central question that arises out of the Christian revelation is not "who will be saved?" but rather "who is worthy to sit on the Throne?" I am convinced that the vast majority of our current troubles and struggles as evangelicals arise from our insistence on embracing a gospel that has much to say about the former, but almost nothing to say about the latter. We water down and repackage the gospel -- even with good intentions -- so that we can cast the biggest net possible. We teach people that being lost is something passive (perhaps nothing more serious than being spiritually misplaced keys), rather than the result of active rebellion against the rightful King. Our gospel creates secure, but not submissive people. Our gospel has room for Jesus as Savior, Sacrifice, and Servant, but seldom for Lord. And we replace the glory of God with the salvation of man as the supreme end of all that God is doing.

God's plan does not require that every last soul be saved, but rather that every last knee bow and every last tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Then Christ will in turn give everything to the Father, and everything will be complete. We do the gospel a great injustice when we simply ask someone, "will you accept Jesus as Your Savior?" For the question is: "who is worthy to sit on the Throne," and the gospel is an invitation to respond to the revelation of the true answer now, leading to salvation, instead of facing the terrible wrath of the King when He is fully revealed someday.

WHAT ABOUT A CHURCH "REPLANTING" MOVEMENT?

Now because this blog has "bad theology" in the title, let me very clearly state that I do not in any way consider church planting to be bad theology! Nor is this blog in any way meant to characterize all church planters, but rather a particular strain. There, that takes care of that :-) What saddens me is a tendency I am seeing among my generation to abandon existing churches in order to start new churches or participate in church plants, particularly in already well-churched areas. While there are many good and godly reasons to plant churches, I cannot help but feel that some are getting caught up in the "romance" of church planting, thus abandoning possibly hundreds of thousands of broken and burdened, deformed and dejected members of God's flock. I am seeing more and more young Christians, especially young ministers, writing off the Church in her current state, seemingly believing that the only solution is to start from scratch. In the process they write off many fellow believers, ironically severing and crippling the very Body they seem to think they can recreate.

A potential church "replant" is a congregation that is currently struggling, even dying. There are all sorts of reasons why a church might end up in this position. It might be a recent bitter church split that dramatically changes the makeup and outlook of the congregation. Usually it's simply a church that has been experiencing a slow and steady decline. Perhaps the demographics of the church's neighborhood has changed over time; perhaps the ministry model of the church hasn't. There are all sorts of reasons, and certainly not all of them necessarily reflect poorly on that congregation. But for whatever reason, these congregations are in need of a "replant" -- an influx of committed ministers and lay people committed to loving, serving, and ultimately revitalizing the church, making it an effective instrument in God's hands.

There are several factors that make replanting difficult and possibly unattractive to many people:

1) There is no clean slate. Quite simply: you are working with an existing church. This means working with existing traditions and expectations, working with existing troubles and issues, and working with existing infrastructure. Replanters may have a crystal clear vision, but it still takes incredible patience to move an existing church in any direction, no matter how "obvious" the direction may seem to some.

2) The rate of change is slow. Sometimes painfully slow. A replant requires a great deal of love and (from ministers) shepherding because it is not the vision, but rather the existing congregation that determines the pace. You must take time to gain the trust of others. You must gauge how much time is necessarily to "sell" a certain change so that the maximum number of people can be on board. You must change at such a pace that all who genuinely desire the good of the church aren't simply run over or shut up. You cannot bruise the sheep! The sheep themselves and not getting into the pen is always the priority!

3)The congregation has already been indoctrinated. This does not mean that the congregation necessarily has a sound theological foundation (in fact, you may have to convince many that theology is even important!), but rather than you are building on a vast myriad of former pastors and teachers, (mis)understood denominational distinctions, cherished church traditions, popular books, etc, etc. You're not painting on a clean white wall, but rather a wall that has been painted with an unknown number of previous coats, many most likely applied haphazardly and with little to no priming. Therefore, it is not a matter of simply teaching correct doctrine, but of understanding where current beliefs came from and using them as your starting point, rather than being able to start from scratch. It also means being aware of your congregation understands certain theological buzzwords.

4) Compromises will abound. For a while (and maybe on a permanent basis), you may not be worshiping exactly how you prefer to, dressing completely in accordance with your own comfort level, or basically "doing church" the way you think would be ideal. In other words your "church experience" will frequently not be -- and indeed may never be -- exactly what you want it to be. The spirit of "replanting" is that the unity of the congregation -- centered on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ by the Spirit -- and the obligation to love each other are so very very serious that they trump all else.

5) You must have the grace and love necessary to pick battles and work in imperfect situations. In a church replant, things will not change overnight. The church will have significant things wrong for a long, long time. At any given time, you will be able to make a checklist of how many ways your church doesn't look like it's supposed to. For a while it may not be properly focused on "x"; once you fix that, you're ready to move forward with new "x"-related boldness . . . but still struggling with y and z. I think this is why most people walk away from replant situations: they look at the Scriptures and see the Church as she ought to be, then look at a local congregration and notice everything it's not. Then they decide the gap is too great. Rather than stay and love the people of God into all that they ought to be, they move on to a church perhaps further down the line or simply go somewhere where process is much newer, and thus seems more hopeful. In the process they dismiss as hopeless those whom God's Spirit indwells, for whom Christ died to transform, and who we are called to love, serve, and honor.

I need to make a few caveats at the end here: First, let me say that I firmly believe that some churches just need to die. Christ Himself threatens to extinguish the Ephesian church in Revelation 2. God's patience with those who bear His Name and His glory is not inexhaustible. There is definitely a time when even a "replanting" will just not do it anymore, and God moves to protect His reputation against ineffectual ambassadors. Second, I believe that God does tell people to move on from churches at time, though I think we do this far too frequently. Thus, if you find yourself longing to leave a "replant" situation, it may indeed be an indicator that God is choosing to use you elsewhere. Third, I believe that God starts new movements and grants new visions, even in already-churched areas. I'm okay with people who genuinely believe God is calling them to start something new . ... as long as they have prayed and thought about why what God has called them to do can't be done in existing congregation, and thus a new congregation is truly necessary.

I feel like saying it again: this blog is not intended to bash church planting. It is simply a plea with Christians, especially in my generation, to take seriously God's care and compassion for all of His sheep, even the ones that seem hard to love or that we want to dismiss as being so far from effectual ministry as to be beyond all hope of usefulness.

WHAT IF THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS HUMAN RIGHTS?

I grew up learning that as a believer I had no rights to claim -- that I belong to God; however, at the same time I was told that things like abortion were wrong because those babies had the right to live as much as I did. This is a bit confusing: people have no rights since they belong to God, yet of course they do, so respect them! In the past few years this logical inconsistency has really started to bother me. I've come to (or perhaps more accurately, I am far into the process of coming to) the conclusion that there are no such things as human rights. In other words, there is nothing that a person is entitled simply by virtue of being human. Weird, huh?

The main problem I have with the concept of human rights is that it builds a worldview with man at the center, and seeks to explain the world as we find it (or ought to try to make it) in terms of some inherent definition or standing of humanity. Instead, as Christians we ought to begin building with God at the center. When we start looking at how God has structured reality, I think we find an existence founded not upon rights that He protects, but rather on authority that He grants.

This may seem like nothing more than silly semantics, but stay with me. What if we started thinking not in terms of rights, but rather in terms of presence or absence of authority? Let me give you an example: what if murder was wrong, not because of a inherent right to life that the victim possesses but because God has not given the murderer the authority to take life in His creation order. What if debates about things like health care were not framed by the concept of some sort of right to medical care, but in terms of how God expects governments (and churches!) to conduct themselves based upon the authority granted them to effect change in the world?

If my premise is true -- namely, that as created beings no human being has inherent rights, but rather operates within an infrastructure of divinely imposed authority that dictates what may or may not be done by individuals in any given situation -- then this changes the ball game quite a bit. This does NOT mean that we stop fighting for social justice or any of those good things, but that we change our approach as Christians.

For too long we have been trying to convince the world to be godly while handicapping ourselves by abiding by the terms of a faulty worldview. We have been trying to argue that an unwanted child has as much right to life as its unwilling mother, instead of asking whether God has given women authority to terminate other life in such a scenario. We have been trying to draw a strange (and probably untenable) distinction between civil rights granted to minorities and those desired by homosexuals, instead of asking whether or not God has given homosexuals permission to enter into the institution of marriage that He created for very specific purposes. You get the picture.

Now the obvious objection is that this sort of change in rhetoric will lose alot of supporters. After all, you have to believe in God (and really God as portrayed in the Scriptures) to grant any sort of credence to this argument. I would respond by saying that as believers we are sent out to proclaim God's truth, even as the Spirit convinces the world of its truthfulness. We cannot seek to build a consensus on false concepts and erring worldviews, even if it appears to be effective in the short run.

SHARING THE GOSPEL WITH CHILDREN

A friend of mine recently posted a facebook link about a church that has a fire truck baptismal in their children's area. No doubt this church has seen a significant increase in child participation in the sacred -- not silly -- rite of baptism, but for what reasons? This got me to thinking about children and how we share the gospel with them. I actually have years of experience working with children in a variety of roles, so I feel like I have some credible observations to offer.

First, let me say that we should always be sharing the gospel with our children to whatever extent they are able to understand. Never wait to share the gospel with kiddos! I also believe that even young children are capable of entering a conscious salvific relationship with God (I tried to phrase it like that to include as many theological traditions as possible in the conversation). So this post is not about being cautious about sharing the gospel, but rather in how we do so.

1)DO NOT CALL FOR GROUP DECISIONS: I cringe every time I see a children's teacher or worker stand up in front of kids and say "who wants to say this prayer with me? Raise your hand!" Many children inevitably raise their hands, but this isn't necessarily a sign of revival in the midst of your backyard Bible club. Most kids really want to please those older than them, especially those in authority over them -- especially those older authorities they see as cool. And trust me: you spend time loving on kids and investing in them, and they're going to see you as cool! So the problem with the group decision technique is that this is how your typical kid will hear it: "I'm cool, and I'm really excited about this thing called the gospel! Don't you want to be excited so that you can be cool, too?! Don't you want me to think you're cool?!" At various camps and in various churches, I have often had the role of talking to kids who have supposedly made professions of faith. There have been numerous times that an excited worker has brought a child to me who just "prayed the prayer." However, when I talk to the child, it is clear that they have no idea what they have just agreed to. The truth is that kids want to make you happy; we need to be aware of the tremendous influence we have over them.

Whenever I teach children or speak to groups of them, I always tell them that I would be more than glad to talk to them in more detail afterwords, if they are interested. I make the gospel presentation as clear as possible during the talk, but I do not press them to make a decision, especially in front of all their friends, the other teachers, etc. You might worry that kids would be too shy to come up afterwords, but as far as I can tell, I have never experienced this problem. When God is moving in a kiddo's life, they'll come talk to you. When you build that trusting, loving relationship with children that makes them want to please you, it will also make them want to talk to you.

2) BE CAREFUL TO NEVER EQUATE YOUR CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH A CHILD WITH HIS/HER ACCEPTANCE OF THE GOSPEL: This is closely tied to my first observation, but it's different enough to merit its own talking point. Kids deeply value their relationships with loving adults, and they will do almost anything you ask to maintain that relationship. This includes saying a little prayer if they think it will make you happy. Remember: kids are natural pleasers! I cannot overemphasize that! Whenever I feel that a child might be feeling pressure to become a Christian in order to make me happy, I will say something like, "You know that I will be your friend no matter what you do. I'm telling you about this because Jesus gives me hope, and I want you to have hope, too, because you're my friend. But either way, we will still be friends!" This usually brings a visible sign of relief to the child's face. They may ask further questions out of genuine interest, or we may just keep playing a game. Either way, I want to make sure the child feels secure in our relationship; this allows me to serve as a gateway to the gospel when the Spirit prepares their hearts to receive more.

3) ASK OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS WHEN TALKING ABOUT SALVATION WITH CHILDREN: This one is very important. Don't ask simple "yes" or "no" questions because you don't have any idea if the child understands or not. I could say to the a child "Do you believe that armadillos have pomegranates growing out of their ears," and the child might very well answer "yes" simply because I seem to believe it, even though they personally don't understand what I just said at all. Thus, when talking with children who have already or want to "pray the prayer," I ask opened-ended questions so that I can gauge the child's understanding, as well as clear up any confusion the child might be experiencing. So instead of "Do you want to be saved?", I ask "Why do you want to be saved?" Instead of "Do you believe Jesus died on the cross?", I ask "Why did Jesus die on the cross?" Instead of "are you a sinner?", I start with "what is sin?" You get the idea. We want to make sure that children truly understand what is happening and aren't simply parroting things or agreeing with things we have said because we seem so confident in saying them.

4) DON'T MANIPULATE CHILDREN: This is so important. We can think we're doing children a favor by "getting them in" at any cost, but we must be completely above the board with children. Don't say things like "Do you miss your puppy? Your puppy is with Jesus; don't you want to see your puppy again?" or (and I've heard a version of this one) "Who would want to burn forever in a horrible fire?! If you don't want to, quick, say this prayer with me!" Scare tactics or emotional manipulation must be avoided! Otherwise we plant the seeds of a wrong understanding of God and the gospel into our children that can blossom into weeds of bitterness, doubt, and disillusion when they get older and being to understand more.

Those are my thoughts for now. Maybe I'll think of more later, but I think this is a good start. What are your thoughts?

THE BAD THEOLOGY JUKE BOX (PART 2 OF ?)

TRACK #3: FRIEND OF GOD

Here are the words:

Who am I that You are mindful of me
That You hear me when I call
Is it true that You are thinking of me
How You love me it's amazing

I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
I am a friend of God
He calls me friend

God Almighty, Lord of Glory
You have called me friend

The biggest problem I have with this song is that it seems to be equating being a friend of God with simply being a child of God or belonging to God. I do not believe that is the way the term is used in Scripture.

There are only two places I can think of right now (correct me if you think of any others) where God calls someone his "friend." The first is when he is talking to Abraham about the impending judgment on Sodom and Gommorah. He says, "Shall I hide from my friend Abraham what I am supposed to do?" (that's not an exact quote, but it's close). In the context of that passage, Abraham is called God's friend because he is a member of God's inner circle, so to speak. God graciously invites Abraham into the "council meeting" about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and allows him the opportunity to affect the situation through intercession. This is not to say that God needs counselors, but that God in His mercy allows us to speak to Him and converse with Him on what is going on in the world.

As the recipient of the special Abrahamic Covenant -- through which the entire world would eventually be blessed and through which Abraham would become the literal father of the chosen race, as well as the spiritual father of all who respond to God in faith -- it was appropriate that Abraham receive this sort of intimacy and status. The title "friend" seems specially reserved for Abraham in the OT (see Isaiah 41:8, 2 Chronicles 20:7)

The only other place where someone is called God's friend that I can think of is John 15 where Jesus says in verse fourteen and fifteen:

"You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

Now if you read the entire context of this verse, especially the few verses before it, you will see that "friendship" with God is a conditional identification tied to obedience. Again, the idea is that God discloses to his "friends" what He is doing so that they can join Him in it. The disciples are called God's "friends" based on faithful following and intimate knowledge of Christ. There does not seem to be any universal promise to believers that we are automatically His friends; instead, I think the passage is best read as Christ relating a status that the disciples had reached, based upon their obedience and intimate knowledge of God.

So to sum up:
1) friendship with God does not appear to be used in Scripture in a manner that is related to or synonymous with right-standing with God. In other words, being God's friend is not an issue of being saved. You can be a Christian and not be God's friend.

2) friendship with God appears to be tied to the condition of obedience. If you obey you are God's friend. The obedient -- and not the rebellious, even His rebellious children -- have God's will disclosed to them so that they might intercede and minister alongside Him.

This is why I do not like the song "Friend of God" because I believe its message is unscriptural. (I'm not calling it heretical!) I'm sure it was written with good intentions, but that doesn't matter.


TRACK #4: I'LL FLY AWAY

Here are the words:

Some bright morning when this life is over
I'll fly away
To that home on God's celestial shore
I'll fly away

I'll fly away oh glory
I'll fly away (in the morning)
When I die hallelujah by and by
I'll fly away

When the shadows of this life have gone
I'll fly away
Like a bird from these prison walls I'll fly
I'll fly away

Oh how glad and happy when we meet
I'll fly away
No more cold iron shackles on my feet
I'll fly away

Just a few more weary days and then
I'll fly away
To a land where joys will never end
I'll fly away

And here are the big problems: First, it's gnostic in its theology. The gnostics were a heretical sect who used all the right lingo, but drastically redefined and distorted the meaning of those words they held in common with Christianity (I am always amused by modern scholars who refer to gnosticism as an alternate Christianity because neither Christians nor gnositcs thought this way. They both assumed the other was hopelessly lost and understood their views to be irreconcilable . . . even if we "enlightened" modern folk "know" better). One of the basic gnostic teachings was that everything spirit was good, while everything matter was evil. They denied the goodness of the physical body (which God called good!), and understood the human soul -- the true self -- to be trapped within the horrible confines of this evil material reality. This is the exact language we find in "I'll fly away." It is the imagery of the soul finally being released from its material prison (whether the body or the created world) and simply "flying." We are both body and soul, not just a soul. The ripping apart of body and soul at death is a great horror -- the last bitter dregs of the curse that we must drink. It is NOT a moment for rejoicing, and it is not a permanent and gracious release! In fact, Scripture teaches that our final state will be the reunion of our souls with new resurrection bodies, and only then will all the effects of sin and death be considered destroyed. "Flying away" someday will be tolerable, in that we will at least be with the Lord while bodiless, but it is not the hope in which we rejoice as Christians!

The song misrepresents our great hope in another crucial way, as well. Scripture teaches that our stay in the current Heaven (if we die before He returns) will be but temporary. Our final destination is not "out there" somewhere. Actually, it's "right here" in a new heaven and on a new earth! The great hope is that all of creation -- including the physical earth and our physical bodies -- will be remade, and that we will enjoy this new creation with our Lord forever.

We simply do not sing this song at our church anymore. Half of its theology is incorrect, and the other half can only have a heretical meaning, if it has any meaning at all.