Thursday, July 31, 2008

Thoughts on "unChristian"--Part 4

The next perception to consider is, “The church is anti-homosexual.” This is a complex perception/accusation, and even in trying to determine this, I would think that questions would have to be very carefully answered. In my own unscientific poll, I found that if I asked if the church is anti-homosexual, church people initially answered “yes,” but then wanted to clarify that they were against homosexuality as a sin, but that they did not mean that they hated or looked down upon those engaged in homosexuality. It is this “love the sinner, hate the sin” dichotomy that gets blurred in trying to discuss this issue.

In our larger culture, it is incredibly difficult to find a way to say that you believe that homosexuality is abnormal human behavior, and that it is morally unacceptable as well, without being branded “homophobic.” Since there is increasingly little room for this opinion, there is little hope that those outside the church will ever find that those who follow Jesus, believe the Bible, and take this view as anything less than bigoted.

Unfortunately, some believers have engaged in bigoted behavior toward those who practice homosexuality, have spoken disparagingly of these men and women, and generally failed to respond with the same kind of compassion and care that they would extend to sinners living moral lives but embracing cultic teaching, or sinners who choose immoral heterosexual sin as their vice of choice.

Believers rightly understand that some sins are more serious than others. For example, the warnings against heterosexual sexual sin outside of marriage in 1 Corinthians 6 (with a prostitute in that context) is said to be unique in its consequences from other sins. Similarly, homosexual sins recounted in Romans 1 are a unique degradation against one’s own humanity as a judgment brought upon mankind by God. All sin brings punishment and, ultimately, spiritual death. But some sins have even more dire consequences in this life.

This should not lead, though, to an attitude of superiority by believers toward those engaged in such sins. We should always be anti-sin. This may even mean opposing publicly those who promote their sins as right, good, and normal. But we are not anti-sinner, at least in the way that we are perceived to be.

Chapter 5 in unChristian wrestles with this issue, highlighting through data and anecdote the failures of the church. I am appalled by some of the stories they tell of Christian bad behavior toward gays and lesbians. Having had close friends who struggle within this lifestyle and culture, I know the challenge of showing love and concern while not expressing approval of choices. I agree that we can affect people in our lives, but I am not sure that the authors’ expressed hope that we can be perceived as loving and accepting of people regardless of lifestyle is possible on a large scale. No matter how much Christians can do individually and corporately to show love and acceptance, the cultural shaping of acceptance of gay and lesbian lifestyles and normal make us even more out of step with our neighbors than does our pro-life bent.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Thoughts on "unChristian"--Part 3

Is it true that “The church is too focused on converts”? Frankly, I wish we were much more focused on converts than we are. My personal concern as a pastor is that most of the Christians I know have little if any concern about seeing those non Christians around them become believers, other than their own children or close relatives. And in most cases, they would be happier if others would take care of making sure that these people become believers.

However, the authors of unChristian (in Chapter 4) find that that younger Americans outside the church believe we are more concerned about notching our witnessing guns than we are building lasting relationships with them. In their interviews they found that only a third thought that Christians expressing concern were sincere, but two thirds of Christians believe that others would perceive their intentions as sincere. While I could prove that these two numbers are not contradictory (there are fewer Christians than population, and it may well be the two thirds of Christians are those interacting with the one third of outsiders!), there are some important concerns raised here by the authors, and they have to do with how Christians evangelize.

The authors affirm something earlier data has shown—large scale evangelism events are not highly successful (at least in terms of long term results), and current non church culture shows no real receptivity to feeling as if a program is being carried out on it. And personal evangelism that shows no continuing interest in the person being approached is highly likely to fail. This should not surprise, nor should this be something that describes most Christian personal outreach. Large events may create interest that can be built upon, and “stranger evangelism” may sometimes pique curiosity, but usual evangelism should be personal and relational. Preaching the gospel to a crowd is biblical as modeled in Acts 2, but when unbelievers were under conviction there, they had the chance to express repentance and be baptized—meaning people were interacting with them on some more personal level.

The chapter also speaks of the difference between conversion as a moment vs. conversion as a process. The authors rightly point out some of the faulty thinking and practices in methods that only aim for a moment’s action, without thought about the rest of life. They also highlight that Christian living is a lifelong process of sanctification in relationship/community. One need not embrace this thinking and give up a passion to see lives changed.

This chapter should encourage believers to consider how they witness, but I don’t think it should cause individuals or churches to be any less zealous to see people “get saved.”

Rejoicing through tears.


Our family knows both real hope and real grief much more personally, as this past week saw the promotion to glory of my mother-in-law (and in love), Beverly Haddock. I've just returned from being with my wife's family for the memorial services and time together, thus my absence from this and other normal activities. We rejoice that she is with the Lord, but the hole her departure leaves is painful to us all. The verse she chose for her memorial was characteristic of her life--Galatians 5:6b--"What matters is faith demonstrated in love."


Beverly lived an exemplary faith; one that has been passed on to her children and grandchildren. Her memory-making skills were the stuff of legend--every thing became more of an "event" because of her plans. Her compassion for others seemed to have no limits, although she sometimes did express impatience with those who just would not accept help and counsel. She was much more charitable in her opinions and evaluations than me, and I would like to think that she helped take some of the more pointy and prickly parts off of me.


So much was said by others in the services that spoke to my heart; and I had the chance to say my piece as well, but I don't think I can adequately express just how remarkable she was to us, and how much we have lost in her departure. On Saturday, she asked me to pray for her to know whether to stop her chemo treatments, which seemed to be draining her of what little life she had. The next Wednesday, she told the doctors that she had decided to forgo more treatments. Hospice came on Thursday, but the angels came on Monday. She was in some pain and her loving husband and partner of half a century, Hal, was holding her in his arms while on the bed next to her and praying for her as she slipped from Hal's arms to Jesus's.


The Lord loves his children, and loves to take them home--even though he knows it causes us pain. It can only mean that his love is so much better and his presence so much grander that in weighing our pain and his children's joy, he can only choose that which is best and most in tune with his loving, holy nature--and so he allows us the refinement of grief even as he dazzles Beverly with glory.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Thoughts on "UnChristian"--Part 2

(I realized that I had to use this title, rather than "unChristian Thoughts"--wouldn't want to confuse anyone.)

Let's think about the first broad category/assumption made about the church by outsiders, according to the book: The church is hypocritical. Instead, the authors argue we should work to see this perception become "The church/a Christian promotes transparency and a change in actions before words."

Who would argue with the fact that the latter is a desirable goal among Christians? Not me! And the authors present lots of findings backing earlier studies that show the younger Christian generations are shot through with inconsistent behavior patterns. The statistics are depressing, as they have been ever since Josh McDowell did something similar a decade or two ago. Christians talk about morality but engage in immoral behaviors with staggering frequency.

Some of this behavior is hypocrisy, some of it is not. If I say I do one thing but do another and pretend that I don't, I am a hypocrite. If I say I do or should do something, do another, admit it and repent, I am not a hypocrite, I am a redeemed sinner. So let's not link failure automatically with hypocrisy.

That said, there are a lot of hypocrites in the church--in fact, most of us deal with trying to appear better than we are. It is not a church trait, it is a human one that is one of many sins that derive from pride. Each of us may be transparent about some failures (the safe ones, like wanting things we don't have, or lack of patience) and protective about others (lusts, ambitions) that are not as easily admitted by all. We fear what people will think of our failures, and we hide them, or think we do. Only when the community life within the church is convincingly safe might these barriers begin to come down.

This is a huge pastoral issue, but it is not the focus of the bad perception we are discussing. The perception is that Christians call others to standards that they refuse to live by themselves. Is this the case? And even if it is not, will those outside get it?

Do non church people understand fallenness, dealing with indwelling sin, the continued battle that rages within believers to walk in holiness? Do they understand that when we forgive blatant sinners who repent we are expressing grace--even if it is the seventy seventh time? Is it hypocritical to teach against divorce, then deal with divorce in your midst in a grace-directed way? Is it hypocritical to teach that God can deliver from substance abuse, but have recovery groups in the church that include people who fall?

Often when those who don't follow Jesus tell me that they can't stand the hypocrisy of the church, they are referencing well known televangelists I would not identify as part of the body, or people they know who go to church are are miserable neighbors or co-workers but loudly proclaim their faith. Both are problem situations that I think I can address to help my non Christian friend understand the difference between such people and what Jesus offers us when we are truly related to Him. I know, though, that these will be situations I'll see repeated. I think that has been the case since the first century. John had to deal with Diotrephes, a leader who magnified himself over the gospel. The Corinthian church had a few members who left unbelievers wondering what being a Christ follower was about when they were suing each other or when one was sleeping with his step mother.

I pray for a dearth of hypocrisy among God's people. And I long for greater transparency about our struggles and greater discernment in learning to demonstrate change as a basis of calling for it in others. This is not news that should shock us, but a situation that should remind us of what we are to be.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Thoughts on "UnChristian"--Part 1

David Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, and Gabe Lyons, a church ministry professional, have done in depth research on the under 40 culture in America and discovered that those outside the faith see the church as unChristian--hiding rather than demonstrating the reality of Jesus Christ to those who need him. Their book has generated quite a bit of discussion around me, and so I've decided to interact with its basic contents.

Kinnaman and Lyons love Jesus, and they want the church to do better. They are convinced from their experiences and from the data that, on the whole, the church has portrayed wrong messages to the culture, messages that Busters and Mosaics (the generations behind the Boomers) have believed about evangelicals to the point that the large majority have no interest in what we say.

The authors isolate 6 major beliefs about the church that need changing. After introducing their concerns and general findings, they use these six concepts as the meat of the book's analysis--both what is wrong, and what needs to change. The six messages that need changing are:

1. The church is hypocritical--we say one thing and do another. Outsiders are "skeptical of our morally superior attitudes...conveying a polished image that is not accurate (29)."

2. The church is too focused on getting converts. People are targets for evangelism, but not valued otherwise.

3. The church is antihomosexual. Christians are "bigoted and show disdain for gays and lesbians (29)."

4. The church has been too sheltered from the larger culture, leaving us "old-fashioned, boring, and out of touch with reality," and we "do not respond to reality in appropriately complex ways, preferring simplistic solutions and answers (30)." Thus, we don't know how to respond to the messes in which people find themselves.

5. The church is too political. We are committed to a politically conservative agenda as right-wingers, identifying this agenda with our core values and message.

6. The church is judgmental, looking down on those who do not live as we believe, and not being honest about our attitudes. Outsiders doubt that we love people as we say we do.

In the early chapters where the methods and these six ideas are put forth, I found myself immediately "conflicted." I cannot deny that these six statements can be easily applied to various parts of the broad category of ministries that would be called "evangelical." I've encountered all six in my experiences, and am probably guilty of more than half of them at some time or another.

Is this new "news" however? Haven't professing followers of Jesus always been a bit of a mixed bag? Further, haven't those outside often misunderstood even the God-honoring characteristics of the church, let alone not understood our continuing failures on the road toward being like Jesus? As the authors presented anecdotal evidence that supported their findings, there were moments when I cringed, knowing that a Christian could in fact do what had just been related. But then I would think of other Christians who might have done much better in the same situation--and maybe actually had done better.

The survey data was strong, and it clearly revealed the negative attitudes toward evangelicals. Interestingly, it had slightly better numbers for those considered "born again." And the authors said that they did not define either of those categories, allowing the respondents to define them for themselves. So, those outside of the church were asked to use their own understanding of evangelicals and "born agains" in answering questions. I wonder where those concepts of who we are came from? Are they accurate? Might some people think negatively toward such "labels," but not necessarily apply it to a neighbor who is a real follower of Jesus and a very positive influence in their lives? I wonder.

I'm going to interact with the six ideas in future posts. I would suggest that the book is well worth reading, though. Maybe if you read it or have already done so, you might care to comment as we go along.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

"Jesus in China"--a FRONTLINE/World report on PBS

This is a fascinating report on Christian faith in China. For those who read the book "The Heavenly Man," the house church leader whose wife was being prayed for in the first segment was one of the leaders mentioned in that book.

Monday, July 07, 2008

Two Great Articles on the Trinity

Every once in a while, I come across articles on basic truths of our faith that are great presentations worthy of review, or even saving for future reference. John Armstrong has written two excellent articles on the nature of God as a trinity. He gives the explanations of how this doctrine came to be expressed, and does so in ways that I think are helpful. The first article is here, and the second is here. If you want to understand the basic assertions of trinitarian thinking, why it is important, and why our creeds reflect it as they do, check these articles out.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

If You Can Be Godly and Wrong, Does Truth Matter?

This is John Piper's latest post, and a very thought provoking article, especially for those of us who love doctrine.

The Apostle C. Peter Speaks


Charisma Magazine, not my favorite source of news or commentary, featured an article, Leaders Commission Todd Bentley at ‘Lakeland Outpouring’, in which C. Peter Wagner, longtime professor at Fuller Seminary, writer on church growth and missions, theological godfather of the Vineyard Movement, and now spokesman for a growing "apostolic" movement, led a group of fellow apostle/leaders in commissioning Todd Bentley as an "evangelist." This move was made because Bentley's ministry in Lakeland, FL, has been so unusual and uneven that charismatic and Pentecostal leaders there have been worried, with some publicly repudiating him. The step places Bentley under Wagner's apostolic authority and supposedly creates more accountability for what he teaches.

I only highlight this because of the sadness I feel over Wagner's self-description as an apostle and his authoritative pronouncements as an apostle in this situation. The fact that one of his companions was John Arnott, pastor of Airport Christian Fellowship (a church removed from the Vineyard fellowship and home of last decade's "barking" revival), confirms to me that Wagner's well meaning passion for seeing the Holy Spirit work has overtaken any sense of discernment he may have once possessed. I have always disagreed with Wagner's views on spiritual power, but I respected his scholarship and his earnestness for kingdom growth. Now I fear his valuable contributions are only past tense.