Pat Rob’s best Driscoll Imitation

There are many different ways to become well-known in this world. But for a preacher, the number of acceptable means to get your name in the public eye is smaller than with other people.

Or at least, it should be.

But there is a growing coterie of preachers/bible teachers/”evangelists” who have chosen a tried-and-true formula for notoriety. The number who do this is always small and always annoying to true followers of Christ.

The formula looks like this:

1. Make outrageous statements based on marginal Christian beliefs that owe more to popular opinion than the Bible.

2. Make even more outrageous statements to back up the first ones.

3. When cornered by the press, claim  you were taken out of context, or that the current culture of morality can’t accept the truth, or even that you meant something completely different.

A century ago, Aimee  Semple McPherson did this. Oral Roberts also practiced the same approach. Mark Driscoll is well on his way to eclipsing both of them for bombasticity.

But we should not forget Pat Robertson, whose 700 Club gave him ample visibility to make unwise statements. Just the other day he made another of his monumental blunders. You can read about it here:

In the program, Robertson is responding to a letter from a woman whose husband has had an affair. Here’s a short excerpt from the article:

Robertson responded to a woman identified as Ivy during Wednesday’s episode of “The 700 Club.” Ivy wrote, “We have gone to counseling, but I just can’t seem to forgive, nor can I trust. How do you let go of the anger? How do you trust again?

Robertson’s co-host began to answer the letter when the one-time Republican presidential hopeful interjected with the “secret” to getting past the cheating.

“Stop talking about the cheating. He cheated on you. Well, he’s a man. O.K.,” Robertson said.

Robertson, in true misogynistic fashion lays covert blame on the wife. He tells her, ““Males have a tendency to wander a little bit, and what you want to do it make the home so wonderful that he doesn’t want to wander.”

So Pat R. is essentially saying, “This is just the way men are”, and “if you don’t make the home a perfect place to come to, you can expect him to act this way.” Implicitely, this makes it her fault.

He has unleashed a firestorm of criticism and just gives those who are leaving churches another justification for doing so.

This debacle underscores the dangers of having any Christian superstar preachers and teachers. It is better to be taught by those who aren’t looking for the spotlight and who count the ability to communicate with gentleness, love and Truth as more important than the motto “I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”

20 Signs You Have OLD Geek Cred

Because you need to know there is a world of difference between the geek cred of the baby boomers and that of today’s generations, here is a list that shows you were there before the Internet exploded.

1. You Grokked before you could flirt. In fact, you still grok and can’t flirt
2. You punched cards to compile a computer program
3. You could make pictures using just x’s and o’s on a Telex printout
4. You can identify the difference between the sound a 2400 baud and a 14400 baud modem made.
5. You still own a 2400 baud modem somewhere in a closet
6. You completed a Rubik’s Cube without taking it apart or reading a book on how to do it
7. Some of your fingerprints are missing due to excessive amounts of airplane glue on the fingers during airplane construction all-nighters.
8. You’ve read LOTR more than 10 times before anyone had seen any of the movies.
9. You were in love with one of the following sci-fi heroines: Galadriel, Mennolly, Eowyn, Kahlan Amnell or Meg Murry.

10. You have used both an abacus and a slide rule

11. You can play and win at Go, Pente, Chess, and Axis and Allies.

12. You know what a Heathkit is and have put one together and found out they were missing some of the parts. Extra bonus credit if you had the missing parts lying around from other kits. Ultimate bonus if you made the extra parts.

13. You played Pong and thought it was the beginning of the Revolution. You were right.

14. You knew Radio Shack when it was Tandy and had more leather goods than electronic. You bought both.

15. Your first computer had less than 16K of motherboard memory.

16. You know that a 1K segment of memory does not have 1,000 bytes but rather 1024. And you know why.

17. You can count in hexadecimal.

18. You wanted to be a Tarnsman and enter Gor through some secret door. Alternatively, you wanted all the girls from Gor to enter your world through some secret door. Heck, you wanted any secret door.

19. Your parents would get nervous when you entered the room with a screwdriver in your hands. Bonus points if they instantly protected the television set.

20. You can recite the mnemonic for remembering the order of colors in any resistor. (e.g Bright Boys Rave Over Young Girls But Veto Getting Wed)

Are Relevant Churches Really Relevant?

This is the fourth most popular post of the past ten years. It is part of our series where we reprint the top ten blog entries. Enjoy.

Some friends have suggested I spend too much time on the Internet. It depends on what you mean by “too much time”. I have a counter on my computer that keeps track of every minute I’m online; it rarely goes over one hour a day. But I get a lot done with that hour. I have a newsreader that collects all my favorite blogs, newspapers and magazines and trims them down to headlines. Therefore, I sometimes read things very quickly without deep reflection. Occasionally, it takes days until I react and respond to what I’ve read. What I’m going to talk about next is a result of one of those situations. I cannot even find the original article this idea came from. (I am sure one of my readers will find it and help me out, so I’m not worried about plagiarism).

I want to talk about the word “Relevant”. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya (of the Princess Bride): “I do not think that word means what you think it means”. And it is the collective brain trust of contemporary church leaders who may have misunderstood the meaning and direction of this word. This sometimes happens with words; normally it’s not that big a deal. For instance, people often get the words “irrespective” and “regardless” mixed up. People sometimes jumble their definitions and thereby combine them wrongly to make “irregardless”. Irrespective means to know something and then to have no respect for it. Regardless means that you choose not to regard an issue. They are close in meaning, but not exactly the same. For example, I certainly understand what goes into the mind of a man who commits adultery. But I have no respect for his actions. Irrespective of his actions, I take my own actions. But I cannot disregard his actions, especially if they happen to someone close to me. In the case of adultery, I cannot act “regardless”, even though I can act “irrespective”. You see, they don’t mean the same thing.

Relevant is close to another word “relative” and the similar adjective “relational”. Relevant means to stick to the issue at hand. Relative means to relate to something or someone else. Relevant has to do with issues, controversies, position statements, movements and ideas. Relative has to do with people, choices, culture, tastes and situations. A person who is arguing in a political debate and is asked about their position on war will be relevant if their answer has to do with war. If it has to do with political parties, economics or sports, they are probably not relevant to the issue at hand. A great synonym for “relevant” is “pertinent”. The question a person needs to ask when trying to decide if they’re being relevant is this one: Does my approach pertain to the issue at hand?

If someone wants to be relative or relate to others, they should adopt similar styles, dress, language, approach and attitudes. They must agree with those positions to be relative to the issues at hand. Here then, is the big difference between being Relevant and being Relational: A relevant approach addresses the key issues exactly, irrespective of whether they agree with the position of others. A Relational or Relative person seeks to identify as closely with the position and approach of others. So with these definitions in mind, let’s ask ourselves this question: Those churches who claim to be “relevant” to today’s culture, are they indeed that way or are they more “relative” to the dominant memes of our day?

I will be over-generalizing, but this is the only way to make this essay shorter than an entire book. I hear of churches constantly using the word relevant to refer to their public services. What do they usually mean by that? This video mocks the trend, but it is not really all that misguided. Here then are some ways that churches represent themselves as “relevant”:

• Casual, weekend style clothing.
• Modern styles of music, usually reflecting latest trends in style similar to what is played in Christian concerts.
• Use of video, movies, television shows, commercials and trends to show commonality with audience
• Expensive lighting, sound systems and printed material, often eclipsing other public non-profit organizations
• Use of latest software and hardware for multimedia presentations
• Sermon topics relate to the everyday life of listeners, especially in areas of raising children, marriage, finances and use of leisure time
• Advertising material, including websites, brochures and radio/television ads are high quality and often produced by professional advertising agencies.

This, then is what most churches mean by Relevant. I contend that this is the absolute wrong use of the word and has reduced the concept to something much more shallow than it was intended to represent. I will share two reasons why I think we are using this word at the end of this article, but let’s see what this approach really is: Relational.

When church leaders model their dress after the manner people usually wear on the weekend, they are trying to help the average person feel more comfortable. There is no “issue” or “agenda” with this. There is no pertinent value a church seeks to communicate other than this: We are like you. We relate to you. You relate to us. We don’t think we’re better than you. (I do have a minor problem with this: We wouldn’t disdain a bank teller for wearing a tie, or a waiter, or people going out on the town…we allow for all of those to dress for the occasion. What we are saying to people in church is ‘this is not really a special occasion’). Sermon topics that relate to where people live every day are relational. They may also be relevant (ie. when they deal with particular issues that spring from daily life), but generally the approach is to have people know the preacher is aware of what issues accrue when his hearers live their daily life. The style of music is designed to relate to what people are listening to. Many churches now actually use songs written by secular music artists and then give the songs contemporary Christian meaning. This is rarely done to address particular issues, but more to show people that the church is not out of touch with what they listen to. The same can be said of the use of video, television and pop cultural references. All of it is packaged to tell this culture: “We’re one of You”.

That is not being Relevant: That is being Relational. And in the words of Jerry Seinfeld “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.  (You see, I can be relational as well).

I have occasionally joked that I have the secret formula for getting 10,000 people in church next Sunday: Just contract with Justin Bieber to be the special musical guest. It’s the church equivalent of “sweeps week” for the television networks. The idea behind these gimmicks is that if people keep coming, they will eventually fold into the congregation and learn more about God. I hesitated even writing this paragraph because someone is now looking up the phone number for Bieber’s agent.

Now let me tell you what “Relevant” looks like. If you always look and sound the same as everyone else, you are entirely unnecessary. That isn’t being relevant, it is being a parrot. Relevant means we look at the issue everyone is speaking of and realize what isn’t being said and then say it. When Martin Luther pounded his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door, he was addressing one of the most irritating issues of his day: That some priests were selling indulgences as a way to raise money, promising people a quick doorway into heaven if they purchased a large number of them. No one was standing in the way of this false teaching, except Luther. Everyone was copying what they heard from friends because it was safer that way and others liked them. I have to ask today if churches aren’t stuck in that same emotional rut. Like everyone else, we do want people to like us. We want them to hit “like” on Facebook. We want them to keep coming back to services week after week, even if all we’re doing is repackaging what 1000 others have said, perhaps better than us.

Relevant, on the other hand,  is when Jesus noticed that people were being cheated right in the middle of a prayer room and then, in a prophetic act, he upended the tables of the money-changers. Relevant is Jackie Pullinger pulling drug addicts off the streets of Hong Kong and getting them clean when the dominant society ignores them. Relevant is Erin Gruwell addressing drug wars and the deaths of her students with a radical plan to change their learning style. Relevant is Peggy Drake who worked to comfort AIDS sufferers in West Africa while most Christians were saying it was God’s judgment against homosexuals. Relevant is a preacher resigning from his wealthy church because they would not adopt a lifestyle of caring for the poor. Relevant is almost always counter-cultural, it addresses today’s news with timeless truths, it lives the way it believes and garners respect because it doesn’t try to bribe people into following its viewpoints.

How Relevant is your church?

Without a doubt, by fleshing out these definitions, you will realize that churches will fall into four categories:

1. Not Relevant, not relational
2. Relevant, but not relational
3. Relational, but not relevant
4. Both Relational and Relevant

Why then would churches choose to be relational and not particularly relevant? I think there are two reasons for this. First, being relational is much easier and does not cost us much. We all learned in elementary school that it went better for us if we adopted the latest trends and fashions and were friends with the most popular kids. Differing even a fraction from the dominant elementary school culture put us in the outcast group and we hated being relegated there. We still do. Pastors and church members don’t want to think their approach to living is all that much different than their neighbors. They want others to know they don’t indulge in the more extreme activities of secularism (like drug use and listening to Insane Clown Posse), but they are proud to be able to make a comment on the American Idol Final 8 or to express a preference for their favorite cocktail. It is easier to blend in.

Second, most of us don’t think counter-cultural living is valid. We wrongly look with suspicion on anyone who swims upstream on issues –  especially Christian issues. Note how decidely Rob Bell was excommunicated by people for his book on Hell even though most people had not read it. I remember when Tony Campolo’s wife came forward to talk about the issues related to her pro-choice stance. Not only was she summarily rejected by evangelicals, so was her husband. Though I disagreed with her on some points, she needed to bring the issue to the forefront. It was a pertinent voice in a sea of “sound-alike” Christian voices.

There are churches today that are both Relevant and Relational. They are seldom large churches, but I suspect fifty years from now they will be the ones we think back on fondly as having the biggest impact on our culture both secular and Christian. So, the question is this: Do you really want to be Relevant or just call yourself that while simpering away in Relational?

Christian House Bands and Smoke Machines

We’re counting down the ten top posts on this blog over the past ten years. This was from three years ago. It is my favorite rant.

I was in a church recently and asked my wife why we couldn’t see the worship leader at the front. We both realized simultaneously that the “house band” was using a smoke machine! I half expected David Lee Roth or Jon Bon Jovi to come flying out through the haze to the center spot. And yes, there were several spotlights.

A few weeks later, a friend of mine was showing me through their newly renovated “worship facility” and he humbly told me they just spent $50,000 on stage lighting for the band. I choked on my bile…I did.

Then, I attended a local “worship” event two weeks ago where they had strobe lights, changing colors, sound effects and 12 speakers in the small church auditorium. The bass booster rivaled all the gang-banger cars in my neighborhood.

The final straw was an article in the local  newspaper quoting someone leaving an Easter Worship service at the local mega-church who said, “It was awesome. The band was really kickin”. I am trying to imagine God leaning back, listening to their songs and saying “Angel-dudes, come here…that band is really kickin’”

I am frustrated and feeling alone in this. My thoughts are all over the place these days with annoyance about church and music. I have wondered when the worship service got hijacked by CCM (Christian Contemporary Music). That was the actual thought that went through my mind. That is the same day I heard Michael Spencer (the Internet Monk) had passed away. In honor of this great writer and Christian, I went through some of his blog archives. I found this from 2002:

CCM is a commercial enterprise, owned largely by secular corporate interests, and certainly driven by the values of the entertainment industry more than those of the church. It is part of the entertainment culture, and only partially related to the culture of classic, orthodox Christian tradition. CCM has virtually no accountability to the larger Christian tradition, or even the Christian musical tradition. (A list of the “One Hundred Greatest Songs in Christian Music” shows no awareness of traditional gospel, country, Black gospel, Southern gospel or classical music. Odd, ignorant and sad.) As an industry, it has no accountability to the larger church and only rarely any accountability to the local church (with some refreshing exceptions.) It has no standards of doctrinal orthodox, and resists any notion that its lyrics may at times promote error and even heresy.

He is saying that what most churches call “worship” now is simply the decisive invasion of the Christian Music Industry into our church services. It is to the point now where so many new Christians have been taught this is the only way worship is done, to change it would cause a riot. When this is the only way “worship” is practiced in church, can you blame people for equating worship with CCM?

Worship is not about us. It is not about music.  It is not about feeling better when it’s over. It is telling God how much we think he is worth. (That’s what the word “worship” means….worth-ship) Now we don’t bother…instead, we tell the band how much they’re worth. Apparently, several hundred thousand dollars in equipment and technology. I often wonder who many people are clapping for at the end of “worship songs”.

This is what makes me mad. Worship is not a concert! Hear those words again: Worship is not a concert.

It is not even music. You can use music. You can do it at a concert. But you can do it on an airplane, in a tunnel, when all your children and possessions have been taken from you (remember Job) and you don’t have to have ANY MUSIC AT ALL!

You are going to hate me for saying this, but many, many churches don’t have worship services, they have well-constructed, highly entertaining concerts. That’s why they’re spending $18,000 on a projection system, $12,000 on a drum enclosure, $80,000 for a floor that looks and sounds like Starbucks, and Mackie mixers that make P Diddy drool (or whatever his name currently is). The churches that can’t afford this, or who would rather have a children’s pastor, are left behind as the crowds go to hear the next great concert church  that appeared overnight in a School gymnatorium.

They don’t have worship leaders, they have cheerleaders who lead us to believe it is a sin not to clap, to have a bad day, to not know the words to the 200th new song we’ve learned this year and who can make the last syllable of every ballad contain 18 modulated  notes. I am one of those who test pastors for their theological knowledge and so many “worship pastors” haven’t much of a clue about theology.

It is time to eliminate the professional musicians and American Idol audition cast from the front of our churches and let a few people who have mad and deep love for God be up there. People who appreciate that silence is worship too. That bringing an offering or submitting attitudes of greed to our Father is worship. It is time for a few songs we sang 20 years ago to be sung again: Perhaps for two Sundays in a row. Perhaps have a time where people talk to God and listen for his voice…oh, it would have to be quiet enough for that.

I yearn for the day when no one says “that was an awesome time of worship” after the ringing in the ears stops – and people say nothing because they are speechless and repentant in the presence of a Holy God.

And those who do have a love for technology: Get over it. Technology is certainly a valid tool, but when it becomes an end in itself, it is a curse and a distraction. I have ADD…I can’t watch the screen where new lyrics are flashing and concentrate when the stage has already changed colors five times while I’m doing it. Just as preachers and teachers need to learn not to use PowerPoint/EasyWorship so strangely (really? Do we need a Dancing Jesus in the corner of the screen?), so we need to say “less is more” when technology meets worship.

I think it is time to return to the simplicity of the Psalms, where there were both songs of praise and songs of lament. There are songs of triumph and songs of repentance. There are songs of adoration and songs where we deal with the reality of enemies.

And please, please, please, can we not sing a song 11 times through. In fact, can we stop singing occasionally and just be in awe in his presence.

I wrote all of the above and here is my pedigree: I love rock music. I listen to CCM. I go to concerts. I was one of the first pastors anywhere to bring drums into church. But leave the concert in the concert hall. And you can have all your new songs. Give me Jesus…and one or two new songs. And silence.

And anyone who says this is a discussion about hymns vs. choruses is going to be shut in the drum enclosure down the street.

Why People Follow John the Baptist instead of Jesus

God has called me to love everyone. But I don’t like everyone. I naturally befriend people who are intelligent, have a sense of humor and show a life of integrity. One particular man who exemplifies all of those qualities has been a friend of mine for many years. We enjoy each other and find we agree with each other on many things.

But he did something that confused me years ago and it has never sat right with me since. During this season of our friendship, he gave me a number of books to read. Many of them were written by Dr. T. Austin Sparks (known to many of his readers and followers as TAS). For the sake of clarification, let’s put Dr. Sparks in the category of a Holiness preacher. I knew of his writings before my friend showed them to me, and honestly I don’t care for them. Let me quickly explain.

Dr. Sparks writes mainly about the dangers of sin. I have no problem with any preacher or writer pointing out sin. We humans are an unhealthy race, and we occasionally need to be shown that unhealthiness before we can grasp what it means to live better. But Dr. Sparks is of that race of preacher/teacher that will not teach on anything else. I never heard him preach in person (he died in 1971, the year I became a Christ-follower), but I have been told by those who did hear him  he rarely smiled or joked around when he preached. Though he was not a “hell-and-brimstone” preacher, with acidic tones and booming voice, his content fit that category.

What confused me is why my friend would digest a steady diet of this type of teaching. I asked him and he seemed annoyed I would even question it. “Mike, I thought you appreciated someone who is biblical and encouraged people to live in holiness”. I assured him I did – and do. But I do not agree with any ministry that focuses completely on the negative aspects of our existence without constantly bringing this back to the glory of New Life in Christ.

Here is what confuses me. This kind of preaching still exists and people prefer to listen to it, for reasons I am suspecting are not healthy in themselves. Along with Sparks, there are other prominent scarecrow preachers like Leonard Ravenhill, John McArthur, Paul Washer, Mark Driscoll (though sometimes Driscoll is just bombastic) who have huge followings. Some people tell me it is because sin is increasing in our day and we need more of this type of preaching to stem the tide of wickedness.

Do we? Does that really work? My observations tell me otherwise. Sin is no more or less prevalent today as at any other time in history. The increase in so-called “prophetic preaching” feeds on three things in the human soul:

1. Our innate guilt for many things we have done wrong and never settled.

2. The constant doubt that we are acceptable to God or anyone else.

3. The need to feel superior to others, even if it means we must demean ourselves to get to that place.

I find those who like holiness preaching of this brand already lead pretty decent lives and are probably least in need of the type of preaching these guys specialize in. So why do so many good-thinking and well-meaning Christians follow these Scarecrows of the Faith?

I think the answer is found in the disciples of John the Baptist. John inherited a mantle from a long line of gloom and doom Old Testament preachers. His ministry was stark (he dressed in old rags and lived on locust nuts and wild honey), he called people names, rattled all their cages and asked them if they were ready to die soon. He wore the calling of Elijah well. In fact, Jesus confirms that he is Elijah – or at least that he carried on the same ministry as Elijah did.

But at some point, that all changed. The day that Jesus came down to the Jordan River to be baptized by John, the entire understanding of sin and the Kingdom of God forever shifted. From that point on Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Those who followed John were encouraged from that point on to follow after Jesus. But even after John told them “He (meaning Jesus) must increase and I must decrease”, some of John’s followers couldn’t get the hint. In some ways, not even John the Baptist could fully release his ministry, even after Jesus came along. I get that. Once a prophet, always a prophet.

For instance, John and his followers taught a rigid discipline of fasting. Jesus and his disciples often went to banquets – and they were duly criticized for doing so; not only by the Pharisees, but also by the followers of John.

Listen. I know this world can exhibit evil and will not be entirely cleaned up until God remakes it all. And I know that even followers of God need to be reminded to clean up their room and play nice. Sometimes, they need to be told in clear tones not to cheat on their spouse or their taxes. But I don’t see the point of someone preaching only about sin and leaving Grace, Joy, Forgiveness, Laughter, Fellowship, The Power of God and a hundred other great Jesus teachings lying on the shelf.

The Pharisees in Jesus’ time looked for reasons why natural disasters happened to people. They pinned the blame on the sin of a victim’s parents, on his lineage and even some sin the victim must have committed. The Pharisees found a woman committing adultery and flung her into a market square, daring Jesus not to condemn her.

Instead, he asked them all if there was a person among them who had not committed sin recently. If they had, he welcomed them to stone her first. No one did. No one could withstand the glare on his face!

When all had left, this man of Righteousness, this preacher of Holiness, this Prince of Peace just said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more”. He didn’t follow her down the road heaping condemnation on her head.

Remember, the enemy of our souls is called Satan. The name means “Accuser”. Unfortunately, instead of giving our Adversary a counter-attack from the pulpit, where the love of God and the cleansing of the blood of Jesus could be spoken triumphantly, we sometimes echo the words of the Calumniator all too easily.

Of course, there are those who feed God’s people with a steady diet of Youtube videos, hackneyed cliches and positive thinking. I sometimes think the Scarecrows believe they are countering that unhealthy pap by focusing continually on sin. As we were reminded in Kindergarten, two wrongs don’t make a right

If you have become hooked on the Holiness Scarecrows, maybe it is good to mix some grace in your diet. Otherwise, you may get spiritually constipated.

Christian Child Star Has a Tough Decision

Angus T. Jones, the child star who is the “half” in the CBS sitcom “Two and a Half Men” now says he can’t stand the show and counsels viewers not to watch it. Here’s part of what he says in this article:

“Please stop watching it,” said Jones. “Please stop filling your head with filth.”

Jones has been on the show, which used to feature bad-boy actor Charlie Sheen, since he was 10, but now says he doesn’t want to be on it anymore.

In a video posted by the Forerunner Christian Church in Fremont, Calif., Jones describes a search for a spiritual home. He says the type of entertainment he’s involved in adversely affects the brain and “there’s no playing around when it comes to eternity.”

Jones has become a professing follower of Jesus and can no longer stomach the degradation that the show champions. At the same time, in the article he both says he wants out and says he is going to stay.

He is facing the dilemma that most people have when they become followers of Christ. There are things from our old life that we don’t feel like we can reasonably let go of. I can think of hundreds of things we cling to, but they usually fall into these categories:

• Friends
• Commitments
• Habits
• Money
• Power
• Lifestyle

In the article Jones says he has no choice but to continue on with the series due to his contract. But is that really true? I mean, on one level you could argue that he needs to fulfill legal obligations and that it would not honor God to just walk out.

But there are a number of ways he could approach this. First, he could be willing to forgo his salary, even if they force him to do the show. Second, he could meet with them and ask to be let out of his contract, perhaps with a fine. Third, he could negotiate changes to the script. Fourth, (and perhaps most importantly) he could ask God to help him get out.

His statement of resignation that there is no way for him to leave the series is not accurate from a moral standpoint. Many people around the world have faced jail terms for their moral and ethical stands. People in countries like Syria and Burma have given their lives to throw down oppressive regimes. He has made 8 million dollars a year on this show. I think perhaps, as a young follower of Christ, he is still fighting several of the common problems all young followers face: a desire to be liked, to keep life relatively the same and to act like an innocent party.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think I would have done any better as a young believer. I have never made 8 million dollars and I don’t know how hard it would be to give it up. But Jesus did call the rich, young ruler to sell everything and come follow him. And as far as i can tell, that guy was new to his relationship with Jesus.

Here’s the takeaway: I am not trying to aim darts at this actor. Rather, I want each person reading this to ask this question: What do I need to let go of in order to follow Christ with more integrity?

Complementarianism Gone Crazy

Just to be clear. I am not a complementarian. I am an Egalitarian. The Complementarian believes that God ordained that men rule over women in the marital relationship. This position points  to Genesis 3 and the Fall of Man where God tells Eve that her desire will be for her husband and he will rule over her. An Egalitarian believes that the Death and Resurrection of Jesus changes many of the relationships broken by the Fall. And that includes the marriage relationship.

I respect the Complementarian position, but I don’t subscribe to it. I believe that God gives both men and women in a marriage the same mandate to love one another, the same command to submit to one another and the same Holy Spirit to live in harmony with each other. Equal. Together. Holy.

And even though I respect the other position, sometimes it is hard to do so. In a recent article from the Gospel Coalition (a mainstream Complementarian group), Jared Wilson talks about one area that has always been seen as equal ground by both the Complementarians and Egalitarians: Sex and Sexual Pleasure.

Here is the article, and here is a selection of what he says (it is not taken out of context):

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

This is outrageous! He is basically saying that sex is all about a man conquering and taking charge of a woman. The other side he calls “egalitarian pleasure party”. What he is saying is that the desire of a man to pleasure his wife is unbiblical.

Apparently, he is forgetting that the Apostle Paul is the one who says,

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife” (1 Cor. 7:3-4).

Many of my complementarian friends will be outraged by this article and how badly he portrays their position, but I need to point out one thing. This is where all of the Complementarian philosophy logically  ends: Men are in charge and women have to submit. That adheres completely to Genesis 3 and does not recognize the power of the Cross to change human relationships broken by the selfishness of Humankind.

I am not presenting this man’s teaching as a Straw Man argument on why Complementarianism is wrong. I am presenting it as a caution to where this teaching is often applied. And as a counselor, I do mean “often”.

This idiotic article may help some of you to rethink your position. I hope it does.

UPDATE: Jared has published an apology. Read it here. His original link no longer works…he has taken down the article. What is interesting is that the person he was quoting in his egregious statements about sex is now angry at him for taking down the quote.

They Hijacked The Intercessory Prayer Movement

This will be a hard essay to write for two reasons:

1. I prefer not to “name names” when it comes to doctrinal error and lapses in moral judgment. I do not like the so-called “heresy hunter” approach to correcting the Body of Christ and I won’t stoop to it.

2. I love intercessory prayer and after reading this essay, you may be inclined to think I don’t.

First, my credentials for this subject. I have been involved in many, many prayer meetings. I have been on the board of two prayer schools, many prayer gatherings and have spoken on more than a dozen occasions to national audiences on the subject of Intercessory prayer. I have participated in prayer marches, prayer walks, prayer journeys, watchnights of prayer, prayer vigils, prayer “burdens”, deliverance prayer sessions, fasting and praying, Schools of Intercession, Youth With a Mission weeks on Intercession, days of prayer, weeks of prayer, prayer months and 40 day journeys of prayer. I don’t list these to impress anyone. I can think of a half dozen people immediately who are more committed to Intercessory Prayer than I am. But I want you to know I am not a newcomer to Intercessory Prayer.

Intercessory Prayer is defined by two parameters: First, it is prayer offered on behalf of someone else to God. Second, it is a prayer that often has many different parts, each of which must be prayed through before the final answer can be given. Therefore, a person should listen to God first and receive guidance from God when praying. God will only answer if the intercessory prayer lines up with God’s will. (1 John 5:14–15) People ask me why we should even bother to pray. ‘If God wants to do something, why doesn’t God “just do it” and leave us out of it?’ they ask. The Bible teaches clearly that our life as followers of God is a partnership with Him. Nothing of value can be accomplished in the life of a God follower unless we partner deliberately and with free choice. We cannot become a follower until we believe. We cannot experience life-changes (i.e. Sanctification) unless we freely submit to God. We cannot have healing unless we ask God and seek cleansing first. We cannot change our world without obedience. It all requires a partnership. God will do His part and we must do our part. But that’s another essay.

For years, true Intercessors were not a well-known part of the church. They often prayed alone or in small groups. It is difficult to ask God for things you may never see the answer to with your eyes. It takes hours and days to hear God, pray effectively, keep on praying and to break through the resistance of the enemy. Daniel took 21 days of fasting and praying before the answers began to come. Some people have prayed for 50 years before seeing answers to prayer. Very few people are willing to put in that kind of effort in their prayers. Most people count it a victory if they pray for 10 minutes.

But True Intercessors count this ministry as equal to eating and sleeping. Many times, they will give up food and sleep to pray. We should count ourselves blessed they would be willing to do that. Almost all of us have had changed lives because an Intercessor prayed for us. We probably don’t even know it, but God will reveal it to us in the Afterlife some day. I don’t consider myself one of the Elite Intercessors by any means. I pray when I feel God’s burden to pray. And I often don’t pray for longer than an hour. I do admire those who pray in secret and alone or in small groups and will not let go until God is finished.

As I have gathered together with intercessors around the world, I am awe-struck by the determination and fortitude of real intercessors. It is my contention that every major work of God in our world was thoroughly grounded in Intercessory Prayer before there were noticable results. I enjoy my times teaching intercessors and joining with their efforts. The only time I can pray much longer than a couple of hours is when I am swept along as mighty prayer warriors touch God’s heart.

So why am I pulling away from the Intercessory Prayer crowd? Because they have been taken over by a group that has a much different agenda than God’s agenda. The prayer movement has been sacrificed at the altar of both right-wing politics and the hunger for power. These altars are as much false worship as any offering to Baal or Asherah were in the Old Testament. The ones taking over this prayer movement have many names. They call themselves Triumphal, Conquerors, Champions, World-beaters. They call God’s people to unity, a common Call, to return to the roots of our country. They set up targets for prayer, calling these targets Mountains (business, government, media, entertainment, education, family and even church are mentioned as Mountain-like targets). Politicians show up to these rallies and get the crowds going. In fact, the presence of huge crowds tell us that this movement differs greatly from the Prayer movements of the past.

At the heart of this false prayer movement is an old, old belief system called post-Millennialism. That’s a fancy term that simply means this: That the role of the church is to conquer all the forces in this world that stand opposed to God. When we finish our work of taking over governments, media and schools, then Christ will return to set up his Kingdom.

Historically this was the belief of the Crusaders who sought to conquer the Infidels surrounding Jerusalem. This was at the heart of the Conquistadors who felt they were laying the foundation of the Kingdom of God by slaughtering the Aztecs. This was often spoken by settlers of the West who murdered Native Americans with the goal of creating the Kingdom of God. Look at how many place names in the Western U.S. and Canada have biblical names. If you trace the history of those towns, many of them have the sub-text of belief in this establishment of a Christian dwelling place on earth.

Intercessory prayer is designed to change the spiritual heart of a nation, not its institutions. Institutions will only change when people’s hearts change. We see Christians today practicing the same sins at the same rate as anyone else. Why would we want to force our practices on the rest of the world? We tell homosexuals who want to get married that they are evil and yet the divorce rate for heterosexual Christians is well over 30%. How does that represent the Kingdom of God?  Do we really want to establish the Kingdom before Christ returns based on our gossip, jealousy, envy, back-biting, adulteries, alcohol and drug addictions? Why do we even think our current actions can supplant the problems that exist on top of society’s so-called great Mountains?

Until the Intercessory Prayer movement returns to 2 Chronicles 7:14, I am no longer a part of it. In that verse we are told that if God’s people “who are called by {God’s} name will humble themselves in prayer, seek his face and turn from their wicked ways, then God will hear from heaven and will heal their land”. Today’s intercessory prayer movement just wants power, not repentance and transformation. It just wants influence, not purity. It only wants to be recognized, not to be restorative. It wants to conquer so Christ will be impressed; not to weep so God will be moved to action.

I am done for now. I will keep praying, keep teaching and keep weeping. Perhaps my heart will change and then it will purify my prayers. Then other hearts will change and purify their prayers. Then perhaps our land will be healed. It won’t happen by voting in our favorite party or getting another law passed.

Relational or Relevant: You Decide.

I want to talk about the word “Relevant”. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya (of the Princess Bride): “I do not think that word means what you think it means”. And it is the collective brain trust of contemporary church leaders who may have misunderstood the meaning and direction of this word.This sometimes happens with words; normally it’s not that big a deal. For instance, people often get the words “irrespective” and “regardless” mixed up. People sometimes jumble their definitions and thereby combine them wrongly to make “irregardless”. Irrespective means to know something and then to have no respect for it. Regardless means that you choose not to regard an issue. They are close in meaning, but not exactly the same. For example, I certainly understand what goes into the mind of a man who commits adultery. But I have no respect for his actions. Irrespective of his actions, I take my own actions. But I cannot disregard his actions, especially if they happen to someone close to me. In the case of adultery, I cannot act “regardless”, even though I can act “irrespective”. You see, they don’t mean the same thing.

Relevant is close to another word “relative” and the similar adjective “relational”. Relevant means to stick to the issue at hand. Relative means to relate to something or someone else. Relevant has to do with issues, controversies, position statements, movements and ideas. Relative has to do with people, choices, culture, tastes and situations. A person who is arguing in a political debate and is asked about their position on war will be relevant if their answer has to do with war. If it has to do with political parties, economics or sports, they are probably not relevant to the issue at hand. A great synonym for “relevant” is “pertinent”. The question a person needs to ask when trying to decide if they’re being relevant is this one: Does my approach pertain to the issue at hand?

If someone wants to be relative or relate to others, they should adopt similar styles, dress, language, approach and attitudes. They must agree with those positions to be relative to the issues at hand. Here then, is the big difference between being Relevant and being Relational: A relevant approach addresses the key issues exactly, irrespective of whether they agree with the position of others. A Relational or Relative person seeks to identify as closely with the position and approach of others. So with these definitions in mind, let’s ask ourselves this question: Those churches who claim to be “relevant” to today’s culture, are they indeed that way or are they more “relative” to the dominant memes of our day?

I will be over-generalizing, but this is the only way to make this essay shorter than an entire book. I hear of churches constantly using the word relevant to refer to their public services. What do they usually mean by that? This video mocks the trend, but it is not really all that misguided. Here then are some ways that churches represent themselves as “relevant”:

• Casual, weekend style clothing.
• Modern styles of music, usually reflecting latest trends in style similar to what is played in Christian concerts.
• Use of video, movies, television shows, commercials and trends to show commonality with audience
• Expensive lighting, sound systems and printed material, often eclipsing other public non-profit organizations
• Use of latest software and hardware for multimedia presentations
• Sermon topics relate to the everyday life of listeners, especially in areas of raising children, marriage, finances and use of leisure time
• Advertising material, including websites, brochures and radio/television ads are high quality and often produced by professional advertising agencies.

This, then is what most churches mean by Relevant. I contend that this is the absolute wrong use of the word and has reduced the concept to something much more shallow than it was intended to represent. I will share two reasons why I think we are using this word at the end of this article, but let’s see what this approach really is: Relational.

When church leaders model their dress after the manner people usually wear on the weekend, they are trying to help the average person feel more comfortable. There is no “issue” or “agenda” with this. There is no pertinent value a church seeks to communicate other than this: We are like you. We relate to you. You relate to us. We don’t think we’re better than you. (I do have a minor problem with this: We wouldn’t disdain a bank teller for wearing a tie, or a waiter, or people going out on the town…we allow for all of those to dress for the occasion. What we are saying to people in church is ‘this is not really a special occasion’). Sermon topics that relate to where people live every day are relational. They may also be relevant (ie. when they deal with particular issues that spring from daily life), but generally the approach is to have people know the preacher is aware of what issues accrue when his hearers live their daily life. The style of music is designed to relate to what people are listening to. Many churches now actually use songs written by secular music artists and then give the songs contemporary Christian meaning. This is rarely done to address particular issues, but more to show people that the church is not out of touch with what they listen to. The same can be said of the use of video, television and pop cultural references. All of it is packaged to tell this culture: “We’re one of You”.

That is not being Relevant: That is being Relational. And in the words of Jerry Seinfeld “not that there’s anything wrong with that”.  (You see, I can be relational as well).

I have occasionally joked that I have the secret formula for getting 10,000 people in church next Sunday: Just contract with Justin Bieber to be the special musical guest. It’s the church equivalent of “sweeps week” for the television networks. The idea behind these gimmicks is that if people keep coming, they will eventually fold into the congregation and learn more about God. I hesitated even writing this paragraph because someone is now looking up the phone number for Bieber’s agent.

Now let me tell you what “Relevant” looks like. If you always look and sound the same as everyone else, you are entirely unnecessary. That isn’t being relevant, it is being a parrot. Relevant means we look at the issue everyone is speaking of and realize what isn’t being said and then say it. When Martin Luther pounded his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg church door, he was addressing one of the most irritating issues of his day: That some priests were selling indulgences as a way to raise money, promising people a quick doorway into heaven if they purchased a large number of them. No one was standing in the way of this false teaching, except Luther. Everyone was copying what they heard from friends because it was safer that way and others liked them. I have to ask today if churches aren’t stuck in that same emotional rut. Like everyone else, we do want people to like us. We want them to hit “like” on Facebook. We want them to keep coming back to services week after week, even if all we’re doing is repackaging what 1000 others have said, perhaps better than us.

Relevant, on the other hand,  is when Jesus noticed that people were being cheated right in the middle of a prayer room and then, in a prophetic act, he upended the tables of the money-changers. Relevant is Jackie Pullinger pulling drug addicts off the streets of Hong Kong and getting them clean when the dominant society ignores them. Relevant is Erin Gruwell addressing drug wars and the deaths of her students with a radical plan to change their learning style. Relevant is Peggy Drake who worked to comfort AIDS sufferers in West Africa while most Christians were saying it was God’s judgment against homosexuals. Relevant is a preacher resigning from his wealthy church because they would not adopt a lifestyle of caring for the poor. Relevant is almost always counter-cultural, it addresses today’s news with timeless truths, it lives the way it believes and garners respect because it doesn’t try to bribe people into following its viewpoints.

How Relevant is your church?

Without a doubt, by fleshing out these definitions, you will realize that churches will fall into four categories:

1. Not Relevant, not relational
2. Relevant, but not relational
3. Relational, but not relevant
4. Both Relational and Relevant

Why then would churches choose to be relational and not particularly relevant? I think there are two reasons for this. First, being relational is much easier and does not cost us much. We all learned in elementary school that it went better for us if we adopted the latest trends and fashions and were friends with the most popular kids. Differing even a fraction from the dominant elementary school culture put us in the outcast group and we hated being relegated there. We still do. Pastors and church members don’t want to think their approach to living is all that much different than their neighbors. They want others to know they don’t indulge in the more extreme activities of secularism (like drug use and listening to Insane Clown Posse), but they are proud to be able to make a comment on the American Idol Final 8 or to express a preference for their favorite cocktail. It is easier to blend in.

Second, most of us don’t think counter-cultural living is valid. We wrongly look with suspicion on anyone who swims upstream on issues –  especially Christian issues. Note how decidely Rob Bell was excommunicated by people for his book on Hell even though most people had not read it. I remember when Tony Campolo’s wife came forward to talk about the issues related to her pro-choice stance. Not only was she summarily rejected by evangelicals, so was her husband. Though I disagreed with her on some points, she needed to bring the issue to the forefront. It was a pertinent voice in a sea of “sound-alike” Christian voices.

There are churches today that are both Relevant and Relational. They are seldom large churches, but I suspect fifty years from now they will be the ones we think back on fondly as having the biggest impact on our culture both secular and Christian. So, the question is this: Do you really want to be Relevant or just call yourself that while simpering away in Relational?

Take That. Lexus.

For those of  us who think the Lexus Christmas commercials mark the end of decent civilization as we know it, some more insanity. Literally.